Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

[Panache]

Now you are just being ridicules. You put out the definition and just ignore the sexual aspect as listed in every single one.

I didn't ignore the sexual aspect. Adultery certainly has a sexual element to it, but it also has an element of infidelity to it. Both elements are required in order for it to be adultery. Just having the sexual element without the infidelity doesn't make it adultery. Also, the sexual element does not necessarily mean sexual intercourse. Lust, for example, has a sexual element, but does not involve intercourse.

You are claiming that sexual intercourse is still adultery even if it does not involve infidelity. You are the one ignoring obvious aspects of the definition.

If I say that flour is required to make a cake, it doesn't mean that I am denying that eggs are also required. I am saying that an omelette is not a cake, even though it contains eggs, because it does not contain flour.

Also we are done. You claim to talk to God, your opinion is no longer valid on anything as far as i am concerned.

Yeah, I claim to talk to God. It's called prayer. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Have a nice day.

I shall.

 

[Black Dog]

I didn't ignore the sexual aspect. Adultery certainly has a sexual element to it, but it also has an element of infidelity to it. Both elements are required in order for it to be adultery. Just having the sexual element without the infidelity doesn't make it adultery. Also, the sexual element does not necessarily mean sexual intercourse. Lust, for example, has a sexual element, but does not involve intercourse.

And the lust aspect was added later. Everyone but you seem to ignore it means sexual intercourse with other than your lawful spouse.

You are claiming that sexual intercourse is still adultery even if it does not involve infidelity. You are the one ignoring obvious aspects of the definition.

I am not claiming that as that would be fornication, which is also a sin.

If I say that flour is required to make a cake, it doesn't mean that I am denying that eggs are also required. I am saying that an omelette is not a cake, even though it contains eggs, because it does not contain flour.

Sex outside of marriage be it fornication, adultery or homosexual is a sin. Since same sex couples cannot marry, it is a sin no matter how you try and twist it. End of argument.

Yeah, I claim to talk to God. It's called prayer. Don't knock it till you've tried it.

No. You claimed " She appears to to me." Which is probably a sign of some kind of drug or alcohol abuse, maybe even mental problems, but not prayer.

 

[OscarB63]

You can't edit posts without leaving a time stamp.

yes you can, if you catch it quick enough. I have done so on many occasions to correct a typo

 

[Wake]

Why do we talk of adultery on a thread about homosexuality? I can understand it being brought up to refer homosexuality to other forms of sexual immorality, but not a totally new debate/tangent about adultery.

 

[Panache]

And the lust aspect was added later. Everyone but you seem to ignore it means sexual intercourse with other than your lawful spouse.

No. The lust aspect was always there. Jesus told folk that if you looked at a woman to lust after her, you had already committed adultery with her in your heart. He said this before the crucifixion, which means that lust was already a sin under the Old Covenant. It means infidelity. It means breaking the marriage covenant you entered into with your spouse. It means betrayal. No infidelity means no adultery.

I am not claiming that as that would be fornication, which is also a sin.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what you are claiming. Look what you just posted in your very last sentence:

"it means sexual intercourse with other than your lawful spouse."

Now you are claiming that swingers are committing fornication rather than adultery? And you are going to pretend that this has been your position from the start?

Sex outside of marriage be it fornication, adultery or homosexual is a sin. Since same sex couples cannot marry, it is a sin no matter how you try and twist it. End of argument.

First of all, same sex couples can get married, so that part of your argument obviously fails.

Secondly, if sex outside of marriage occurs without breaking the Golden Rule, then it is not a sin. In the case of adultery, it is a sin to betray someone when you wouldn't want them to betray you. In the case of fornication. That is a translation of the word "porniea" which means "illicit sex." Illicit means "not allowed by law," and since the Golden Rule is the sum of the law, porniea as it appears in the Bible means "sex that breaks the Golden Rule."

Homosexuality just isn't a sin.

