And that's FINE, TT. I'm not suggesting that you be uncomfortable with the choice you have made regarding your beliefs. What I'm doing here is trying to see just WHAT the explanation for the discrepencies in the Letter are from a Christian standpoint. I understand your convictions but they still don't even ADDRESS the question, let alone attempt to answer. It's NOT like leading a horse to water; I'm asking to go there. It's NOT like when I was a child--because my parents made mistakes with what they did sometimes. And as I grew older, I no longer have to listen to the rules that they laid down. And it's NOT like Bush in the White House because, if I don't like the way Bush is running things (surprisingly, I'm a big supporter of his right now) but anyway, I can change that in 4 years anyway. So too did I change my perception of God 6 years ago. And I may yet again. But I'm open to any possibility. I haven't learned everything there is to learn. Thus, I'm asking questions. This, is one of my questions. If you feel that it would be useless to address the SPECIFIC question I raised, then you do not have to do so. I'm still awaiting BBC's answer and it sounds like he's going to at least take the APPROACH I'm looking for here. I even appreciate Hessians comments as they were made in an attempt to answer questions and further the discussion. I keep trying to make you understand what my goals here are. I'm trying to see if someone can show me how Christians reconcile the issues brought up in the letter. And not "well, it's God and I have faith so that's that." So I guess I await BBC's answer still, as I don't think you want to address this issue with me.
Anyone?
- Thread starter Jimmyrich
- Start date
B
BigBrothaCon
Guest
Many things have been addressed about the letter and the understanding of it. Hessian has promoted his view. TT has promoted hers. And others have done the same. Through much prayer and counsel, I have determined that this is a struggle between what I believe and what others believe. In order for any of what I have to say about the subject is to be taken seriously, I must have a willing and understanding audience. You know and I know that that is not true. I am not trying to cop out of this and not give an answer because I do have an answer to each and everyone of those questions, but when I do post the answers to the questions it will not be open for discussion with me. Salvation is free so you must freely except it as well as my interpretation of it. God has a plan for each and every one of us so we are going to understand things differently.
I feel I needed to post something so you guys won't think I forgot about you. I am trying to make sure I have the best answer to give to you that I can. Please bear with me due to the fact that I am having to do this while I am at work.
I feel I needed to post something so you guys won't think I forgot about you. I am trying to make sure I have the best answer to give to you that I can. Please bear with me due to the fact that I am having to do this while I am at work.
I hear you, BBC...slow day for me so I'm all over this forum. And I respect your decision not to dicuss what you eventually post. Understand that there will be some debate and questions raised but, hey, you can feel free to bow out. But also please understand that this is not an attempt to belittle your beliefs. It's also not a chance for me, andwhat etc...to point out all the flaws in Christianity that we see or whatever. I read this Letter and I found myself saying "wow, that makes a pretty good point to those who would use the bible to justify one action but not another. I wonder if a Christian has ever responed to it?" To the best of my abilities, I have yet to uncover a response to this that SPECIFICALLY addresses the issue. Most come in the form of TT's, "well I just believe it and that's good enough" and I just am not buying that. It doesn't even begin to address the question raised. That was the problem I had with TT's post. Then, Hessian posted some info that spoke to A question raised, just not the one that I origianlly posed. That was the problem with his. In both cases, I wasn't looking to disagree with each of them and just jump on them and their views regardless of what they said. I merely felt like they didn't even address the issue.
So, BBC, again, I await your response and appreciate you doing this...kinda humoring me in a way I guess. Must be kinda weird too, though...seems like there's all these people waiting with baited breath for you to respond...pressure for it to be "monumental" or whatever...I picuture people outside the Emmys when a limo opens...we've all got our cameras ready...but I'm only being half serious...And I'm sure you're not really sweating it too badly either ;-)
So, BBC, again, I await your response and appreciate you doing this...kinda humoring me in a way I guess. Must be kinda weird too, though...seems like there's all these people waiting with baited breath for you to respond...pressure for it to be "monumental" or whatever...I picuture people outside the Emmys when a limo opens...we've all got our cameras ready...but I'm only being half serious...And I'm sure you're not really sweating it too badly either ;-)
PmoneyandTT
New Member
Hey BBC look at 2 Corinthians chapter 3 and 4. Maybe that can give you some insight on what you have been looking for.. The answers you are looking for and the answers you will give others - will they be from You or will the be from God?
