May I be a gay Christian
The DataRat
"Being gay does not keep you out of heaven.
Continuing to practise it with an unrepentant
heart does"
It's never been a matter of Sinners vs.
Non-Sinners (Galatians 3:22, Ecclesiastes
7:20, Romans 3:10, Romans 7:14-25,
1 John 1:8, et. al.).
Christianity is the Sinner's Religion ...perfect
people need not apply.
And, heaven shall be full of sinners. Just no
unrepentant ones !
The DataRat
*Eros* @-->--------------
wrote:
I have a question for you Mr. Rat.
What then of those whom still practice sex with others of the same
sex, and say they are Christians....?
Those whom say they are in loving, same sex relations?
What of them?
Must they ask for repentance EVERY time they have sex?
Will God forgive this type of heathen attitude?
Just an honest Question.
Micah Burke
> What then of those whom still practice sex with others of the same
> sex, and say they are Christians....?
They place themselves in judgement of God's word?
1 Cor. 6:9 is clear.
> Those whom say they are in loving, same sex relations?
> What of them?
'Loving' relationships as God defines it is between
a man and a woman. Same-sex (aka homosexual)
relationships are not part of God's plan. Such
'relationships' are a perversion of the normal
order established when God created man and
woman.
> Must they ask for repentance EVERY time they have sex?
> Will God forgive this type of heathen attitude?
If they continue in a homosexual relationship they
are unwilling to turn their lives over to the Lordship and
control of righteousness, there is no evidence there
of salvation.
> Just an honest Question.
With an honest answer, you wanted to know about
"What then of those whom still practice sex with others of the same
sex, and say they are Christians....?"
Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 John 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues
to sin has either seen him or known him.
It is clear Christians are tempted, (Romans 7), it is
clear that Christians are called from all sorts of sinful
lifestyles... (Ephesians 2:12), but it is just as clear that
no one who truly loves God continues in such a lifestyle
as to bring shame to the name of Christ.
Salvation by grace through faith means that only those
who believe will be saved, and we see that (James 2)
the faith we talk about is an obedient faith, not one that
dwells in past sins, whatever they may be.
2 Peter 2:22
Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"
and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
Micah
Don
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a question for you Mr. Rat.
>> What then of those whom still practice sex with others of the same
>> sex, and say they are Christians....?
>
>They place themselves in judgement of God's word?
>
>1 Cor. 6:9 is clear.
The translation which says "homosexual" is a mistranslation.
>1 Corinthians 6:9
>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
>kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
>idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
"Homosexual" is not in there. Go back and study it again.
D*
"Government doesn't work. It doesn't keep our streets safe and it doesn't educate our children. Government is good at
only one thing: It breaks your legs, hands you a pair of crutches, and says, 'See, without us you wouldn't be able to walk.”
- - - - - Harry Browne
*Eros* @-->--------------
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Thank you.......
I like those enlightening and BIBLICAL answers.
*Eros* @-->--------------
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:31 -0800, "Micah Burke"
><klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have a question for you Mr. Rat.
>>> What then of those whom still practice sex with others of the same
>>> sex, and say they are Christians....?
>>
>>They place themselves in judgement of God's word?
>>
>>1 Cor. 6:9 is clear.
>
>The translation which says "homosexual" is a mistranslation.
>
No....its not a mistranslation.
Qabesh.....which is often placed with the verse that says.....
Mankind shall not lie with mankind as he would a women....means this:
To be unclean.
To be unclean is to practice same sex.....as described in that
particular verse.
If its unclean........then one whom practices this type of behavior,
will not enter the kingdom of God.
Its rather simple.
Same sex relationships ARE homosexual.
What part of that don't you understand?
Sure. I give you credit when you say the ACTUAL word "homosexual' was
not used.
But today, we all KNOW what a homosexual is and what being homosexual
means and entales....dont you?
The clear meaning is this.......
ITS an abomination to sleep with the same sex.
I hope this helps.
>>1 Corinthians 6:9
>>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
>>kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor
>>idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
>
>"Homosexual" is not in there. Go back and study it again.
>
Go back and OPEN your mind.
And then, open your eyes to WHAT Really IS THERE.
Don
<Er...@HeavenlyBody.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:51:57 -0600, Don <calldo...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:31 -0800, "Micah Burke"
>><klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have a question for you Mr. Rat.
>>>> What then of those whom still practice sex with others of the same
>>>> sex, and say they are Christians....?
>>>
>>>They place themselves in judgement of God's word?
>>>
>>>1 Cor. 6:9 is clear.
>>
>>The translation which says "homosexual" is a mistranslation.
>>
>No....its not a mistranslation.
What part of "the passage is not correctly translated" do you have a
problem understanding.
>Qabesh.....which is often placed with the verse that says.....
>Mankind shall not lie with mankind as he would a women....means this:
>To be unclean.
>To be unclean is to practice same sex.....as described in that
>particular verse.
>If its unclean........then one whom practices this type of behavior,
>will not enter the kingdom of God.
>Its rather simple.
So is flying the space shuttle. And using your logic, you would make
a good pilot.
>Same sex relationships ARE homosexual.
Homosexual is not mentioned in that passage.
>What part of that don't you understand?
>Sure. I give you credit when you say the ACTUAL word "homosexual' was
>not used.
They why ADD it, creating an incorrect translation of the passage?
>But today, we all KNOW what a homosexual is and what being homosexual
>means and entales....dont you?
What is "entales?"
>The clear meaning is this.......
>ITS an abomination to sleep with the same sex.
Oh...now you add the word "abomination" to 1Cor6:9.
It's an abomination to eat anything that comes out of a pig, or to eat
shrimp or Tennessee River Catfish or Main Lobster. It's also an
abomination for Jews to break bread with Egyptians. I guess this
means the peace treaty is off. Oh, there's the usual abominations you
see around most county courthouses in Kentucky: lying, cheating,
mocking people, plotting evil, sowing discord among your brothers,
serving as a false witness, being too eager to do wrong, abandoning
evil to fools, justifying wickedness and condemning the just, being
unjust to the just, being righteous to the wicked, pride, haughtiness,
and murder. In case the writers of the Bible missed something, they
said that just being out and out wicked is also an abomination. Jesse
Helms, beware!
Unfair weights, measures and scales are an abomination (unless they're
in your favor). So are gifts from the wicked, the ways of the wicked,
even the thoughts of the wicked.
In other words, stay away from politicians.
>I hope this helps.
It helps me know that you need to learn how to study the Bible before
you attempt to teach a Sunday School class again.
>Go back and OPEN your mind.
>And then, open your eyes to WHAT Really IS THERE.
Homosexual is NOT there!!!
Go back and see what you are ADDING to that passage which is NOT
there.
http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html
Don
Too bad most of what Micah said was taken completely out of context
and mis-used. That's what we call PRETEXT!!! ;Some people call it
LYING...which is an abomination to God.
Jeff Shirton
Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2FC37F061B142878.5CCAFBA7...@lp.airnews.net..
.
> >1 Cor. 6:9 is clear.
>
> The translation which says "homosexual" is a
> mistranslation.
Okay, how do *you* think "arseno-coitus" should be translated?!
Jeff Shirton
*Eros* @-->--------------
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:12:17 -0800, "*Eros* @-->--------------"
><Er...@HeavenlyBody.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:51:57 -0600, Don <calldo...@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:31 -0800, "Micah Burke"
>>><klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have a question for you Mr. Rat.
>>>>> What then of those whom still practice sex with others of the same
>>>>> sex, and say they are Christians....?
>>>>
>>>>They place themselves in judgement of God's word?
>>>>
>>>>1 Cor. 6:9 is clear.
>>>
>>>The translation which says "homosexual" is a mistranslation.
>>>
>>No....its not a mistranslation.
>
>What part of "the passage is not correctly translated" do you have a
>problem understanding.
>
Prove it a mistranslation sir.
Prove to me through the greek or hebrew that there is a
mistranslation.
>>Qabesh.....which is often placed with the verse that says.....
>>Mankind shall not lie with mankind as he would a women....means this:
>>To be unclean.
>>To be unclean is to practice same sex.....as described in that
>>particular verse.
>>If its unclean........then one whom practices this type of behavior,
>>will not enter the kingdom of God.
>>Its rather simple.
>
>So is flying the space shuttle. And using your logic, you would make
>a good pilot.
>
Logic?
You don't understand, do you?
>>Same sex relationships ARE homosexual.
>
>Homosexual is not mentioned in that passage.
>
What part of same sex don't you understand?
Don't you know that same sex relations ARE HOMOSEXUAL?
Now.......dont you understand that?
Its simple.
>>What part of that don't you understand?
>>Sure. I give you credit when you say the ACTUAL word "homosexual' was
>>not used.
>
>They why ADD it, creating an incorrect translation of the passage?
>
They who?
What translation are you speaking of?
>>But today, we all KNOW what a homosexual is and what being homosexual
>>means and entales....dont you?
>
>What is "entales?"
>
Includes......
>>The clear meaning is this.......
>>ITS an abomination to sleep with the same sex.
>
>Oh...now you add the word "abomination" to 1Cor6:9.
>
Uh....no I don't.
Read it for yourself.
I never said it was added to the passage you just stated.
I was speaking of this passage......I guess you never heard of it, did
you?
Here is what I was referring to.......I hope this helps.
>Leviticus 18:
>22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
>is abomination.
>
See the word ........ABOMINATION?
Shall I get your glasses.
>It's an abomination to eat anything that comes out of a pig, or to eat
>shrimp or Tennessee River Catfish or Main Lobster. It's also an
>abomination for Jews to break bread with Egyptians. I guess this
>means the peace treaty is off. Oh, there's the usual abominations you
>see around most county courthouses in Kentucky: lying, cheating,
>mocking people, plotting evil, sowing discord among your brothers,
>serving as a false witness, being too eager to do wrong, abandoning
>evil to fools, justifying wickedness and condemning the just, being
>unjust to the just, being righteous to the wicked, pride, haughtiness,
>and murder. In case the writers of the Bible missed something, they
>said that just being out and out wicked is also an abomination. Jesse
>Helms, beware!
>
Have you heard of Grace.....?
no!
You have proven that.
>Unfair weights, measures and scales are an abomination (unless they're
>in your favor). So are gifts from the wicked, the ways of the wicked,
>even the thoughts of the wicked.
>
>In other words, stay away from politicians.
>
>>I hope this helps.
>
>It helps me know that you need to learn how to study the Bible before
>you attempt to teach a Sunday School class again.
>
Nah....tis you whom needs to study more.
I have studied for over five years at a christian college.
I think I know a bit more than you give me credit for.
>>Go back and OPEN your mind.
>>And then, open your eyes to WHAT Really IS THERE.
>
>Homosexual is NOT there!!!
>
The word isnt......you are right.
But the reference of homosexual relations ...IS!
Wise up my friend.
Do you know what a homosexual man does to another man?
Think about it!
We ALL know what the passage I quoted earlier is speaking of.
It sure a int speaking of licking lollipops....LOL!
*Eros* @-->--------------
wrote:
Jeff makes a good point.....I suggest you read it.
Okay, how do *you* think "arseno-coitus" should be translated?!
Jeff Shirton
>
>
>
Mikal 606
If not, what exactly would that mean?
If so, why?
"*Eros* @-->--------------" <Er...@HeavenlyBody.net> wrote in message
news:u35a6tkdl1is1heks...@4ax.com...
<snip>
*Eros* @-->--------------
If you cant stand the truth.....get out!
She/he is correct.
And totally in CONTEXT.
Wish I could say the same for you and your obvious, blatant
misinterpretations....
The DataRat
"I have a question for you Mr. Rat.
What then of those whom still practice
sex with others of the same sex, and
say they are Christians....?"
God's Word is clear on this topic:
"Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
the covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall
inherit the kingdom of God"
(1 Corinthians 6:9 NASB)
If they're not going to heaven, neither are
they "Christians".
"Those whom say they are in loving, same
sex relations?"
God's Word makes no exception for "loving"
homosexual fornication.
"Must they ask for repentance EVERY time
they have sex?"
Scripture doesn't ask for pro forma "repentance".
It requires genuine repentance.
Anyone who consistently lives in a homosexual
relationship of any kind obviously has NO
interest in sincere repentance.
"Repentance" isn't merely being sorry for sin.
It's also a 'turning away' from sin !
Christians slip and fall. But, those who live
on the floor aren't "Christians" !
"Will God forgive this type of heathen attitude?"
The Lord views perfunctory "repentance" as
only so much more sin. Such ones only
further condemn themselves with their insincerity.
The DataRat
Don
<Er...@HeavenlyBody.net> wrote:
>Prove it a mistranslation sir.
>Prove to me through the greek or hebrew that there is a
>mistranslation.
