Jesus Never Said It!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tparsons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TemplarKnight said:
I can think of one reason. They’re evil. So does that mean you love evil too? You love all of these evil men, because of Christ?
Click to expand...
I most certainly do. According to scripture I’m commanded to.
Consider the evil St. Paul, at the time Saul, participated in prior to being enlightened by a talking donkey!
 
TemplarKnight said:
It’s also a very simple yes or no question. One that doesn’t require a long diatribe.

Where do you think the term “sodomy” comes from?? So was Sodom and Gomorra destroyed exclusively because of homosexuality, no, however it was one of the main reasons.

Genesis 19

4 But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. 5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:

You would have to be an idiot not to acknowledge the definition of “know” in this context. See “know” below.

6 Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said: 7 Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. 8 I have two daughters who as yet have not known man:

This obviously means sexual intercourse

I will bring them out to you, and abuse

What do you think they mean by “abuse”? Beat them up? Not quite.

you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.

Repent and be saved.

It doesn’t get any easier than Leviticus 20:13

If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

Deny, deny, but the truth does not lie.
Click to expand...
So which was the greater sin? That which would have resulted in men lying with men, or the rape of Lot’s daughters?🙂
 
elt1956 said:
So which was the greater sin? That which would have resulted in men lying with men, or the rape of Lot’s daughters?🙂
Click to expand...
What is the difference and why does this have anything to do with our conversation?

If the men wanted to rape the men = sin

If the men wanted to rape the women = sin

Why are you trying to place an emphasis on one being greater?
 
TemplarKnight said:
What is the difference and why does this have anything to do with our conversation?

If the men wanted to rape the men = sin

If the men wanted to rape the women = sin

Why are you trying to place an emphasis on one being greater?
Click to expand...
He’s not! He’s trying to make a point. One that you insist on missing. You run into problems when you try to extract law from narrative. The Genesis account consists of Lot offering up his daughters to be abused. And yet this goes without condemnation from God. The account also has the mob attempting to abuse the strangers, referred to by the mob as “men”.
God in Ez. puts the whole thing into perspective, consistent with the culture at that time, and highlights the sin within the narrative. One thing He dosen’t mention – homosexuality. And nor could he, because once again, there was nothing homo about the facts: the abusers were mortal, and the targets weren’t!
 
TemplarKnight, I was just reading your bio, and I was reminded by the humanity all of us are striving for. I know we obviously disagree on this topic of homosexuality, but i won’t you to know that I wish you all of the best in maintaining your zeal and your love for Christ. - truagape!! 🙂

P.S. Sometimes I forget that we’re to “keep putting up with one another”, so if I start to attack you just remind me. I mean it!
 
When you make an invalid point, can’t emphasize it more by repeating it.
truagape said:
He’s not! He’s trying to make a point. One that you insist on missing.

I’m ignoring this “point” because it is completely invalid.

You run into problems when you try to extract law from narrative.

This is called interpretation. Where do you think all of the Church’s Law comes from. Works interpreted by the Church, plain and simple.

The Genesis account consists of Lot offering up his daughters to be abused. And yet this goes without condemnation from God.

Do you expect the Bible to list every sin that is taking place? What is your expectation of scripture?

The account also has the mob attempting to abuse the strangers, referred to by the mob as “men”. Exactly. The mob believes the strangers are men

God in Ez. puts the whole thing into perspective, consistent with the culture at that time, and highlights the sin within the narrative. One thing He dosen’t mention – homosexuality.

And nor could he, because once again, there was nothing homo about the facts: the abusers was mortal, and the targets wern’t!

Just because the targets weren’t mortal does not change the intent of the crowd. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that??
Click to expand...
And no free passes on the sodomy. Those questions are tantamount to the truth in this conversation.
 
truagape said:
TemplarKnight, I was just reading your bio, and I was reminded by the humanity all of us are striving for. I know we obviously disagree on this topic of homosexuality, but i won’t you to know that I wish you all of the best in maintaining your zeal and your love for Christ. - truagape!! 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind words. Disagreements are only that; not agreeing. The common goal of perfection through Christ unites us all.
 
TemplarKnight said:
Just because the targets weren’t mortal does not change the intent of the crowd. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that??
Click to expand...
I agree! And their intent was abuse. This is consistent with the passage in Ez.19:48-50, and the remarks made by the mob at Gen. 19:9. "…Now we will do worse to you than to them…
 
On a side note, my feelings on homosexuality may be unique or different when it comes to what actually is “sin” and acceptable from a Christian/Catholic standpoint.

I don’t subscribe to the “love the sinner, hate the sin” cliche as it doesn’t grasp true feelings of where we need to be, or rather what is the truth.

