Pah
Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker said:
"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." Jude 7
Where is the word "homosexual". Don't suppose it is there show it to me.
Where is the word "homosexual". Don't suppose it is there show it to me.Genesis 13 only mentions Sodom in passing saying, "But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD." I don't know why you singled out that reference of Sodom among the numerous ones found throughout Scripture.
Sodom had a righteous man until the decision to destroy the city was made and then he and his family was warned to leave. His daughters, by the way, should have been kept behind for they showed their unrighteousness later.Sodom was destroyed as an example, because there was not a single righteous person in the city (see Gen. 18-19). The Judges instance which occurred in Gibeah was a one-time event; it does not necesarily characterize the actions or attitudes of the city of Gibeah as a whole.
You just made a conclusion regarding Gibeah that is not supported by scripture. It is this flagrant misuse of apologetics that rankles. Gibeah became the "poster boy" of unrighteousness when the pieces of the concubine were sent to the tribes. Yet all that city suffered was shame.
.Numbers of people beliveing something do not provide proof of it being wrong - they do not have truth in "numbers". It is a formal fallacy you make here.You're talking as though only Christians like myself oppose gay marraige. On the contrary, lots of people oppose gay marraige
What aspect would that be? It is a legal issue - it IS prompted by specific religious thought.I once spoke to an ardent atheist who opposed it. Changing the legal definition of marraige in the US to incorporate same-sex unions is a legal issue here as much as it is a religious/moral one, and for you to try to claim that me opposing gay marraige is "forcing my religion on you" ignores an entire aspect of the issue.
Yes, I would. It goes against nature, the nature of evolution.I also oppose adultery on religious grounds, but I don't suppose you would consider my support of making laws against adultery "forcing my religion on you", would you?
Yes it does. If contaceptives were remove from legal use by the work of the Catholic Church, it would be messing with my life and for religious reasons.The fact that my opinions in a democratic society where my voice can be heard, are formed based on religious convictions of mine, does not mean that if my voice is the majority that I am "forcing my religion on you",
The time has come for them to change just as the laws of contraception, slavery, suppression of women, and adultry have changed. It is time to repair the wall of separation that gives you the freedom to worship as you see fit - a personal freedom and not in the public square.it simply means my views happen to be the accepted legal position at the time.
I am favorablly impressed when articles of faith are held strongly. Strongly held codes of conduct are good. The problem is why do so many want to force their codes, their faith on the rest of the country. It has no scriptual basis. It has no Constitutional basis. It shows a mistrust of the congregation by the earthly powers of the faith. It is a weakness of faith to require secular enforcement of a private, individual morality of faithAs for weakness in my faith, I'm not out to impress you; you may think whatever you want about my faith. If you consider taking a stand aganst something immoral to be "weakness", then so be it.
I say. You have yet to tell us and cite scholastic authority in the other thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30983 "Homosexual practises in Biblical days" that the practises are the same.Says who?
I'm certainly glad that the justifications for slavery were ignored before you were born. It is ignorance and a failure to see the message of love that keeps you (plural) in the darknes of hating homosexuality.
Not really. The Church, as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), has been doing the same thing for 2,000 years. I am simply following suit as a member of the Church.
Which ones are you talking about? Which practices? When a practise is not condemned it is approved/condoned. You must first show that today's practices are abominable.The fact that God loves everyone does not mean He condones everyone's acts. He loves us in spite of our sin, but that doesn't make us any less sinful. I never claimed homosexuality needed my personal approval, I don't know where you got that idea. We are discussing what God's Word says about the issue, which by implication means we're discussing whether God approves of it or not. You have yet to provide adequate interpretation (if any at all, in some cases) of the verses in question, where the Bible somehow condones homosexual acts.