OK. I will let a Greek and Hebrew scholar prove it. This is from the
writings and web site of Dr. Rembert Truluck. He has good
credentials. Doctor of Theology, Pastor from 1953 to 1973, Professor
of Religion 1973-1981. Dr. Truluck served as pastor of churches in
Danville and Louisville, Kentucky, and in Norfolk, Virginia; at South
Main Street Baptist Church in Greenwood, South Carolina; and at First
Baptist Church, Columbus, Mississippi. He was a Baptist Sunday School
Board writer for Adult Sunday School lessons and taught college
extension courses in religion in Virginia and in South Carolina. In
1973, Dr. Truluck became Director of Recruitment and Placement in
Church Careers and Professor of Religion at the Baptist College of
Charleston, SC, where he remained until March, 1981.
==============================
I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do
not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall
inherit the realm of God."
Author's Note: The Greek words translated "effeminate" and
"homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual!
I Timothy 1:9-10:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are
lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the
unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or
mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and
kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."
Author's Note: The Greek word translated "homosexual" does not
mean homosexual!
These two verses contain completely wrong translations to
create "homosexual ghosts" that do not really exist! Ghosts
may not hurt you, but they can make you hurt yourself! The
homosexual ghosts in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 were created
by the inaccurate and intentionally misleading translation of two
Greek words.
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 sound very convincing in
including lesbians and gay men in the most dreadful lists of
depraved human behavior imaginable. The fact is that the word
translated "homosexual" does not mean "homosexual" and the word
translated "effeminate" does not mean "effeminate"!
The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a
Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis
"sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not
used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek
or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before
the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any
Bible translation.
The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or
some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed
from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found
anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in
the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means.
The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male
prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice
in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii
and other sites.
When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned
homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom
(A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he
never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on 1
Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals.
See the full discussion of this in John Boswell's book:
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality - Appendix 1,
"Lexicography and Saint Paul," pages 335-353.
"Soft" does not mean "effeminate." The word translated
"effeminate in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is Greek malakoi and means
"soft" or "vulnerable." The word is translated as "soft" in
reference to clothing in Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and as
"illness" in Matthew 4:23 and 9:35. It is not used anywhere else in
the New Testament and carries no hint of reference to sexual
orientation. Malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 probably refers
those who are "soft," "pliable," "unreliable," or "without courage or
stability." The translation of malakoi as "effeminate" is incorrect,
ignorant, degrading to women, and impossible to justify based
on ancient usage compared to the meaning of "effeminate" today.
This incorrect rendering of malakoi and arsenokoites as
references to gender orientation has been disastrous for
millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual people. This
mistaken translation has enlisted a mighty army of ignorant religious
fanatics against homosexual people and has turned many Lesbians
and Gays against the Bible, which holds for them as for all
people the good news of God's love in Christ.
Evil homophobic Bible "translations from hell" must not go
unchallenged. The use of these translations by ignorant
religious bigots to incite fear and hate against Gays demands a
clear, academically sound, credible and easily understood response.
Material given in this web site is only a beginning. Every Bible word
that has been incorrectly used to wound, alienate and oppress
people must be examined in detail and carefully exposed. God
has called us to return the Bible to the oppressed and outcast
people for whom it was written.
Three of the passages: Genesis 19:5; I Corinthians 6:9 and I
Timothy 1:10 are incorrectly translated. The other three:
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 are taken out of
their original setting of condemning idolatrous religious practices
and wrongly used to judge and condemn people of the same sex
who love each other. None of these passages refer to people of
the same sex who love each other. None originally were aimed
at homosexuals.
Don
wrote:
Why would you think that it should be read "homosexual?" You don't
know Greek, do you?
The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek
term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis "sex"). The
term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until
about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or
Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the
Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible
translation.
The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or
some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed
from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found
anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in
the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means.
The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male
prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice
in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii
and other sites.
When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned
homosexuality, they did not use this word. John Chrysostom
(A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against homosexuality, but he
never used this word for homosexuals, and when he preached on
1Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals.
*Venus* @-->--------------
<mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Do you think Jesus would allow a gay person to be stoned to death?
>If not, what exactly would that mean?
>If so, why?
>
No....I don't think Jesus would allow a gay person to be stoned.
Maybe under the law....but not under grace.
Thank God for that.
Did Christ not tell the woman at the Well to
G o............and sin no more.?
Well, he knew she had been with many men.....and the one she was with
then, was not her husband, right?
Well, in those days......this would have meant stoning, right?
Well, DID Christ not also say.....,"Let those without sin cast the
first stone?"
I hope that helps.
Micah Burke
> >>I like those enlightening and BIBLICAL answers.
> >
> >Too bad most of what Micah said was taken completely out of context
> >and mis-used. That's what we call PRETEXT!!! ;Some people call it
> >LYING...which is an abomination to God.
> >
> >D*
>
>
> If you cant stand the truth.....get out!
> She/he is correct.
> And totally in CONTEXT.
> Wish I could say the same for you and your obvious, blatant
> misinterpretations....
Amazing that people cannot accept the plain truth of scripture...
of course that's exactly what scripture states however.
Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those
who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is
pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences
are corrupted.
Micah Burke
>
> Okay, how do *you* think "arseno-coitus" should be translated?!
>
> Jeff Shirton
The Septuagint uses it in places clearly deliniating
homosexual acts. aresnokoties - the clear indication
of men and sex in the word shoud give us an idea
what's being said. Any attempt to explain it away
is done so by those who feel convicted by the
language of scripture and are unwilling to repent
of their actions. A sad state of affairs...
Micah
Micah Burke
> If not, what exactly would that mean?
> If so, why?
Jesus ~allowed~ a lot of things. The one thing
he did NOT allow was an abomination inside the
temple. He ~allowed~ a woman who was set-up
in an adulterous situation to go free, we see that
she was accused by men seeking to trap CHRIST.
Jesus would not, and does not (1 Cor. 6:9) have
good words for those who claim Christianity and
practice sexual immorality.
Micah
Micah Burke
> Maybe under the law....but not under grace.
> Thank God for that.
A "gay" person in those days was executed not merely on
the basis of religious law, but also civil law. Christ CONFIRMED
both. The only time Christ ~seemed~ to alter this was with
the adulterous woman in John 8. However, looking at this
scripture closely we see several glaring problems with the
legal case against the woman and therefore the accusations...
1) Where is the adulterous MAN?
According to the Law both should have been stoned,
most likely he was in the group, with the stones.
2) Scripture states she was brought by men TO TEST JESUS.
Christ, knowing this was the case, wrote ~SOMETHING~
on the ground, perhaps the names of the men she had
been sleeping with?
3) It is possible that the charge was true... she was
in an adulterous relationship but the evidence and
the witnesses were clearly tainted, executing this
woman would not have been just, for the other
parties were going free.
> Did Christ not tell the woman at the Well to
> G o............and sin no more.?
No, this is a totally different account, the woman at
the well was not told to "go and sin no more" she
was only told of her past by Christ, her faith in him
most likely changed her life anyway.
> Well, he knew she had been with many men.....and the one she was with
> then, was not her husband, right?
> Well, in those days......this would have meant stoning, right?
> Well, DID Christ not also say.....,"Let those without sin cast the
> first stone?"
There again, you are totally warping scripture, have you
read those TWO different accounts? The woman at the
well was a Samaritan, not a Jew, and most likely wouldn't
have been stoned under their laws.
The understanding that she had 5 husbands suggests that
she had been divorced those times, for the man she was
living with at the time she was not married to. Christ
spoke this to her AND CONVICTED her of it at the
same time, that is why she responded the way she did...
going and telling all she knew about Christ, a clear
indication of her faith.
Many things went on in Judea while Christ was there,
it is apparent that the normal proceedures of the law
were being complied with, so it is likely that others
WERE executed while Christ walked the earth in
the flesh, yet we read no account of him stopping
them. Christ's effort on earth was not to bring
peace and freedom to physically oppressed people,
but spiritual freedom to those whom God calls.
We also read an account of a rich young 'lord' who
comes to Christ, looking for salvation, and finds
only condemnation because the cost of faith was
too high... he wasn't saved, and according to scripture,
he went away SAD... he loved his earthly pleasures
more than heavenly hope.
People who claim homosexuality is compatable with
Christianity don't understand the nature of the gospel,
and its relationship to the law. You cannot be saved
unless you first die, and that includes your earthly
desires and fleshly lusts. We give our bodies
to God as a ~living sacrifice~ pleasing to him...
acts such as homosexuality are clearly against the
moral code of the old law, therefore we know that
such an act could never be considered ~holy~
before him.
Micah
Don
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> No....I don't think Jesus would allow a gay person to be stoned.
>> Maybe under the law....but not under grace.
>> Thank God for that.
>
>A "gay" person in those days was executed not merely on
>the basis of religious law, but also civil law.
Surely, you can back up your claim that "A 'gay' person in those days
was executed...on the basis of...civil law." Please provide your
documentation.
Don
Now Micah...please provide the other uses of aresnokoties to which you
refer. Your claim proves that, no matter how sincere you seem to be,
you actually don't know what you are talking about.
The apostle Paul had a habit of "coining" new words. It was not
uncommon for him to do that in the New Testament writings.
Arsenokoites is one of those words.
Arsenokoites was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed".
This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been
found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not
know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably
refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common
practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at
Pompeii and other sites.
When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned homosexuality,
they did not use this word. John Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached
in Greek against homosexuality, but he never used this word for
homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy
1:10, he did not mention homosexuals.
Please provide the other uses of arsenokoites in the Bible.
D*
Don
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> Jeff makes a good point.....I suggest you read it.
>>
>> Okay, how do *you* think "arseno-coitus" should be translated?!
>>
>> Jeff Shirton
>
>The Septuagint uses it in places clearly deliniating
>homosexual acts.
Which places? Please list your references.
>aresnokoties - the clear indication
>of men and sex in the word shoud give us an idea
>what's being said.
Really? "Men and sex?" What "idea what's being said" do you read
into this...which is not even implied?
> Any attempt to explain it away
>is done so by those who feel convicted by the
>language of scripture and are unwilling to repent
>of their actions.
Not necessarily true. And attempt to CLARIFY what is says/means is
simply good scholarship. Nor does an attempt to clarify what is says
imply anything about the writers involved...as you are attempting to
say. Repentance has nothing to do with understanding this passage.
Repentance from lying should be on your mind.
More info for you, Micah...
"Arsenokoitai, translated in the NIV as "homosexual offenders", is
actually best translated as sexual aggressor (with the connotations of
a rapist of slave trader: see the following link to All TLG occurences
of arsenok*). This word is found in no extant Greek literature prior
to Paul's use here, which complicates our understanding of the word.
The literal translation of this compound word is (arsenos)
male-bedders (koites), which could easily mean a man who sleeps
around. The strongest argument that leads one to believe that Paul was
referring specifically to general homosexuality is the possibility
that Paul coined this term himself. If this is the case, then he
probably created this compound word from the Septuagint (the ancient
Greek version of the Old Testament) translation of Leviticus 20:13
(kai hos an koime:the: meta arsenos koite:n gunaikos...). However,
this passage refers specifically to the holiness codes and thus
probably implies some kind of ritual uncleanness (see Addendum 2 on
the Old Testament passages; and again, this assumes both that he
coined the term, and that he intended the term to refer back to this
passage, neither of which have strong evidence).
Moreover, one wonders why, if Paul is going to go to the extent of
creating a novel word to prohibit male homosexual behavior, why
doesn't he, in the same verse, create a complementary word prohibiting
female homosexual behavior. The conspicuous absence of such a
prohibition implies one of two things: 1) If Paul is using the term
arsenokoitai to refer to homosexual behavior at all, he not
prohibiting all homosexual behavior, only some type of male homosexual
behavior that produced ritual uncleanness in the mind of the first
century church (unless he is allowing for female homosexual behavior,
prohibiting only male homosexual behavior), or 2) he is, in fact, not
referring to homosexuality at all in these passages.
In either case, neither arsenokoitai nor malakoi are justifiably
translated as homosexual in any other Greek literature, which makes
one question why they are translated that way here."
Thanks to right-winged, conservative, evangelical Christian, Jeramy
Townsley for the info.
D*
*Venus* @-->--------------
Thanks for the correction.
I often get the two accounts of the two women confused.....
Pms......aint it an awful thing?
I lose my mind during this time...
LOL!
Micah Burke
> I often get the two accounts of the two women confused.....
There are many similar aspects to the two accounts, however
the most striking thing about them both is that Christ involved
himself in the lives of people whom the ~righteous~ pharisees
would not, Samaritians and an adulteress.
We who are 'Christians' must remember that we are Christians
only because Christ first loved us and died for us while we
were yet sinners.
> Pms......aint it an awful thing?
> I lose my mind during this time...
> LOL!
God bless,
Micah
Jeff Shirton
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ryk96.2182$I6.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> The Septuagint uses it in places clearly deliniating
> homosexual acts. aresnokoties - the clear indication
Any particular citations within the LXX you can share?
> Micah
Jeff Shirton
The DataRat
"The Septuagint uses it in places clearly
deliniating homosexual acts"
Representing current usage of arsenokoites
at the time the NT was written !
The DataRat
Jeff Shirton
.
