EnochBethany

I am aware of that. And those laws served as absolutely no deterrent to the behavior itself. The thing that kept both homosexuality and adultery from mushrooming out of control was societal pressure because both were frowned upon. But they both happened behind closed doors anyway. The only way to stop sexual sin is a transformation of one's heart through Christ. Time in jail won't fix it. Are homosexuality and adultery equally bad, sin-wise, or is one worse than the other? Thou sayest: "those laws served as absolutely no deterrent to the behavior itself." Now that is a great suggestion, Cobalt, although we have no way to know how much of a deterrent it was or wasn't by historical observation. We don't have stats on ancient Israelite behavior. But it seems obvious that the Law of Moses (altho a great Law), was largely ignored by the people and rulers during much of Israel's history. I suppose that when the Lord kicked Israel out of the land, then behavior in the land was impeded. But the Law is kind of like a sign that one posts saying, "Don't spit here." You know what the result will be. I had a cranky little English teacher who had a little plaque on her wall saying like, "If you don't have anything to do, don't do it here." Someone put a wad of chewing gum in the center of her plaque. It may have taken her a year to notice it. Romans 7 says, "I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived & I died.' 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: 8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. 9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; 10 and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: 11 for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. 12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. 13 Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; — that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful. Thou sayest, "The thing that kept both homosexuality and adultery from mushrooming out of control was societal pressure because both were frowned upon. But they both happened behind closed doors anyway. The only way to stop sexual sin is a transformation of one's heart through Christ. Time in jail won't fix it." Well, do you have some evidence that in ancient Israel those sins did not mushroom? But you are right that societal pressure can have more effect that a law written. But many laws are made by courts. Those judicial laws IMHO have been very influential, the Zeitgeist following them I don't know what relevance "behind closed doors" has. I believe, for example, that when Jodi Arias killed her partner, it was behind closed doors; which did not impede the police from pursuing her. Transformation of the heart is of course the key to godly behavior (Eph 3:14-19; Rom 12:1-2; 1 Cor 3:18). But even tho a Christian receives a transformation, he still sins a lot, as the transformation comes & goes. "Time in jail won't fix it." Has it ever occurred to you that the Law of Moses has no prisons? Prison is not a punishment in the Law of Moses. The closest to it is city-confinement for man slaughter. What prison does is punish the tax payer, who has to provide free room, board, entertainment, and medical care for the imprisoned. Now if a criminal is executed, that does impede his performance of a crime -- he never does it again! And if a criminal is publicly whipped, that brings in societal pressure, a public humiliation. Under the law the limit was 40 stripes. Why are you concerned about ranking the various sins? At the top of the list is failure to love God & neighbor as self. I don't think we understand any sin right until we see where it fits into those overriding commandments. Simple fornication between an unmarried pair under the Law of Moses resulted in forced marriage only, so far as I know. But fornication (a very general term for sexual sin) is listed with such serious sins as indicate one is heading for the Lake of Fire. Adultery could get you stoned; though repentance & forgiveness were possible, as in the case of David. Leviticus 18 groups men lying with men among the heinous crimes which cause a the land (as it were) to vomit out a nation. Leviticus 18 does not call it "homosexuality," a term invented methinks around mid 19th century. Sodom was destroyed with fire & brimstone as an example lesson to the world.

The claim is made: "IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time." Yes, the Lord Jesus used parables. 1) How long are parables? 2) How long is Genesis? 3) What leads you to think that Genesis is a parable? 4) Can you give a parable of the Lord Jesus that has an animal talk? BTW, there are a couple of fables in the Does Genesis look like them? Here is The Bramble Fable from Judges 9: "7 And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood on the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you. 8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign thou over us. 9 But the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? 10 And the trees said to the fig-tree, Come thou, and reign over us. 11 But the fig-tree said unto them, Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? 12 And the trees said unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. 13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my new wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? 14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. 15 And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon. 16 Now therefore, if ye have dealt truly and uprightly, in that ye have made Abimelech king, and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done unto him according to the deserving of his hands 17 (for my father fought for you, and adventured his life, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian: 18 and ye are risen up against my father’s house this day, and have slain his sons, threescore and ten persons, upon one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maid-servant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother); 19 if ye then have dealt truly and uprightly with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you: 20 but if not, let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech.