No. You claimed " She appears to to me." Which is probably a sign of some kind of drug or alcohol abuse, maybe even mental problems, but not prayer.

That seems a bit out of context doesn't it?

 

[Panache]

Why do we talk of adultery on a thread about homosexuality? I can understand it being brought up to refer homosexuality to other forms of sexual immorality, but not a totally new debate/tangent about adultery.

To summarize, I claim that every sin must break the Golden Rule (Matt 7:12) in order to actually be a sin, since Jesus as said that the Golden Rule is to be applied in every situation, and that it is the sum of all the laws and all the prophets.

Homosexuality fails this test, and therefore there is no reason to think it is sin, and every reason to think it is not. Particularly as Jesus Himself never mentions homosexuality anywhere in the Bible.

Blackdog claims (as I understand his argument) that adultery also fails this test, because swingers have sex outside of marriage without breaking the Golden Rule, and Jesus specifically mentions adultery as a sin. Therefore he claims I must be misapplying the Golden Rule.

I on the other hand claim that adultery is dependent upon the concept of marital infidelity (betraying the marriage covenant) and that sex outside of marriage when absent the element of betrayal (as would be the case with consenting swingers) is therefore not adultery at all. Real adultery always breaks the Golden Rule through the act of betrayal. (Its a sin to betray your spouse, because you wouldn't want your spouse to betray you.)

We can't argue what Jesus meant when He talked about homosexuality, since He never talked about homosexuality, so we are debating what He meant when He talked about adultery in its place, since the core argument is the same. I think the concept of sin is logically derived from the concepts of love and reciprocity (which incidentally sum up the entire law.) Blackdog seems to think that sin arbitrarily designated by God with no apparent rhyme, reason or consistency. That is really the crux of the argument in my opinion.

 

[Black Dog]

No. The lust aspect was always there. Jesus told folk that if you looked at a woman to lust after her, you had already committed adultery with her in your heart. He said this before the crucifixion, which means that lust was already a sin under the Old Covenant.

Yees and no. Yes it was part of the old covanent, but it was also part of the new covanent.

It means infidelity. It means breaking the marriage covenant you entered into with your spouse. It means betrayal. No infidelity means no adultery.

Sexual intercourse between someone and other than there spouse is adultery. This is the literal interpretation as I have shown. Figuratively it can also mean just betrayal.

adulterer
Someone who commits adultery or fornication (sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other).
The word fornication had a less than socially respectable beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. From Old French fornication, from Late Latin fornicationem (fornicatio), from fornicari "fornicate", from Latin fornix, "brothel"; originally "arch, vaulted chamber"; from fornus "oven of arched or domed shape".
Roman prostitutes commonly solicited customers from under the arches of certain buildings. So, fornication means, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman"; extended in the Bible as adultery. - alter- + (Latin: different, other, another; to change)

The Greek word used in the New Testament for an adulterer is moichos (adultery is mocheia) and it refers to someone who is married but having sexual intercourse with someone other than his or her spouse. In the Old Testament, and in both the secular Greek and Roman worlds, the definition of adultery was different. In the Old Testament, “adultery” properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. “The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery.” - Truth Or Tradition - What does Bible say about adultery [mocheia]? A serious sin in God's eyes

The act of unfaithfulness in marriage that occurs when one of the marriage partners voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex other than the marriage partner. - Adultery, Adulterous, Unfaithfulness - Marriage Relationship - Illicit Sexual Intercourse, Sex

Each and every religious site says the same thing. You are trying to redefine the meaning of the word to have just one meaning and it does not fit.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what you are claiming. Look what you just posted in your very last sentence:

"it means sexual intercourse with other than your lawful spouse." You are trying to take what can be an aspect and make it the definition.

Now you are claiming that swingers are committing fornication rather than adultery? And you are going to pretend that this has been your position from the start?

Don't play stupid. You know exactly what I said. :doh

First of all, same sex couples can get married, so that part of your argument obviously fails.

