Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

[Catz Part Deux]

Personally I think there is a logical basis. Jesus described the law and the prophets solely in terms of love and reciprocity. Love God with your heart, mind and soul, love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you want to be treated. That sums up the whole thing. Just learn to fill your heart with love and everything will be dandy. That was Jesus' philosophy.

All this nonsense about homosexuality being a sin is just the devil trying to cause dissension among God's children. If gay dudes love with each other, then they live in God and God in them.

Thanks for saying this stuff so much better than I did.

 

[Gardener]

Paul's opinion as I highlighted was his and his alone, not God's. As you try and make it sound.

Yet in earlier statements, you claimed Paul spoke for Jesus.

Is it just a matter of convenience to your arguments whether Paul is speaking just for Paul, or whether he speaks for God?

 

[Black Dog]

In fact, going all the way back to the OP, the original contention in the thread was that there seems to be no logical basis for treating homosexuality as a sin. (as opposed to things like theft and murder, which have an obvious derivation from the golden rule upon which Jesus claims all the law and all the prophets are based.)

My point was that logical consistency has not traditionally been associated with the religion, given that menstruation was a sin, along with collecting firewood on Saturdays and wearing wool with linen, etc... in the Old Covenant, so there is little reason to expect any logical basis for morality in the New Covenant either.

Jesus upheld the authority and applicability of the Law of Moses. In fact He interpreted Moses in a manner which intensified the demands of the Law.

Personally I think there is a logical basis. Jesus described the law and the prophets solely in terms of love and reciprocity. Love God with your heart, mind and soul, love your neighbor as yourself, treat others as you want to be treated. That sums up the whole thing. Just learn to fill your heart with love and everything will be dandy. That was Jesus' philosophy.

And yet he held during that time strictly to the law of Moses. He even pointed out he did not come to change it, but fulfill it's prophecy's.

All this nonsense about homosexuality being a sin is just the devil trying to cause dissension among God's children. If gay dudes love with each other, then they live in God and God in them.

The four Gospels contain no specific statement by Jesus about homosexuals. There is however more than enough evidence from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John alone to conclude that the only form of sexual behavior Jesus endorsed was limited to the married state, period.

Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; but God will judge fornicators and adulterers."

If you can't demonstrate how homosexuality breaks the golden rule, I don't see how you have a case at all. You are just believing a bunch of stuff Paul said over a bunch of stuff Jesus said. Last I checked, Jesus outranked Paul.

Jesus made no direct comments about homosexuality, Paul did.

No outrank or over anyone here.

 

[Black Dog]

Yet in earlier statements, you claimed Paul spoke for Jesus.

Is it just a matter of convenience to your arguments whether Paul is speaking just for Paul, or whether he speaks for God?

He does. How many times do I have to repeat that....

Paul went through great trouble to say what was his opinion and what was Gods law.

 

[winston53660]

Thanxs guys for reminding why I left religion altogether.

 

[Black Dog]

OK. I agree that Paul's opinions have nothing to do with God's opinions. In fact, I think Paul's opinions are completely off base a lot of the time. I assumed Christian folk would agree with Paul's opinions because most of them do. Glad to hear that you don't.

Because we know the difference does not mean I necessarily disagree.

Don't assume anything.

OK. Paul didn't know what he was talking about. We can just agree to agree on this point.

And somehow you know what ws better for the society he lived in? You went back in time or something?

His opinions were for his church as in letters he had written. I doubt he expected his letters to end up cannon. This does not change his authority when speaking about Gods law.

Technically, He states the following assertions:

1. Humans were made male and female
2. Because of this a man will leave his mom and dad, and be united with his wife.
3. The man and wife will become one flesh
4. People shouldn't separate what God has brought together.

The man and his wife could become one flesh one night, and the man could become one flesh with another of his wives the next night without negating any of these assertions. In fact there is absolute proof that polygamy was not regarded as a sin in the Bible:

So you are willing to do an end run around the law "technically" and just ignore the spirit of the law?

David had many wives before Uriah the Hittite even came in the picture. Since David had not sinned his entire life up till that point, marrying his second wife was not a sin.

So much for the "marriage is only ever between 1 man 1 woman" theory.

You must be kidding?

"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Oh wait, this is the law that you want to do an end run around.

True, He did say that the ORIGINAL DESIGN was one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) but He did not say that that was the ONLY sinless permutation of romance in the world. In fact, His point was completely unrelated to Homosexuality, and makes complete sense with regard to His philosophy of love and reciprocity. His point was that you shouldn't get rid of your wife and replace her with a newer model once she starts to get wrinkly.