Because the answers I know you will get will be from God.(because I know you personally) So what will the debate from others turn into? - what makes you think what God told you is correct. Or why would he say this and do that.. Thats where Im seeing this debate going.. Every preacher - every evangalist - every man of God has pointed out - You have to have faith - Our saving comes from the Grace of God. All of these people now and in the biblical times - have said this over and over again. BBC - I know as a dude you are going to take the logical approach - I am a women so I take more of an emotional approach - so with saying all that BBC - hope what I told you earlier will help..
Because the answers I know you will get will be from God.(because I know you personally) So what will the debate from others turn into? - what makes you think what God told you is correct. Or why would he say this and do that.. Thats where Im seeing this debate going.. Every preacher - every evangalist - every man of God has pointed out - You have to have faith - Our saving comes from the Grace of God. All of these people now and in the biblical times - have said this over and over again. BBC - I know as a dude you are going to take the logical approach - I am a women so I take more of an emotional approach - so with saying all that BBC - hope what I told you earlier will help..
PmoneyandTT
New Member
Oh BBC - here is something else 2 Corinthians chapter 5
verse 7 - for we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. This whole chapter is talking about Judgement.. It goes on into chapter 6 also.
verse 7 - for we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. This whole chapter is talking about Judgement.. It goes on into chapter 6 also.
In the My Own Sermon topic, Frank made an excellent statement:
Amen to that, brother! You can use the Bible to justify about anything you want. Kill your children? Well, God told Abraham to do it so why can't I? Have an affair with a married woman, then have her husband killed? I offer you King David as an example.
While the Biblical literalists are getting bent out of shape about homosexuality, they may be forgetting Jesus' teachings. If you are a true Christian, you don't judge others. Jesus is pretty specific about that - there is an ultimate judge and unless you want the job, you better mind your own business. <i>"Why dost thou judge thy brother?"</i> chastises Paul in Romans.
Jesus says basically that you have to sit back and take it, regardless of how uncomfortable you feel. If you can manage to do this for the 70-some-odd years you're here on Earth, you get an eternal reward. Check the Beatitudes for confirmation of the list.
Amen to that, brother! You can use the Bible to justify about anything you want. Kill your children? Well, God told Abraham to do it so why can't I? Have an affair with a married woman, then have her husband killed? I offer you King David as an example.
While the Biblical literalists are getting bent out of shape about homosexuality, they may be forgetting Jesus' teachings. If you are a true Christian, you don't judge others. Jesus is pretty specific about that - there is an ultimate judge and unless you want the job, you better mind your own business. <i>"Why dost thou judge thy brother?"</i> chastises Paul in Romans.
Jesus says basically that you have to sit back and take it, regardless of how uncomfortable you feel. If you can manage to do this for the 70-some-odd years you're here on Earth, you get an eternal reward. Check the Beatitudes for confirmation of the list.
BBC, I just want to reiterate what Jimmy said and that I'm just really curious how you deal with these issues b/c for me that was part of the reason I walked away from christianity. I know that it seems like a loaded question, but at least for me I don't want to argue the validity of the Bible's claims, I just want to know how you see things. thats it, nothing else. You aren't going to change me, and I'm not going to change you and we both agree to that, but we can still talk about and try to uinderstand each other's view points even if we disagree.
As for Hessien, about Paul. Paul was born Saul in 10 AD in what is now Turkey. He was taught in Jerusalem as a Jew and was in fact the grandson of Hillel the Jewish sage. He became a pharisee and is now thought to have been part of a violent radical group called the Shammite Pharisees who persecuted christians. He was in fact on his way to Damscus to persecute christians around 43 AD when he saw a vision of christ and turned his life to christianity. since Jesus dies in 33 AD, Paul did not ever meet Jesus and was most certainly not one of his followers. I got some of my fatcs wrong adn for that I apologize, these I got right though. Heres a direct quote form U.s. News and World Reports:
" Paul had not been among the original disciples of Jesus. Nor had he been converted by them. Consequently, he gave little defference to their views when they differed from what he believed Christ ahd revealed to him directly. He was summoned to Jerusalem
to explain himself to the pillars of the Jerusalem church: the apostles James, Peter and John."
For everyone else in this forum, I'm sorry to get off topic but I had to fill in Hessien on soem things he apparently was not aware of. Hessien, you wrote:
**Does that mean Christians should follow the letter of the law or the intent?
Romans 8:2+ "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
**Does that mean we can run around lawless since we're free?
Romans 6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal doby, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."
But this still doesn't answer who gets to decide which laws we should still follow and which we shouldn't. You haven't answered the question at all but to quote from the bible passages that still don't answer the question.