> >> Okay, how do *you* think "arseno-coitus" should be
> >> translated?!
So, Don, your answer to this is, "I don't know *what* it means, but I'm
sure it can't mean "homosexual", because I don't *want* it to mean
that."
Micah replied:
> >The Septuagint uses it in places clearly deliniating
> >homosexual acts. aresnokoties - the clear indication
> Now Micah...please provide the other uses of
> aresnokoties to which you refer. Your claim proves
> that, no matter how sincere you seem to be,
> you actually don't know what you are talking about.
So since he has information which contradicts your standpoint of
ignorance, he doesn't know what he's talking about?! Sounds like you
want to *remain* in ignorance.
> The apostle Paul had a habit of "coining" new words.
> It was not uncommon for him to do that in the New
> Testament writings.
> Arsenokoites is one of those words.
And you are 100% sure of this?
So when we see "arsenokoites" in pre-Christian writings, I imagine your
response will be to claim that they are fakes, or that the carbon-dating
was inaccurate, or any other excuse you can think of in order to avoid
the truth?
> Arsenokoites was formed from two words meaning "male"
> and "bed".
730 arsen -- male (as stronger for lifting):--male, man.
2845 koite -- a couch; by extension, cohabitation;
by implication, the male sperm:--bed,
chambering, X conceive.
First of all, your statement that "koite" means "bed" is misleading at
best. The Greek for "bed", without any sexual connotations, is "kline",
as in Mark 4:21, 7:30.
If you do a study of the usage of "koite" in the Scriptures, we see
examples such as Rom. 9:10, where "koite" is translated as "conceived"
(KJV, Darby, NASB), or in Rom. 13:13, where it is translated as
"chambering" and given clearly negative and sinful connotations.
I think it's pretty clear that the meaning Paul had in mind was
something to the effect of "man-sex", which is basically what homosexual
sex is.
> This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and
This is true.
It is also pretty irrelevant.
> has not been
> found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time.
You seem to have a very strong opinion for someone who wishes to avoid
any evidence to the contrary. A few weeks ago I remember someone saying
that the term was used a few centuries before Christ (I tend to remember
it being around 600 BC, but I'm not positive). Then Micah Burke pointed
out that it was used in the LXX (which clearly predates Paul), yet you
reject that evidence without even looking at it.
> We do not know what it means.
You mean you don't *want* to know what it means.
> The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably
> refers to male prostitutes with female customers,
> which was a common practice in the Roman world, as
> revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.
And how did you arrive at *that* meaning?
They already had the terms "porno" and "porne" for male or female
prostitutes, so why would Paul make up a different word when there was
already one available?
> When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned
> homosexuality, they did not use this word. John
> Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against
> homosexuality, but he never used this word for
> homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9
> and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals.
So if there are two terms which mean the same thing, and one term is
used exclusively, one cannot argue (on any logical basis) that the other
(unused) term no longer means what it means.
To use your "logic", the last 20 or 30 times that I heard to someone
refer to a person who wanted sex with the same sex, they used the term
"gay". In all those instances, they never used the term "homosexual".
Does that mean that "homosexual" does not have the same meaning as
"gay"? Of course not!
> D*
Jeff Shirton
The DataRat
"He ~allowed~ a woman who was set-up
in an adulterous situation to go free, we
see that she was accused by men seeking
to trap CHRIST"
Not only was it a mere pretext to trap
Jesus (John 8:6), but ANY righteous
judge would have had to release the
woman:
Leviticus 20:10 mandates that ~both~
...or NEITHER... parties in an adultery be
punished.
John 8 is used by PoMo's to "prove"
Jesus was an antinomian ACLU type.
In reality, He was a Law-&-Order guy
who in John 8 was dispersing an
illegal lynch mob !
The DataRat
Jeff Shirton
.
> >Okay, how do *you* think "arseno-coitus" should be translated?!
>
> Why would you think that it should be read "homosexual?"
> You don't know Greek, do you?
It comes out pretty literally as "man-sex".
But I noticed that in your long diatribe, you don't offer any alternate
and conclusive meaning. Do you really believe that this was Paul's
intent, to not be understood, to use a term that nobody could figure out
its meaning?
If you can't claim, with some confidence and authority, what the term
*does* mean, then you in all honesty are not really in any kind of
position to make any claims about what it *doesn't* mean, can you?
> D*
Jeff Shirton
Mikal 606
It is not given to us to weigh others qualifications to enter the Kingdom.
END.
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:yNq96.314550$_5.71...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Jeff Shirton
Mikal 606 <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:945dne$un7$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> This is all pretty pointless.
> It is not given to us to weigh others qualifications
> to enter the Kingdom.
> END.
Yes, I guess you're right.
If someone wants to believe that homosexual acts are not sinful, then we
probably shouldn't correct them.
And if others wish to believe that murdering isn't sinful, then we are
out of line in trying to correct them.
And if still others wish to believe that fornication is sinful, then
live and let live, right?
Jeff Shirton
Mikal 606
If I thought it was concern for people souls that drove this issue I would
play your little pointy headed game.
Every time you deny Christ the authority to judge, you are anti-Christ.
Micah Burke
> refer to a person who wanted sex with the same sex, they used the term
> "gay". In all those instances, they never used the term "homosexual".
> Does that mean that "homosexual" does not have the same meaning as
> "gay"? Of course not!
See this is the logic (or lack thereof) in their arguements.
They cannot accept that a Holy and Righteous God would
condemn them for doing what they claim feels good. Yet
we see time and again that our Holy and Righteous God
condemns all sorts for all kinds of misdeads even though
they 'feel good'.
The word 'arsenokoites' is used twice in the new testament,
once in 1 Cor. 6:9 and again in 1 Tim. 1:9-10. We see that
since it is used rarely, it's expected to be something ~rare~
at least in the church. The two times it is mentioned in scripture
it is in letters to a church and an individual in places where
homosexual acts were much more common than in Judea.
It is quite amusing to see the number of websites devoted to
the attempted debunking of the truth, that being that homosexuality
is considered by God and scripture to be immoral activity worthy
of damnation, unless repented of.
ALL immorality is condemned in scripture. Our God is not
soft on those who wish to remain in their sinful lifestyles
and claim Christianity.
To claim that arsenkoites is temple prostitution clearly
is incorrect, for such activity is mentioned elsewhere in
the same scripture and condemned just as loudly.
Scripture is clear, in the Genesis account God made
male and female, this goes far beyond just the physical
differences, he made them as a picture of his relationship
with his future church. We see this concept again in
Ephesians.
Ephesians 5:24-25
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should
submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your
wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their
own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
There are many places in scripture that mention marital-type
relationships, all of them are clearly between a man and a woman,
no where are homosexual relationships or homosexual intercourse
hinted at except as 1) an abomination (Leviticus) 2) an evil thing
(Genesis) and 3) something that will cause one not to enter heaven
(1 Cor. & 1 Tim.).
Any suggestion otherwise is deviant and purposefully misrepresenting
the gospel for selfish, immoral and ungodly purposes.
One website went as far as to say:
"("men in men," GK: arsenes en arsenes), but the activity is described
in the context of a pagan orgy and seems to be talking about
heterosexuals who get so caught up in the frenzy they betray their
own nature. In any case, clearly Romans 1 [is not referring to] an instant
of two same sex individuals in a committed and loving relationship.
(Don't forget that Paul also says that it is unnatural for men to have
long hair, and I don't hear this being made a political issue--
how hypocritical!)"
It's clear from Paul's speaking about the issue of long hair that
it in no way compares to homosexual activity, and it is not
discussing pagan orgies (that's mentioned ELSEWHERE).
So we are left with this basic fact: all immorality is condemned
in scripture. Again, I turn you to the rich young lord, thinking
he was set in heaven by his works, only to find that his heart
was unwilling to let go of his earthly pleasures... so it is
will all who sin.
Micah
Paul Duca
The DataRat wrote:
> "I have a question for you Mr. Rat.
> What then of those whom still practice
> sex with others of the same sex, and
> say they are Christians....?"
>
> God's Word is clear on this topic:
>
> "Do not be deceived; neither
> fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
> adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
> homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
> the covetous, nor drunkards,
> nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall
> inherit the kingdom of God"
> (1 Corinthians 6:9 NASB)
>
> If they're not going to heaven, neither are
> they "Christians".
>
> "Those whom say they are in loving, same
> sex relations?"
>
> God's Word makes no exception for "loving"
> homosexual fornication.
DataRat's God makes no exception for loving period
>
>
> "Must they ask for repentance EVERY time
> they have sex?"
>
> Scripture doesn't ask for pro forma "repentance".
> It requires genuine repentance.
>
> Anyone who consistently lives in a homosexual
> relationship of any kind obviously has NO
> interest in sincere repentance.
>
> "Repentance" isn't merely being sorry for sin.
> It's also a 'turning away' from sin !
>
> Christians slip and fall. But, those who live
> on the floor aren't "Christians" !
They just get belittled and berated by those who say they are
"Christian"
>
>
> "Will God forgive this type of heathen attitude?"
>
>
Maybe...but He'll never forget, and one's iniquity will be
broadcast all over Heaven for eternity.
Paul
Don
wrote:
>
And if still others read meanings into words which are not correct,
then why try to correct them? They don't care if they misinterpret
the language or not.
Don
wrote:
>
>Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ABAA5CA52C268A2F.C3CF5E01...@lp.airnews.net..
>.
>
>> >> Okay, how do *you* think "arseno-coitus" should be
>> >> translated?!
>
>So, Don, your answer to this is, "I don't know *what* it means, but I'm
>sure it can't mean "homosexual", because I don't *want* it to mean
>that."
No...because it DOESN'T mean that!
>Micah replied:
>
>> >The Septuagint uses it in places clearly deliniating
>> >homosexual acts. aresnokoties - the clear indication
>
>> Now Micah...please provide the other uses of
>> aresnokoties to which you refer. Your claim proves
>> that, no matter how sincere you seem to be,
>> you actually don't know what you are talking about.
>
>So since he has information which contradicts your standpoint of
>ignorance, he doesn't know what he's talking about?! Sounds like you
>want to *remain* in ignorance.
I notice that you did not provide the other uses of aresnokoties as I
asked.
>> The apostle Paul had a habit of "coining" new words.
>> It was not uncommon for him to do that in the New
>> Testament writings.
>> Arsenokoites is one of those words.
>
>And you are 100% sure of this?
Yes! And so are most scholars. Must be news to you.
>So when we see "arsenokoites" in pre-Christian writings, I imagine your
>response will be to claim that they are fakes, or that the carbon-dating
>was inaccurate, or any other excuse you can think of in order to avoid
>the truth?
You won't see "arsenokoites" in pre-Christian writings. It is not in
any of them.
>
>> Arsenokoites was formed from two words meaning "male"
>> and "bed".
>
>730 arsen -- male (as stronger for lifting):--male, man.
>
>2845 koite -- a couch; by extension, cohabitation;
> by implication, the male sperm:--bed,
> chambering, X conceive.
>
>First of all, your statement that "koite" means "bed" is misleading at
>best. The Greek for "bed", without any sexual connotations, is "kline",
>as in Mark 4:21, 7:30.
>
>If you do a study of the usage of "koite" in the Scriptures, we see
>examples such as Rom. 9:10, where "koite" is translated as "conceived"
>(KJV, Darby, NASB), or in Rom. 13:13, where it is translated as
>"chambering" and given clearly negative and sinful connotations.
>
>I think it's pretty clear that the meaning Paul had in mind was
>something to the effect of "man-sex", which is basically what homosexual
>sex is.
I think you are again reading a meaning which is clearly incorrect.
>> This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and
>
>This is true.
>It is also pretty irrelevant.
No it isn't. You claimed "The Septuagint uses it in places clearly
deliniating homosexual acts...aresnokoties..."
You contradict yourself which leads me to believe that you really
haven't studied it much at all.
>> has not been
>> found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time.
>
>You seem to have a very strong opinion for someone who wishes to avoid
>any evidence to the contrary. A few weeks ago I remember someone saying
>that the term was used a few centuries before Christ (I tend to remember
>it being around 600 BC, but I'm not positive). Then Micah Burke pointed
>out that it was used in the LXX (which clearly predates Paul), yet you
>reject that evidence without even looking at it.
>
>> We do not know what it means.
>
>You mean you don't *want* to know what it means.
You are guessing at a meaning. Scholars agree that it doesn't mean
homosexual.
>> The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably
>> refers to male prostitutes with female customers,
>> which was a common practice in the Roman world, as
>> revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.
>
>And how did you arrive at *that* meaning?
Because I studied more scholars than just the "Jerry Fallwell Study
Notes" as you are copying from.
>They already had the terms "porno" and "porne" for male or female
>prostitutes, so why would Paul make up a different word when there was
>already one available?
>
>> When early Greek speaking Christian preachers condemned
>> homosexuality, they did not use this word. John
>> Chrysostom (A.D. 345-407) preached in Greek against
>> homosexuality, but he never used this word for
>> homosexuals, and when he preached on 1 Corinthians 6:9
>> and 1 Timothy 1:10, he did not mention homosexuals.