Oh I don't know? Cover your bases and wear a hat with the top cut out? other is some say you must cover only in church and the verse applies only to wives That just one of the other So I guess it all depends on what Izzel means. I think the context is the Church service. Put on your old Easter bonnet with the red ribbon onit.

I assure you this dream was very real and very personal too. I would have to be crazy to keep it to myself. - DRS81 Well, I won't judge you for having a dream that seemed real.

We are not saying that. God says that. Everyone sins. But there is a huge difference between making a mistake in judgement or a momentary weakness and in living a life of willful, habitual sin. When people say that a person can be "gay" and still be "Christian," then they totally remove repentance from Christianity. They discard it completely, meaning that you could now repetitively commit anything God calls a sin until the day you die with complete impunity, and more to the point, without repenting and turning away from it. Homosexuality is a sin. There is no credible debate, from a biblical standpoint, that it is not a sin, because the Bible states very clearly that it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't have to repeat that it is a sin in every chapter of every book for those statements that it is a sin to have validity. The expectation when one becomes a Christian is always that gross repetitive and willful sin will cease. If one is committing a sin such as homosexuality or adultery over and over and over again, and saying it is perfectly acceptable to do so, they are not repentant, and they are not sorry for the sin. My bro, "homosexuality" is not a sin. Neither does the Bible use such language. Probably you & I don't disagree on the substance, but the vocabulary. "Homosexual" confuses the issue. Psychologists might call boys at a certain age homosexual, because they prefer to play with boys instead of with girls. Preference of company is not the issue. Loving (agape) persons of the same sex, is not the issue. The proper terms are "men lying with men" and Sodomite. If you describe precisely the abominable practice, you will probably find yourself censored here. But it is by describing precisely what is done that the abomination appears. Fornication comes in many varieties, and it is a sin characteristic of heading to the Lake of Fire. It doesn't matter what you call it. Homosexuality is a sin. Well Bro, I thought I was laying an egg to proclaim the folly of the wrong vocabulary -- but apparently my suggestion is not popularly received. So it is nothing to cackle over. It is just IMHO.

Well Steve, my intro to this subject was film on the internet showing anti-govt rioters (even with smirk on the face) throwing gasoline (Molitov cocktails) at the police/ security force who were apparently unarmed. I saw the cops being burned alive with gasoline! I was appalled. We shall see. One thing I have neglected is praying for our govt. Could all the mess we have seen & all the govt blunders have happened had Christians by & large been praying? I have no idea what the percent of Biblicist Christians there are in the Ukraine either.

A couple of problems: First off, simply because the homosexual community uses terms with the calculating goal of furthering a certain agenda, that does mean that everyone who uses those words is doing the same thing. That is a false dichotomy. On a forum such as this, when we use the term "gay" everyone understands that this term, for us, refers to two people, of the same sex, involved in a physical, i.e. sexual relationship. Keeping the issue in proper "focus" does not require the strict use of biblical terms. You don't get the option of determining what terms we have to use in a discussion and no Christian that I know of uses biblical terms exclusively when discussing any subject. That makes no sense. Not to mention that the repeated use of the term sodomy, sodomite or sodomist makes you appear to be a backwards hick. We are not talking about "men preferring the company of their own sex." Who knows what that means and the statement makes no sense in it's current form in relation to this discussion. Sex between people of the same sex, whether they are men or women, is a sin in every single case. Whether one uses the terms, "gay," "homosexual," or "same-sex" the assumption, from a biblical standpoint is that the root action of this relationship is sex. Well, Cobalt; if my post helps you, it helps you; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Just take it as IMHO, which of course is fallible. You can put it in your pipe & smoke it; take the residue & chew it; then spit it out as you wish!

