The Bible Does Not Prohibit ****sexuality

[Libby]

Interesting interview with the Bishop Gene Robinson, first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFhyK3-gUyY&feature=colike

(Not sure why the Islamic sub***les)

Edit: Someone told me, it might be because someone has a "hit" out on him. He did say that he has received numerous death threats.. Very sad.

[Libby]

Another interview with Gene Robinson. Seems like a really great guy. All that he has been through and still going through, including death threats....sad!

http://youtu.be/m2u1zNUdxgk

[Libby]

Gene Robinson: What's Christian about Christian leadership?

http://youtu.be/_qxspuOCpnw

God Approves of ****sexuality

http://youtu.be/C4iYu2Nyh8U

[Libby]

Bishop Gene Robinson - "It Gets Better"

http://youtu.be/mPZ5eUrNF24

[W Hytchins]

Its interesting that so far you are the only contributor to this particular post, so let me correct you.

The Bible does indeed condemn ****sexuality, try reading the first two chapters of the book of Romans.:mad:

You can stick your head in the sand if you like, you can ignore what God has to say, but ****sexuality is a perversion.

Christian Regards

W H

[alanmolstad]

Interesting interview with the Bishop Gene Robinson, first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

.....

I grew up in this church, but at some point in the very early 70s my parents started to notice that a movement that was very dark and evil was getting into the leadership of the church...

In the end my parents left the church to seek a place to worship elsewhere....

Over the years it has been sad to watch the church slide downhill to where it is now....its a joke..
God has left the church......

[asdf]

Interesting interview with the Bishop Gene Robinson, first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFhyK3-gUyY&feature=colike

Bishop Robinson is also prominently featured in the documentary film For the Bible Tells Me So. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it — not really for the theological arguments (they might be helpful to some, but personally, I found them rather shallow), but primarily to put a human face on something that is so often treated as a "controversial issue".

That is to say, I have found that the vast majority of anti-gay Christians do not themselves know (or know they know) any gay people. So they remain ignørant of the harm their (abstract, to them) "theology" does to real, live people.

[alanmolstad]

I dont know any child molesters, but Im still very much against such people and always will be.....

i dont know many murders, but Im still very much against such people.

My reasons for being this way are because such people stand against the spirit of the bible's teachings.

[asdf]

I dont know any child molesters, but Im still very much against such people and always will be.....

i dont know many murders, but Im still very much against such people.

My reasons for being this way are because such people stand against the spirit of the bible's teachings.

Perhaps if you knew some gay people, you would understand how harmful, hurtful, and derogatory it is to compare their desire to love and be loved with child molestation and murder.

[alanmolstad]

I believe it is the bible that condemns the gays...
as a christian i cant go against what the bible teaches correct?

So as the bible teaches that the gays dont enter into the kingdom should i ignore that?

[asdf]

I believe it is the bible that condemns the gays...
as a christian i cant go against what the bible teaches correct?

Of course you can. And do, all the time. Unless you, say, enforce short hair on men, long hair & head coverings on women, and endorse slavery. (To say nothing of the Old Testament laws about food, sabbath, shaving, agriculture, hygiene, etc.)


So as the bible teaches that the gays dont enter into the kingdom should i ignore that?

The bible doesn't "say" anything of the sort. One interpretation of the bible, based on one translation of a couple Greek words into English, suggests that.

[alanmolstad]

Of course you can. And do, all the time. Unless you, say, enforce short hair on men, long hair & head coverings on women, and endorse slavery. (To say nothing of the Old Testament laws about food, sabbath, shaving, agriculture, hygiene, etc.)


t.
I believe men should have hair that reflects the best "male-ness" that is consistent with the bible's command.

I believe the women's 'head covering" talked about in the New test is actually just talking about "long hair" as as such I believe that the hair length of a girl should also reflect a message consistent with the Bible's command.

The Bible does not endorse slavery, and in fact it commands that if a slave can find his freedom he should take it....
I agree with this command of the Bible.


as for the Old test?...we are under the New Covenant, as as such we have to follow the laws laid out for us to follow that appear in the Bible for New test believers.

As such we see clearly that being "gay" itself is called a perversion and the people who live in that type of sinful life do not enter into the kingdom....

[asdf]

I believe men should have hair that reflects the best "male-ness" that is consistent with the bible's command.

I believe the women's 'head covering" talked about in the New test is actually just talking about "long hair" as as such I believe that the hair length of a girl should also reflect a message consistent with the Bible's command.

Indeed—those are interpretations and contextualizations you've made to make sense of biblical proscriptions that, if taken at face value, do not correspond with reality and morality as you know it.


The Bible does not endorse slavery, and in fact it commands that if a slave can find his freedom he should take it....
I agree with this command of the Bible.

Not once does any author in the biblical texts condemn the slave trade or say that owning another person is an immoral thing that a Christian ought not do. And in several places slavery is given explicit or tacit support as a direct command from God. Am I mistaken?


as for the Old test?...we are under the New Covenant, as as such we have to follow the laws laid out for us to follow that appear in the Bible for New test believers.