>
>So if there are two terms which mean the same thing, and one term is
>used exclusively, one cannot argue (on any logical basis) that the other
>(unused) term no longer means what it means.
WHAT??? No reputable scholars will state that the term simply means
homosexual.
You are reading into it your own beliefs, a meaning which is not
there. The term doesn't mean homosexual.
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: May I be a gay Christian
>
> From: "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com>
> Reply to: [1] "Mikal 606"
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:51:48 -0500
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.bible,
> [3] alt.bible.prophecy,
> [4] alt.christnet,
> [5] alt.christnet.bible,
> [6] alt.religion.apologetics,
> [7] alt.christnet.calvinist,
> [8] alt.religion.christian.baptist
> Followup to: [9] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [10] <qsc26tgg9tele9a1j...@4ax.com>
> [11]
> <goodshepherdparishno...@1cust212.tnt47.chi5.
> da.uu.net>
> [12] <ApX86.14421$CN6.2...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net>
> [13] <5PZ86.17499$ED.6...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>
> [14] <3A646AB7...@home.com>
> [15] <98f96tg1u3la1tuma...@4ax.com>
> [16] <S3496.1401$I6.2...@news-west.usenetserver.com>
> [17]
> <2FC37F061B142878.5CCAFBA7...@lp.airnews.
> net>
> [18] <oj896.308029$_5.697...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>
> [19] <9C18B0F6D89FB0DB.1DFF3AE473428991.56FCE48580>[20] news:01r96.314587$_5.71...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...>> [21] news:945dne$un7$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> > This is all pretty pointless.
>> > It is not given to us to weigh others qualifications
>> > to enter the Kingdom.
>> > END.
>>
>> Yes, I guess you're right.
>> If someone wants to believe that homosexual acts are not sinful, then we
>> probably shouldn't correct them.
>>
>> And if others wish to believe that murdering isn't sinful, then we are
>> out of line in trying to correct them.
>>
**** ah so you are comparing acts of loving another with acts of killing
another? therein lies your problem...see homosexuality is okay and
murdering not. Simple.
>> And if still others wish to believe that fornication is sinful, then
>> live and let live, right?
>>
****** I could not care less if you want to make your sex bad. I like mine
straight up and on the rocks.
B.
Jeff Shirton
.
> You won't see "arsenokoites" in pre-Christian
> writings. It is not in any of them.
--------------------------------------------------
Lev 18:22 kai meta ARSENOS ou koimhqhsh KOITHN
======= ======
gunaikos bdelugma gar estin (LXX)
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with
a woman; such a thing is an abomination. (NASB)
-----------------------------------------------------
Lev 20:13 kai os an koimhqh meta ARSENOS KOITHN
==============
gunaikos bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi
qanatousqwsan enocoi eisin (LXX)
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
both of them shall be put to death for their
abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives. (NASB)
-----------------------------------------------------
> >> This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and
> >
> >This is true.
> >It is also pretty irrelevant.
>
> No it isn't. You claimed "The Septuagint uses it in
> places clearly
> deliniating homosexual acts...aresnokoties..."
Well, I wasn't the one who made the above claim.
But look at the above passages, and tell me if you think they *don't*
refer to homosexual acts.
> You are guessing at a meaning. Scholars agree that
> it doesn't mean homosexual.
I have yet to see even *one* cite from you to that effect.
> >And how did you arrive at *that* meaning?
>
> Because I studied more scholars than just the
> "Jerry Fallwell Study
> Notes" as you are copying from.
I'm "copying" from notes?!
I'm sorry, I was not aware of that I was doing any such thing.
> >They already had the terms "porno" and "porne" for
> >male or female prostitutes, so why would Paul make
> >up a different word when there was already one
> >available?
I noticed you didn't comment on that.
> You are reading into it your own beliefs, a meaning
> which is not there. The term doesn't mean homosexual.
Well, if you wish to take the position that Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13
don't refer to homosexual acts, then it's your credibility (not to
mention your salvation) on the line, not mine.
> D*
Jeff Shirton
Don
wrote:
>
>Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:9365C1448700C5FC.1D4FF0AB...@lp.airnews.net..
>.
>
>> You won't see "arsenokoites" in pre-Christian
>> writings. It is not in any of them.
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>Lev 18:22 kai meta ARSENOS ou koimhqhsh KOITHN
> ======= ======
> gunaikos bdelugma gar estin (LXX)
>
>Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with
> a woman; such a thing is an abomination. (NASB)
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>Lev 20:13 kai os an koimhqh meta ARSENOS KOITHN
> ==============
> gunaikos bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi
> qanatousqwsan enocoi eisin (LXX)
>
>Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
> both of them shall be put to death for their
> abominable deed; they have forfeited their
> lives. (NASB)
>-----------------------------------------------------
Not the same word. Is your implication that we should apply the above
passages to the new covenant body of Christ?
"Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals
who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good
crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or
homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in
Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously
unclean or associated with idol worship.
Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have
been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject
gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help
you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible
regarding homosexuals.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is
obviously a hypocritical selective use of the Bible against
gays and lesbians. Nobody today tries to keep the laws in
Leviticus. Look at Leviticus 11:1-12, where all unclean animals are
forbidden as food, including rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such
as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others that are
called an "abomination." Leviticus 20:25 demands that "you are
to make a distinction between the clean and unclean animal and between
the unclean and clean bird; and you shall not make yourself an
abomination by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on
the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." You
can eat some insects like locusts (grasshoppers), but not others.
Leviticus 12:1-8 declares that a woman is unclean for 33 days
after giving birth to a boy and for 66 days after giving birth
to a girl and goes on to demand that certain animals must be
offered as a burnt offering and a sin offering for cleansing. Nobody
today who claims to be a Christian tries to keep these laws,
and few people even know about them! Why do you think that most
people don't know about them?
Read Leviticus 23 to see the detailed regulations concerning
"complete rest" on the Sabbath day and demands of animal
sacrifices to be carried out according to exact instructions.
Leviticus 18:19 forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during
her menstrual period. Leviticus 19:19 forbids mixed breeding
of various kinds of cattle, sowing various kinds of seeds in
your field or wearing "a garment made from two kinds of
material mixed together." Leviticus 19:27 demands that "you shall not
round off the side-growth of your heads, nor harm the edges of
your beard." The next verse forbids "tattoo marks on yourself."
Most people do not even know that these laws are in the Bible
and are demanded equally with all the others.
Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood
restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery
stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell
suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and
other materials? All of these products and services are
"abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn
the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed
fabrics?
The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not
obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if
instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my
ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn,
will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror,
consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause
the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly,
for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and
terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments
continues through many verses.
Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who
judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves...
Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not
notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"
If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of
the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you
are on the wrong path. Jesus quoted only one passage from
Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus
used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and
other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which
approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned
homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a
reference to sexual orientation.
Any charge against Gays and Lesbians based on the life and
teachings of Jesus has to be dismissed for a lack of evidence!
The use of Leviticus to judge and condemn anyone today is
ludicrous and absurd in the light of the total content of the
book. To call the content of the Book of Leviticus the "word
of God" and try to enforce any part of it today is without support in
the teachings of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.
Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of
spiritual understanding. Jesus and his disciples had been
condemned by the religious leaders because they did not wash
and eat according to the Law. Jesus said, "Are you too so
uncomprehending? Don't you see that whatever goes into your mouth
from the outside cannot defile you; because it does not go into
your heart, but into your stomach, and is eliminated? (Thus
Jesus declared all foods clean."). And Jesus added, "That
which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you.
Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of
coveting, wickedness, deceit, not caring, envy, slander, arrogance
and foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within
and defile you."
Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in
Colossians 2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ
to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were
living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such
as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to
things destined to perish with the using) in accordance with
human commandments and teachings? These are matters which have,
to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and
self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no
value against human indulgence." (2:20-23). Paul declared in
2:14 that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting
of decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has
taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Many people have answered the argument that most of the
"abominations" in Leviticus referred to food by saying that the
people back then knew that pork was unhealthy, and that is why
pigs were declared to be unclean. If you follow that logic, you would
declare anything that is unhealthy to be an "abomination." We know
that cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, fat food and many other
things are unhealthy; so why are they not also called
"abominations" and condemned by the rabid Bible literalists with
protests and pickets against cigarette machines, all liquor
stores and bars, all fast food outlets, and any store that
sells anything that is unhealthy? The reason is simple. The use of
Leviticus to condemn and reject anyone is impossible to justify in the
light of the facts.
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is
absurd and makes literal legalistic bible based religion look
ridiculous."
>> >> This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and
>> >
>> >This is true.
>> >It is also pretty irrelevant.
>>
>> No it isn't. You claimed "The Septuagint uses it in
>> places clearly
>> deliniating homosexual acts...aresnokoties..."
>
>Well, I wasn't the one who made the above claim.
>But look at the above passages, and tell me if you think they *don't*
>refer to homosexual acts.
>
>> You are guessing at a meaning. Scholars agree that
>> it doesn't mean homosexual.
>
>I have yet to see even *one* cite from you to that effect.
I gave you two. There are others. However you would say that they
are not interpreting it correctly.
>> >And how did you arrive at *that* meaning?
>>
>> Because I studied more scholars than just the
>> "Jerry Fallwell Study
>> Notes" as you are copying from.
>
>I'm "copying" from notes?!
>I'm sorry, I was not aware of that I was doing any such thing.
>
>> >They already had the terms "porno" and "porne" for
>> >male or female prostitutes, so why would Paul make
>> >up a different word when there was already one
>> >available?
>
>I noticed you didn't comment on that.
There are different types of prostitutes who served different
functions in that society...more that two. But you don't want to take
the context of the society into consideration.
>> You are reading into it your own beliefs, a meaning
>> which is not there. The term doesn't mean homosexual.
>
>Well, if you wish to take the position that Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13
>don't refer to homosexual acts, then it's your credibility (not to
>mention your salvation) on the line, not mine.
So are you going to attempt to apply these two passages, completely
out of their context, to the new covenant body of Christ? Well, you
better be consistent and begin applying the other "laws" and
"abominations" to the body as well.
My salvation is just fine.
Don
non-beliefs.
2) It is denounced as right-wing, left-wing, communist, socialist,
baptist, catholic, atheist, elitist, nazi-ish, liberal, conservative,
moronic, wacko (Feel free to add.)
3) Angry rebuttals are made to the denunciation(s) usually light on
fact and heavy on hearsay, scripture interpretations and opinion.
In an angry rush to post some simple spelling and grammatical errors
are made.
4) Spelling and grammatical errors are called out, and personal
insults fly, i.e. "you are too stupid to spell" (so how could you
possibly be right?)
5) Almost no progress is made toward any sort of intelligent
conversation and NO ONE is convinced of anything.
6) Repeat steps 3-5 until futility is reached.
AMEN!!!
Micah Burke
> play your little pointy headed game.
> Every time you deny Christ the authority to judge, you are anti-Christ.
Bah! Amazing, antinomianism alive and well.
1 Cor. 5:9-13
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually
immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world
who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters.
In that case you would have to leave this world.
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with
anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral
or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler.
With such a man do not even eat.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?
Are you not to judge those inside?
God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Micah Burke
> another? therein lies your problem...see homosexuality is okay and
> murdering not. Simple.
Not according to scripture, both are rebellion.
> >> And if still others wish to believe that fornication is sinful, then
> >> live and let live, right?
> >>
>
> ****** I could not care less if you want to make your sex bad. I like mine
> straight up and on the rocks.
> B.
Again, proof of total depravity.
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > If I thought it was concern for people souls that drove this issue I
would
> > play your little pointy headed game.
> > Every time you deny Christ the authority to judge, you are anti-Christ.
>
> Bah! Amazing, antinomianism alive and well.
<snip>
Concepts cant live.
Micah Burke
>
> <snip>
> Concepts cant live.
You're proof that they can!
Hummer
father bastards, why shouldn't you screw everything that you want to?
"Don" <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:583A07A742124E4A.451D0B75...@lp.airnews.net...
Hummer
CHICAGO (AP) - The Rev. Jesse Jackson withdrew from public view at a
potentially critical hour for the civil rights movement Thursday after
disclosing that he had an extramarital affair that resulted in the birth of
a daughter a year and a half ago.
A steady stream of supporters - including Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson
Jr. - visited with him at his Chicago home, some carrying Bibles. But the
only word from Jackson was a statement issued in the early morning hours
revealing the affair.
"I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions," he
said.
Accept responsibility? I hope so, he's the one that did the screwing!
Sorry? Yeah right! Sorry he got caught! hahahaha
Wonder what he talked to Clinton about when called to help with Clinton's
affair, maybe they exchanged telephone numbers for their "girls". hahaha
Don
>Hey! If Jesse Jackson is a Christian and is allowed to screw his flock and
>father bastards, why shouldn't you screw everything that you want to?
Poor Jesse. Today a friend told me that he had acted as a counselor
to the Clinton's daughter. How sad!