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written," How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation? If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make? "As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter." 1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends? 2) How do you know that probably a priest did it? 3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter? 4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"? 5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning? "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative. Well, Old School, I asked you for your proof before, didn't I. And you did not give it. Will you respond now? "Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends" 1) What does written in a vacuum mean? Was it not written for ancient Israel by the Lord? What how does Sumeria become the context for revelation given to Israel in Sinai during their 40 year wandering? You think the ex-slaves were thinking about Sumeria? 2) How do you know it is a collection of local Sumerian legends? 3) How do you distinguish between local & non-local Sumerian legends? 4) What ancient documents do you list to substantiate your collection theory? 5) What percent of the Pentateuch has a parallel in Sumerian legends? 6) Do you confuse flood parallels with creation parallels? 7) What is the percent of correlation between you ancient legends & Genesis 1? 8) Are the correlations explainable by real events which happened instead of literary borrowing? 9) What ancient documents have you personally studied? As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter. The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative. , e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter. "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative." "As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter." 1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends? 2) How do you know that probably a priest did it? 3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter? 4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"? 5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning? "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative." 1) How do u know what the reader has to do? 2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors? Proof? 3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices? 4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable? 5) Which events could not have been historical? How do you know? Pardon me for pointing out that you are making a lot of assertions for which you give no proof. Best wishes Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish. Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning" Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important. Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters. Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days. In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day. There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables. IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time. Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice. Have you no answers to the questions? Have you no proof? A/ 1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends? 2) How do you know that probably a priest did it? 3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter? 4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"? 5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning? B. 1) How do u know what the reader has to do? 2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors? Proof? 3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices? 4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable? 5) Which events could not have been historical? How do you know? Quote your original sources to make your proof, if you want me to believe your assertions. Just up & saying things does not convince me. Where is there a magic tree in Genesis? You are correct that fables have talking animals. But that does not prove that the reference to one Serpent who talked makes it a fable. (or do you claim that humans are animals & talk, thus all stories about humans are fables?) The Word of God tells us about God, who is omnipotent, and about evil spirits who have inhabited animals, if on rare occasions. Thou sayest: "Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis." What is your proof of that? I will grant you that serious students are familiar with the JEDP theory of the sources of the Pentateuch; but I have never read any claim that anyone has ever found J,E, & P texts of Genesis. Who found them & where? In what library are they found? If there are no such texts in existence, how do you know that the theory is not bogus imagination? "Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice." Well I won't argue with what you think. But how do you know what readers need to know? How does the practice of journalism lead to knowing what readers need to know? Do journalists focus on what readers need to know or what sells? :

Do you think this same rational should be applied to adultery? Or sex outside of marriage? It was not so long ago that both adultery & fornication were outlawed. There used to be persons charged with those crimes, even in the 20th century. While we are not under the Law of Moses, I think it gives good directions for a just society.

To rebuke someone, they have to have actually done something. So you are rebuking . . . Who??? You are drawing a parallel which does not exist. No one claimed to have a "vision." That is a false statement from you, every time you make it. It is also bearing false witness. You are carping about the importance of words in another thread, but breaking your own rules here, because the words "prophesy" and "vision" were never used. You are creating an issue where none exists. If you are going to chastise someone for a behavior, you might want to wait until they actual display the behavior you wish to instruct or rebuke on, because your cart is in front of your horse. Your attempt at biblical "instruction" is aimed at something that hasn't happened. I do not rebuke the original poster. Indeed, he did not claim to have a vision. I do not draw a parallel to the original poster. But I do speak of the danger of false visions. I should not have posted it here, because the relevance is not immediate.