Indeed, most Christians do consider the Mosaic laws to have been abrogated by Christ, except when it's convenient for their culture wars.


As such we see clearly that being "gay" itself is called a perversion and the people who live in that type of sinful life do not enter into the kingdom....

"Being 'gay' itself" — [citation needed]
"is called a perversion" — [citation needed]

I'm sorry, but we do not "see clearly" any such thing. You're reading quite a bit of your modern biases into your selective reading and selective interpretation of a few select scriptures.

And, once again, if you bothered to get to know some gay people, it might help illuminate those biases to help you see them more clearly. Reality tends to have that effect on our treasured abstract interpretations—such as when the Christian doctrine of fixed-earth geocentrism was overthrown by the observable reality of heliocentrism.

"But it does move."

[alanmolstad]

Indeed—those are interpretations and contextualizations you've made to make sense of biblical proscriptions that, if taken at face value, do not correspond with reality and morality as you know it.


My previous answer was addressed to the idea that because I follow the New test Biblical condemnation of the Gays that I also must follow the teachings on hair length....

as I point out in my post, I do.

Thus my teachings in support of the Bible on the subject of the Gays is totally consistent with all the other New Test Bible teachings....


Morality as I know it must be based on the text of the Bible alone, or it is of no value to us...



in other words:
The Bible says it-
I believe it -
That settles it!

[alanmolstad]

Not once does any author in the biblical texts condemn the slave trade ....


Actually the whole letter by Paul addressed to Philemon is a clear attempt by Paul to get a slave set free and returned to him.....

Paul puts the screws to Philemon in the letter, and the context is clearly that Paul wants the slave set free.....




The other thing I think I should point out is that we dare not ***ume that just because something is not addressed in the bible with the very same wording we are seeking that this somehow means the Bible has nothing to teach on a topic.
An example would be getting drunk and driving a car the wrong way on the road.
Does any Bible author clearly come out and condemn driving drunk on the wrong side of the road?.....no.

But we cant then ***ume that the Bible must agree with the practice of driving a car drunk just because we cant find it as clearly talked about as some person requests.

The context of the New Test is clearly that owning a slave is harmful and that if a slave gets a chance to be free he should take it, and that to be a good Christian a slave owner should allow his slaves to go free.

This is the teachings of the Bible, and it is true....

[alanmolstad]

Indeed, most Christians do consider the Mosaic laws to have been abrogated by Christ

What we believe is this >
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."


All of the Law of the Jews was totally fulfilled in the life and death of Christ.
When we become Christians, we are buried with Christ in the water of our Baptism.

Thus to the law we are then , (and for all time after) dead ....

We are dead in the eyes of the law.
And as we all know, the Law has no power over the dead...the law is fulfilled and we are no longer under it's power.

We rise up out of the waters of the new Covenant, and as such we now fall under the control and power of the New test commandments.

The important teachings for the church are found now in the New Test and are therefore part of our New Covenant...

The commandment that Gays do not enter into the Lord's Kingdom are found in the New test and are very much a part of the New Covenant that we now live under in Christ.

[alanmolstad]

. Reality tends to have that effect on our treasured abstract interpretations—.....

The Bible is not written for private interpretation!

[alanmolstad]

"is called a perversion" — [citation needed]


http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm

[alanmolstad]

Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals,or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

But if any these repent , they will be forgiven.







Let me know if you have any more questions on this topic.

[ActRaiser]

Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals,or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

But if any these repent , they will be forgiven.







Let me know if you have any more questions on this topic.

Repent. . .
I know some people who want to "repent" of this and don't lead a ****sexual lifestyle, but still sin in their heart with the same lusts.

I"m not sure what question I"m asking but it would be nice if you could fish for an answer to the unspoken.

[asdf]

My previous answer was addressed to the idea that because I follow the New test Biblical condemnation of the Gays that I also must follow the teachings on hair length....

as I point out in my post, I do.

For a certain value of "follow". Others, who take the text more "literally", would likely describe your interpretation as playing-fast-and-loose-with-the-plain-meaning-of-scripture.


Morality as I know it must be based on the text of the Bible alone, or it is of no value to us...

Nonsense. Each of us has opinions and moralities that range far and wide, on topics both familiar to and utterly foreign to the writers of scripture.


The Bible is not a rulebook. Trying to read it as a rulebook doesn’t work. Read it that way and you’re bound to be frustrated, misled and confused. Filtering through the Bible to pluck out the rules produces two results, neither of them helpful. First it gives you a jar full of context-less rules, and second it leaves behind the vast bulk of the Bible — all those stories and songs, prophecy, proverbs, parables and promises filtered off to the side by the quest for rules. (source (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/09/11/but-what-about-all-those-anti-gay-clobber-verses/))


in other words:
The Bible says it-
I believe it -
That settles it!

Um, no. A human writer "said" something, 2000+ years ago, in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, to an audience consisting of other Hebrew, Aramaic and/or Greek speakers, both author and audience residing in the same culture, a culture very unlike ours, dealing with local and community-defining issues. The writing has been preserved, transcribed, copied, transported across the centuries, dragged thousands of miles from their original context in the ancient Near East, translated into languages that didn't even exist at the time of writing, then interpreted and applied, selectively and imperfectly, by yet more humans, who decide what gets considered a "timeless moral truth" and what gets a p***ing nod as a historical quirk.