D*
>
>"Don" <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:583A07A742124E4A.451D0B75...@lp.airnews.net...
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:35:29 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:9365C1448700C5FC.1D4FF0AB...@lp.airnews.net..
>> >.
>> >
>> >> You won't see "arsenokoites" in pre-Christian
>> >> writings. It is not in any of them.
>> >
"Government doesn't work. It doesn't keep our streets safe and it doesn't educate our children. Government is good at
Ninure Saunders
<Hum...@dedja.com> wrote:
-CHICAGO (AP) - The Rev. Jesse Jackson withdrew from public view at a
-potentially critical hour for the civil rights movement Thursday after
-disclosing that he had an extramarital affair that resulted in the birth of
-a daughter a year and a half ago.
-A steady stream of supporters - including Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson
-Jr. - visited with him at his Chicago home, some carrying Bibles. But the
-only word from Jackson was a statement issued in the early morning hours
-revealing the affair.
-
-"I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions," he
-said.
-
-Accept responsibility? I hope so, he's the one that did the screwing!
-
-Sorry? Yeah right! Sorry he got caught! hahahaha
-
-Wonder what he talked to Clinton about when called to help with Clinton's
-affair, maybe they exchanged telephone numbers for their "girls". hahaha
Makes ya happy, huh?
Since you chose to post your gloating on this person's fall, O just
thought I might point this Scripture out to you, since you seem to be
claimimg moral superiority:
att. 7:1 蛇o not judge, or you too will be judged.
Matt. 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and
with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Luke 6:37 蛇o not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and
you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Rom. 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on
someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are
condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Rom. 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else零 servant? To his own master
he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him
stand.
Rom. 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look
down on your brother? For we will all stand before God零 judgment seat.
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to
save and destroy. But you 𢶤ho are you to judge your neighbor?
James 5:9 Don靖 grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be
judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Micah Burke
> thought I might point this Scripture out to you, since you seem to be
> claimimg moral superiority:
Ninure shouldn't use the scripture... it condemns her.
1 Cor. 6:9-10
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves
nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
the kingdom of God.
Stop proclaming your sinfulness to the world as righteousness.
Micah
Don
Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
Stop proclaiming your ignorance of the Bible and inability to
translate it correctly as obvious self-righteousness.
Micah Burke
> father bastards, why shouldn't you screw everything that you want to?
Because Jesse Jackson is NOT a Christian.
Micah
Ninure Saunders
<5EB8DC41241B7471.BE50CA15...@lp.airnews.net>, Don
<calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
-On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:03:16 -0800, "Micah Burke"
-<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
-
->> Since you chose to post your gloating on this person's fall, O just
->> thought I might point this Scripture out to you, since you seem to be
->> claimimg moral superiority:
->
->Ninure shouldn't use the scripture... it condemns her.
->
->1 Cor. 6:9-10
->1 Corinthians 6:9
->Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
->Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
->adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves
->nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
->the kingdom of God.
->
->Stop proclaming your sinfulness to the world as righteousness.
->
->Micah
-
-
-Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
-mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
-
-Stop proclaiming your ignorance of the Bible and inability to
-translate it correctly as obvious self-righteousness.
Micah would much rather takes sides with the racists, anti-semites,
bigots etc. if it gives him a chance to attack me, or anyone else he
hates.
He ALWAYS does.
ALWAYS.
That I could possibly be correct on a matter doesn't interest people of
his stripe at all....in fact, Micah would call a member of the Klan a
brother in Christ as long as the KKK was stringing up a "homosexual" at
the time!!!!!
-
-D*
-
-
-
-
-
-"Government doesn't work. It doesn't keep our streets safe and it doesn't
educate our children. Government is good at
-only one thing: It breaks your legs, hands you a pair of crutches, and
says, 'See, without us you wouldn't be able to walk.”
-- - - - - Harry Browne
Micah Burke
> -mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
It most certainly does. Only the ignorant, untaught, and
deceiving wish it to say otherwise. Scripture holds
no leeway for those who wish to remain immoral and
call themselves saved.
Intercourse between any persons except married
males and females is considered sinful. That is why
scripture clearly denotes specific duties for the
HUSBAND and WIFE, MALE and FEMALE. Scripture
is quite clear to the order of things in Genesis,
God created them MALE and FEMALE...
Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his
mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall
become one flesh.
There is no comprimise here. Those who would seek
one are only seeking to justify their sinful lifestyle.
The gospel is not about being saved and remaining in
sin, it's about a compelete change of life, one that
becomes completely devoted to God. One who remains
in a sin of their past whilst attempting to 'be Christian'
is doomed.
There are plenty of websites and cults out there that teach
otherwise, but they do not teach the cross-bearing, life
changing and highly demanding gospel of scripture.
Luke 9:62
But Jesus said to him, " No one, after putting his hand to the
plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.''
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > -Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
> > -mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
>
> It most certainly does. Only the ignorant, untaught, and
You mean all of us dont you.Admit it.
Don
<klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> -Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
>> -mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
>
>It most certainly does. Only the ignorant, untaught, and
>deceiving wish it to say otherwise. Scripture holds
>no leeway for those who wish to remain immoral and
>call themselves saved.
St. Paul coined a word. You say the word means homosexual, although
the word homosexual was not even in our language until a few years
ago. So Paul coined a word, which is difficult to translate into
modern English, yet you are saying it means something which didn't
even exist just a few years ago.
Hmmmmm...strange Biblical exegesis.
>Intercourse between any persons except married
>males and females is considered sinful. That is why
>scripture clearly denotes specific duties for the
>HUSBAND and WIFE, MALE and FEMALE. Scripture
>is quite clear to the order of things in Genesis,
>God created them MALE and FEMALE...
>
>Genesis 2:24
>For this reason a man shall leave his father and his
>mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall
>become one flesh.
>
>There is no comprimise here. Those who would seek
>one are only seeking to justify their sinful lifestyle.
So you are saying that "the order of things" is "HUSBAND and WIFE,
MALE and FEMALE." According to the scripture which you quote in the
context you have here, a person who does NOT leave his father and his
mother and join to "his wife" is living a sinful lifestyle.
Expanding your example, any other situation would be sin. I guess a
single male who does not marry is living a "sinful lifestyle."
Following your logic, a single female is living a "sinful lifestyle."
>Luke 9:62
>But Jesus said to him, " No one, after putting his hand to the
>plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.''
Oh mighty Micah, when did you leave the farm?
D*
"Government doesn't work. It doesn't keep our streets safe and it doesn't educate our children. Government is good at
only one thing: It breaks your legs, hands you a pair of crutches, and says, 'See, without us you wouldn't be able to walk.”
- - - - - Harry Browne
Micah Burke
> bigots etc. if it gives him a chance to attack me, or anyone else he
> hates.
1) I am not racist.
There are no races in the Kingdom of God. Neither Jew nor Gentile.
2) I am not an anti-Semite
The Jews were the Chosen people of God. Salvation was opened
to the Gentiles through faith. The Jewish people have a great
and awesome history behind them, their salvation remains imminent.
Jesus was a Jew, remained a Jew and all of his original followers
were Jews. To harbor a hatred or anger towards the Jewish nation
is to harbor hatred and anger against the Chosen people of God.
Scripture states that those who access salvation by grace through
faith in Christ are 'true' Jews... therefore I am a Jew! Prior to
my faith in Christ I was an enemy of God and in condemnation
as are all people.
3) I am not a bigot.
I do accept the truth in the scriptures as written... and the
scriptures show that homosexuality as well as all sins seperate
us from God. When one claims to be a follower of Christ yet
shows an ongoing pattern of sinfulness, encourages others to
engage in said sin, and even suggests that the apostles themselves
were willfully engaged in that same sin even though scriptures
clearly show otherwise, they show that Christ is NOT in them.
Such as they are seeking a salvation on their own terms, and not
the terms of God.
1 Cor. 6:9 (NASB)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
{the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit
the kingdom of God.
1Tim 1:8-11 (NASB)
But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person,
but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and
sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers
or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and
kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to
sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,
with which I have been entrusted.
Here we have Paul, in a letter to Timothy, refering to the Law
and it's purpose to convict sinners of their sin. He mentions
homosexuals (the same greek word found in the 1 Cor. scripture)
as something found in the law. We know what he is talking about
because we see it clearly in Leviticus...
Leviticus 20:13
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman,
both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put
to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
To some this might indicate that lesbianism is therefore ok, but
Paul again clarifies this as being even more unbelieveable in
Romans 1.
Romans 1
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural function for that which
is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the
natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward
one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving
in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Clearly this is not something to be ~honored~ as is the habit today.
Homosexuality is a sin like many others, a sign of the total depravity
of mankind to do what is not right.
To call me a bigot simply because I believe certain sexual appetites,
desires, and 'orientations' are immoral, is to call Paul, Jesus in
deed even God to be bigots.
I "attack" Ninure's POSTS because they are in error, they spread
error and they claim salvation by sinfulness. There is no excuse
for this, and it will only cause her deeper condemnation unless
she repents.
I do not ~hate~ Ninure, I pray that she see the error of her
ways and repent.
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Whats the matter with you?
Jesus was put to death for the whole shebang, the whole spectrum.
Hummer
"Ninure Saunders" <goodshepherd...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:goodshepherdparishno...@dialup-63.215.112.238.chicago
1.level3.net...
> In article <%FN96.282451$U46.8...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, "Hummer"
> <Hum...@dedja.com> wrote:
>
> -CHICAGO (AP) - The Rev. Jesse Jackson withdrew from public view at a
> -potentially critical hour for the civil rights movement Thursday after
> -disclosing that he had an extramarital affair that resulted in the birth
of
> -a daughter a year and a half ago.
> -A steady stream of supporters - including Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse
Jackson
> -Jr. - visited with him at his Chicago home, some carrying Bibles. But the
> -only word from Jackson was a statement issued in the early morning hours
> -revealing the affair.
> -
> -"I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions," he
> -said.
> -
> -Accept responsibility? I hope so, he's the one that did the screwing!
> -
> -Sorry? Yeah right! Sorry he got caught! hahahaha
> -
> -Wonder what he talked to Clinton about when called to help with Clinton's
> -affair, maybe they exchanged telephone numbers for their "girls". hahaha
>
> Makes ya happy, huh?
Jesse been screwing around for years. (pun intended) He just happened to get
caught this time.
Do you think he just screwed her once? I bet it he has been screwing her on
and off for years.
Hum
>
>
> Since you chose to post your gloating on this person's fall, O just
> thought I might point this Scripture out to you, since you seem to be
> claimimg moral superiority:
>
>
> att. 7:1 蛇o not judge, or you too will be judged.
>
> Matt. 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and
> with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
>
> Luke 6:37 蛇o not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and
> you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
>
>
> Rom. 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on
> someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are
> condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
>
> Rom. 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else零 servant? To his own master
> he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him
> stand.
>
> Rom. 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look
> down on your brother? For we will all stand before God零 judgment seat.
>
> James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to
> save and destroy. But you >
Hummer
Maybe if you dated Ninure and made love to her she would change her ways.
Hum
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cz1a6.11762$74.1...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
The DataRat
"Hey! If Jesse Jackson is a Christian..."
Why would you suppose jesse Jackson is
a Christian ?
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Micah would much rather takes sides
with the racists, anti-semites, bigots etc."
Manure Saunders playing the Race Card,
again.
Everybody knows that you can't say
ANYTHING against ~any~ black person
without being a "racist" ! They are above
criticism.
The DataRat
Micah Burke
> Jesus was put to death for the whole shebang, the whole spectrum.
Therefore men are free to sin?
Micah
Micah Burke
> > deceiving wish <snip>
>
> You mean all of us dont you.Admit it.
>
>
In fact, all mankind does this until God calls them and
saves them.
Micah
*Venus* @-->--------------
>Hey! If Jesse Jackson is a Christian and is allowed to screw his flock and
>father bastards, why shouldn't you screw everything that you want to?
>
Hey stupid.........who is stopping you?
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
Go ahead and screw everything you want to....but don't go crying to
your daddy when your peter falls off riddled with canker sores and
your blood flows with the poison called AIDS.
Don
<Ve...@HeavenlyBody.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:25:49 GMT, "Hummer" <Hum...@deja.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey! If Jesse Jackson is a Christian and is allowed to screw his flock and
>>father bastards, why shouldn't you screw everything that you want to?
>>
>
>Hey stupid.........who is stopping you?
>Do you think two wrongs make a right?
>Go ahead and screw everything you want to....but don't go crying to
>your daddy when your peter falls off riddled with canker sores and
>your blood flows with the poison called AIDS.
Actually, AIDS is not a poison and your blood doesn't flow with it.
The HIV virus is what is in your system and is passed through most
body fluids.
AIDS is the name given when your body responds to any number of
symptoms resulting from a lowered immune system.
What poison is flowing through your system?
Micah Burke
>
> Maybe if you dated Ninure and made love to her she would change her ways.
>
> Hum
This example of thinking is that of one who is totally depraved.