I believe many feelings are misdirected at those who are considered “gay” and the focus grows more to the subculture than the actual specificity of the act itself.
 
truagape said:
I agree! And their intent was abuse. This is consistent with the passage in Ez.19:48-50, and the remarks made by the mob at Gen. 19:9. "…Now we will do worse to you than to them…
Click to expand...
But what type of abuse? It all depends on what interpretation of scripture you choose to use. If you choose the Vulgate or DR, then the interpretation uses “know”, which as I have stated before, means sexual relations within the context of the adjoining scriptures. If we go by the NAB, the interpretation is “have intimacies”. I believe that “have intimacies” is very clear to intend sexual relations too.

Now I’m not going to get behind the NAB as the greatest interpretation however it is the official text. I will agree completely with the DR and LV as it is hard to argue the accuracy of those translations.
 
TemplarKnight said:
the act itself.
Click to expand...
(Also on a side note) This phrase bothers me, because the word “act” seems to mean many different things to many different people. According to some, whom I strongly disagree with, it’s okay to have the desire of same-sex attraction but not to act on it.

It’s okay to want to cuddle, but don’t do it.
It’s okay to want to hold hands, don’t do that either.
It’s okay to want an affectionate companionship, but don’t strive for it.
It’s okay to want a life long partner, but don’t look for one.

Could you imagine someone telling you that this was what God was asking from you? It’s inhumane.
 
TemplarKnight said:
But what type of abuse? It all depends on what interpretation of scripture you choose to use. If you choose the Vulgate or DR, then the interpretation uses “know”, which as I have stated before, means sexual relations within the context of the adjoining scriptures. If we go by the NAB, the interpretation is “have intimacies”. I believe that “have intimacies” is very clear to intend sexual relations too.

Now I’m not going to get behind the NAB as the greatest interpretation however it is the official text. I will agree completely with the DR and LV as it is hard to argue the accuracy of those translations.
Click to expand...
Type? Rape, sexually dehumanizing, degrading them. What ever the mob had in mind for the strangers, they were intent on doing worse to Lot. Again Ez. sums up the sin of Sodom. Their many victim’s “cry of complaint” was heard by God himself.
 
truagape said:
(Also on a side note) This phrase bothers me, because the word “act” seems to mean many different things to many different people.

My first question is why can’t we use a standard American English definition? That eliminates the “different things”.

According to some, whom I strongly disagree with, it’s okay to have the desire of same-sex attraction but not to act on it.

**Not according to the Bible. If you recall if you have acted with your heart, it is the same as acting with your body. Therefore it is not “OK” to have the desire.

If I am checking out this hot model thinking of all the things I would like to do to her sexually, am I sinning? Yes!! Because the thought is in my heart. (adultery is a sin)**

It’s okay to want to cuddle, but don’t do it.
It’s okay to want to hold hands, don’t do that either.
It’s okay to want an affectionate companionship, but don’t strive for it.
It’s okay to want a life long partner, but don’t look for one.

Could you imagine someone telling you that this was what God was asking from you? It’s inhumane.
Click to expand...
It may be inhumane, but those are the rules. Is it fair that priests are asked to be celibate? Do you not think priests have those desires? What do you think they do when the urge to merge comes to them?
 
According to some, whom I strongly disagree with, it’s okay to have the desire of same-sex attraction but not to act on it.
Click to expand...
What about: it’s okay to have the desire of opposite-sex attraction but not to act on it outside of marriage. Is that inhumane?

And Don’t say well they have the option to get married. Tell that to a lot of the single ladies I know- Not that easy to find a marriage partner.
 
TemplarKnight said:
It may be inhumane, but those are the rules. Is it fair that priests are asked to be celibate? Do you not think priests have those desires? What do you think they do when the urge to merge comes to them?
Click to expand...
Can anyone decide not to be a priest?
 
deanarrca said:
What about: it’s okay to have the desire of opposite-sex attraction but not to act on it outside of marriage. Is that inhumane?

And Don’t say well they have the option to get married. Tell that to a lot of the single ladies I know- Not that easy to find a marriage partner.
Click to expand...
“Outside of mariage” Those words are definately your safety net. Let’s say that the single ladies whom you know can’t easily find a marriage partner. How does that compare to someone who’s gay who is denied even the opportunity?

And what about you? Would you want to be married to your partner and be told that having an affection for him/her is okay, but to act on it is wrong? I would highly doubt it.
 
TemplarKnight said:
After you are ordained and then you decide to quit?

Depending on the circumstances it could lead to excommunication.
Click to expand...
The point is, if one’s sexual urges, or a desire for a mate is too strong, they can opt not to be a priest, and seek marriage. Trust me, being gay is no comparison by any standard!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top