No they can't according to scripture. period. If you have sexual intercourse before marriage it is fornication, a sin. Not to mention homosexuality itself is a sin.

Secondly, if sex outside of marriage occurs without breaking the Golden Rule, then it is not a sin.

According to you, and you alone. You have posted no proof it is otherwise. I mean I know you can't anyway, so oh well.

In the case of adultery, it is a sin to betray someone when you wouldn't want them to betray you. In the case of fornication. That is a translation of the word "porniea" which means "illicit sex." Illicit means "not allowed by law," and since the Golden Rule is the sum of the law, porniea as it appears in the Bible means "sex that breaks the Golden Rule."

Homosexuality just isn't a sin.

According to the major religions of the world, the vast majority of biblical scholars and even linguists, it is indeed a sin.

That seems a bit out of context doesn't it?

It fits right in with your perception of reality.

Not only did you claim God is female, but that she comes to you in a literal sense.

So again I say your arguments are way off and you are literally trying to preach a false doctrine. You are breaking the greatest commandment and worshiping a false God according to the Bible.

 

[Panache]

Yees and no. Yes it was part of the old covanent, but it was also part of the new covanent.

Therefore it wasn't added later as it had been there previously. Checkmate.

Sexual intercourse between someone and other than there spouse is adultery. This is the literal interpretation as I have shown. Figuratively it can also mean just betrayal...

...Each and every religious site says the same thing. You are trying to redefine the meaning of the word to have just one meaning and it does not fit.

Yeah right. The religious sites you posted from don't even say the same thing:

"In the Old Testament, “adultery” properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. “The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery.”

According to this definition, it isn't adultery for a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman. It is only adultery when married women have sex with someone other than their husband. It is adultery on the part of the man who has sex with a married woman as well.

The act of unfaithfulness in marriage that occurs when one of the marriage partners voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex other than the marriage partner.

This definition (which you posted) agrees with my definition, since it is the unfaithfulness that makes it adultery. If one of the marriage partners engages in sex with someone other than the other marriage partner, but does so faithfully, then the act of unfaithfulness has not occurred.

Even assuming that this definition is claiming that any sex between a marriage partner and someone outside the marriage is adultery (which it isn't) it still wouldn't agree with your previous definition which says that in the Old Testament, adultery only applied to married women, and not to married men.

Don't play stupid. You know exactly what I said. :doh

I know what you said before. You said that it was adultery for married folk to have sex with someone they aren't married to. Now you seem to say that if married folk have sex with someone they aren't married to, it isn't adultery if there is no infidelity, but is fornication instead. Which is it?

No they can't according to scripture. period. If you have sexual intercourse before marriage it is fornication, a sin. Not to mention homosexuality itself is a sin.

Sexual intercourse before marriage isn't illicit unless it breaks the Law. It has yet to be demonstrated how sex before marriage in any way breaks the Law.

According to you, and you alone. You have posted no proof it is otherwise. I mean I know you can't anyway, so oh well.

Jesus claims that the Golden Rule summarizes every law. Since you cannot demonstrate how it summarizes this supposed law not to be gay, there is no reason to think it is a sin.

According to the major religions of the world, the vast majority of biblical scholars and even linguists, it is indeed a sin.

Thats fine. They can be deceived if they like. It isn't a sin according to God, so I'm going to go with Him on this one.

It fits right in with your perception of reality.

Not only did you claim God is female, but that she comes to you in a literal sense.

I don't believe that God is limited by gender. He encompasses both the masculine and the feminine. Men and women were both made in His image.
So again I say your arguments are way off and you are literally trying to preach a false doctrine. You are breaking the greatest commandment and worshiping a false God according to the Bible.

 

[Black Dog]

I don't believe that God is limited by gender. He encompasses both the masculine and the feminine. Men and women were both made in His image.

This again is not what you said. You said God is a she. Stop twisting, it is a lie yet again.

So again I say your arguments are way off and you are literally trying to preach a false doctrine. You are breaking the greatest commandment and worshiping a false God according to the Bible.