Since the law does not state or recognize any other union it is safe to say, you are correct and very wrong at the same time.

No, no other union is mentioned or ordained save a man and woman. Anything else is morally wrong and a sin, period.

Yes, it was so people could not just put away your WIFE for any reason.

What I think He means by "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given" is that not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. It seems obvious to me that gay people would fall under the category of people who can't accept that particular word.

And this puts them squarely in danger of separation from God and hellfire.

Yes it is pretty simple.

 

[Gardener]

He does. How many times do I have to repeat that....

Paul went through great trouble to say what was his opinion and what was Gods law.

So, some guy who has been persecuting those who follow Jesus waits until Jesus has been killed, sees any opportunity to create a power base and then claims to sometimes speak for God and sometimes not, often contradicting Jesus in the process.

and we should follow such an opportunist, why? Why not just read the red letters and go with that, instead?

 

[Black Dog]

So, some guy who has been persecuting those who follow Jesus waits until Jesus has been killed, sees any opportunity to create a power base and then claims to sometimes speak for God and sometimes not, often contradicting Jesus in the process.

He did not sometimes "claim" anything. His private letters ended up as cannon. They as with anyones private letters are full of opinions and rules of his church. His other writings are clearly about God's commands etc. This is not rocket science Gardner.

He dies penniless and a martyr. Hell of an opportunist there.

and we should follow such an opportunist, why? Why not just read the red letters and go with that, instead?

Because that is not how the Bible was put together by the early church. We also believe it was divinely inspired, so it is the word of God.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I doubt he expected his letters to end up cannon. This does not change his authority when speaking about Gods law.

Actually, it really does. Paul had no more, and no less, authority than any other pastor does when preaching the word of god. The fact is that we as humans see these passages in different ways. Pastors (and Paul) were fallible human beings, unlike Christ.

And yeah, it really is that simple.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually, it really does. Paul had no more, and no less, authority than any other pastor does when preaching the word of god.

The church of the time would disagree.

The fact is that we as humans see these passages in different ways. Pastors (and Paul) were fallible human beings, unlike Christ.

And yet people also see Christs teaching differently, just like Paul.

You also do not believe in the divinity of Christ or his teachings and yet you say now that Christ is infallible? Pretty good for something you consider no more than a fairy tail.

And yeah, it really is that simple.

Yes it is.

 

[Gardener]

This is not rocket science Gardner.

Understanding context matters greatly here.

Saul was commissioned by the Pharisees to infiltrate and undermine what they viewed as a dangerous cult, and so there are two different ways to interpret his "epiphany". One interpretation is that he suddenly changed his spots, spoke for Jesus, and is the most essential person to follow in Christianity. Another interpretation is that he never diverged from his mission to destroy the cult, and rather than destroying it, he merely coopted it.

My interpretation is the latter, as his points of view were so consistent with the letter of the pharisees rather than the spirit of Jesus.

As far as rocket science is concerned, I think the best way to simplify is to simply read the red letters and forget much of the Paulean mumbo jumbo.

 

[Black Dog]

Understanding context matters greatly here.

Saul was commissioned by the Pharisees to infiltrate and undermine what they viewed as a dangerous cult, and so their are two different ways to interpret his "ephiphany". One interpretatiuon is that he suddenly changed his spots, spoke for Jesus, and is the most essential person to follow in Christianity. Another interpretation is that he never diverged from his mission to destroy the cult, and rather than destroying it, he merely coopted it.

He was killed by the Romans. What does that tell you?

My interpretation is the latter, as his points of view were so consistant with the letter of the pharisees rather than the spirit of Jesus.

His message is the exact opposite of the pharisees. The old law was pretty much about salvation through works, piety etc.

So no, your statement is not true at all.

As far as rocket science is concerned, I think the best way to simplify is to simply read the red letters and forget much of the Paulean mumbo jumbo.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

 

[CriticalThought]

I agree this could be so. But I Will go with the Guy who died a martyr and penniless...

Every religion makes these kinds of arguments about their founders. Mormonism, for example, argues that Joseph Smith had a 5th grade education, was quite poor, and was ostracized for his beliefs. The fact that these people often don't have money of their own does not negate the fact that they always seem to have tons of people with money who will support them.

As far as Paul being a martyr, I don't see you heaping praises on Allah for the terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Center and the suicide bombers in Iraq. Plenty of nutjob religious zealots out there but it doesn't mean what they practice is true.