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
You see some sin or something?
Micah Burke
on
> and off for years.
Jesse's sinfulness aside, we're not so concerned with what
he did or didn't do. The fact is that he is a prime example
of common liberal thinking. I can be a Christian and continue
to do whatever I did before I heard the gospel.
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
You have no concept of the social skill you would need in the, um, other
places.As amatter of fact, all human concepts are pretty much non
applicable.There are millions of souls of many different kinds.
We may actually be a prison planet, like the Scientologists say.
MK
Micah Burke
> > > Jesus was put to death for the whole shebang, the whole spectrum.
> >
> > Therefore men are free to sin?
> >
> > Micah
>
> You see some sin or something?
I was asking, are you saying that because Christ died on the
cross, Jesse Jackson (indeed, all who claim to believe) are
free to sin?
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
i am not saying anything
it always comes down to ``who told you you were naked"
Micah Burke
> > > > deceiving wish <snip>
> > >
> > > You mean all of us dont you.Admit it.
> >
> > In fact, all mankind does this until God calls them and
> > saves them.
>
> places.As amatter of fact, all human concepts are pretty much non
> applicable.There are millions of souls of many different kinds.
> We may actually be a prison planet, like the Scientologists say.
In a sense, we are... scripture states we are slaves to sin. However
it is not to some psyclo-aliens that we're enslaved to, it's our sinful
nature. The only redemption from this is Christ. Who calls, justifies,
sanctifies and glorifies those whom are predestined.
Micah
Micah Burke
> > > > > Jesus was put to death for the whole shebang, the whole spectrum.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore men are free to sin?
> > >
> >
> > I was asking, are you saying that because Christ died on the
> > cross, Jesse Jackson (indeed, all who claim to believe) are
> > free to sin?
>
> it always comes down to ``who told you you were naked"
So it is Satan's fault that we commit sin?
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Are you asking for the destruction of Satan?
*Venus* @-->--------------
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:01:11 -0800, "*Venus* @-->--------------"
><Ve...@HeavenlyBody.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:25:49 GMT, "Hummer" <Hum...@deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hey! If Jesse Jackson is a Christian and is allowed to screw his flock and
>>>father bastards, why shouldn't you screw everything that you want to?
>>>
>>
>>Hey stupid.........who is stopping you?
>>Do you think two wrongs make a right?
>>Go ahead and screw everything you want to....but don't go crying to
>>your daddy when your peter falls off riddled with canker sores and
>>your blood flows with the poison called AIDS.
>
>
>Actually, AIDS is not a poison and your blood doesn't flow with it.
>
>The HIV virus is what is in your system and is passed through most
>body fluids.
>
>AIDS is the name given when your body responds to any number of
>symptoms resulting from a lowered immune system.
>
>What poison is flowing through your system?
>
>
>D*
>
>
Dummy...it was meant to be a graphic statement, that is all.
Hell....I know the clinical term for what AIDS is....
Geeze......
It was meant to make a statement.
BTW~Aids IS a poison to those whom have it.
Micah Burke
>
That's been done, I was asking you a question
but it seems you're not interested in discussion.
Micah
Micah Burke
>
That's been done, I was asking you a question
The DataRat
"The fact is that he is a prime example
of common liberal thinking. I can be a
Christian and continue to do whatever
I did before I heard the gospel"
Quite so !
We see it in Clinton, and in Jackson:
Don't "repent" until you get caught.
THEN make a big public display of
regret.
The Lord ~isn't~ appeased by
Public Relations Repentance. That's
only for salvaging your public image
...NOT for divine salvation !
Note that both Clinton and Jackson
tried to blame their childhood (broken
homes) rather than accept full and
personal responsibility as sinners.
The DataRat
Paul Duca
Micah Burke wrote:
> > -Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
> > -mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
>
> It most certainly does. Only the ignorant, untaught, and
> deceiving wish it to say otherwise. Scripture holds
> no leeway for those who wish to remain immoral and
> call themselves saved.
>
> Intercourse between any persons except married
> males and females is considered sinful. That is why
> scripture clearly denotes specific duties for the
> HUSBAND and WIFE, MALE and FEMALE. Scripture
> is quite clear to the order of things in Genesis,
> God created them MALE and FEMALE...
>
> Genesis 2:24
> For this reason a man shall leave his father and his
> mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall
> become one flesh.
>
> There is no comprimise here. Those who would seek
> one are only seeking to justify their sinful lifestyle.
>
> The gospel is not about being saved and remaining in
> sin, it's about a compelete change of life, one that
> becomes completely devoted to God. One who remains
> in a sin of their past whilst attempting to 'be Christian'
> is doomed.
>
> There are plenty of websites and cults out there that teach
> otherwise, but they do not teach the cross-bearing, life
> changing and highly demanding gospel of scripture.
>
And what if Mrs. Burke's idea of Heaven ISN'T getting
love-pumped by Micah every time HE needs to get his rocks off?
Paul
Paul Duca
Hummer wrote:
> Micah:
>
> Maybe if you dated Ninure and made love to her she would change her ways.
>
All it takes to cure Ninure is giving her a new hairdo and makeup
tips--the beauty makeover cure espoused for lesbians by Exodus International.
All that's wrong with them is that no one showed them how to be feminine,
according to their thinking.
Paul
Paul Duca
Micah Burke wrote:
Are you kidding, Micah? YOU couldn't get that far with a woman even
before you found the Bible.
Pal
Jeff Shirton
.
> Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
> mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
You really shouldn't try to pass off yourself as someone who can state
authority on what is or is not "mistranslated", when you yourself cannot
give a valid translation for "arsenokoites", the term used in 1 Cor. 6:9
and the same term used in the LXX at Lev. 20:13.
This demonstrates that Paul is referring to the same act that is
condemned in Lev. 20:13. of course, the last time I pointed this out,
you brought up that old straw-man of "Are we still to obey the Mosaic
Law", when in fact that's not the issue. The issue is whether were are
to obey 1 Cor. 6:9. Lev. 20:13 is simply to show us what is meant by 1
Cor. 6:9.
> D*
Jeff Shirton
Don
wrote:
>
>Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:5EB8DC41241B7471.BE50CA15...@lp.airnews.net..
>.
>
>> Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
>> mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
>
>You really shouldn't try to pass off yourself as someone who can state
>authority on what is or is not "mistranslated", when you yourself cannot
>give a valid translation for "arsenokoites", the term used in 1 Cor. 6:9
>and the same term used in the LXX at Lev. 20:13.
Jeff, buddy...you attempt to connect two completely different passages
of scripture, written in two totally unrelated languages thousands of
years apart to two different groups of people living in two different
cultures and written for two totally different purposes.
And you say that it is the same word???
Join ToastMasters.
>This demonstrates that Paul is referring to the same act that is
>condemned in Lev. 20:13. of course, the last time I pointed this out,
>you brought up that old straw-man of "Are we still to obey the Mosaic
>Law", when in fact that's not the issue. The issue is whether were are
>to obey 1 Cor. 6:9. Lev. 20:13 is simply to show us what is meant by 1
>Cor. 6:9.
The issue is you attempting to hold new covenant believers to a
different culture in a different time with a different purpose
governed by a different form of government...a theoracy...which we are
not. The issue is your obvious lack of language skills and
understanding of culture...much less the application of scripture in
context.
D*
Ninure Saunders
<Hum...@dedja.com> wrote:
-"Ninure Saunders" <goodshepherd...@earthling.net> wrote in message
-news:goodshepherdparishno...@dialup-63.215.112.238.chicago
-1.level3.net...
-> In article <%FN96.282451$U46.8...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, "Hummer"
-> <Hum...@dedja.com> wrote:
->
-> -CHICAGO (AP) - The Rev. Jesse Jackson withdrew from public view at a
-> -potentially critical hour for the civil rights movement Thursday after
-> -disclosing that he had an extramarital affair that resulted in the birth
-of
-> -a daughter a year and a half ago.
-> -A steady stream of supporters - including Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse
-Jackson
-> -Jr. - visited with him at his Chicago home, some carrying Bibles. But the
-> -only word from Jackson was a statement issued in the early morning hours
-> -revealing the affair.
-> -
-> -"I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions," he
-> -said.
-> -
-> -Accept responsibility? I hope so, he's the one that did the screwing!
-> -
-> -Sorry? Yeah right! Sorry he got caught! hahahaha
-> -
-> -Wonder what he talked to Clinton about when called to help with Clinton's
-> -affair, maybe they exchanged telephone numbers for their "girls". hahaha
->
-> Makes ya happy, huh?
-
-Jesse been screwing around for years. (pun intended) He just happened to get
-caught this time.
-
-Do you think he just screwed her once? I bet it he has been screwing her on
-and off for years.
-
-Hum
AND YOUR POINT IS?
Are you privy to whether or not Jesse has repented/apoligized to God or not?
Has Jesse directly sinned against YOU personally?
If so, have you followed Jesus' instructions as to what YOU are to about
it or not?
Are you sinless?
So you obey Jesus every single second of your life?
Why is Jesse's situation such a matter of rejoicing for you?
I repeat:
Since you chose to post your gloating on this person's fall, I just
thought I might point this Scripture out to you, since you seem to be
claimimg moral superiority:
Matt. 7:1 蛇o not judge, or you too will be judged.
Matt. 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and
with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Luke 6:37 蛇o not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and
you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Rom. 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on
someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are
condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Rom. 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else零 servant? To his own master
he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him
stand.
Rom. 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look
down on your brother? For we will all stand before God零 judgment seat.
James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to
save and destroy. But you >
James 5:9 Don靖 grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be
judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Jeff Shirton
.
> >You really shouldn't try to pass off yourself as
> >someone who can state authority on what is or is
> >not "mistranslated", when you yourself cannot
> >give a valid translation for "arsenokoites", the
> >term used in 1 Cor. 6:9 and the same term used in
> >the LXX at Lev. 20:13.
>
> Jeff, buddy...
I'm not your "buddy".
> you attempt to connect two completely different passages
> of scripture, written in two totally unrelated
> languages thousands of years apart to two different
> groups of people living in two different cultures
> and written for two totally different purposes.
Do you know what "LXX" means?
Do you know what the "Septuagint" is?
Do you know that Leviticus and 1 Corinthians are in the same Bible?
Do you know who the message of the Old Testament is to?
Do you know who the message of the New Testament is to?
Do you know what the message of the Old Testament is?
Do you know what the message of the New Testament is?
> And you say that it is the same word???
It's a fact.
Lev 20:13 kai os an koimeqe meta ARSENOS KOITEN
==============
gunaikos bdelugma epoiesan amfoteroi
qanatousqwsan enocoi eisin (LXX)
1Co 6:9 h ouk oidate oti adikoi tsbbasileian qeou
abasileian ou klhronomhsousin mh planasqe
oute pornoi oute eidwlolatrai oute moixoi
oute malakoi oute ARSENOKOITAI
============
> >you brought up that old straw-man of "Are we still
> >to obey the Mosaic Law", when in fact that's not
> >the issue. The issue is whether were are to obey
> >1 Cor. 6:9. Lev. 20:13 is simply to show us what
> >is meant by 1 Cor. 6:9.
>
> The issue is you attempting to hold new covenant
> believers to a different culture in a different
> time with a different purpose governed by a different
> form of government...a theoracy...which we are not.
Are you saying that you reject the entire New Testament, since it was in
a "different culture", "different time", "different purpose", and
"different government"?
Is that your reason for rejecting 1 Cor. 6:9?
> D*
Jeff Shirton
Don
wrote:
>> Jeff, buddy...
>
>I'm not your "buddy".
That is correct. You are officially my brother in Christ...if, in
fact, you ARE in Christ.
>Do you know what "LXX" means?
No.
>Do you know what the "Septuagint" is?
No.
>Do you know that Leviticus and 1 Corinthians are in the same Bible?
No.
>Do you know who the message of the Old Testament is to?
No.
>Do you know who the message of the New Testament is to?
No.
>Do you know what the message of the Old Testament is?
No.
>Do you know what the message of the New Testament is?
No.
BTW, if you are implying that the "Old Testament" and all written in
it is applicable to the New Testament body of Christ, then you are in
deep trouble. Jesus said that even if you break even ONE law, you
have broken them all. You must be in sad shape.
>Are you saying that you reject the entire New Testament, since it was in
>a "different culture", "different time", "different purpose", and
>"different government"?
I didn't say that.
>Is that your reason for rejecting 1 Cor. 6:9?
I don't reject it. I reject your highly questionable method of
mis-interpreting the original languages and your sad attempt to apply
the Levitical laws to believers in Christ.
Jeff Shirton
.
> >Do you know what "LXX" means?
> No.
> >Do you know what the "Septuagint" is?
> No.
Yes, that's what I figured.
The symbol "LXX" is the Roman numerals for "70", and it represents the
"Septuagint", which was an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures (ie. the Old Testament), and was undoubtedly the Old
Testament format used by Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the Greek-speaking
first century church.