As for Hessien, about Paul. Paul was born Saul in 10 AD in what is now Turkey. He was taught in Jerusalem as a Jew and was in fact the grandson of Hillel the Jewish sage. He became a pharisee and is now thought to have been part of a violent radical group called the Shammite Pharisees who persecuted christians. He was in fact on his way to Damscus to persecute christians around 43 AD when he saw a vision of christ and turned his life to christianity. since Jesus dies in 33 AD, Paul did not ever meet Jesus and was most certainly not one of his followers. I got some of my fatcs wrong adn for that I apologize, these I got right though. Heres a direct quote form U.s. News and World Reports:
" Paul had not been among the original disciples of Jesus. Nor had he been converted by them. Consequently, he gave little defference to their views when they differed from what he believed Christ ahd revealed to him directly. He was summoned to Jerusalem
to explain himself to the pillars of the Jerusalem church: the apostles James, Peter and John."
For everyone else in this forum, I'm sorry to get off topic but I had to fill in Hessien on soem things he apparently was not aware of. Hessien, you wrote:
**Does that mean Christians should follow the letter of the law or the intent?
Romans 8:2+ "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
**Does that mean we can run around lawless since we're free?
Romans 6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal doby, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."
But this still doesn't answer who gets to decide which laws we should still follow and which we shouldn't. You haven't answered the question at all but to quote from the bible passages that still don't answer the question.
B
BigBrothaCon
Guest
A) No one should be sacrificing bulls on altars being that Christ died on the cross for our sins which makes this null and void. You do have to realize the correlation between the old and new testament in order to accept this. Likewise, This applied to the Israelites who were freed from Egypt. God had to apply some things or laws which would prepare them to go into the Land of Canaan or the Promised land. This can be representational in our lives today in many ways, but not in a literal sense due to the fact that we were not slaves that came out of Egypt or Israelites in the physical sense.
B)This applied to the freed slaves that came out of Egypt in the Days of Moses. God gave these things to him for the Israelites to apply to their lives. He had to renew their mind and prepare them in His own way for that time in which they were living. That of course does not apply today because slavery is illegal in the United States, but it might have an application in a spiritual way that I am unaware of.
C) This is a stupid question and should not be taken literally. It really does not have any merit and shows me that this guy who wrote this was trying to humorous instead of serious. The verse otherwise speaks for itself. I don't think I would want to have sex with a woman on her menstrual cycle anyway. If I wanted to I could because I am free to do that. Once again this applied to the Israelites and the law set down for them in the wilderness.
D)This once again is speaking of the Israelites who were brought out of Egypt. God freed them so he made some provisions that they were to follow. Does not apply in the literal sense today. Slavery was legal then so God allowed the Israelites to own slaves as long as they were not Israelites. You have to remember that God was speaking to the Israelites as it pertained to them. Many times you will have verses in the OT that are not spoken about in the NT. Some may apply now, but some where applied then and not now.
E) Once again old covenant principle for the Israelites. The Sabbath Day was spoken about in the NT. I ask that you do your own research about that.
F) Old Covenant again. Jesus said himself that it is not what you eat of your mouth, but what comes out of it(your words).
G) Old Covenant again. Applies to Israelites. His statement is vastly ignorant and reprehensible.
H) Over and over again we are talking about the same old thing. Applied to the Israelites.
I) Need I say anything about this question. Give me a break this guy apparently was making fun of the Bible verse understanding it. I am sure He does not want to understand any of it as it applies to his life anyway.
J) Finally, this is old covenant, old covenant, old covenant. God made the Israelites do many things that are weird today because He wanted them to understand his order and how He wanted THEM to follow it. This does not apply to us in the literal sense. As far as God was concerned we were going to die in our sin anyway. But because He loved us so much He gave us Jesus who died and was resurrected and we now have the opportunity to accept the free gift of eternal life. We don't have to accept it if we do not want to and I am sure not going to judge you because you don't.
Finally, God is still God. His Word is unchanging as is His love. What you must understand if you accept Him into your life is that He sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins and be resurrected the third day in defiance of those who did not believe in him and is sitting at the right hand of the Father as we speak. Jesus's coming was even spoke of in Genesis if you can find it. Read the OT to understand the things of God, but live by the NT which is the new covenant given by Jesus Christ and the witnesses of His Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection. I can't break down any of this anymore than I have without putting down more scripture that many of you don't truly understand. I think many of you understand how to break down the words of the Bible, but without a true walk with God you can not possibly understand His Word. You may think you do, but you have to remember that God made prophets of some and kings of others. True wisdom and knowledge of God comes from God himself through Christ Jesus by developing a strong relationship with him. I am not saying I have that down packed myself, but I am on my way. Remember I am not judging any of you because God loves all his people and so do I. Likewise, this is my interpretation of what I received from these scriptures spiritually not in a carnal manner.
