Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You wrote:
Indeed he would.
Oh good.What she meant is exactly the same as what you quoted.
Oh dear. That dear old steam Bible. So dearly loved and grasped at- like a straw.
Both should be treated with suspicion, at best. Shellfish bought in an open market in a hot country? No, thank you.
Oh dear. That dear old steam Bible. So dearly loved and grasped at- like a straw.
What it means is this: "Don't find fault, and criticise, otherwise fault may be found in you."
It does not mean, unfortunately for those with guilty consciences who wish to evade scrutiny, that moral judgments are to be suspended. Which is obvious, for those who can allow their eyes to stray beyond that ickle verse in Matthew.
Homosexuality is sinful, if the Bible God is as claimed. So either accept it, prove he is not as claimed, which has never yet been achieved, or go fishing.
Not that many. Methodists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others permit both homosexuals and divorcees. Baptists and Brethren tend to exclude both.
I see the hypocrisy of the CoE, that allows incumbents, even senior clerics, to be homosexual, but not bishops.
I haven't seen dancing this good on "Dancing With the Stars..."Oh dear. That dear old steam Bible. So dearly loved and grasped at- like a straw.
What it means is this: "Don't find fault, and criticise, otherwise fault may be found in you."
It does not mean, unfortunately for those with guilty consciences who wish to evade scrutiny, that moral judgments are to be suspended. Which is obvious, for those who can allow their eyes to stray beyond that ickle verse in Matthew.
Homosexuality is sinful, if the Bible God is as claimed. So either accept it, prove he is not as claimed, which has never yet been achieved, or go fishing.
Then why do you quote them as if they were "for Americans, in America, at the time that they lived there?" If your position here is correct, what difference would either Leviticus or Paul have for post-modern Americans??? (BTW "the Gospel" mentions homosexuality not one single time... Just FYI...)
I don't. There have never been instructions for Americans, native or otherwise, to sacrifice bulls and goats etc., to Jehovah. Afaik, anyway.
Leviticus confirms the sinfulness of Sodom and Gomorrah (if that needs confirming); Paul and Peter confirm the the same thing. (What 'post-modern' signifies, heaven only knows!)
Even if that were true, the CoE takes account of the whole Bible.
'You will find that many Southern Baptists believe that once you are divorced you should never marry again or hold a leadership position in the church.'
You're in deep **** no matter how you word it.
Let's suppose that homosexuality is sinful. So what? If homosexuals cannot be Christians, then you cannot be a Christian, either. Lying and hypocrisy are sinful, and yet you don't think being a habitual and unrepentant liar and hypocrite excludes you from the church -- and that is, unsurprisingly, yet another example of your hypocrisy.Homosexuality is sinful, if the Bible God is as claimed. So either accept it, prove he is not as claimed, which has never yet been achieved, or go fishing.
Actually his last example.
Beside the point. You're evading. You said that Levitican law pertained only to ancient Hebrews. My point was that, if that's the case, why do you spout Leviticus in defense of your position that homosexuality is wrong for post-modern American bishops?
The overriding sin of Sodom wasn't its sexual depravity -- it was its gross neglect of hospitality.
The gross neglect of hospitality? OK.
But you specified "Gospel" -- not "the whole Bible."