He didn't say this was a prophesy. He didn't say the dream was "from the Lord." He didn't claim to be a prophet. So who is all that stuff above aimed at? It couldn't be aimed at the OP because he made none of the above claims. He simply described a dream he had. Comparing someone who is just describing a dream they had to Eliphaz makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, you are right. My post does not pertain to the guy who started this thread.

first off i would like to note the gift of prophecy has not and will not cease until the end. second merely recieving a dream or vision does not make one a prophet and third who knows? maybe she was right maybe jesus will return this year. i end with this. in the last day God says i will pour out my spirit on all ppl. your sons and daughters will prophesy your young men will see visions your old men will dream dreams 1 Cor 13 says that prophecy would cease; & it has. If one receives a vision or dream & then published it, that would be a prophecy. There is no possibility of the lady being right who said Christ would return that year because that year came & went long ago! Scripture says, "And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams: 18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood," We are not at that point yet. This happens during or at the end of Daniel's 70th week, during or at the end of the Great Tribulation. But we are not there yet. As for prophecy, it shall cease! And it has ceased for the Church age. Now if you have a person who predicts the future infallibly, with indisputable fulfillments & no errors, you might have a case. But show the proof! We should not suffer any false prophet Jezebel. i am not going to debate with you on this if you dont want to understand then thats between you God but i have seen the future and i am watching it unfold before my very eyes. that is how i know god was warning me. You claim, "i have seen the future and i am watching it unfold before my very eyes. that is how i know god was warning me." To authenticate your experience, why not give us some short term predictions, so the validity can be checked. Tell us the high & low temperature in New York on March 16, 2014 -- something like that. Num 12 "Hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I YHWH will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. " Deut 18: "But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which YHWH hath not spoken? 22 when a prophet speaketh in the name of YHWH, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which YHWH hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him." look i am not a prophet, i have seen the future but only because god let me. i am not going to prove myself to you just because you claim me a false prophet. i cant predict anything nor do i care to,and please becareful of how you use scripture the word of god is holy and not to be messed with. its not a weapon and isnt to be used against ppl like you areI In Deuteronomy 18 the claim that a person is a false prophets waits for after the test. Since you claimed to have seen the future, I suggested that the validation (or disproof) would result from sharing near term predictions along the lines of Deuteronomy 18.

To rebuke someone, they have to have actually done something. So you are rebuking . . . Who??? You are drawing a parallel which does not exist. No one claimed to have a "vision." That is a false statement from you, every time you make it. It is also bearing false witness. You are carping about the importance of words in another thread, but breaking your own rules here, because the words "prophesy" and "vision" were never used. You are creating an issue where none exists. If you are going to chastise someone for a behavior, you might want to wait until they actual display the behavior you wish to instruct or rebuke on, because your cart is in front of your horse. Your attempt at biblical "instruction" is aimed at something that hasn't happened. On this thread there is a topic. Kindly discuss the topic instead of the persons posting. Anyone who wishes can read my posts and determine for themselves whether it is valid Bible teaching and whether it is relevant. Many people have falsely claimed to have visions and dreams and spread old wives tales. And it is well to keep that in mind. Prove all things!