So to the extant that it was in the same language as the New Testament
was written in, and seeing as it was the form of the Old testament used
by Jesus, Paul, and others, it would seem *very* relevant to use for
language concerns, and the context of Paul's Greek epistles.
> >Do you know that Leviticus and 1 Corinthians are in
> >the same Bible?
> No.
You don't know that?
Well, now you do. Again, a common context.
> >Do you know who the message of the Old Testament is to?
> No.
> >Do you know who the message of the New Testament is to?
> No.
> >Do you know what the message of the Old Testament is?
> No.
> >Do you know what the message of the New Testament is?
> No.
It's interesting, in light of the above, that you presume to lecture
others and myself on what the Bible means, when you admittedly don't
even know anything about the message in the Bible.
The Old Testament was written to the Israelites, the Jews, although the
option was open for non-Israelites to join the Israelites and share in
the covenant.
The message of the Old Testament is that man is sinful by nature, and
sinning requires reconciliation by God. And if one wishes to fellowship
with God without being kept apart from Him through sin, he must
perfectly keep all the Laws of the Mosaic Law.
The New Testament, on the other hand, is the natural extension of the
Old Testament. By this time, man needs to have learned that he cannot
"earn" his way to heaven, but must instead depend on God's grace. Man's
constant sinning is too much to be atoned by the sins of goats and
sheep, and that is the reason Christ was sacrificed, to be the supreme
sacrifice for our sins. But as Paul tells us in Romans, the fact that
our sins are paid for is not a "license" to go out and willfully
continue sinning. But by giving one's life to God, God gives us His
Holy Spirit, which quickens our heart, and mind, and soul, and leads us
to *want* to do His will.
As to who the New Testament is written for, it is for all who call on
the name of the Lord, Jew or non-Jew.
> BTW, if you are implying that the "Old Testament" and
> all written in it is applicable to the New Testament
> body of Christ, then you are in deep trouble.
Not at all. I have learned that I cannot keep the law, and I must
instead depend on Christ for my salvation. However, that does not mean
that everything in the Old Testament is now null and void. For
instance, murder is condemned in the Old Testament, and it is still
wrong today.
> Jesus said that even if you break even ONE law, you
> have broken them all. You must be in sad shape.
That's right. Jesus said that, and we are *all* "in sad shape".
> >Is that your reason for rejecting 1 Cor. 6:9?
>
> I don't reject it. I reject your highly questionable
> method of mis-interpreting the original languages and
> your sad attempt to apply the Levitical laws to
> believers in Christ.
Seems to me that you don't know whereof you speak, if you don't know
what the Septuagint is, and you don't know that the Old Testament that
the Jesus and Paul had access to was written in the same language that
Paul wrote his letters to the churches in, and that Paul knew very well
that the term, "arsenokoitai" that he used in 1 Cor. 6:9 was the same as
the term "arsenos koiten", used in Lev. 20:13 (the only difference being
the suffixes, since the one term was used as a verb, the other as a
noun).
> D*
Jeff Shirton
Don
wrote:
>Don <calldo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:6586802CA319F2A0.D54DC94D...@lp.airnews.net..
>
>> >Do you know what "LXX" means?
>> No.
>> >Do you know what the "Septuagint" is?
>> No.
>
>Yes, that's what I figured.
>
>> >Do you know that Leviticus and 1 Corinthians are in
>> >the same Bible?
>> No.
>
>You don't know that?
>Well, now you do. Again, a common context.
Tug.
>> >Do you know who the message of the Old Testament is to?
>> No.
>> >Do you know who the message of the New Testament is to?
>> No.
>> >Do you know what the message of the Old Testament is?
>> No.
>> >Do you know what the message of the New Testament is?
>> No.
Tug.
>It's interesting, in light of the above, that you presume to lecture
>others and myself on what the Bible means, when you admittedly don't
>even know anything about the message in the Bible.
Jeff...don't you feel something?
You were not aware that your leg was being pulled?
>Seems to me that you don't know whereof you speak, if you don't know
>what the Septuagint is, and you don't know that the Old Testament that
>the Jesus and Paul had access to was written in the same language that
>Paul wrote his letters to the churches in, and that Paul knew very well
>that the term, "arsenokoitai" that he used in 1 Cor. 6:9 was the same as
>the term "arsenos koiten", used in Lev. 20:13 (the only difference being
>the suffixes, since the one term was used as a verb, the other as a
>noun).
Yep...the feeling is completely absent in your leg. Maybe you were
sitting incorrectly on a nerve or something.
NO...WAIT...I know what the problem is...your HALO is on too tight!!!
Yeah, that's the problem. You must be new on this newsgroup.
Obviously you need to get your money back from that Bible
correspondence course!
*Venus* @-->--------------
wrote:
Hey.......check out romans........it is all there.
How same sex relations are considered sin.
Now....is that in the new testament?
I forget.....
*sarcasm*
Paul Duca
The DataRat wrote:
> "The fact is that he is a prime example
> of common liberal thinking. I can be a
> Christian and continue to do whatever
> I did before I heard the gospel"
>
> Quite so !
>
> We see it in Clinton, and in Jackson:
> Don't "repent" until you get caught.
> THEN make a big public display of
> regret.
>
> The Lord ~isn't~ appeased by
> Public Relations Repentance. That's
> only for salvaging your public image
> ...NOT for divine salvation !
>
Just kiss the Lord's stupid ass and you, too, will spend eternity
chasing skanky poontang alongside the DataRat and John Calvin.
Paul
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
>Actually, AIDS is not a poison and your blood doesn't flow with it.
>
>The HIV virus is what is in your system and is passed through most
>body fluids.
>
>AIDS is the name given when your body responds to any number of
>symptoms resulting from a lowered immune system.
>
>What poison is flowing through your system?
Actually, just a note: the vast majority with HIV and AIDS in the world
are women and children, and it is the Third World that is suffering
most. In Mozambique, some towns have 75% infected.
I have a friend who's a medical missionary and I've had to stop asking
her about her work. I don't know how she does it.
On a brighter note, the churches are full. I wonder if that's what it
takes to bring us to our knees?
--
Anna H., Alien Visitor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alt.support.autism FAQ is at
http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/anna/asa/asa_faq1.html
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
>> -Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
>> -mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
>
>It most certainly does. Only the ignorant, untaught, and
>deceiving wish it to say otherwise.
Those struggling with the problem, who have lost love ones to the
problem, who have watched a friend destroy his life because of the
problem, would not wish it said otherwise out of ignorance, lack of
teaching or deceit; they would wish it said otherwise, or may even
believe it said otherwise, out of anguish.
If it is not a problem for you, you cannot possibly understand how
devastating it can be for some. You don't just judge the sin (it is
always easy to judge others for sins we would never dream of
committing), you judge the motivations of those tempted towards the sin.
> Scripture holds
>no leeway for those who wish to remain immoral and
>call themselves saved.
I thank God that He is more merciful than He is often represented. The
Saved can commit all kinds of sins, and frequently do. Sexual sins are
no different in that respect than any other. You show me a sinless
Christian, and I'll show you a 4-person Godhead!
>There is no comprimise here. Those who would seek
>one are only seeking to justify their sinful lifestyle.
If that is the case, surely that is their problem? You deal with your
sins, let others deal with theirs.
>
>The gospel is not about being saved and remaining in
>sin, it's about a compelete change of life, one that
>becomes completely devoted to God.
But Christians are still sinners. Homosexuality might not be the sort of
sin we commit: most of us prefer subtler sins like selfishness, greed...
and the many sins of omission that we all conveniently forget about.
God has promised that He will complete the work begun in us, but it is
not completed the day we are saved.
>One who remains
>in a sin of their past whilst attempting to 'be Christian'
>is doomed.
Then we are all doomed, because sin besets us before and after we are
saved. And will do until we are resurrected. We live in "this body of
death" as Paul called it.
The only people who are doomed are those who don't turn to God and beg
for mercy. And only the person concerned, and God Himself, can know if
they've done that and done it sincerely.
Micah Burke
> >> -mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
> >
> >It most certainly does. Only the ignorant, untaught, and
> >deceiving wish it to say otherwise.
>
> Those struggling with the problem, who have lost love ones to the
> problem, who have watched a friend destroy his life because of the
> problem, would not wish it said otherwise out of ignorance, lack of
> teaching or deceit; they would wish it said otherwise, or may even
> believe it said otherwise, out of anguish.
All sin causes such problems. The MAIN problem is that people
don't see it for the sin that it is. The scripture is clear, all sexual
activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is immoral
and therefore sinful.
> If it is not a problem for you, you cannot possibly understand how
> devastating it can be for some. You don't just judge the sin (it is
> always easy to judge others for sins we would never dream of
> committing), you judge the motivations of those tempted towards the sin.
Sin is sin is sin is sin. The motivations is ALWAYS the same, weither
realized or not, it is rebelion to the law of God. We can blame genes,
we can blame the way the family raised them, we can blame society,
but in the end "each man will die for his own sins" says scripture.
Therefore each of us is held accountable for our the sinfulness in our
heart, though we don't seem to have a choice in the matter, that is,
we always sin, and we'll always choose sin, there is one way out.
To claim I can't "possibly understand how devestating it can be" is
wrong, I DO understand.
> > Scripture holds
> >no leeway for those who wish to remain immoral and
> >call themselves saved.
>
> I thank God that He is more merciful than He is often represented.
God is dishonored by those who believe that God will accept anything
less than perfection through his Son. God is VERY merciful, however,
let us not assume that we can do whatever we want, live however we
want, and expect God to honor US. God was merciful to the Israelites
when they made the golden calf, he only killed 3000 of them.
> The Saved can commit all kinds of sins, and frequently do. Sexual sins are
> no different in that respect than any other. You show me a sinless
> Christian, and I'll show you a 4-person Godhead!
Indeed, none is without sin, but striving through Christ to live
a holy life and altering scripture to fit one's sinful lifestyle is
another thing all together.
> >There is no comprimise here. Those who would seek
> >one are only seeking to justify their sinful lifestyle.
>
> If that is the case, surely that is their problem? You deal with your
> sins, let others deal with theirs.
The problem is this: "The Lord is my Shepherd and knows I am Gay"
It is not the mission of Christians to allow heresy to be preached and
the name of God defamed by those who merely claim to be saved.
There are many who claim to be saved, preach a gospel of sinful
acceptance and suggest that those who preach salvation by grace
through faith MEANS holy living are 'bigots'.
> >The gospel is not about being saved and remaining in
> >sin, it's about a compelete change of life, one that
> >becomes completely devoted to God.
>
> But Christians are still sinners. Homosexuality might not be the sort of
> sin we commit: most of us prefer subtler sins like selfishness, greed...
> and the many sins of omission that we all conveniently forget about.
This does not excuse those who claim homosexuality is compatable
with Christianity. Scripture clearly states "with such a man, do not
even eat" and "expel the immoral brother". This thread is not about
the occasional sins that Christians commit, it's about the ones that
people claiming to be saved go around saying "aren't sins". That's
the discussion, if you have trouble discussing that, I suggest you
find another thread.
> >One who remains
> >in a sin of their past whilst attempting to 'be Christian'
> >is doomed.
>
> Then we are all doomed, because sin besets us before and after we are
> saved. And will do until we are resurrected. We live in "this body of
> death" as Paul called it.
Read again what I said, "One who REMAINS" that is to 'live in'
sins of their past: those who go about claiming their sinfulness is
actually righteousness. (1 John 3:9)
I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that Christians don't sin. Christians
do sin, (Romans 7, 1 John 1:8) however it should be less than those in the
world, and they
certainly shouldn't go around preaching that one can indulge in their
favorite sin of the past and be saved.
> The only people who are doomed are those who don't turn to God and beg
> for mercy. And only the person concerned, and God Himself, can know if
> they've done that and done it sincerely.
According to scripture the only ones who do turn to him and
beg for mercy are those whom he has called, predestined.
Micah
Micah Burke
> >I don't reject it. I reject your highly questionable method of
> >mis-interpreting the original languages
We didn't "mis-interpet", it's clear.
Arrhen
Definition
a male
Koite
Definition
a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in a bed, couch
the marriage bed
of adultery
cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful
sexual intercourse
The meaning being male cohabitation, or sexual intercourse,
a derivitive of which was used in the Septuagint and again
here in Paul's writing. Homosexuality was common in the
gentile nations, especially the Roman empire, though lesbianism
was less so, that is why in Romans 1 Paul explains the sinfulness
of man in such terms as "their women exchanged..." it was
such a rare and deviant deed that it was spoken of rarely.
Ro 1:26
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women
exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Ro 1:27
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman
and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing
indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their
error.
There is no arguement, it meaning is clear, those who see it otherwise
are only wishing to argue with God.
Micah
Mikal 606
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
Give it a rest Micah.
It is readily apparent to all who read that your motivation is out of fear
or hatred.
If you are a believer you should probably spend your time saving souls,
instead of trying to condemn them through your own worldview.
Also,
PLONK
Micah Burke
> It is readily apparent to all who read that your motivation is out of fear
> or hatred.