Does not work. My arguments are biblically sound. I am also not breaking love God above all things, does not apply. So trying to use my comment is just more blasphemy and false doctrine from a guy who claims that God appears to him. :lol:

 

[Paschendale]

The world would be an awful place if all we had was married, heterosexual sex for the purpose of making babies...

Basically, this discussion boils down to two arguments. One side has their firm conclusion and uses scripture to back it up. The other side points out holes in the scripture, or fallacies in believing in scripture in the first place. The first side sticks its fingers in its ears and refuses to listen.

If you make your conclusions based on a broad spectrum of facts, ideologies, and cultures, the pro-gay marriage side has the upper hand, by a wide margin. If, on the other hand, you only support your own culture to the detriment of others, then the truth doesn't matter.

I don't honestly mean this to deride anyone's beliefs, but the argument really is pretty one-sided. Most cultures in the world do not square with the strict Christianity espoused by some people in the US. There is no universal condemnation of homosexuality. More educated and civilized cultures overwhelmingly side with tolerance and openness. The progressive and liberal thought that created the modern era (and the US especially) strongly favors equality.

The argument is simple. Someone else's legal protections do not infringe on yours. There is no ethical way to harm someone to this extent. Even biblical commandments go beyond the edicts to "avoid sin". God also said to perform acts of charity and kindness. Bringing joy and satisfaction to other people, especially when it doesn't cost you anything, is an easy act of kindness. That's what Jesus would do.

 

[Black Dog]

The world would be an awful place if all we had was married, heterosexual sex for the purpose of making babies...

Even the Bible does not say this. It does say it is for married couples. Imagine a world without all the illegitimate and fatherless children. Or orphans put up for adoption by single mothers.

Basically, this discussion boils down to two arguments. One side has their firm conclusion and uses scripture to back it up. The other side points out holes in the scripture, or fallacies in believing in scripture in the first place. The first side sticks its fingers in its ears and refuses to listen.

Talk about putting fingers in the ears. He is not pointing out holes, he is trying desperately to redefine the meaning of the words so they no longer apply.

Then he says God appears to him. And I am the one putting fingers in my ears? :lol:

If you make your conclusions based on a broad spectrum of facts, ideologies, and cultures, the pro-gay marriage side has the upper hand, by a wide margin. If, on the other hand, you only support your own culture to the detriment of others, then the truth doesn't matter.

Do you think bull fighting is OK? Do you think eating dogs is OK? Rejecting the ideals of another culture has nothing to do with "truth." It has to do with everyones subjective morals.

I don't honestly mean this to deride anyone's beliefs, but the argument really is pretty one-sided. Most cultures in the world do not square with the strict Christianity espoused by some people in the US. There is no universal condemnation of homosexuality. More educated and civilized cultures overwhelmingly side with tolerance and openness. The progressive and liberal thought that created the modern era (and the US especially) strongly favors equality.

And the massive amount of discord and problems that come with it. Liberal thinking is what is ruining this country. It has given us such wonderful things like welfare and a public school system failing on every level. It has given us moral decay and the failure of the modern marriage among other things.

And please post some evidence of these "More educated and civilized cultures overwhelmingly side with tolerance and openness."

The argument is simple. Someone else's legal protections do not infringe on yours. There is no ethical way to harm someone to this extent. Even biblical commandments go beyond the edicts to "avoid sin". God also said to perform acts of charity and kindness. Bringing joy and satisfaction to other people, especially when it doesn't cost you anything, is an easy act of kindness. That's what Jesus would do.

I agree with most of this. Acts of charity though do not include saying one of Gods commandments is OK to break.

And it's funny, you end with the ever popular "what would Jesus do." Answering this question requires one to know the person, how they act, how they react, and have all the information they have. I doubt you qualify. If you look in the Bible though, he would tell you lovingly to "go and sin no more."

 

[Panache]

This again is not what you said. You said God is a she. Stop twisting, it is a lie yet again.

