Gay ex-workers and workers board

[dmmichgood]

Mar 29, 2014 14:58:24 GMT -5 @wally said:

Mar 29, 2014 14:52:37 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

I'm tired of the old banal, trite platitude , "love the sinner" but "hate the sin"!

It is nothing more than an attempt to make oneself appear a "loving Christian" while at the other being "righteous!"

whether or not your tired of it doesn't matter its true....

NO, you are right, doesn't matter whether I'm tired of hearing that unoriginal old platitude or not.

What IS TRUE is the fact that It is nothing more than an attempt to make oneself appear a "loving Christian" while at the same time appearing  "righteous!"

[snow]

Mar 29, 2014 12:50:24 GMT -5 hangingout said:

"So I guess what it all boils down to is that people are supposed to respect your views, but you Christians do not in return have to respect gays views?"

No, that isn't what it "all boils down to".   I am advocating that when a gay couple are told a baker cannot make their wedding cake because they do not support the idea of two people of the same sex marrying, that the couple show that they respect diversity of opinion and go where they will find a baker who will happily do so.  This is America, land of opportunity.  You can have a religious difference (or should be able to), and you can choose what business to accept and what business to eschew, based on your values.  What it seems to be "boiling down to" is that certain gays are of the opinion that only their views count, period. And that is what I object to.


"What possible harm can it do to Christians to serve gay couples?"

Are you asking because you want to know what someone actually thinks, or are you asking with a preconceived idea?  Is this a rhetorical question? 

It's not that they "refuse to serve gay couples".  As already shown, Melissa's Sweet Cakes have both served and hired gays in their bakery.  They stopped at the wedding cake, because they are Christians, and to them, this was a symbol of their support for something the Bible forbids.  Plain and simple.

In the case of the couple in the UK, their own website already stated that they only rent to married couples, again, because of their beliefs.  They did business for many years with no one complaining, and simply respecting their views -- until a couple of gay men decided to force them out of business.  This is an appalling lack of the understanding of diversity and tolerance for difference.  It won no hearts or minds, I might add.


"Is their money different somehow?"

It was about the principle.  Money isn't everything, as I'm sure you know.  They held their ground on principle.


"Are they not of the same species, human beings?"

Of course.


"Were they not all created by the same creator you claim to be created by?"

All people are created by God, and our universal creation is not the issue here.  It is about having mutual respect for difference of opinion and religious views.  If a gay-owned business decides that they don't want to bake and frost a cake with the words of Leviticus because it violates their own perspective, would you support their right of refusal?  Would you?

Is your view of religious freedom or diversity of opinion only a one-way street?  The Gay Way or No Way?  I can't respect a "freedom" that is only for one perspective and no others.  That is tyranny.


 

But isn't that what some Christians have made it? Respect our religious views but we don't have to respect your desire to marry the one you love? All because you have decided to take a couple of verses in an outdated, book and make them some kind of 'law'? I truly do want to know why it would matter one way or the other making the cake. It in no way hurts the baker of the cake. And, it would make some other human being very happy. What's wrong with that?

You do realize that the only reason the Hebrew people frowned on men being with men is the same reason why they frowned on masturbation? They were a very small tribe of people with many larger and more powerful nations around them. They literally needed more population if they were to ever hope to get our of captivity. They were in captivity more times then they were free. That's why they were not supposed to waste their sperm on something that wouldn't yield children. But now fundamentalist Christians take that to mean it's a sin. If sin means missing the target, then I think those who think homosexuality is a sin have missed the point.

[faune]

Hangingout ~ I thought you were just kidding  in your remark below about there being a site called "Gay Christian 101" in your discourse with Dmmichgood until I checked it out for myself.  I must have missed some responses while I was away from the computer cooking dinner and doing some household chores.    I just put it in Google and came up with that site and these different stories from gay Christians.   Honestly, I have never heard of this site before and was really surprised to see it actual existed.     One thing for sure, I learn something new everyday here on TMB!

www.gaychristian101.com/Coming-Out-Gay.html

After I finish what I have to do today (and probably tomorrow), I am going to take on another of the lies in the website which you promoted, "gaychristian 101"

One down, several more to go.........

[Jesse_Lackman]

Mar 29, 2014 13:27:36 GMT -5 hangingout said:

Mar 29, 2014 1:46:24 GMT -5 Jesse_Lackman said:

The battle seems far from won. Here's an interesting article on university professor William C Harris's book "Slouching Towards Gaytheism: Christianity and happy Survival in America." : Click -->>  A New Breed of Breeder

Good grief.  When I read this article, I kept wondering, can this be true?  I know people can reach levels of depravity that are inconceivable to most, but this takes the cake!

I have read some writings from "happy Theology", such as one which goes into a fantasy about the details of the groin of God, which could only be considered blasphemy at best, and is certainly disgusting and vile.

How people who support this by their silence can lay claim to the title of Christian is really beyond me.  If a person is sincere about the Bible and faith, I expect they are growing, as we all are, in our understanding.  But when they can read what some are saying in happy Theology and just have no reaction except the "they can't help it" argument, and "the Bible is full of error" argument, I really have to wonder how sincere they really are....

There comes a point when a person does have to choose.  To be a people-pleaser at all costs, (which really isn't "love" at all) or to seek to please God first and foremost...cost what it may.

No one needs to be a Christian to question the ideas of someone like Harris. He's a professor at a university - teaching young people. Even atheists should oppose ideas like bare backing and homosexuals deliberately planting the HIV seed and others willingly accepting it as if it's some form of reproduction. That's against the precepts of science and biology let alone Christianity. In the interests of human survivability alone anyone committed to science and biology should actively oppress ideas like: "Barebackers see themselves as not just passing on a virus but as transmitting a cultural legacy….Through HIV, gay men have discovered they can “breed” without women".

"The one who does the infecting is called the daddy, the recipient the son, and such incestuous overtones are also very exciting, argues Professor Harris, for they too are transgressive, subversive, and liberating." "Meanwhile, gay and/or liberal Christians still struggle to accommodate these challenging new ideas."

Why should any human accept them??

[snow]

Mar 29, 2014 14:45:30 GMT -5 hangingout said:

I am using the very bible that you believe in. I simply don't accept your (supposed) proofs!

You refuse to use "the very Bible."  I gave you the proof of Jesus' position on marriage (no surprise, he supports purity in heterosexual marriage), his position on the "law of Moses" regarding sexual immorality (which continues in the New Covenant, his words in the Book of Revelation, and the words of his apostles.  You don't accept that because you want Jesus to say, "Hey, guys and gals, don't have sex with your same sex."  You don't get it.  He upheld the law.  His position on Moses was very clear.  Moses took down the words of the Lord.   Jesus is the Lord!   Jesus upheld only one kind of sexual union:  marriage between a man and woman.  Sexual immorality was defined clearly in both the OT and NT numerous times.  You just don't want to believe it even when it's right in front of you.  wally is right, this is only a circle. 

So like I said, ask Him yourself when you see Him.  You don't have to believe me, Moses, the prophets, the apostles, or the words of Jesus on what is marriage and what is sexual sin.  It saddens me, but I believe your unbelief.  

& I really don't see the point of repeating myself.  You can magnify and bold your words and color them as blue as the night sky and paste them....over.....and over.....and over.  What it proves to me that you are not a listener. You are a shouter. 

After I finish what I have to do today (and probably tomorrow), I am going to take on another of the lies in the website which you promoted, "gaychristian 101"

One down, several more to go.........

If he upheld the law then why don't you sacrifice animals at an alter. Why do you wear clothes of mixed materials? Why do you not stone you child when it does wrong? There is an endless amount of things that were in that archaic barbaric law that you say Jesus upheld. So why aren't you doing all of them instead of picking and choosing what you want to use to persecute others that aren't doing anything to hurt you in any way?

[snow]

Mar 29, 2014 14:58:24 GMT -5 @wally said:

Mar 29, 2014 14:52:37 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

I'm tired of the old banal, trite platitude , "love the sinner" but "hate the sin"!

It is nothing more than an attempt to make oneself appear a "loving Christian" while at the other being "righteous!"

whether or not your tired of it doesn't matter its true....

So it's okay if I say, I love Wally but hate the sin of his religious prejudices?

[Deleted]

that would be the acceptable form, yes....

[Jesse_Lackman]

Some comments on the article "A New Breed of Breeder";

James J > Rurik • a day ago
Honestly, being against people THIS effed up, I wouldn't consider it homophobia, I'd consider it just being an average human being who understands that people purposely passing around viruses (and then having the government pay for their drugs) are a special kind of effed up that deserves as much contempt and derision as possible.