Regardless, since I am no longer Christian and I made mention that the Church had at times taken the Psalms literally (a historical fact by the way) you have deemed me as lacking knowledge on this topic, so I don't see the sense in continuing to debate you on it.

 

[Black Dog]

Every religion makes these kinds of arguments about their founders. Mormonism, for example, argues that Joseph Smith had a 5th grade education, was quite poor, and was ostracized for his beliefs.

I agree, but Joseph Smith is a bad example as he was a well known con man of his day.

As far as Paul being a martyr, I don't see you heaping praises on Allah for the terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Center and the suicide bombers in Iraq. Plenty of nutjob religious zealots out there but it doesn't mean what they practice is true.

Allah was not martyred as far as I know. I know you did not just compare Christians to a terrorist who flew planes into buildings??? The Bible does not preach conversion or death. :doh

Regardless, since I am no longer Christian and I made mention that the Church had at times taken the Psalms literally (a historical fact by the way) you have deemed me as lacking knowledge on this topic, so I don't see the sense in continuing to debate you on it.

No, the church knew Psalms was/is poetry and not any kind of law from God, but praises to him.

Considering limited knowledge outside of cut and past, I agree.

 

[CriticalThought]

I agree, but Joseph Smith is a bad example as he was a well known con man of his day.

And exactly how do you know that Paul wasn't a well known con man of his day?

Allah was not martyred as far as I know. I know you did not just compare Christians to a terrorist who flew planes into buildings??? The Bible does not preach conversion or death. :doh

*facepalm*

Allah is the Muslim God. I was insinuating that you praise Paul's God because Paul allegedly matyred but you don't seem to be praising the Islamic God when Islamic extremeists martyr themselves.

 

[CriticalThought]

No, the church knew Psalms was/is poetry and not any kind of law from God, but praises to him.

You do realize that in 1633 the church used the Psalms to attack Galileo's theories, right? This is a matter of historical record.

You have the gull to accuse me of being uneducated when you don't even know that much?

 

[majora$$hole]

I agree, but Joseph Smith is a bad example as he was a well known con man of his day.



Allah was not martyred as far as I know. I know you did not just compare Christians to a terrorist who flew planes into buildings??? The Bible does not preach conversion or death. :doh



No, the church knew Psalms is poetry and not any kind of law from God, but praises to him.

Considering limited knowledge outside of cut and past, I agree.

not true, everything i've heard from the church says you can't go to heaven without accepting christ as your savior. while it isn't convert or die it's not far from it. it is the breading of bigotry and NOT the values of an ALL LOVING GOD. imo.

 

[Black Dog]

And exactly how do you know that Paul wasn't a well known con man of his day?

Ummmm... because of no evidence to support that?

*facepalm*

Allah is the Muslim God. I was insinuating that you praise Paul's God because Paul allegedly matyred but you don't seem to be praising the Islamic God when Islamic extremeists martyr themselves.

Where have I praised Paul? Please point this out? I don't pray to anyone but God, period. I have no idea where you came up with that.

I do praise the Muslim God sort off. I mean he is also the God of the old testament. So in a round about kind of way all Chrsitians do.

As for the martyr thing. Someone said (and it may or may not have been you) that Paul was in it for the power and money. This is blatantly false as he was killed by the Romans and penniless. He spent all his time traveling and preaching. This has nothing at all to do with Muslim extremist blowing themselves up in the name of God.

 

[Black Dog]

not true, everything i've heard from the church says you can't go to heaven without accepting christ as your savior. while it isn't convert or die it's not far from it. it is the breading of bigotry and NOT the values of an ALL LOVING GOD. imo.

The key to this whole statement is "imo."

Yes it is far from "convert or die." Even if you do not convert, you may later. When you are dead, you are dead.

Trying to equate physical death with spiritual salvation is a fools folly.

 

[Panache]

Jesus upheld the authority and applicability of the Law of Moses. In fact He interpreted Moses in a manner which intensified the demands of the Law.

And yet he held during that time strictly to the law of Moses. He even pointed out he did not come to change it, but fulfill it's prophecy's.

First of all. You are arguing a point other than the one I was making. I personally think it is silly and illogical to regard menstruation as a sin, so the presupposition in the OP that morality in the Bible is in any way rational seems to be without basis, regardless of whether or not Jesus held to those arbitrary an illogical rules.