Where did I ever say that God wasn't also a He?

Your argument here is ridiculous. It's like saying that because Jesus was God, He couldn't have been a man. If God encompasses both the masculine and the feminine, then it is equally valid to refer to Him in either sense.

Does not work. My arguments are biblically sound.

They so are not. According to Mosaic law, it was a sin to touch a leper. Jesus touched a leper. You claim that Jesus always followed Mosaic law. Instafail.

I am also not breaking love God above all things, does not apply. So trying to use my comment is just more blasphemy and false doctrine from a guy who claims that God appears to him. :lol:

I'm sorry you've never personally experienced God. Maybe someday you will have a transcendent experience. You have taken this thing way out of context and blown it out of proportion. I'm not even sure where you got it from. It isn't even relevant to this thread.

 

[Panache]

And it's funny, you end with the ever popular "what would Jesus do." Answering this question requires one to know the person, how they act, how they react, and have all the information they have. I doubt you qualify. If you look in the Bible though, he would tell you lovingly to "go and sin no more."

He only says that to people who break the Golden Rule. When people say something is a sin even though it doesn't hurt anyone, as would be the case here, He has quite different things to say. Let's ask Him shall we?

Panache: Hey Jesus, does it defile a man if he puts another man's penis in his mouth?

Jesus: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matt 15:11)

Panache: Wait, so it isn't a sin to put the penis in the mouth, but it is a sin to take it back out again?

Jesus: "out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man" (Matt 15:19)

Panache: Is the law absolute? Or is it ok to break the letter of the law in order to follow the Spirit, which is love?

Jesus: "Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" (Mark 2:25-26)

Panache: So if for example, a single mother was told by her boss that she had to come in and work on Saturday or she would lose her job, and she needed her job in order to provide for her child, is it ok for her to break the fourth commandment out of love for her child?

Jesus: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27)

Panache: If two men would have each other be intimate with them, how should they behave toward each other?

Jesus: "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matt 7:12)

Panache: Surely you mean that is part of the law and the prophets, maybe a small fraction of the law and the prophets, and that we should follow it only if it doesn't interfere with other more important things, like not working on Saturdays and not eating bacon, and not having sex with other men...

Jesus: "ALL things WHATSOEVER ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this IS the law and the prophets." (Matt 7:12)

 

[Black Dog]

Where did I ever say that God wasn't also a He?

You said "She appears to me" in no uncertain terms. So, either you are crazy or have something else going on. Either way you have lied twice about it so far. Be a man, and man up.

Your argument here is ridiculous. It's like saying that because Jesus was God, He couldn't have been a man. If God encompasses both the masculine and the feminine, then it is equally valid to refer to Him in either sense.

God created man in his own image. Eve was created from man. Any questions?

They so are not. According to Mosaic law, it was a sin to touch a leper. Jesus touched a leper. You claim that Jesus always followed Mosaic law. Instafail.

Since when is God bound by the Mosaic law? Or any other law for that matter? The Bible does not say he is?

I'm sorry you've never personally experienced God.

OK, you are gone at this point.

Maybe someday you will have a transcendent experience.

And maybe someday you will stop doing mushrooms and acid. :lol:

You have taken this thing way out of context and blown it out of proportion. I'm not even sure where you got it from. It isn't even relevant to this thread.

Dude! You said God appears to you. I am sorry, God has not appeared to any one in a very long time. Well maybe a few serial killers, but no profits are alive today at all.

She appears to to me. If you truly loved God, you would want to follow His commandments. The greatest of which is to love God, which is redundant.

- http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...elieve-being-gay-wrong-59.html#post1059105175

Ok what ever you say. :shock:

 

[Black Dog]

He only says that to people who break the Golden Rule. When people say something is a sin even though it doesn't hurt anyone, as would be the case here, He has quite different things to say. Let's ask Him shall we?

Panache: Hey Jesus, does it defile a man if he puts another man's penis in his mouth?