We are not saying that. God says that. Everyone sins. But there is a huge difference between making a mistake in judgement or a momentary weakness and in living a life of willful, habitual sin. When people say that a person can be "gay" and still be "Christian," then they totally remove repentance from Christianity. They discard it completely, meaning that you could now repetitively commit anything God calls a sin until the day you die with complete impunity, and more to the point, without repenting and turning away from it. Homosexuality is a sin. There is no credible debate, from a biblical standpoint, that it is not a sin, because the Bible states very clearly that it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't have to repeat that it is a sin in every chapter of every book for those statements that it is a sin to have validity. The expectation when one becomes a Christian is always that gross repetitive and willful sin will cease. If one is committing a sin such as homosexuality or adultery over and over and over again, and saying it is perfectly acceptable to do so, they are not repentant, and they are not sorry for the sin. My bro, "homosexuality" is not a sin. Neither does the Bible use such language. Probably you & I don't disagree on the substance, but the vocabulary. "Homosexual" confuses the issue. Psychologists might call boys at a certain age homosexual, because they prefer to play with boys instead of with girls. Preference of company is not the issue. Loving (agape) persons of the same sex, is not the issue. The proper terms are "men lying with men" and Sodomite. If you describe precisely the abominable practice, you will probably find yourself censored here. But it is by describing precisely what is done that the abomination appears. Fornication comes in many varieties, and it is a sin characteristic of heading to the Lake of Fire. It doesn't matter what you call it. Homosexuality is a sin. Well think about it. The rhetoric uses is important. If you get into arguing about homosexuality, the focus is likely to change to the right of people to love each other. But when you get into the actual behavior of men lying with men, then the abomination appears. That will happen no matter what term you use. You are really making much ado about nothing. It doesn't matter what you call it. It is a sin. "A rose by any other name..." Well, at this point we could check scripture on "calling things," to see if it makes a difference what people call things. Ye Olde Verbal label. I gave my opinion. If ain't heresy if you disagree. At least we agree on the substance of this issue, I think.

A couple of problems: First off, simply because the homosexual community uses terms with the calculating goal of furthering a certain agenda, that does mean that everyone who uses those words is doing the same thing. That is a false dichotomy. On a forum such as this, when we use the term "gay" everyone understands that this term, for us, refers to two people, of the same sex, involved in a physical, i.e. sexual relationship. Keeping the issue in proper "focus" does not require the strict use of biblical terms. You don't get the option of determining what terms we have to use in a discussion and no Christian that I know of uses biblical terms exclusively when discussing any subject. That makes no sense. Not to mention that the repeated use of the term sodomy, sodomite or sodomist makes you appear to be a backwards hick. We are not talking about "men preferring the company of their own sex." Who knows what that means and the statement makes no sense in it's current form in relation to this discussion. Sex between people of the same sex, whether they are men or women, is a sin in every single case. Whether one uses the terms, "gay," "homosexual," or "same-sex" the assumption, from a biblical standpoint is that the root action of this relationship is sex. "A couple of problems: First off, simply because the homosexual community uses terms with the calculating goal of furthering a certain agenda, that does mean that everyone who uses those words is doing the same thing." The fact is the fact. "Gay" is a positive term put on abominable activity. I don't say that all who use "gay" have the intent of furthering the propaganda, but they are duped into so doing that. "On a forum such as this, when we use the term "gay" everyone understands that this term, for us, refers to two people, of the same sex, involved in a physical, i.e. sexual relationship." But it also obscures the issue & puts a positive term on it. "Keeping the issue in proper "focus" does not require the strict use of biblical terms." The use of Biblical terms helps keep the issue in proper focus. Hold to the Pattern of Sound Words (2 Timothy). Yes, I have the option of asserting the truth about the terms used. You are free to accept or reject what I say on this & all other issues. Yes, it makes sense to use Biblical terms instead of pro-sin rhetoric. "Not to mention that the repeated use of the term sodomy, sodomite or sodomist makes you appear to be a backwards hick." Now you are insulting. What make you think that insults commend the rationality of your discourse? We are not talking about "men preferring the company of their own sex." Yes, that connotation is read into "homosexuality." "the assumption, from a biblical standpoint is that the root action of this relationship is sex." But the adoption of the term "gay," came from no Biblical standpoint whatsoever. Rethink your rhetoric, Bro. Not so much, because I am not using "rhetoric." And your approach could use some work. You do not have the ability, or the mandate, or the right to simply assign values to words simply because you think they have a certain meaning, to you. To me, the words "gay" and "homosexual" have a decidedly negative connotation, so to use them is not being "pro-sin." To use them is not furthering some gay agenda that you feel is being furthered by their use. All those assertions have a name, and they are known as projection. And they apply not at all when those behaviors are not being practiced on the other end. I am quite well aware of what the gay agenda is and how it is furthered. No one is putting positive terms on anything. That is simply a value you keep trying to place on others. It isn't accurate, and it isn't constructive. The use of "backwards hick" was not meant as an insult. Would I have wished to insult you, I would have done so with a great deal more finesse, or directness depending on the situation. In my experience, anyone who was enamored with the frequent use of the word "sodomite" had some severe problems, and an extremely draconian vision of what we should do with it's practitioners. Does this describe you? The vocabulary used by proponents of this movement includes propagandistic rhetoric. We all have problems. But Christians, despite any problems, have this special ability to love neighbor as self. The topic of this thread is not me & you -- it is the topic. Let's leave out the ad hominems and accusations. I suggest you review my comments; eat the fish & spit out any bones.