No, sir—you do not "just believe" what the Bible "says".


Actually the whole letter by Paul addressed to Philemon is a clear attempt by Paul to get a slave set free and returned to him.....

Paul puts the screws to Philemon in the letter, and the context is clearly that Paul wants the slave set free.....

Oh! So you should be able to point me to the p***age where Paul instructs, in so many words—"Philemon, you should free Onesimus, and all your slaves! What were you thinking, having slaves in the first place? Don't you know it's immoral for a person to own another human—and you call yourself a follower of Christ! You should be ashamed!"

Feel free to point that out to me at your earliest convenience.


The context of the New Test is clearly that owning a slave is harmful and that if a slave gets a chance to be free he should take it, and that to be a good Christian a slave owner should allow his slaves to go free.

[citations needed]


This is the teachings of the Bible, and it is true....

Funny—it sounds distinctly like "the teachings of alanmolstad", and not so much like "the teachings of the Bible" at all.


All of the Law of the Jews was totally fulfilled in the life and death of Christ.
When we become Christians, we are buried with Christ in the water of our Baptism.

Thus to the law we are then , (and for all time after) dead ....

We are dead in the eyes of the law.
And as we all know, the Law has no power over the dead...the law is fulfilled and we are no longer under it's power.

That's nice. I wish someone would tell the zealots who want to plaster the Ten Commandments all over US government buildings, or who tattoo verses from Leviticus (https://upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com/nugget/4fbd2d72d538110003001525/attachments/Leviticus_Upworthy_brand_logo_tattoo_bible.jpg) on themselves...


We rise up out of the waters of the new Covenant, and as such we now fall under the control and power of the New test commandments.

The important teachings for the church are found now in the New Test and are therefore part of our New Covenant...

The commandment that Gays do not enter into the Lord's Kingdom are found in the New test and are very much a part of the New Covenant that we now live under in Christ.

You've already amply demonstrated just how selective you are when applying commandments—even "New Covenant" ones. And you've more-than-amply demonstrated that you don't know any gay people—as well as provided a textbook illustration for my knowing gay people is the #1 factor correlating with a person's acceptance of GLBT people as fully human and full members of society.


The Bible is not written for private interpretation!

That's nice. But you've already shared your own private interpretations—of slavery p***ages, of hair-regulation p***ages, ...


http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm

Okay, you've got me. Four out of your cited 18 translations translated the Greek πλάνης as "perversion". So you agree with 22% of your own source? Based on the concordance and lexicon (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4106&t=KJV) uses of πλάνη, why?

I'm familiar with Romans 1. Paul says that [something —*men leaving women for men] was a punishment from God for the sin of idolatry. Neither idolatry, nor lust, nor "envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity", nor any of the other descriptors Paul uses accurately describe my gay and lesbian friends. Thus, I am forced to conclude either 1) Paul was not referring to my friends when making his diatribe, or 2) Paul was wrong in referring to my friends that way.


Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ****sexuals,or thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Considering that the word ****sexuality, and the understanding of sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic of some people did not exist until the late 19th–early 20th century, I find that translation highly suspect.

Paul writes of malakoi and ****nokoites. What reason do you have to believe that these words refer to a modern gay or lesbian person seeking a committed, monogamous, lifelong covenantal relationship with the person they love?

[asdf]

Repent. . .
I know some people who want to "repent" of this and don't lead a ****sexual lifestyle, but still sin in their heart with the same lusts.

I"m not sure what question I"m asking but it would be nice if you could fish for an answer to the unspoken.

****sexuality is not a "lifestyle". There's nothing to repent of. Gay people are beautiful and good and normal and loved by God just the way they are, despite all the hatred and ignorance and discrimination and shame thrown at them in God's name.

It's sinful to call profane what God has made clean (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/09/09/god-has-shown-me-that-i-should-not-call-anyone-profane-or-unclean/).

[alanmolstad]

Repent. . .
I know some people who want to "repent" of this and don't lead a ****sexual lifestyle, but still sin in their heart with the same lusts.

I"m not sure what question I"m asking but it would be nice if you could fish for an answer to the unspoken.

an interesting question....

To answer the unspoken question?.........
very interesting way to wake me up this morning and an interesting challenge.


It's likely that later today I will have this much better answer thought of , but for now this is my first thoughts on your post.



There is no temptation common to the Gays that is so powerful that the Christian faith is helpless to meet it.
So as with any other sin and temptation to sin that all humans face, the answer from the Scriptures is to center your heart on the Lord.

Fill your thoughts with the Word of the Lord, and it is like a seed planted there that grows and grows and will push out all other thoughts.



It must start with a moment of self-reflection where you see the truth that a sin is a sin, and the attempt to "call" it something else might fool men, but never fools God!

To "REPENT" is to "re" - "think"

To "think about that again"

In today's wording I would say that it means " To spend some time thinking about that..."


So the first step is this coming to terms with the sinfulness of your life, and the seeking of being made clean.