Jesus: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." (Matt 15:11)

He was talking about earthly tradition...

Matthew 15: 1-9 1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Amazing how clear things are in context.

Panache: Wait, so it isn't a sin to put the penis in the mouth, but it is a sin to take it back out again?

Only to someon who wants to quote things out of context. :lol:

Jesus: "out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man" (Matt 15:19)

So he is saying evil thoughts come from the mind of man. So what? It's true.

Panache: Is the law absolute? Or is it ok to break the letter of the law in order to follow the Spirit, which is love?

Jesus: "Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" (Mark 2:25-26)

Why are you leaving out the entire context of what he is saying. To preach a false doctrine?

23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Does not support your argument at all.

Panache: So if for example, a single mother was told by her boss that she had to come in and work on Saturday or she would lose her job, and she needed her job in order to provide for her child, is it ok for her to break the fourth commandment out of love for her child?

No. That is why Jesus died for us. She can be forgiven.

Jesus: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27)

One line out of context does not a lesson make.

Panache: If two men would have each other be intimate with them, how should they behave toward each other?

Jesus: "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matt 7:12)

WOW! That is not what he ment.

Matt 7:9-12 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

He is talking about giving good things, not immoral things. He is not saying fornicate, commit adultery or have homosexual relations.

Panache: Surely you mean that is part of the law and the prophets, maybe a small fraction of the law and the prophets, and that we should follow it only if it doesn't interfere with other more important things, like not working on Saturdays and not eating bacon, and not having sex with other men...

No.

Jesus: "ALL things WHATSOEVER ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this IS the law and the prophets." (Matt 7:12)

This means little coming from someone who thinks immorality is OK with God.

 

[Panache]

You said "She appears to me" ... blah blah blah... something about mushrooms and acid... blah blah blah...

- http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...elieve-being-gay-wrong-59.html#post1059105175

Ok what ever you say. :shock:

Ok. This little game has gone on long enough. First of all, I didn't say "She appears to me." What I said was "She appears to to me."

Look at the post I was responding to:

If you truly loved God above all things you would want to follow his commandments etc. You don't appear to.

This post of yours was directed at roguenuke, who is in fact a female. You said she didn't appear to want to follow God's commandments. I said she did appear to want to follow God's commandments. I can't believe you have continued with this dishonest representation of what I was saying for so long.

 

[Panache]

He was talking about earthly tradition...

Matthew 15: 1-9 1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Amazing how clear things are in context.

To most of us anyways. You still can't see that He is saying that random traditions about things like dietary restrictions (such as can be found in the book of Leviticus) are not God's law, much though the church might have you believe otherwise. Honoring one's Mother and Father is about love and reciprocity, which is God's law.

Lets look at the context some more shall we?

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

20These are the things which defile a man

Jesus clearly thinks that sin is not about what you put into your mouth, but rather about having an unrighteous heart which seeks evil rather than love.

Only to someone who wants to quote things out of context. :lol:

You are the one ignoring context here. Amazing how when Jesus says that in the beginning they were made male and female, in the context of saying that men shouldn't divorce their wives, you broadly interpret it to mean that homosexuality is a sin, yet when Jesus says that what goes into the mouth of a man does not defile him, you narrowly interpret it to mean only with regards to the tradition of washing one's hands to which He was immediately applying it in the context.

So he is saying evil thoughts come from the mind of man. So what? It's true.

So, in context, He was saying that breaking silly rules like "don't eat this kind of food" and "don't have sex with these kind of people" are not what defiles a man, but rather evil thoughts which come out of the heart and cause people to treat others in a way they would not want to be treated defile a man.

Why are you leaving out the entire context of what he is saying. To preach a false doctrine?

23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Does not support your argument at all.

How can you post something that completely supports my argument, and pretend like it doesn't?

Read the passage you posted. Jesus and his buddies were gathering food on the Sabbath. Gathering food was explicitly listed in the Bible as something that God's chosen people were prohibited from doing on the Sabbath.