Secondly, you are wrong once again. Jesus didn't hold strictly to Mosaic Law. He touched a leper when He came down from His sermon on the Mount (Matt 8). He and His disciples gathered food on Saturdays, healed people on Saturdays, etc... (Mark 2 and 3) claimed that what went into a man's mouth couldn't defile him, when Mosaic law said it could. (Matt 15) he refused to stone a woman even though Law commanded Him to. (John 8)

I don't know what Bible you have been reading where Jesus is some goody goody rule-following boyscout. In my copy Jesus is a rebel who delights in dismissing the arbitrary and ridiculous Laws of Moses at a whim, and instead cares exclusively about teaching folks to love each other and treat each other the way they want to be treated.

In fact, He says outright that treating each other as we want to be treated is the sum total of all the law and all the prophets. (Matt 7:12)

The four Gospels contain no specific statement by Jesus about homosexuals.

They don't need to. They contain a specific statement about the correct course of action applicable to any and every circumstance:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matt 7:12

Just plug in two gay men. Think what they would have each other do to them, and there you have what they should do to each other.

There is however more than enough evidence from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John alone to conclude that the only form of sexual behavior Jesus endorsed was limited to the married state, period.

I doubt it, but if you give me a chapter and verse, I will be happy to take another look.

According to the Golden Rule, which Jesus claims to summarize the law and the prophets in their entirety, sexual behavior is endorsed when everyone involved is treating each other they way they would want to be treated.

Hebrews 13:4 "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; but God will judge fornicators and adulterers."

First of all, the book of Hebrews isn't Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, where you claimed such evidence could be found. Nothing Paul or anyone else says is going to trump a directive from the lips of God Himself, issuing a formula encompassing all the law and all the prophets.

Secondly, the marriage bed is undefiled so long as no one treats anyone other than how they would want to be treated in it. Gay sex doesn't necessarily defile a marriage bed.

Jesus made no direct comments about homosexuality, Paul did.

Maybe. That word, Arsonokoitai... I do not think it means what you think it means... /Spanish accent

Regardless, Jesus said that the Golden Rule sums up everything you need to know, so in effect Jesus made a direct comment about every conceivable sin, and maybe even some that are... inconceivable... ;-)

No outrank or over anyone here.

Ok then, do you think that gay men should do to other gay men what they would have gay men do to them? Or do you think Jesus was wrong about that, and that it was actually Paul who had it right?

 

[Black Dog]

You do realize that in 1633 the church used the Psalms to attack Galileo's theories, right? This is a matter of historical record.

It was the 3 passages in Psalms as well as other passages from the Bible AND findings from the scientific community as well. This does not mean it was other than poetry or taken as such. I mean the Inquisition did allot of stupid things like killing people in the name of God.

In reaction, many scientific and theological scholars attacked the theory because it seemingly contradicted Aristotle's model of the universe, as well as several passages of Scripture. Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy, and philosophy culminated in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy. - Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From antiquity, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian view of geocentrism that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth. Despite the use of Copernican theories to reform the calendar in 1582,[8] this agreed with a literalist interpretation of Scripture in several places, such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5. Further, since it was believed that in the incarnation the Son of God had descended to the earth and become man, it seemed fitting that the Earth be the center around which all other celestial bodies moved. Heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth was a planet, which, along with all the others, revolved around the Sun, contradicted both geocentrism and the prevailing theological support of the theory. - Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not the whole church or society at the time was literalistic. You are trying to hold the entirety of Christianity responsible for a few of the leaders. The church at the time like the rest of the scientific world was split on the issue.

You have the gull to accuse me of being uneducated when you don't even know that much?

Please point out where I said you were uneducated?

I said your knowledge of the Bible and biblical precedent is severally lacking. Please don't miss quote me

 

[CriticalThought]

Ummmm... because of no evidence to support that?

Really? No evidence? Not even the accounts of the people who thought he was a Roman spy? Rome often used Christianity to keep the masses in check all the way up until the entire nation was converted to the religion in order to unify it. If you reject Paul, then what is left of your religion? I doubt that even if there were irrefutable evidence that Paul was a con man that you would accept it. That is why I say you praise him.

As for the martyr thing. Someone said (and it may or may not have been you) that Paul was in it for the power and money. This is blatantly false as he was killed by the Romans and penniless. He spent all his time traveling and preaching. This has nothing at all to do with Muslim extremist blowing themselves up in the name of God.

If anything, he was probably killed when he got too big for his britches and stopped serving his purpose for Rome.

 

[CriticalThought]

It was the 3 passages in Psalms as well as other passages from the Bible AND findings from the scientific community as well. This does not mean it was other than poetry or taken as such. I mean the Inquisition did allot of stupid things like killing people in the name of God.