For only in the blood of Christ are people made clean from this and all other sin.



I do know that the closer you draw to your Lord, the more even the smallest of errors are driven out of your life...

[alanmolstad]

Oh! So you should be able to point me to the p***age where .....

I have already talked about this:

We can not go to the Bible and say, "Where is your clear condemnation of driving a new car the wrong way of the freeway while drunk?"

and then believe that just because the Bible does not clearly address the particular situation with the same wording we would ask of it, that this must mean that the Bible actually "endorses" driving a car drunk the wrong direction.


There are billions and billions of different people on this earth right now, and all of them have the ability to ask their own different questions in their own different ways, and then all of them looking to the Text of the Bible for their particular answer addressed clearly to their own questions.

It would be child-like and ridiculous for us to say that because the Bible is not like a magic 8-ball, with all the correct answers to every question , found simply by flipping open to the first page we turn to, that this means the Bible is completely silent.


The bible speaks!

The Bible has it's own message to give us and to teach us to live by.

It's up to us to read, learn, and live by what we find in the Bible....

The truth is that the Bible is what it is, and we cant make demands of the wording to fit our questions, rather we have to conform our lives to the text as we have received it.

[alanmolstad]

.......
Okay, you've got me. ......


Im simply providing you with the information you requested....

[alanmolstad]

What reason do you have to believe that these words refer to a modern gay or lesbian person seeking a committed, monogamous, lifelong covenantal relationship with the person they love?


"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female"

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

"Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate"

[alanmolstad]

Four out of your cited 18 translations translated the Greek πλάνης as "perversion". So you agree with 22% of your own source? ...actually the different translations are in total 100% agreement....

I agree with all of them...

You asked if the bible actually does call being Gay a "Perversion"?, and I looked for a credible website that you could trust, in my effort to show you that the Bible does call being Gay a perversion.

All the wording in all the different translations listed all come to the same united concept that being gay is a very sinful, dirty, disgusting , perverted lifestyle, that will condemn a person's soul to an everlasting Hell fire.

This is not my idea...

I did not come up with this teaching....

Im only showing you what God wanted us to clearly understand so that we have the needed information to REPENT, and turn away from such perversions.

Blame God for what is and is not a sin, I didnt come up with HIS list.
And thats what we need to remember here...
This is God's list...
This is God's thoughts...
This is God's ideas...

God calls being gay a "perversion", and that's just a fact that i personally had nothing to do with..

[asdf]

I have already talked about this:

We can not go to the Bible and say, "Where is your clear condemnation of driving a new car the wrong way of the freeway while drunk?"

and then believe that just because the Bible does not clearly address the particular situation with the same wording we would ask of it, that this must mean that the Bible actually "endorses" driving a car drunk the wrong direction.

Perhaps that's the case for an issue on which the Bible is silent because the issue did not exist at the time the Bible was written—vegetarianism, nuclear physics, drunk driving—but if you have an overwhelming consensus throughout both Testaments that an issue is acceptable, sometimes attributed to Godsown mouth—

—and the only thing you can point to arguing otherwise is a vague possible-suggestion that one particular slaveowner maybe-kinda-sorta-pretty-please ought to free one particular slave, as a personal favor to Paul this one particular time—

—it's rather dishonest to claim that "the context of the New Test is clearly that owning a slave is harmful and (...) that to be a good Christian a slave owner should allow his slaves to go free", don't you think?


The bible speaks!

No, it really doesn't. People speak; books don't.


It's up to us to read, learn, and live by what we find in the Bible....

The truth is that the Bible is what it is, and we cant make demands of the wording to fit our questions, rather we have to conform our lives to the text as we have received it.

Right then. So you should be all for treating your slaves well, or if you're a slave yourself, submitting graciously to your owner without complaining.


Im simply providing you with the information you requested....

And refusing to answer my follow-up. I see exactly how the game is played.


"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female"

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!
"Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate"

Oh, very clever! I've never heard that pun before. That settles it then. :rolleyes:

Do you have any reason to believe that Jesus was addressing same-sex unions in that p***age, rather than what he said he was addressing—opposite-sex divorces?


actually the different translations are in total 100% agreement....

Except they're not. The vast majority of translators render πλάνης as "error", which is in line with how the word is used through the rest of the NT. And once again, whatever the "error" in question, it is given as the result of sin and idolatry, not presented as the sin itself—far less a "very sinful, dirty, disgusting, perverted lifestyle that will condemn a person's soul to an everlasting Hell fire". You're just making stuff up now.


All the wording in all the different translations listed all come to the same united concept that being gay is a very sinful, dirty, disgusting , perverted lifestyle, that will condemn a person's soul to an everlasting Hell fire.

This is not my idea...

I did not come up with this teaching....

Things missing from Paul, anywhere—that you are claiming (by repe***ion) to be there:
"being gay"
"very sinful"
"dirty"
"disgusting"
"lifestyle"
"a person's soul"
"everlasting Hell fire"


Im only showing you what God wanted us to clearly understand so that we have the needed information to REPENT, and turn away from such perversions.


If God had wanted us to clearly understand, why did God require your words to communicate God's "needed information"?


Blame God for what is and is not a sin, I didnt come up with HIS list.
And thats what we need to remember here...
This is God's list...
This is God's thoughts...
This is God's ideas...

God calls being gay a "perversion", and that's just a fact that i personally had nothing to do with..

Perhaps if you knew some gay people, you would understand that reality testifies against your dogma.

[cheachea]

The Bible says what it says. It's not Politically correct, but it's the Truth. It is what it is.


1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us who will Not inherit the Kingdom of God.

* NIV - Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.


* KJV- neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind


* NKJV - Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ****sexuals,


* Young's Literal Translation - neither *****mongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor Effeminate, nor Sodomites


* ESV - neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice ****sexuality


The Bible says what it says. Sexual sins are one of the toughest battles in life for most people . God wants us to turn from our sins and live. The flesh wars against the spirit. It's a daily battle.

[asdf]

The Bible says what it says.
It is what it is.
The Bible says what it says.

Perhaps so, but nonetheless it must be translated and interpreted by we humans if we are to decide on how, or if, it is relevant to our lives today.


1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us who will Not inherit the Kingdom of God.

I find it impossible to condemn my gay and lesbian friends with the same broad brush with which Paul condemns ****nokoites and malakoi.

That may be because 1) Paul was not exposed to any healthy, loving, same-sex couples, 2) ****nokoites and malakoi are actually referring to participants in ritual sex, pros***ution and pederasty, not intimate relationships between equals, 3) Paul was wrong, 4) something else about the way that 21st century English misses the original intent of 1st century Greco-Judaic thought.


Sexual sins are one of the toughest battles in life for most people . God wants us to turn from our sins and live. The flesh wars against the spirit. It's a daily battle.

I am no longer able to regard my friends' innate attractions, their desire to love and be loved by the one person with whom they spend their lives, their strength, courage, commitment and devotion in the face of adversity, the grace and friendship and mutuality and other-preferring agape I witness in their lives to be "sexual sin" against which they ought to "battle" and "turn from". I just can't do it. Reality compels me.


It's not Politically correct, but it's the Truth.

I agree that the Bible is not politically correct. I see it as challenging and subversive to all "-isms".


The whole law is summed up in a single commandment (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/09/11/the-clobber-verses-vs-the-only-thing-that-counts/), “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

[alanmolstad]

The Bible says what it says. It's not Politically correct, but it's the Truth. It is what it is.


1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us who will Not inherit the Kingdom of God.

* NIV - Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.


* KJV- neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind


* NKJV - Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ****sexuals,


* Young's Literal Translation - neither *****mongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor Effeminate, nor Sodomites


* ESV - neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice ****sexuality


The Bible says what it says. Sexual sins are one of the toughest battles in life for most people . God wants us to turn from our sins and live. The flesh wars against the spirit. It's a daily battle.
You make a good point,

The text of the Bible is very clear here and with no way around this we have to accept the truth of what God is telling us.

what our Lord God is saying is that the Gays do not enter into the Kingdom.

unless they repent of their dirty sin they face a future without hope,without love, without end.....

This is why the message to the Gays by the church is so important, and needed in these times where it is all so common that the world call 'good" evil" and "evil" is called "good"

[asdf]

unless they repent of their dirty sin...

It is your tradition that is calling a sexual minority "dirty". Don't project your prejudice onto God.


This is why the message to the Gays by the church is so important,

I believe you're right. Unfortunately, the message the church is currently sending is one of hatred, unwelcoming, and exclusion—even to the point of organizing to "protect" society from them having equal rights under civil law.


and needed in these times where it is all so common that the world call 'good" evil" and "evil" is called "good"

Indeed. Like calling exclusion and discrimination "traditional family values", and calling loving, committed, monogamous couples who want to be included as equals in society "dirty, disgusting perverts whom God hates".

[cheachea]

3) Paul was wrong, [/INDENT]



Are you Really saying that Paul The Apostle speaking by the Holy Spirit was wrong ?

You need to stop trying to twist the scriptures. You also need to stop trying to justify people's sins. Sodom and Gomorrah were Completely Destroyed for Sodomy and Sexual Sins . They are Suffering the vengeance of Eternal Fire.


* Jude 1:7
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given Themselves over to SEXUAL IMMORALITY and gone after Strange Flesh, are set forth as an Example, SUFFERING The VENGEANCE of ETERNAL FIRE.



If you love someone you tell them the Truth. Telling them the Truth is the most loving thing you can do. If they don't repent then they will Not inherit the Kingdom of God. If they don't repent then they are proving that they Love there Sin more then they love God.

[asdf]

Are you Really saying that Paul The Apostle speaking by the Holy Spirit was wrong ?

No. I said that I am more able to entertain the possibility that Paul the Apostle was wrong than I am to entertain the possibility that all GLBT people are inherently doomed and hated by God.


You need to stop trying to twist the scriptures.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I am attempting to understand the scriptures, when a naive, face-value reading conflicts with objective reality—just like I try to understand the scriptures when a naive, face-value reading tells me that God approves of the theft of others' labor (slavery), the subjugation of women, and a geocentric, flat-earth view of the cosmos.