"See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." -Exodus 16:29

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. -Exodus 35:2

Even lighting a fire to stay warm was considered too much work to do on Sabbath, and the penalty was death.

Why do you think Jesus told the story, if not to show how even though they were doing something unlawful, there was historical precedent for unlawful behavior being morally acceptable?

No. That is why Jesus died for us. She can be forgiven.

She hasn't sinned anymore than Jesus and His buddies gathering food, or Jesus healing the woman on the Sabbath. No forgiveness is needed for taking care of one's children.

One line out of context does not a lesson make.

Explain to me what sort of twisted context you think I took that line out of. Anyone with the reading comprehension skills of a second grader could see that the entire point of the story there was that folks shouldn't take that Sabbath business so seriously.

The example with David taking the shewbread was obviously intended to illustrate that it was ok for him to do something unlawful in order to take care of himself and his companions.

Saying that Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath was clearly meant to say that people should not suffer for the sake of the Sabbath, when the entire point of the Sabbath was to give people a break from the daily grind.

I can't even imagine how you interpreted that passage.

WOW! That is not what he ment.

Maybe not, but it is what He meant.

Matt 7:9-12 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

He is talking about giving good things, not immoral things. He is not saying fornicate, commit adultery or have homosexual relations.

He is saying exactly what He said.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

You claim that what He really meant was "So in giving good things to other people, give to others what you would have them give to you, for this sums up the portion of the Law and the Prophets that concerns gift-giving."

Do you think He just misspoke? He wasn't just concluding a discussion on how good God's gifts to us will be. Look at the context. He was talking about reciprocity all along:
"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you"
"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Obviously He wasn't just talking about giving good gifts. He was talking about Judging the way you want to be judged, forgiving the way you want to be forgiven, loving the way you want to be loved, etc...

The entire law is built around treating people the way you want to be treated. Being faithful to your wife the way you want her to be faithful to you, not murdering people the way you want them not to murder you, not stealing from people the way you don't want them to steal from you, respecting people the way you want them to respect you, honoring your parents the way you want them to honor you, not bearing false witness against your neighbors even as you don't want them bearing false witness against you, dealing honestly with your neighbors the way you want them dealing honestly with you, etc...

You can't brush away the most important line in the Bible by saying "oh, He was just talking about giving good gifts, He didn't really mean for us to apply that rule "in everything" like He said.

No.

This means little coming from someone who thinks immorality is OK with God.

Well, I certainly don't think that immorality is okay with God, so I don't see how that statement is relevant.

 

[Panache]

Since when is God bound by the Mosaic law? Or any other law for that matter? The Bible does not say he is?

These were your exact words:

Jesus did always follow mosaic law and says so...

Post number 480 on page 48 of this very thread.

 

[Black Dog]

These were your exact words:

Post number 480 on page 48 of this very thread.

Hmmmm I learned something new. "following" and "bound" mean the same thing.

 

[topshelf]

I don't think I would have as much problem with gays if they weren't coming at my family 97 miles an hour all the time with their pro-gay propaganda.

 

[Gardener]

I don't think I would have as much problem with gays if they weren't coming at my family 97 miles an hour all the time with their pro-gay propaganda.

That fast, huh?

About the only thing I know of that flies faster is a bible that is thumped too hard.

 

[topshelf]

That fast, huh?

About the only thing I know of that flies faster is a bible that is thumped too hard.

We turn the thumpers away at the door just like we do the gay recruiters.

 

[Gardener]

We turn the thumpers away at the door just like we do the gay recruiters.

but they look like such nice boys.

 

[topshelf]

but they look like such nice boys.

Yeah but where are their merit badges?

 

[Paschendale]

What exactly is "pro-gay propaganda"? The things I generally hear are "please stop murdering us" and "please stop making us second class citizens". That's a lot nicer than "you have to think exactly the way I do or else you deserve to be tortured for eternity in a pit of fire".