SxyPrincess
New Member
That was great BBC--thanks for your input!
Well put, BBC. 
Sorry we had to wait so long for your response - you obviously put some thought into it. It will be interesting to see if anyone is creative enough to have a rejoinder.
Sorry we had to wait so long for your response - you obviously put some thought into it. It will be interesting to see if anyone is creative enough to have a rejoinder.
PmoneyandTT
New Member
Hey BBC here is some more stuff on the new Covenent
2 corinthians 4:3-5 (not king james version)
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake.
verse 13: And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I believed and therefore I spoke, we also believe and therefore speak.
verse 18: While we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
2 corinthians 4:3-5 (not king james version)
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake.
verse 13: And since we have the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I believed and therefore I spoke, we also believe and therefore speak.
verse 18: While we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
That was very well done, BBC, and I appreciate your effort...very clear and easy to follow in your reasoning. Oh, and I obviously know that the letter's delivery was primarily humorous in nature. The author was asking rhetorical questions, not actual ones, in order to point out the fallacies he saw...exaggerated humor is often a good tool when you are looking to discredit something. But your response is exactly what I was looking for and I imagine I shall read it a few times to fully grasp what you are saying. I understand that you do not wish to debate this and I respect that. I do have some follow up questions, not bashings, but I'm not gonna post them if no one will answer. But your point about the laws being of Old Covenant and applying specifically to Israelites was really what I was looking for...ok...
Well thanks again, BBC. However, if anyone WOULD like to continue this discussion with this new material in mind, I'd be glad to jump in...
Well thanks again, BBC. However, if anyone WOULD like to continue this discussion with this new material in mind, I'd be glad to jump in...
PmoneyandTT
New Member
Hey BBC somethings I have said previously
The only way for people to grow in their relationships with Christ is by studying and meditating on God's word. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "A scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteouness: That the man of God my be perfect(in the spirit not flesh), throughly furnished unto all good works. (meaning what you do in the spirit will be furnished to you in the flesh)
The only way for people to grow in their relationships with Christ is by studying and meditating on God's word. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "A scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteouness: That the man of God my be perfect(in the spirit not flesh), throughly furnished unto all good works. (meaning what you do in the spirit will be furnished to you in the flesh)
BBC, thanks alot. I know alot of time, effort and thought was put into that response. What I get from your response is that the OT is there to teach us the nature of God while the NT is more to teach us how we truly should act. Am I getting this one right? If so then it seems like how you take the bible and the teachings of Jesus is best left up to the individual and therefore we should not judge others regardless. I understanbd that you, like God does, love everyone equally and now i underdstand how you understand the differences between the OT and the NT. I guess the only question I have left is how other people who have taken the bible literally, i.e. the OT literally namely in the homosexuality debate, justifying this. I see that for you it is not a problem and i am happy that you have found this and are contect with it. Thank you again for the response, it truly is appreciated.
Andwhat,
I agree. The question still remains, why, then, use the Old Testament as grounds for being against homosexuals, for example, if most of the laws and ideas in it were more towards either "nature of God"-type stories or "period-specific" regulations? I guess a more specific question I could pose that wouldn't be "debating" with BBC would be to whom are the rules in Leviticus addressing? As I don't have my bible handy...was wondering if BBC could answer...
I agree. The question still remains, why, then, use the Old Testament as grounds for being against homosexuals, for example, if most of the laws and ideas in it were more towards either "nature of God"-type stories or "period-specific" regulations? I guess a more specific question I could pose that wouldn't be "debating" with BBC would be to whom are the rules in Leviticus addressing? As I don't have my bible handy...was wondering if BBC could answer...
B
BigBrothaCon
Guest
The majority of what Leviticus applies to is the Israelites. It defines the struggle God had in getting the Israelites to conform to His way of doing things versus the slave mentality they had when they were in Egypt.
I cannot use the OT to define God's position on homosexuality but the NT has some verses that apply to sexual immorality and things of that nature.
Matthew 15:19 Matthew 15 Matthew 15:18-20 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Mark 7:21 Mark 7 Mark 7:20-22 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery.
Romans 13:13 Romans 13 Romans 13:12-14 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 6 1 Corinthians 6:17-19 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
1 Corinthians 7:2 1 Corinthians 7 1 Corinthians 7:1-3 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
This verse distinctly says a man and a woman should be joined not a man and a man or a woman and a woman!
Galatians 5:19 Galatians 5 Galatians 5:18-20 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
Ephesians 5:3 Ephesians 5 Ephesians 5:2-4 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.
Jude 1:4 Jude 1 Jude 1:3-5 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Jude 1:7 Jude 1 Jude 1:6-8 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Revelation 9:21 Revelation 9 Revelation 9:20-22 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.
Just a population of verses that address sexual immorality in any form whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. The NT distinctly says that their is to be a bond between a man and woman. You can't argue that fact since it does apply to the Christian church and the body of Christ. Once again if you do not have faith believing in the Word of God then this might or might not apply to you. It comes down to believing or not believing. It does not matter if we agree or not, these verses were spoken by Jesus himself, his disciples, and paul.
I cannot use the OT to define God's position on homosexuality but the NT has some verses that apply to sexual immorality and things of that nature.
Matthew 15:19 Matthew 15 Matthew 15:18-20 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Mark 7:21 Mark 7 Mark 7:20-22 For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery.
Romans 13:13 Romans 13 Romans 13:12-14 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 6 1 Corinthians 6:17-19 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
1 Corinthians 7:2 1 Corinthians 7 1 Corinthians 7:1-3 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
This verse distinctly says a man and a woman should be joined not a man and a man or a woman and a woman!
Galatians 5:19 Galatians 5 Galatians 5:18-20 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
Ephesians 5:3 Ephesians 5 Ephesians 5:2-4 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.
Jude 1:4 Jude 1 Jude 1:3-5 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
Jude 1:7 Jude 1 Jude 1:6-8 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Revelation 9:21 Revelation 9 Revelation 9:20-22 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.
Just a population of verses that address sexual immorality in any form whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. The NT distinctly says that their is to be a bond between a man and woman. You can't argue that fact since it does apply to the Christian church and the body of Christ. Once again if you do not have faith believing in the Word of God then this might or might not apply to you. It comes down to believing or not believing. It does not matter if we agree or not, these verses were spoken by Jesus himself, his disciples, and paul.
Ok, BBC, so at least we're in some form of agreement that the "laws" set up in much of the OT, including the ones about Homosexuality, have to be taken in context and CAN'T really be used as a justification for current attitudes towards gays.
Now, I'm just looking at some of your verses from the NT. Seems to me that Sexual Immorality is never truly defined but is surely the focus of these passages. So, sexual immorality would most likely include MORE than just homosexual sex. We're talking oral sex, masturbating, impure thoughts etc...so who among us is free from sin in all those areas???? Surely, homosexuality is no GREATER sin than the others.
And as far as this passage:1 Corinthians 7:2 1 "Corinthians 7 1 Corinthians 7:1-3 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
This verse distinctly says a man and a woman should be joined not a man and a man or a woman and a woman!"
I would interpret that entirely differently. It SAYS man and a woman as an example but seems to be CLEARLY pointing to the idea of monogamy. I think that is ABUNDANTLY made clear through that passage.
Well, again, I know you don't want to debate but these are just the first thoughts running through my head when I read these verses from the NT..thanks again for the clarity on Leviticus...
Now, I'm just looking at some of your verses from the NT. Seems to me that Sexual Immorality is never truly defined but is surely the focus of these passages. So, sexual immorality would most likely include MORE than just homosexual sex. We're talking oral sex, masturbating, impure thoughts etc...so who among us is free from sin in all those areas???? Surely, homosexuality is no GREATER sin than the others.
And as far as this passage:1 Corinthians 7:2 1 "Corinthians 7 1 Corinthians 7:1-3 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
This verse distinctly says a man and a woman should be joined not a man and a man or a woman and a woman!"
I would interpret that entirely differently. It SAYS man and a woman as an example but seems to be CLEARLY pointing to the idea of monogamy. I think that is ABUNDANTLY made clear through that passage.
Well, again, I know you don't want to debate but these are just the first thoughts running through my head when I read these verses from the NT..thanks again for the clarity on Leviticus...
Christy
b*tch rocket
BBC, "each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." This specific quote depends on which translation of the Bible someone has. It's apparently not spelled out that way in the original language/version of the Bible. There are tons of mistranslations from the original to what we have now. Just food for thought. Not trying to justify anything. Just passing on information.
Since we've gotten on this topic, I'd say check my post on the homosexuality forum that Pmoney started. I think it responds to what BBC has just said. Yes sexual immorality is wrong according to the NT, but I don't feel that it is spelled out and dfeinitely never says anythign about homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality at that time more readily occured in orgies and was an act of giving in to your sexual desires without restraint. I believe that the passages BBC presented speak more about polgyamous relationships, whihc interestingly enough many gays also speak out against along wiht many heterosexuals.