John1943 • 2 days ago
After reading this, I want to puke. This guy is a paid professor at a state university? 50 million dead and 50 million sick around the world are not enough for this fellow? This country needs a civil war, the sane against the insane. One good thing is that people who have abortions and homosexuals will sooner or later be mostly be replaced by those who don't. In the end there is no compromise with intrinsic evil. It's either them or us. This country and Europe are in deep do do.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2014 16:12:26 GMT -5 snow said:

Mar 29, 2014 14:45:30 GMT -5 hangingout said:

I am using the very bible that you believe in. I simply don't accept your (supposed) proofs!

You refuse to use "the very Bible."  I gave you the proof of Jesus' position on marriage (no surprise, he supports purity in heterosexual marriage), his position on the "law of Moses" regarding sexual immorality (which continues in the New Covenant, his words in the Book of Revelation, and the words of his apostles.  You don't accept that because you want Jesus to say, "Hey, guys and gals, don't have sex with your same sex."  You don't get it.  He upheld the law.  His position on Moses was very clear.  Moses took down the words of the Lord.   Jesus is the Lord!   Jesus upheld only one kind of sexual union:  marriage between a man and woman.  Sexual immorality was defined clearly in both the OT and NT numerous times.  You just don't want to believe it even when it's right in front of you.  wally is right, this is only a circle. 

So like I said, ask Him yourself when you see Him.  You don't have to believe me, Moses, the prophets, the apostles, or the words of Jesus on what is marriage and what is sexual sin.  It saddens me, but I believe your unbelief.  

& I really don't see the point of repeating myself.  You can magnify and bold your words and color them as blue as the night sky and paste them....over.....and over.....and over.  What it proves to me that you are not a listener. You are a shouter. 

After I finish what I have to do today (and probably tomorrow), I am going to take on another of the lies in the website which you promoted, "gaychristian 101"

One down, several more to go.........

If he upheld the law then why don't you sacrifice animals at an alter. Why do you wear clothes of mixed materials? Why do you not stone you child when it does wrong? There is an endless amount of things that were in that archaic barbaric law that you say Jesus upheld. So why aren't you doing all of them instead of picking and choosing what you want to use to persecute others that aren't doing anything to hurt you in any way?

because the moral law wasn't done away with with Christ, just the ceremonial law and killing for breaking the law...

[faune]

Mar 29, 2014 14:21:57 GMT -5 hangingout said:

I read the article in Wikipedia that you posted, and based on that, can find no fundamental changes to the Ten Commandments as we know them today. There were some changes to the order in which they appear but other than that, they are all there, and all the same, basically. That different men of letters have made different observations and have different theories as to their dates and origins can be found in just about any field of study.

How accurate is the Bible?

bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible

Hanginout ~ Thank you for reviewing that article of mine, too!  However, the point I wished to make was about the different omissions and additions that different churches felt necessary to make in their own version of the Bible.  If you check out the Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible, you will find a few differences in the wording of the Ten Commandments especially regarding idolatry compared to the Protestant Bible.   Here's their explanation below for this discrepancy as well as the RCC stand regarding homosexuality within their Church:

www.fisheaters.com/10commandments.html

Now, below are the ways in which Protestants and Roman Catholics enumerate the Commandments:

Most common Protestant listing:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me  (Wording changed in Catholic Vulgate Bible)
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image   (Totally missing in Catholic Vulgate Bible)
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet

Latin Catholic listing:

Thou shalt not have other gods besides Me
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day
Honor thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods

So what the heck? What did happen to the commandment about graven images in the Catholic listing? Did the Church just "drop" a commandment?

Homosexuality

The Catechism devotes a separate section to homosexuality within its explanation of the sixth commandment. Like heterosexual acts outside of marriage, homosexual acts are considered sins. The Church distinguishes between homosexual attractions, which are not considered sinful, and homosexual acts, which are. The Catechism states that they "violate natural law, cannot bring forth life, and do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."[105][106] The Church teaches that a homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered" and can be a great trial for the person, who the Church teaches must be "accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity ... unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."[105][107]

Homosexuals are, according to the Church, "called to chastity". They are instructed to practice the virtues of "self-mastery" that teaches "inner freedom" using the support of friends, prayer and grace found in the sacraments of the Church.[105] These tools are meant to help homosexuals "gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection", which is a state to which all Christians are called.[105]

(Two lay movements represent opposing philosophies regarding homosexuality: DignityUSA seeks to change the Church's teachings to justify homosexual acts; Courage International is an organization of homosexuals who "support each other in the sincere effort to live in chastity and in fidelity to Christ and his Church".[107])

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments 

Traditions for numbering

Different religious traditions divide the seventeen verses of Exodus 20:1–17 and their parallels at Deuteronomy 5:4–21 into ten "commandments" or "sayings" in slightly different ways, shown in the table below. The number ten seems to be a choice to aid memorization rather than a matter of theology.[15][16]

Traditions:

S Septuagint, generally followed by Orthodox Christians.
P Philo, same as the Septuagint, but with the prohibitions on killing and adultery reversed.
T Jewish Talmud, makes the "prologue" the first "saying" or "matter" and combines the prohibition on worshiping deities other than Yahweh with the prohibition on idolatry.
A Augustine follows the Talmud in combining verses 3–6, but omits the prologue as a commandment and divides the prohibition on coveting in two and following the word order of Deuteronomy 5:21 rather than Exodus 20:17.
C Catechism of the Catholic Church, largely follows Augustine.
L Lutherans follow Luther's Large Catechism, which follows Augustine but omits the prohibition of images[17] and uses the word order of Exodus 20:17 rather than Deuteronomy 5:21 for the ninth and tenth commandments.
R Reformed Christians follow John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, which mostly follows Philo. (Cont'd with Chart)

[dmmichgood]

Mar 29, 2014 13:24:40 GMT -5 @wally said:

Mar 29, 2014 12:36:01 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

How do you know that your comparison of scripture and "revelation" that you have is the true one if  your fellow Christian has a different "revelation?"

because of 4000+ years of consistent biblical standards

YOU are still the one  doing  the "comparing of scripture" and interpreting  it in your own mind the "revelation."

How do you know that   YOUR  "revelation"  is the true one compared to the thousands of "revelations" that other people have had throughout those 4000+ years ?

[Deleted]

scripture and revelation of it has been pretty consistent over 4000+ years...thats why people don't like the bible OT and NT...

[dmmichgood]

Mar 29, 2014 14:45:30 GMT -5 hangingout said:

I am using the very bible that you believe in. I simply don't accept your (supposed) proofs!

You refuse to use "the very Bible."  I gave you the proof of Jesus' position on marriage (no surprise, he supports purity in heterosexual marriage), his position on the "law of Moses" regarding sexual immorality (which continues in the New Covenant, his words in the Book of Revelation, and the words of his apostles.  You don't accept that because you want Jesus to say, "Hey, guys and gals, don't have sex with your same sex."  You don't get it.  He upheld the law.  His position on Moses was very clear.  Moses took down the words of the Lord.   Jesus is the Lord!   Jesus upheld only one kind of sexual union:  marriage between a man and woman.  Sexual immorality was defined clearly in both the OT and NT numerous times.  You just don't want to believe it even when it's right in front of you.  wally is right, this is only a circle. 

You say that I "refuse to use "the very Bible."  

Maybe we should get it clear which bible we both are using.  I usually use the King James and some of the others for comparison.

[dmmichgood]

Mar 29, 2014 16:40:15 GMT -5 @wally said:

scripture and revelation of it has been pretty consistent over 4000+ years...thats why people don't like the bible OT and NT...

Let me explain again.


YOU, YOURSELF, PERSONALLY read and compare the Scriptures and and get A REVELATION!

How can you know that YOU, YOURSELF, PERSONALLY have the TRUE REVELATION! ?

[Deleted]

because my revelations have all been in accordance with scripture only twice did i get something wrong to my recollection(short memory to be sure)...

[Gene]

Mar 29, 2014 1:46:24 GMT -5 Jesse_Lackman said:

The battle seems far from won. Here's an interesting article on university professor William C Harris's book "Slouching Towards Gaytheism: Christianity and happy Survival in America." : Click -->>  A New Breed of Breeder

“Breeding the [HIV] virus in another man’s body develops new kinships,” explains Harris (rather than, say, new burdens on health services), and they become one more couple in the “bug brotherhood.” The one who does the infecting is called the daddy, the recipient the son, and such incestuous overtones are also very exciting, argues Professor Harris, for they too are transgressive, subversive, and liberating.

Jesse, I've read the article and found it both interesting and horrific. But I'm curious -- in your thought, how does it apply to this thread?

[hangingout]

If he upheld the law then why don't you sacrifice animals at an alter. [altar]

Why do you wear clothes of mixed materials?

Why do you not stone you child when it does wrong?

There is an endless amount of things that were in that archaic barbaric law that you say Jesus upheld.

So why aren't you doing all of them instead of picking and choosing what you want to use to persecute others that aren't doing anything to hurt you in any way?


To put it as plainly as possible: 

"Sexual immorality" is a term we find within the NT.  It includes homosexuality (per the universal, binding prohibitions that are defined clearly in Leviticus 18).   Jesus and the apostles do not change these prohibitions at all, in any way, and they thus carry over into the New Covenant, where they are reaffirmed.   Anything which is not carried over into the New Covenant is not binding.  That which is in the New Covenant from the Old is found within the New Testament.   

I am not "picking and choosing", as you accuse me of.  I am going by the texts of Christianity and the New Covenant.

I am not persecuting anyone.  I am, in fact, arguing against the persecution of Christians by gay activism.  As a Christian, I am also hurt when someone persecutes other Christians. 

Why are you not applying the idea of fairness and diversity evenly? 

If a gay-owned bakery was given an order to bake and frost a cake with the words of Leviticus which speak against gay sex, would you support their refusal to bake it?  And if so, why?

[snow]

Mar 29, 2014 16:20:30 GMT -5 @wally said:

Mar 29, 2014 16:12:26 GMT -5 snow said:

If he upheld the law then why don't you sacrifice animals at an alter. Why do you wear clothes of mixed materials? Why do you not stone you child when it does wrong? There is an endless amount of things that were in that archaic barbaric law that you say Jesus upheld. So why aren't you doing all of them instead of picking and choosing what you want to use to persecute others that aren't doing anything to hurt you in any way?

because the moral law wasn't done away with with Christ, just the ceremonial law and killing for breaking the law...

Really? Where does it say that? Since Jesus never wrote a thing in his lifetime, we have to take what others 'say he said' as being his ideas about things. However, I really would like to know where that was said?

[snow]

Mar 29, 2014 16:40:15 GMT -5 @wally said:

scripture and revelation of it has been pretty consistent over 4000+ years...thats why people don't like the bible OT and NT...

No that's not why I hate the bible. It's because it causes perfectly good people to believe things like we are talking about on this thread. That and the God in the bible is a vengeful wrathful being that orders people to do horrific things in his name. Other than that, it's a book.

[Deleted]

well here are two...

Christ died on the cross so we have done away with the sacrificing of animals(ceremonial law)
Christ is the new sabbath so we don't observe the sabbath anymore(saturday)(ceremonial law)

etc...etc...

[snow]

Mar 29, 2014 17:05:17 GMT -5 hangingout said:

If he upheld the law then why don't you sacrifice animals at an alter. [altar]

Why do you wear clothes of mixed materials?

Why do you not stone you child when it does wrong?

There is an endless amount of things that were in that archaic barbaric law that you say Jesus upheld.

So why aren't you doing all of them instead of picking and choosing what you want to use to persecute others that aren't doing anything to hurt you in any way?


To put it as plainly as possible: 

"Sexual immorality" is a term we find within the NT.  It includes homosexuality (per the universal, binding prohibitions that are defined clearly in Leviticus 18).   Jesus and the apostles do not change these prohibitions at all, in any way, and they thus carry over into the New Covenant, where they are reaffirmed.   Anything which is not carried over into the New Covenant is not binding.  That which is in the New Covenant from the Old is found within the New Testament.   

I am not "picking and choosing", as you accuse me of.  I am going by the texts of Christianity and the New Covenant.

I am not persecuting anyone.  I am, in fact, arguing against the persecution of Christians by gay activism.  As a Christian, I am also hurt when someone persecutes other Christians. 

Why are you not applying the idea of fairness and diversity evenly? 

If a gay-owned bakery was given an order to bake and frost a cake with the words of Leviticus which speak against gay sex, would you support their refusal to bake it?

No I wouldn't advocate that they refuse to bake it. It's a cake with words on it. That's all it is. It doesn't hurt them in any way to bake the cake and place those words on it. They don't have to agree with it and can be horrified by the insensitivity of it and all sorts of things, but bottom line it's a cake with words. A business transaction.

[faune]

Mar 29, 2014 16:42:44 GMT -5 dmmichgood said:

Mar 29, 2014 14:45:30 GMT -5 hangingout said:

I am using the very bible that you believe in. I simply don't accept your (supposed) proofs!

You refuse to use "the very Bible."  I gave you the proof of Jesus' position on marriage (no surprise, he supports purity in heterosexual marriage), his position on the "law of Moses" regarding sexual immorality (which continues in the New Covenant, his words in the Book of Revelation, and the words of his apostles.  You don't accept that because you want Jesus to say, "Hey, guys and gals, don't have sex with your same sex."  You don't get it.  He upheld the law.  His position on Moses was very clear.  Moses took down the words of the Lord.   Jesus is the Lord!   Jesus upheld only one kind of sexual union:  marriage between a man and woman.  Sexual immorality was defined clearly in both the OT and NT numerous times.  You just don't want to believe it even when it's right in front of you.  wally is right, this is only a circle. 

You say that I "refuse to use "the very Bible."  

Maybe we should get it clear which bible we both are using.  I usually use the King James and some of the others for comparison.

Hangingout ~ I believe the version of the Bible anybody uses  has a lot to do with the interpretation they take home.   I edited my earlier post to show this discrepancy between the Latin Vulgate Bible and the Protestant Bible in regards to the Ten Commandments.  For the purpose of illustration, here's a simple breakdown to illustrate my point with the Catholic explanation for this discrepancy.

www.fisheaters.com/10commandments.html

Now, below are the ways in which Protestants and Roman Catholics enumerate the Commandments:

Most common Protestant listing:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Wording changed in Catholic Vulgate Bible)
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (Totally missing in Catholic Vulgate Bible)
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet

Latin Catholic listing:

Thou shalt not have other gods besides Me  (Wording changed in Catholic Vulgate Bible)
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day
Honor thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods

So what the heck? What did happen to the commandment about graven images in the Catholic listing? Did the Church just "drop" a commandment?

[snow]

Mar 29, 2014 17:09:32 GMT -5 @wally said:

well here are two...

Christ died on the cross so we have done away with the sacrificing of animals(ceremonial law)
Christ is the new sabbath so we don't observe the sabbath anymore(saturday)(ceremonial law)

etc...etc...

Really? How do we know that for sure? Jesus didn't mean to die, but he got caught and crucified for sedition by the Romans.

[dmmichgood]

Mar 29, 2014 13:45:05 GMT -5 @wally said:

i think we have gone in a circle...

We needn't have been going in a circle if someone would have answered my challenge:

"I challenge You and anyone to say where Jesus ever even mentioned homosexuality"

[Deleted]

Really? How do we know that for sure? Jesus didn't mean to die, but he got caught and crucified for sedition by the Romans.

yes he did...

Mat_26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Mat_26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat_26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Joh_18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

[hangingout]

You say that I "refuse to use "the very Bible."

Maybe we should get it clear which bible we both are using. I usually use the King James and some of the others for comparison.

This is not a case of translation difference, and I think you know that.  I also use various translations.  What a red herring.

[mrleo]

Gene therapy? I've always found Gene to be tremendously therapeutic...sign me up!

[dmmichgood]

Mar 29, 2014 14:45:30 GMT -5 hangingout said:

I am using the very bible that you believe in. I simply don't accept your (supposed) proofs!

You refuse to use "the very Bible."  I gave you the proof of Jesus' position on marriage (no surprise, he supports purity in heterosexual marriage), his position on the "law of Moses" regarding sexual immorality (which continues in the New Covenant, his words in the Book of Revelation, and the words of his apostles.  You don't accept that because you want Jesus to say, "Hey, guys and gals, don't have sex with your same sex."  You don't get it.  He upheld the law.  His position on Moses was very clear.  Moses took down the words of the Lord.   Jesus is the Lord!   Jesus upheld only one kind of sexual union:  marriage between a man and woman.  Sexual immorality was defined clearly in both the OT and NT numerous times.  You just don't want to believe it even when it's right in front of you.  wally is right, this is only a circle. 

So like I said, ask Him yourself when you see Him.  You don't have to believe me, Moses, the prophets, the apostles, or the words of Jesus on what is marriage and what is sexual sin.  It saddens me, but I believe your unbelief.  

& I really don't see the point of repeating myself.  You can magnify and bold your words and color them as blue as the night sky and paste them....over.....and over.....and over.  What it proves to me that you are not a listener. You are a shouter. 

After I finish what I have to do today (and probably tomorrow), I am going to take on another of the lies in the website which you promoted, "gaychristian 101"

One down, several more to go.........

Let's review a few things:

I've have cited an article from a Gay Christian site.

I've ask for anyone to please post just ONE place that Jesus ever even mentioned the subject of homosexuality.



In return :

You have denounced the Gay Christian site as a lie.

You have attacked me by saying , "You refuse to use "the very Bible." and "So like I said, ask Him yourself when you see Him."

You have   quoted a multitude of verses, but  none of which have Jesus saying anything at all about the subject of homosexuality.


Now you say,

        "I am going to take on another of the lies in the website which you promoted, "gaychristian 101"

   All of that  when all that you need to do is quote just one verse where Jesus EVER commented on the subject of homosexuality