The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality

PostmodernProphet said:
hmm....is that recruitment or deflection?.....meanwhile, you haven't stated a reason for denying what the Bible states....
Click to expand...

Recruitment? No one recruits men to be gay...men either are or aren't. The reason is I don't believe it, or accept it. Problem? The requirement for salvation isn't believing every jot and tittle in the Bible, which was written by the hand of man, some, I believe to be "divinely inspired", but not all.
 
poet you do realize I am defending you, in a round-a-bout way, right? Are you really that much of a mouth breather that you can't articulate any thoughts other than copy and pasting, while drool seeps out the corner of your mouth? Are you that intellectually depleted that you can't offer up any type of substantive refutation of the things I say? You remind me of an autistic that just starts crying when you tell him a square isn't a circle or something. I am fully interested in having a dialogue with you, but apparently you simply don't have the brains to compete. is that about right? :)
 
PostmodernProphet said:
did you just ask me to accept men having homosexual relations because they are just like priests who violate their oath of celibacy by sexually abusing children?......
Click to expand...

Oh please. Sexually abusing children is a crime. There's very little out there about priests having sex with women because that falls under the label of sin, not crime.
 
The writer's efforts are worthy of respect, as are yours, Poet. You're both good people. And so long as Christianity exists, I would like to see it become more inclusive. But the bottom line is that you can't polish a turd. The Bible portrays a hateful god that commands its people to kill infants. There is no way to redeem a god like that.

I suppose you could argue that the OT should be thrown out and we should focus only on the NT, but all early Christians accepted the OT as scripture. That was my dilemma and ultimately led me to consider myself an agnostic.
 
General Burnside said:
The writer's efforts are worthy of respect, as are yours, Poet. You're both good people. And so long as Christianity exists, I would like to see it become more inclusive. But the bottom line is that you can't polish a turd. The Bible portrays a hateful god that commands its people to kill infants. There is no way to redeem a god like that.

I suppose you could argue that the OT should be thrown out and we should focus only on the NT, but all early Christians accepted the OT as scripture. That was my dilemma and ultimately led me to consider myself an agnostic.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. But this isn't about "God in a box". God is not vengeful, hateful, condemning or vindictive. God is about love and grace. Reprobate fake Christians have corrupted the text and scriptures to suit their own agendas. I reject the Old Testament, and see Paul's teachings as adding dot's to i's and the crossing of t's.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
none of us think Darla was referring to priests having sex with adult women.....not even you.....
Click to expand...

Darla isn't the one who brought up pedophilia, that was you.

As a Catholic I consider a non-celibate priest one who has sexual relations with adults, and a pedophile priest one who sexually abuses children.
 
poet said:
Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. But this isn't about "God in a box". God is not vengeful, hateful, condemning or vindictive. God is about love and grace. Reprobate fake Christians have corrupted the text and scriptures to suit their own agendas. I reject the Old Testament, and see Paul's teachings as adding dot's to i's and the crossing of t's.
Click to expand...

logical fallacy. no true Scotsman.
 
you were debunked on this in your former thread...tff...why you think this time will prove any different.

that ACT of homosexuality is absolutely, unequivocally condemned in the bible. both the OT and the NT.
 
poet said:
Thank you. I appreciate the compliment. But this isn't about "God in a box". God is not vengeful, hateful, condemning or vindictive. God is about love and grace. Reprobate fake Christians have corrupted the text and scriptures to suit their own agendas. I reject the Old Testament, and see Paul's teachings as adding dot's to i's and the crossing of t's.
Click to expand...

huh? so you only accept parts of the bible that suit your world view. you do realize how dumb that is. that is like saying, well, i accept the constitution, just not any of the amendments.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it's nice you're more partial to Greek text.....unfortunately for you, the original text of the relevant texts are in Hebrew......
Click to expand...

The oldest complete manuscript, the Septuagint, is Greek. It's from around 400 AD. The more traditional bibles don't use a Hebrew manuscript either, they translate from the Latin Vulgate, which is about 4 centuries older. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts (the dead sea scrolls and the Masoretic) are all of the old testament, obviously, and so aren't relevant to new testament translations.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and my reply here will be the same as it was there......I have previously provided to you, on this board, a link to the original Hebrew text of the scriptures so you could see for yourself what the Bible instructs regarding homosexual relations......you flatly refused to even read it......you are afraid to know what the Bible instructs regarding homosexual relations.....
Click to expand...

Who gives a shit what the bible instructs? Can't you think for yourself, you pathetic slave?
 
Alexander Hamilton said:
The oldest complete manuscript, the Septuagint, is Greek. It's from around 400 AD. The more traditional bibles don't use a Hebrew manuscript either, they translate from the Latin Vulgate, which is about 4 centuries older. The oldest Hebrew manuscripts (the dead sea scrolls and the Masoretic) are all of the old testament, obviously, and so aren't relevant to new testament translations.
Click to expand...

1) The passages I provided for him are from Leviticus
2) Leviticus is not in the NT
3) Hebrew manuscripts of the OT are available
4) Hebrew manuscripts of Leviticus are available
5) There are dozens of translations that were translated from original manuscripts rather than from English translations of Latin translations of Greek translations
6) The links I offered him were to a Hebrew Interlinear which permitted him to translate the original text for himself, rather than rely on any other's translation

the sum of the above is that your post is totally irrelevant......
 
Alexander Hamilton said:
Who gives a shit what the bible instructs? Can't you think for yourself, you pathetic slave?
Click to expand...

did you notice the title of this thread?.......should even the feeblest mind here (yourself) realize that what the Bible says might be relevant in a thread about what the Bible says?......does it worry you that on a board that includes Legion and Touchieliberal someone might consider you to have the feeblest mind?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top