Ah, the cry of the ignorant and self-important!
"You must hate everyone because you don't agree with me!"
Read scripture, not your opinions.
> If you are a believer you should probably spend your time saving souls,
> instead of trying to condemn them through your own worldview.
> Also,
Sorry, I don't SAVE anyone. The condemnation of the law leads people
to Christ, not tolerance.
Galatians 3:24
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified
by faith.
When you realize you're a sinner, when you accept that you cannot
save yourself, perhaps you'll look to Christ... (if he calls.)
Micah
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
thanks for your reply.
>> >> -Micah shouldn't use the scripture out of context and
>> >> -mistranslated...it doesn't say homosexual.
>> >
>> >It most certainly does. Only the ignorant, untaught, and
>> >deceiving wish it to say otherwise.
>>
>> Those struggling with the problem, who have lost love ones to the
>> problem, who have watched a friend destroy his life because of the
>> problem, would not wish it said otherwise out of ignorance, lack of
>> teaching or deceit; they would wish it said otherwise, or may even
>> believe it said otherwise, out of anguish.
>
>All sin causes such problems.
Very true. I just felt that your characterisation of people who commit
that particular sin as "ignorant, untaught and deceiving" was condemning
- not of the sin (I have no problem with condemning sin), but of the
sinners.
Some people try to justify homosexuality because they are struggling
with it, because they desperately want to find a way they can be right
with God and still have the lifestyle they think they need. I just
suggest that since this is not our struggle, we should be more
charitable to those for whom it is.
>The MAIN problem is that people
>don't see it for the sin that it is.
I am not sure that that is the case. I see a lot of guilt and
unhappiness, a sense of being trapped, unable to escape. It is human
nature to try and justify what we are doing as right. Gays experience
horrendous prejudice and Christians should have no part in that. But if
we are to reach out to them, we cannot approach them with a condemning
attitude, but rather with the attitude Christ had to the woman caught in
adultery.
These are hurting people, and although you may say it was their own sin
that hurts them, that is true of all of us. Sin is a bad thing. It
causes pain. We must have compassion on them, just as God has had
compassion on us.
> The scripture is clear, all sexual
>activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman is immoral
>and therefore sinful.
I agree, but it is easy to condemn when we are not in the situation of
being tempted in that way.
>Sin is sin is sin is sin.
My point entirely.
>The motivations is ALWAYS the same,
The root cause is the same, but the more direct motivations may be quite
different. For many gays, loneliness is a major motivation, and I read
somewhere that many lesbians had been abused (by men) as children. We
need to get alongside people as individuals and reach them where they
are.
I had a gay friend once who came to the Lord one evening when he
accompanied my husband and myself to church (his idea - some of my
"Christian" friends were scandalised). All of our friends wanted me to
confront him about his lifestyle, but as he wasn't practising at the
time, I felt we needed to let the Lord tell him, in His own good time.
It took 2 weeks. He came across certain verses in the Bible and decided
for himself. No drama. No shaming him or preaching at him. He just had a
desire to follow the Lord, and he didn't care what that took, even if it
meant being celibate his entire life.
> weither
>realized or not, it is rebelion to the law of God. We can blame genes,
>we can blame the way the family raised them, we can blame society,
It's not about blame, it's about understanding where a person is, and
how to help them.
>but in the end "each man will die for his own sins" says scripture.
Exactly, so it is up to each of us to worry about our own sins. Many
Christians seem unduly concerned about the sins of others.
>To claim I can't "possibly understand how devestating it can be" is
>wrong, I DO understand.
I meant that to say what you did about people who disagreed with you as
"ignorant, untaught and deceiving" suggests you have no understanding
and no compassion. Maybe that is not true, but that is how it read to
me.
>Indeed, none is without sin, but striving through Christ to live
>a holy life and altering scripture to fit one's sinful lifestyle is
>another thing all together.
I agree, but that wasn't how I read your post.
>> If that is the case, surely that is their problem? You deal with your
>> sins, let others deal with theirs.
>
>The problem is this: "The Lord is my Shepherd and knows I am Gay"
>It is not the mission of Christians to allow heresy to be preached and
>the name of God defamed by those who merely claim to be saved.
True. So you argue against the heresy, with grace. But to single out one
particular group (gays) as particular sinners seems nonsensical to me.
>There are many who claim to be saved, preach a gospel of sinful
>acceptance and suggest that those who preach salvation by grace
>through faith MEANS holy living are 'bigots'.
You cannot be a bigot by how you live, but the contrary to those who
preach that it's OK to live in sin and be saved are those who claim to
be Christian, and encourage hatred and violence against this group.
>This does not excuse those who claim homosexuality is compatable
>with Christianity. Scripture clearly states "with such a man, do not
>even eat" and "expel the immoral brother". This thread is not about
>the occasional sins that Christians commit, it's about the ones that
>people claiming to be saved go around saying "aren't sins".
It's a problem, yes, but can't you vehemently disagree and still respect
someone else's POV?
> That's
>the discussion, if you have trouble discussing that, I suggest you
>find another thread.
There was I, politely going through your post point-by-point, thinking
maybe I've got you wrong. Maybe you were just passionate and didn't
intend to write off an entire group of people as worse sinners than
yourself. And then you say that! That is just insulting and patronising!
>I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that Christians don't sin. Christians
>do sin, (Romans 7, 1 John 1:8) however it should be less than those in the
>world,
How can you measure sin? Surely, if you are saved, some more "minor"
sins might take on an entirely different dimension? Looking around the
Church and in my own heart, I can't honestly say I see a great deal less
sin. It's very discouraging.
> and they
>certainly shouldn't go around preaching that one can indulge in their
>favorite sin of the past and be saved.
Probably not.
>According to scripture the only ones who do turn to him and
>beg for mercy are those whom he has called, predestined.
But since only God knows who they are, I think we have to assume that
some very disreputable people might well have a living faith and will be
saved in the end. And some who think themselves "Super Christians" will
turn out to be somewhat less secure than they imagined.
I'll just worry about my own salvation, I think. That is more than
enough to be getting on with.
Micah Burke
> >don't see it for the sin that it is.
>
> I am not sure that that is the case. I see a lot of guilt and
> unhappiness, a sense of being trapped, unable to escape.
Aka Total Depravity... I think many of us are 'trapped' in such
sins, 'unable' to escape, but the reason is that we're trying to
escape rather than be saved. Human nature is self-sufficency
and not God-dependency, this leads us to the revolving door
of sin. Though we repent of something, we're not ready to
let go of it and depend on Christ to take it from us. "My grace
is sufficent"...
> nature to try and justify what we are doing as right. Gays experience
> horrendous prejudice and Christians should have no part in that. But if
> we are to reach out to them, we cannot approach them with a condemning
> attitude, but rather with the attitude Christ had to the woman caught in
> adultery.
I've spoke to this before, the woman caught in adultery is a different
situation than someone who is promoting sin. She was probably set-up,
and Christ was put into the mix as a test by the Pharisees. It's most
likely that one of her accusers was the man with whom she commited
adultery, we notice that no one brought the man to him.
We MUST condemn sin in sinful man by presenting Christ as holy and
righteous. We cannot sugarcoat sin and love them into the kingdom
of Heaven. Christ didn't sugarcoat the gospel for the rich young lord.
However, we must not condemn homosexuals, adulterers, theives or
the like for being 'less holy' than us, for we were no better than they
and it is only by Christ that we can even approach the throne of God.
Therefore we preach the law, and that conviction leads to the gospel
of reconcilliation with the Lord, however with out the conviction and
death of the old man there can be no regeneration.
> These are hurting people, and although you may say it was their own sin
> that hurts them, that is true of all of us. Sin is a bad thing. It
> causes pain. We must have compassion on them, just as God has had
> compassion on us.
Ok, when one shows 'pain' because of their sinfulness, then we realize
that pain is probably the work of God on their life. However one who
claims "the Lord is my Shepherd and knows I am gay" has no understanding
of the gospel, nor understands the work of the Holy Spirit. Unwilling
to die to self, they promote their sin as righteousness. This is not "pain"
from sin but from the consequences of their sinfulness. Rather than
give up the sin they'd rather justify it and make it not a sin and therefore
feel justified.
There is also 'pain' of being shunned by society because of wrongdoing.
As Christians we're not to shun anyone in such a way, because Christ
didn't shun us. In no way do I claim that non-believing homosexuals
are to be shunned by us, in fact we're called to love and preach the
gospel to them. Any shunning of such as these is a sure sign that we're
trying to save ourselves like the Pharisees.
> >The motivations is ALWAYS the same,
>
> The root cause is the same, but the more direct motivations may be quite
> different. For many gays, loneliness is a major motivation, and I read
> somewhere that many lesbians had been abused (by men) as children. We
> need to get alongside people as individuals and reach them where they
> are.
There is a fine line of 'reaching them where they are' and comprimising
the gospel. I've seen many a ministy try to reach people and in so doing
alter the truth of the gospel. Example: http://www.ufmcc.com/
> I had a gay friend once who came to the Lord one evening...
> ... It took 2 weeks. He came across certain verses in the Bible and
decided
> for himself. No drama. No shaming him or preaching at him. He just had a
> desire to follow the Lord, and he didn't care what that took, even if it
> meant being celibate his entire life.
Amen. This is a wonderful example of God's Spirit at work, I really
appreciate your positing this testimony. I've known a few in my life
too who were saved in such a way. God saw fit to give one of them
a healthy relationship with a wonderful, caring, Godly woman and
they now have three amazing (and cute) kids.
> >but in the end "each man will die for his own sins" says scripture.
>
> Exactly, so it is up to each of us to worry about our own sins. Many
> Christians seem unduly concerned about the sins of others.
Well, I think that's the problem, you and I are posting about
two different kinds of people. 1) Unsaved individuals in sin
(homosexuality et. al.) 2) Individuals who call themselves
brothers and yet continue in and promote an immoral lifestyle.
You and I seem to be in full agreement with #1.
> >The problem is this: "The Lord is my Shepherd and knows I am Gay"
> >It is not the mission of Christians to allow heresy to be preached and
> >the name of God defamed by those who merely claim to be saved.
>
> True. So you argue against the heresy, with grace. But to single out one
> particular group (gays) as particular sinners seems nonsensical to me.
I agree, here we revel against all sorts of sinfulness. Please don't
think I'm singling out unsaved homosexuals for undue condemnation.
The ~original~ intent of the thread was "May I be a gay Christian"
which shot off into the Jesse Jackson thing...
> You cannot be a bigot by how you live, but the contrary to those who
> preach that it's OK to live in sin and be saved are those who claim to
> be Christian, and encourage hatred and violence against this group.
Indeed, they are guilty of identical sins.
> >This does not excuse those who claim homosexuality is compatable
> >with Christianity. Scripture clearly states "with such a man, do not
> >even eat" and "expel the immoral brother". This thread is not about
> >the occasional sins that Christians commit, it's about the ones that
> >people claiming to be saved go around saying "aren't sins".
>
> It's a problem, yes, but can't you vehemently disagree and still respect
> someone else's POV?
Could you vehementy disagree with and still respect someone who claimed
that violence against homosexuals was ok? I think not, neither can I respect
the POV of one who claims that homosexuality is compatable with the
Christian walk.
> > That's
> >the discussion, if you have trouble discussing that, I suggest you
> >find another thread.
>
> There was I, politely going through your post point-by-point, thinking
> maybe I've got you wrong. Maybe you were just passionate and didn't
> intend to write off an entire group of people as worse sinners than
> yourself. And then you say that! That is just insulting and patronising!
I am so sorry! (REALLY) I spoke way too soon, quickly and loudly.
It was very unkind of me. Please forgive me.
My point was this, I'll make it again, the way I should have
to begin with... the original intent of the thread was discussing
one claiming to be a Christian and yet proclaming a homosexual
lifestyle. If we were talking about unsaved individuals, that's
a different story.
> >I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that Christians don't sin.
Christians
> >do sin, (Romans 7, 1 John 1:8) however it should be less than those in
the
> >world,
>
> How can you measure sin? Surely, if you are saved, some more "minor"
> sins might take on an entirely different dimension? Looking around the
> Church and in my own heart, I can't honestly say I see a great deal less
> sin. It's very discouraging.
That is discouraging, if you cannot see your walk becoming closer
and closer with Christ, your Spirit becoming more and more conformed
to his image, the sins in your life becoming less, (all the while knowing
that you're still infintessimally less righteous than Christ!) you should
probably question your walk. But still, none of us measure up to Christ,
and he is our rule-stick.
> >According to scripture the only ones who do turn to him and
> >beg for mercy are those whom he has called, predestined.
>
> But since only God knows who they are, I think we have to assume that
> some very disreputable people might well have a living faith and will be
> saved in the end. And some who think themselves "Super Christians" will
> turn out to be somewhat less secure than they imagined.
Indeed, my bible study last night came to that same frightful conclusion.
> I'll just worry about my own salvation, I think. That is more than
> enough to be getting on with.
Heh! Good point!
God bless,
Micah