We are not saying that. God says that. Everyone sins. But there is a huge difference between making a mistake in judgement or a momentary weakness and in living a life of willful, habitual sin. When people say that a person can be "gay" and still be "Christian," then they totally remove repentance from Christianity. They discard it completely, meaning that you could now repetitively commit anything God calls a sin until the day you die with complete impunity, and more to the point, without repenting and turning away from it. Homosexuality is a sin. There is no credible debate, from a biblical standpoint, that it is not a sin, because the Bible states very clearly that it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't have to repeat that it is a sin in every chapter of every book for those statements that it is a sin to have validity. The expectation when one becomes a Christian is always that gross repetitive and willful sin will cease. If one is committing a sin such as homosexuality or adultery over and over and over again, and saying it is perfectly acceptable to do so, they are not repentant, and they are not sorry for the sin. My bro, "homosexuality" is not a sin. Neither does the Bible use such language. Probably you & I don't disagree on the substance, but the vocabulary. "Homosexual" confuses the issue. Psychologists might call boys at a certain age homosexual, because they prefer to play with boys instead of with girls. Preference of company is not the issue. Loving (agape) persons of the same sex, is not the issue. The proper terms are "men lying with men" and Sodomite. If you describe precisely the abominable practice, you will probably find yourself censored here. But it is by describing precisely what is done that the abomination appears. Fornication comes in many varieties, and it is a sin characteristic of heading to the Lake of Fire. It doesn't matter what you call it. Homosexuality is a sin. Well think about it. The rhetoric used is important. If you get into arguing about homosexuality, the focus is likely to change to the right of people to love each other. But when you get into the actual behavior of men lying with men, then the abomination appears.

A couple of problems: First off, simply because the homosexual community uses terms with the calculating goal of furthering a certain agenda, that does mean that everyone who uses those words is doing the same thing. That is a false dichotomy. On a forum such as this, when we use the term "gay" everyone understands that this term, for us, refers to two people, of the same sex, involved in a physical, i.e. sexual relationship. Keeping the issue in proper "focus" does not require the strict use of biblical terms. You don't get the option of determining what terms we have to use in a discussion and no Christian that I know of uses biblical terms exclusively when discussing any subject. That makes no sense. Not to mention that the repeated use of the term sodomy, sodomite or sodomist makes you appear to be a backwards hick. We are not talking about "men preferring the company of their own sex." Who knows what that means and the statement makes no sense in it's current form in relation to this discussion. Sex between people of the same sex, whether they are men or women, is a sin in every single case. Whether one uses the terms, "gay," "homosexual," or "same-sex" the assumption, from a biblical standpoint is that the root action of this relationship is sex. "A couple of problems: First off, simply because the homosexual community uses terms with the calculating goal of furthering a certain agenda, that does mean that everyone who uses those words is doing the same thing." The fact is the fact. "Gay" is a positive term put on abominable activity. I don't say that all who use "gay" have the intent of furthering the propaganda, but they are duped into so doing that. "On a forum such as this, when we use the term "gay" everyone understands that this term, for us, refers to two people, of the same sex, involved in a physical, i.e. sexual relationship." But it also obscures the issue & puts a positive term on it. "Keeping the issue in proper "focus" does not require the strict use of biblical terms." The use of Biblical terms helps keep the issue in proper focus. Hold to the Pattern of Sound Words (2 Timothy). Yes, I have the option of asserting the truth about the terms used. You are free to accept or reject what I say on this & all other issues. Yes, it makes sense to use Biblical terms instead of pro-sin rhetoric. "Not to mention that the repeated use of the term sodomy, sodomite or sodomist makes you appear to be a backwards hick." Now you introduce an insult word. I don't judge tho; perhaps you sincerely think you are advising me well. Actually use of the term "sodomist" is anything but hickish -- the use of "sodomist" connotes knowledge of jurisprudence, a term hicks are unlikely to know. I won't be intimidated into using the wrong rhetoric by an insult slur word. We are not talking about "men preferring the company of their own sex." Yes, that connotation is read into "homosexuality." "the assumption, from a biblical standpoint is that the root action of this relationship is sex." But the adoption of the term "gay," came from no Biblical standpoint whatsoever. Rethink your rhetoric, Bro.

A word can only have one meaning? And why do you get to decide who uses it and in what context? I think you are taking a little too much on yourself there. Using the word "gay" does not mean that anyone is advancing some form of homosexual propaganda. That assertion is ridiculous. It is not necessary to brand homosexuals as sodomites every time the subject is discussed. In a forum such as this, when the word "gay" is used, people are quite familiar with the term, what it means, and the actions it denotes. Those who have an agenda use vocabulary to advance their POV. For the Christian the proper vocab is the Bible's vocab. Truth is distorted by unbiblical, humanistic rhetoric. I don't claim that Chrs intend to advance the enemy's propaganda by using rhetoric sympathetic to sin; probably most are unaware of being duped. We won't brand homosexuals as sodomists; for they are not necessarily. The term homosexual confuses the issue, since the issue is not preference for one's own sex, but men "lying with" men; women "lying with" women. Using the term gay puts a positive blessing on the abominable action & obscures the issue. It does not focus the mind on the abominable actions done. Sodomist calls to mind the sinners of sodom, a Biblical sinful city. Using gay is a way to avoid the abominable activity in one's mind. There is nothing gay about it.

Read the entire article here. The gospel is the same for all sinners: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. You are right that there is not a special gospel just for our sin. The flesh lusts vs the Spirit & vice versa in the Christian life.

only if you stop the action that he would forgive you for. But then technically, that's not an all loving God. I thought that God forgave even if you still repeated the same mistake over and over again. Well first of all, God is NOT all loving. The Bible never claims God to be all-loving. There are things that God hates and the homosexual lifestyle is one of those things. Secondly, God does forgive, but to appropriate God's forgiveness, we must truly repent. Nowhere in the Bible is any provision made for thinking that you can live in sin, go to Gdo for forgiveness, fully expecting to continue living the same sin over and over. If you continue to live in sin, there is non genuine repetnance, and God does not honor insincere repentance. The only repentance that saves is metanoia, a change of mind; in particular a change of mind from not trusting Christ as Savior to trusting Him as Savior. Saving repentance is not being sorry for sin primarily, nor turning over a new leaf. But indeed, we who died to sin, how shall we live therein? Salvation has a content, & that is salvation from sin. You can't be saved without being saved!

The suicide rate among homosexuals is high, but not because of being bullied. Drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease and utter hopeless are all part of the homsoexual experience. Much of the problems the gay community has are self-inflicted. I would also add that your information isn't really all tha accurate. Gays are persecuted but they are persecuted higher in nonChristian communities than anywhere in America. Historically, fascist, nazi and communist countries have always been the worst persecutors of gay people. Gays are far more accepted in western, Christian nations. I think part of the problem is that when a person living in the Bible persecutes a gay person, that person is assumed to be a Christian simply by virtue of the fact that that it happened in the Bible Belt. I would also add that there is a tendency to portray all Christians as hating gays only because of the actions of a few pockets of haters. When a government outlaws wicked & abusive behavior & punishes the behavior, that is no persecution.

People can call themselves "of Christ" and be any kind of practicing vile sinner to be sure. Hypocrites abound. And in general all Christians can be properly gay, that is happy & carefree. The Lord says to rejoice in the Lord always. "9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." Yet what one believes is irrelevant for the truth. What God's Word says is relevant. "be gay"? Being happy & carefree is fine. "be homosexual"? preferring the company of one's sex is no sin. "be a sodomite"? Acting like the citizens of Sodom? That merits God's destruction. be a man who "lies with men"? mimicking men lying with women ? That is an abomination, a particularly vile & disgusting & abusive form of fornication. It led to nations being vomited our of their land -- see Lev 18. Of course the vilest sinner can be cleansed by the Blood of the Lord Jesus & made a transformed Child of God. Of course Christ loves all: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sin." Loving His people, He saves them from their sin.

"Humans are not capable of not committing sin." Where does the Bible say that? Christians are capable of abiding in Christ & walking by the Spirit. Now to be sure we sin a lot, but at no time is sin necessary for a Christian. You refer to an apocryphal story in corrupt texts of John 8 about throwing the first stone -- not in the oldest manuscripts & contrary IMHO to the rest of the Bible. It is all fornicators (not just men who lie with men) who have a destiny in the Lake of Fire. As to judging, we are to judge righteous judgment. There is nothing improper about citizens voting guilty when on a jury. There is nothing wrong with a church excommunicating gross sinners (see Mat 18 & 1 Cor 6). The sin of judging is jumping to conclusions for which you have insufficient or no evidence or assuming heart motives, which no one can know.

We are not saying that. God says that. Everyone sins. But there is a huge difference between making a mistake in judgement or a momentary weakness and in living a life of willful, habitual sin. When people say that a person can be "gay" and still be "Christian," then they totally remove repentance from Christianity. They discard it completely, meaning that you could now repetitively commit anything God calls a sin until the day you die with complete impunity, and more to the point, without repenting and turning away from it. Homosexuality is a sin. There is no credible debate, from a biblical standpoint, that it is not a sin, because the Bible states very clearly that it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't have to repeat that it is a sin in every chapter of every book for those statements that it is a sin to have validity. The expectation when one becomes a Christian is always that gross repetitive and willful sin will cease. If one is committing a sin such as homosexuality or adultery over and over and over again, and saying it is perfectly acceptable to do so, they are not repentant, and they are not sorry for the sin. My bro, "homosexuality" is not a sin. Neither does the Bible use such language. Probably you & I don't disagree on the substance, but the vocabulary. "Homosexual" confuses the issue. Psychologists might call boys at a certain age homosexual, because they prefer to play with boys instead of with girls. Preference of company is not the issue. Loving (agape) persons of the same sex, is not the issue. The proper terms are "men lying with men" and Sodomite. If you describe precisely the abominable practice, you will probably find yourself censored here. But it is by describing precisely what is done that the abomination appears. Fornication comes in many varieties, and it is a sin characteristic of heading to the Lake of Fire.

A word can only have one meaning? And why do you get to decide who uses it and in what context? I think you are taking a little too much on yourself there. Using the word "gay" does not mean that anyone is advancing some form of homosexual propaganda. That assertion is ridiculous. It is not necessary to brand homosexuals as sodomites every time the subject is discussed. In a forum such as this, when the word "gay" is used, people are quite familiar with the term, what it means, and the actions it denotes. IMHO: I don't mean to insinuate that the poster of the topic meant to advance the sodomist agenda. But I do call attention to the importance of the vocabulary we use. The sodomist wants to use a certain vocabulary to advance his ends (gay & homophobe). The vocabulary is important in the cultural war. As to "homosexual," that is another confusing term, which should be avoided. One should not oppose the idea that some men prefer the company of their own sex -- that is not an issue. To keep the issue in proper focus requires Biblical terms. The issue regarding men is "men lying with men" and behavior typical of the city of Sodom. To call them gay is a misnomer.