You also need to stop trying to justify people's sins.

I am doing nothing of the sort. My gay and lesbian friends' iden***y and attractional orientation is no more a sin than my iden***y and attractional orientation towards my wife.


Sodom and Gomorrah were Completely Destroyed for Sodomy and Sexual Sins .

I'm afraid you're mistaken.


Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Ezekiel 16.49-50

According to the text, the Sodomites made egregious violations of the Ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes—up to and including attempting to gang-rape strangers.

To attempt to cl***ify my gay friends' love and commitment to their life-partners in the same category as gang-rape is offensive anti-reality.


If you love someone you tell them the Truth. Telling them the Truth is the most loving thing you can do. If they don't repent then they will Not inherit the Kingdom of God. If they don't repent then they are proving that they Love there Sin more then they love God.

Telling my friends that their devotion, their strength in adversity, their other-serving, other-preferring, peacemaking, life-affirming love is something to be repented of is the height of unTruth.

"Against such things there is no law".

[cheachea]

asdf you need to repent. ****sexuals Will NOT Inherit The Kingdom of God. I'm not trying to be a bigot or mean or anything like that. I'm just telling you what the Holy Spirit has said to us in the Scriptures. Romans 1:28-32 applies to you in this situation.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a Debased Mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, Sexual Immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 [who, knowing the Righteous Judgment of God, that those who Practice such things are Deserving of Death, Not Only Do the Same But Also APPROVE Of Those Who Practice Them.]




* asdf I don't trust anything you say. You are listening to deceiving demons . Just Stop. You should warn people to repent of there sins instead of just laying down and dying.

[Jet]

What is th... I don't even...

[asdf]

asdf you need to repent. ****sexuals Will NOT Inherit The Kingdom of God. I'm not trying to be a bigot or mean or anything like that. I'm just telling you what the Holy Spirit has said to us in the Scriptures. Romans 1:28-32 applies to you in this situation.

(...)

* asdf I don't trust anything you say. You are listening to deceiving demons . Just Stop. You should warn people to repent of there sins instead of just laying down and dying.

Well you've certainly made up in bluster and condemnation what you lack in reading comprehension and ability to even pretend to address my posts, I'll grant you that.

[cheachea]

Well you've certainly made up in bluster and condemnation what you lack in reading comprehension and ability to even pretend to address my posts, I'll grant you that.



Do you Approve of there Sin ?

[asdf]

Do you Approve of there Sin ?

No.

(Haven't you been reading anything I've written?)

[alanmolstad]

No.

(Haven't you been reading anything I've written?)
You wrote something?

[asdf]

You wrote something?

Arguably so. :D

[alanmolstad]

Q - So what does the Bible say about the eternal future of all the gays?....
A - that they will not enter into the Kingdom.


Q - What does that mean that they will not enter into the Kingdom?...
A - It means that will be gathered together before the Judgement seat of Christ, where they will be condemned...and tossed with Satan into the eternally burning Lake Of fire.


Q - So the Gays are tossed into the lake of Fire....but then what next?.....
A - there is no "what next?", there is no change in their eternal existence from that moment on.


Q - so the gays burn forever?
A - yes....and forever is a very, very long time.

[ActRaiser]

Q - So what does the Bible say about the eternal future of all the gays?....
A - that they will not enter into the Kingdom.


Q - What does that mean that they will not enter into the Kingdom?...
A - It means that will be gathered together before the Judgement seat of Christ, where they will be condemned...and tossed with Satan into the eternally burning Lake Of fire.


Q - So the Gays are tossed into the lake of Fire....but then what next?.....
A - there is no "what next?", there is no change in their eternal existence from that moment on.


Q - so the gays burn forever?
A - yes....and forever is a very, very long time.

A#1- Well, if they are unrepentant, although I think that's what we are talking about here.

A#2- Yeah

A#3- Okay

A#4- Just to make sure, we're talking about people who are unrepentant ****sexuals, and not just people who have strong same-sex urges right?

[asdf]

Q - So what does the Bible say about the eternal future of all the gays?....
A - that they will not enter into the Kingdom.

Q - What does that mean that they will not enter into the Kingdom?...
A - It means that will be gathered together before the Judgement seat of Christ, where they will be condemned...and tossed with Satan into the eternally burning Lake Of fire.

Q - So the Gays are tossed into the lake of Fire....but then what next?.....
A - there is no "what next?", there is no change in their eternal existence from that moment on.

Q - so the gays burn forever?
A - yes....and forever is a very, very long time.

You make it painfully evident that you're not even trying to read and respond to my posts. You've got a script, and you're sticking to it.

You also continue to make it painfully evident that you don't know any gay people.

The truth will set you free.

[alanmolstad]

Some people try to say that only gay "actions" condemn a person to hell...but our Lord was very clear at pointing out that even our inner most private thoughts condemn a person.

[asdf]

Some people try to say that only gay "actions" condemn a person to hell...but our Lord was very clear at pointing out that even our inner most private thoughts condemn a person.

Considering what else is on Paul's "sin list" along with malakoi and ****nokoites, one might think you'd be more circumspect and less glib about condemning vast swathes of humanity to unending torture.

Or have you never stolen anything, been greedy or slandered or served an idol—even in your "inner most private thoughts"?

[ActRaiser]

Considering what else is on Paul's "sin list" along with malakoi and ****nokoites, one might think you'd be more circumspect and less glib about condemning vast swathes of humanity to unending torture.

Or have you never stolen anything, been greedy or slandered or served an idol—even in your "inner most private thoughts"?

The problem here is that you're answering your own question. God condemns ALL sin. Have you been greedy, slandering, served an idol, like admiring sports more than God?

If the answer is yes, then having ****sexual thoughts and mannerisms shouldn't be far behind what is condemned. What's easy to understand, or at least it should be, is that you can hate things God hates without hating people.

I love thieves. I love my enemies. I hate what they do.

Likewise, God directly loves ****sexuals while he despises ****sexuality, what ****sexuality does to them and how ugly it is. Bare in mind it's not just ugly because of what it does but what it represents. Man was made in the image of God, and ecspecially for believers, when someone turns away from how God made them, it not only makes God a liar but it corrupts his image.

However, I am well-aware that having same sex attraction doesn't make you a murderer, a violent person, or a particular despicable person. The problem with God and ****sexuality is not the degree of sinfulness, it's SIN it'self.

[asdf]

The problem here is that you're answering your own question. God condemns ALL sin. Have you been greedy, slandering, served an idol, like admiring sports more than God?

If the answer is yes, then having ****sexual thoughts and mannerisms shouldn't be far behind what is condemned.

My point is not the condemnation, it is the result of that condemnation. Alan seems to be so gleeful & glib in talking about unending, hellacious torment for gay people, based on [his understanding of] Paul's list, not realizing that by his own standard he condemns himself to the same.

"For with the measure with which you judge, you will be judged."
– Jesus of Nazareth

"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in p***ing judgment on another you condemn yourself because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."
– Paul of Tarsus

Also, I disagree that "****sexual thoughts and mannerisms" are what is condemned by Paul as [I]malakoi and ****nokoites.


What's easy to understand, or at least it should be, is that you can hate things God hates without hating people.

I grant that it's possible. But considering that the ones who "hate ****sexual sin" are also the ones who are fighting against all legal and civil protection for GLBT people, I do not think that theoretical possibility is applicable in this instance.


Likewise, God directly loves ****sexuals while he despises ****sexuality, what ****sexuality does to them and how ugly it is. Bare in mind it's not just ugly because of what it does but what it represents. Man was made in the image of God, and ecspecially for believers, when someone turns away from how God made them, it not only makes God a liar but it corrupts his image.

However, I am well-aware that having same sex attraction doesn't make you a murderer, a violent person, or a particular despicable person. The problem with God and ****sexuality is not the degree of sinfulness, it's SIN it'self.

I disagree that living an honest life; embracing love, confidence, and maturity; being true to oneself and to society; committing to meaningful love and relationship is "making God a liar", "turning away from how God made" one, or "sinful".

[ActRaiser]

My point is not the condemnation, it is the result of that condemnation. Alan seems to be so gleeful & glib in talking about unending, hellacious torment for gay people, based on [his understanding of] Paul's list, not realizing that by his own standard he condemns himself to the same.

"For with the measure with which you judge, you will be judged."
– Jesus of Nazareth

"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in p***ing judgment on another you condemn yourself because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."
– Paul of Tarsus

Also, I disagree that "****sexual thoughts and mannerisms" are what is condemned by Paul as [I]malakoi and ****nokoites.



I grant that it's possible. But considering that the ones who "hate ****sexual sin" are also the ones who are fighting against all legal and civil protection for GLBT people, I do not think that theoretical possibility is applicable in this instance.



I disagree that living an honest life; embracing love, confidence, and maturity; being true to oneself and to society; committing to meaningful love and relationship is "making God a liar", "turning away from how God made" one, or "sinful".

Then you disagree with God. While everything you've listed is good in and of themselves, nothing is adequate for spiritual growth without God, his word and his Son Jesus.

[asdf]

Then you disagree with God.

I disagree with you that I disagree with God.


While everything you've listed is good in and of themselves, nothing is adequate for spiritual growth without God, his word and his Son Jesus.

I believe that things that are good—things that are "good in and of themselves"—are in fact good. "Think on these things", "against such things there is no law", "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial", "everyone who loves is in God, for God is love".

Where there is love, where there is goodness & beauty & fidelity & shalom & perseverance & self-sacrifice & ... — that's where God is. That's what God smiles upon.

I'm not able to regard that as in any way inferior to my own relationship with my wife. I'm not able to regard that as something that is hated by a God who is good.

[Libby]

I disagree with you that I disagree with God.

I came here earlier today and almost typed those exact words, when I read our friend's post...but, decided not to insert myself in this conversation.

Wanted to tell you that I have enjoyed your posts on this subject, though. A breath of fresh air. Namaste'

[alanmolstad]

the Bishop abandoned his wife and family...and entered into an evil and disgusting **** relationship.

He has led many down a dark path....

He will likely burn forever and ever in hell's fire....
I would be not upset by that eternal fate for him at all...

[Saxon]

Is the Old Testament of any value to the Christian that is in Christ?

[alanmolstad]

It's kinda like a 3rd grade teacher. ..important at one time in our history but once you are in 4th grade you have another teacher to listen to now that is better

[alanmolstad]

So as Walter martin said We must read the Old Test in the light of the New

[Saxon]

Does the Old Testament teach anything different than the New Testament when you take into consideration the context of the whole Bible?

[alanmolstad]

the Old Testament teaches the Old Covenant, and as we read in the New Test if there was nothing wrong with the Old Covenant there would be no need for the New.

The New Wine can not fit in the Old Wine skins....

[Saxon]

What scripture did Paul preach from?

[alanmolstad]

John 6:68
"Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

We have to remember that Peter and Paul and the rest of the Disciples all were Jews and so they already had plenty of teachers of the Law.
They did not lack of instruction.

But they did not have life.

Life is found in the words of Christ.

This is why Paul tells us that he preached nothing except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
This is why the teachings of the Disciples were so radically different than the teachings of the Jews at the time.
For we are not just dealing with a new reason the Jews should kill a goat, or a new list of foods that cant be eaten, or a new way to wash our hands etc, etc,etc,
Had that been true then Jesus and the Disciples like Paul would have been accepted by the Jewish leaders as being "One of them"

But people came to Jesus to hear him because Jesus taught different than the Jewish teachers, for Jesus taught as one who had "authority".
This is why there is a Christian faith.

For Christians base their religion on the words of Christ, for they (The words of Christ) are held as being superior to all other teachings and words.
This also was the reason for 1 Corinthians 1:23
"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,"

So if you want to actually know what the Disciples preached?...it was this. > "Christ crucified"

This also is why today I tell people that if you want to understand what we base the Christian religion on?, just think about all that could be removed from the world and yet still have enough to be a true Christian?....

For example: could you remove all the church buildings and still be Christian?....yes
Could you remove all the books found in the Old Testament and still be a Christian?....yes

So what is the one thing in this world that has to be true or the whole of the christian faith falls?.....The Resurrection of Christ from the dead.

So except for the Resurrection of Christ, all the rest of the things found in our religion could be taken away or proved to be false and it would not matter?.....yes


As long as the Resurrection of Christ is true, it and it alone is the only reason we are Christians....

[Saxon]

Not only did you not come close to answering my question, you seem to be willing to toss out the Old Testament. Where do you find that the Old Testament is no longer valid for the Christian?

The question was, “What scripture did Paul preach from?” I was not asking about who Paul was preaching about.

Also, what scriptures were the people of Berea searching? (See Ac 17:11)

In John 5:39, what scriptures did Jesus want searched that testified of him?

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

[alanmolstad]

I answered my way..you answer your own

[alanmolstad]

So what Im saying, (and have said above)is that there is a very good reason why we call our selves "Christians" and not "Old Testament Jews"

The Old Test taught the Jews the concept of the Old Covenant.
My thoughts on the Old Covenant are best summed up at Hebrews 8:7

That there is but one thing that makes us Christians, and its as I have talked about above.
This is why I'm a Christian.



But Im not interested in the unending debate between the Septuagint vs the Masoretic texts, nor have any time to be part of a"King James Only" , "Book of Enoch" .etc debates.

[Saxon]

Your answer seems to be answering some different question. It does not answer what I have asked.

[Saxon]

So what Im saying, (and have said above)is that there is a very good reason why we call our selves "Christians" and not "Old Testament Jews"

The Old Test taught the Jews the concept of the Old Covenant.
My thoughts on the Old Covenant are best summed up at Hebrews 8:7

That there is but one thing that makes us Christians, and its as I have talked about above.
This is why I'm a Christian.

You are still avoiding the questions that I have asked you. You seem to think that the Old Testament is for those of direct Hebrew ancestry. This is not true. The whole Bible is for all and any who read it and trust in Christ.

Let us try again:

What scripture did Paul preach from?

Also, what scriptures were the people of Berea searching? (See Ac 17:11)

In John 5:39, what scriptures did Jesus want searched that testified of him?

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.




But Im not interested in the unending debate between the Septuagint vs the Masoretic texts, nor have any time to be part of a"King James Only" , "Book of Enoch" .etc debates.

No one is debating any of these books and texts. All that I am interested in is the Bible, in the English language. You can use any version that you wish. I use the King James because I like it. I do not claim that the KJV is the only Bible that is endorsed by God and I never will. So get your mind on the English Bible, what ever version you want and answer the questions that I have asked. If you are interested in the truth then be as direct in your answer as possible and support your response with scripture where ever possible.

[DrDavidT]

Interesting interview with the Bishop Gene Robinson, first openly gay Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFhyK3-gUyY&feature=colike

(Not sure why the Islamic sub***les)

Edit: Someone told me, it might be because someone has a "hit" out on him. He did say that he has received numerous death threats.. Very sad.

and why would you listen to a ****sexual bishop who has a personal stake in the answer? the Bible does prohibit ****sexuality.