I don't think anyone would cite poetry in a trial as evidence.

 

[Black Dog]

First of all. You are arguing a point other than the one I was making. I personally think it is silly and illogical to regard menstruation as a sin, so the presupposition in the OP that morality in the Bible is in any way rational seems to be without basis, regardless of whether or not Jesus held to those arbitrary an illogical rules.

Secondly, you are wrong once again. Jesus didn't hold strictly to Mosaic Law. He touched a leper when He came down from His sermon on the Mount (Matt 8). He and His disciples gathered food on Saturdays, healed people on Saturdays, etc... (Mark 2 and 3) claimed that what went into a man's mouth couldn't defile him, when Mosaic law said it could. (Matt 15) he refused to stone a woman even though Law commanded Him to. (John 8)

I don't know what Bible you have been reading where Jesus is some goody goody rule-following boyscout. In my copy Jesus is a rebel who delights in dismissing the arbitrary and ridiculous Laws of Moses at a whim, and instead cares exclusively about teaching folks to love each other and treat each other the way they want to be treated.

From his own lips...

Matthew 5:17-19 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You can't argue with that.

In fact, He says outright that treating each other as we want to be treated is the sum total of all the law and all the prophets. (Matt 7:12)

This does not change the fact marriage is between a man and a woman. At the very least homosexuality is fornication, and beyond that two men cannot be married. So no matter how people try to twist it, no evidence it is other than what it is, a sin.

None of that also has anything to do with treating each other wit hlove, kindness and mercy.

So because I feel it is a sin has nothing to do with how anyone treats anyone else.

They don't need to. They contain a specific statement about the correct course of action applicable to any and every circumstance:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matt 7:12

Just plug in two gay men. Think what they would have each other do to them, and there you have what they should do to each other.

You are trying to use "do unto others" and it really does not apply. In fact by letting them sin, I am doing them a disservice. By condoning it, I am no better and guilty of that sin.

I doubt it, but if you give me a chapter and verse, I will be happy to take another look.

"And he called the people to him and said to them, 'Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.' Then the disciples came and said to him, 'Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?' He answered, 'Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.' But Peter said to him, 'Explain the parable to us.' And he said, 'Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries (moicheia), fornications (porneiai), thefts, false-witnessing, blasphemies. These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.'" (Matthew 15:1-20)

"For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness (aselgeia), envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man." (Mark 7:21-23)

"Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" (John 8:1-11)

Jesus did not condemn her as I am not condemning homosexuals, but he also told her to sin no more. It could not be much clearer than that.

According to the Golden Rule, which Jesus claims to summarize the law and the prophets in their entirety, sexual behavior is endorsed when everyone involved is treating each other they way they would want to be treated.

Again has nothing to do with it. If someone lets me sin without saying something, they are doing me and themselves a great disservice.

I mean you are basically saying it's OK to let people continue to sin as long as you want to sin.

First of all, the book of Hebrews isn't Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, where you claimed such evidence could be found. Nothing Paul or anyone else says is going to trump a directive from the lips of God Himself, issuing a formula encompassing all the law and all the prophets.

Secondly, the marriage bed is undefiled so long as no one treats anyone other than how they would want to be treated in it. Gay sex doesn't necessarily defile a marriage bed.

It does when it specifically says one man and one woman. Again this is trying to end run around the law.

Maybe. That word, Arsonokoitai... I do not think it means what you think it means... /Spanish accent

Regardless, Jesus said that the Golden Rule sums up everything you need to know, so in effect Jesus made a direct comment about every conceivable sin, and maybe even some that are... inconceivable... ;-)

So you are saying as long as you are nice to everyone, sin is OK.

Nothing in the Bible or Jesus e's own testimony say anything like that. Talk about a leap of faith! Hehehe.

Ok then, do you think that gay men should do to other gay men what they would have gay men do to them?

If it is a sin, no. As I said it is at the very least fornication.

Or do you think Jesus was wrong about that, and that it was actually Paul who had it right?

They both seem to have it right. You have it wrong.

 

[Black Dog]

Really? No evidence? Not even the accounts of the people who thought he was a Roman spy? Rome often used Christianity to keep the masses in check all the way up until the entire nation was converted to the religion in order to unify it. If you reject Paul, then what is left of your religion? I doubt that even if there were irrefutable evidence that Paul was a con man that you would accept it. That is why I say you praise him.

:roll: :lol:

If anything, he was probably killed when he got too big for his britches and stopped serving his purpose for Rome.

Yea that's what happend. :lol: