Unanswered questions

[Drich]

Actually, your ESV translation...erm...interpolation spoke out against Homosexuality.

Identifying sin is not the same as hating the sinner. The problem your having is you have combined sinner with the sin making the sin the sinner's identity.
Instead of seeing two men guilt of sexual sin (as we all are to one degree or another) you see or will identify two Homosexuals. Then when the bible (as with the ERV) identified homosexuality as a sin you assume God hates All Homosexuals because God hates sin. You and the westbro Baptist have more in common than you think.

God clearly seperates Man from sin. We on the other hand in our pride, wear our sins as personal identifiers to who we are as indivisuals. Homosexual, Liar, Murderer, Gossip, and so on. Know this is a failing in your understanding of how God operates, It is not a 'character flaw of God.'

Again, just in case you missed it. Even if you strip the bible of all that it says against Homosexuality, you still do not have a sanctified pretext in which Homosexual sex is permitted before God, as Heterosexual sex has been sanctified under the marriage covenant. If there is not a setting in which Homosexual sex is sanctified then ALL HOMOSEXUAL sex is a sin.

Oh, I'm following you pretty close on this one. Notice how I never tried to refute this point?

what fantsy world do you live in? You have never once responsiably discussed this 'point' let alone refute it.'

The point I was making was one specific to homosexuality. The reaction and repugnance towards the idea of it by the Christian community is disconcerting, and I'm merely attempting to get the bottom of it with you using my "baited" questions.

even now your avoid talking about it. In this whole paragraph you did not once address any of the points I made, no rather you chose to engage in using and pairing words that tend envoke an emotional response. "repugnance" paired with Christian community, Disconcerting, baited questions.. Dude either you can respond or you can't it time to poop or get off the pot.

However, you're evading the probes like a Russian MIG with an American F-16 on its tail.

1981 called and they want their analogy back.

I think you're being a good little Christian liar, and you are trying your hardest not to tell me what you really think, what your own morals look like when not put in the context of religion. This is something that's hard to watch, as I've been through it myself.

and now we ice the cake with the good ole personal attack.. Note not once did you actually address ANYTHING I mentioned. I showed you that How the NT identifies Homosexuality as a sexual sin, and from you, personal attacks, an appeal to pride, and a reference that would make Louis Gossit Jr. perk up in his seat with a little pride.
(It's an Iron Eagle reference... Where migs and f-16's... never mind)

Implying? Nope. Saying so? Yes. Without law, there can be no punishment. If God thinks a person is wicked for walking funny, but he never issued guidelines on how he should be walking in the first place, this is a malevolent god indeed. If this is what you are saying about the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, that there really was no law at this point, then your God killed people for no other reason than he was a bigot himself.

However, we can dismiss this by applying what we know of earlier parts of the Bible...using a timeline, as you suggested. It looks like God was issuing laws to people since the times of the Garden of Eden, so we can safely (or not so safely) say that God did have laws in mind and even issued a few out to Adam and Eve. "Multiply and replenish the earth" is one that comes to mind right off the bat.

So what exactly don't I know about the Bible? Oh, I don't know it the way you want me to know it. Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses behind on the church pew years ago.

Since you seem to be too distracted with all of these other minor topics to involve yourself with the primary topic I will cease answering any of them till we finish your QUERy (pun intended) on Homosexuality

I see the word "Homosexuality" interpolated into the ESV, but it was not a known term at that time,so this cannot possibly be the translation

OMG are you being serious right now???
[/quote]

Time to get serious.

Indeed.

Ahem.

Ahem, Ahem...ahem..

NIV
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men"

Now ask yourself who are the sexually immoral? Paul and Christ identifies them as anyone having sex outside the boundries of a sanctified marriage.

KJV
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

Who or what is fornication? it is the act of having sex outside the confines of a santified Marriage.

Homosexuality is the inclination, not the act.

It's both according to Merrium Webster, or have you put that fact out of your mind already?

ESV
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"

At least it doesn't go the route of some Bibles and actually omit the fact that the homosexual has to be practicing in order to be considered sinful.

The point of identification of sin is repentance. If one is practicing He is not in a state of repentance.

So then. Here's a "strawman" for you that I want answered truthfully (because it's not really a strawman and very much so has to do with what you think about sexual sin as far as your god is concerned). Did Mary the mother of Jesus have to be married to God in order for her to conceive of the Holy Spirit? Does this law not apply to God?

Marry was a Virgin when she had Jesus. Marriage only applies to sexual/burns with desire relationships.

If Marry was not a virgin it is most likely Joseph and or her would have been stoned. (They checked those sorts of things otherwise at the very least she and her family would have been disgraced.)

Yeah. But you know now that I was talking about direct translations of the words on the page, not equivocation. Homosexuality, an umbrella term that didn't not exist in any form back in those times, is still considered an interpolation since it has been equivocated to what, for example, the Aramaic states. The ESV isn't at all right to use the word, but it's also not exactly wrong.

Do you know what the word for pizza is in Korean? What about coffie? There isn't one They translated these words by using our own words and have added them to their lexicon, with the addition of a bit of an accent. So instead of Pizza, we have (prounced like) Pea-ja and instead of coffie, we have Cuppy. It's not that these items do not exist in Korea. it's just the word used to describe coffie would have been Cha, which in English translates to "tea" which is it's most common use now, but in the orginal Korean that is not how it was used. Cha describes a hot drink poured over leaves, roots, or some sort of dryed, cooked or otherwise prepared plant matter. to know what you were getting the word cha was pared with another descriptive term like 'omija Cha,' Which directly translated describes a hot drink poured over dried berries. Which could include coffie as the bean is harvested from a berry. So to avoid confusion Koreans adopted 'cuppy' when before that word was not used. The point? Words rarly translate accuratly across cultures. Ideas is what you primarily have to work with.

The idea we are working with is that Homosexuality is called out by name because it falls under "Sexual immorality/Fornication" As All Sexual Activity does outside the confines of a sanctified marriage.

Homosexuality was added because hard hearted people said homosexuality was no a sexual sin.

Have I ever refuted that the Bible claims to say that sexual sin is bad bad bad in the eyes of god? All I said is that Jesus was okay with homosexuals since he never spoke out against them.

Wow, Didn't you just say that there wasn't a koine greek word for homosexual in the Bible, and now you say because Jesus did not openly condemn Homosexuality specifically/by name, meant that He was ok with it?

Not all tangents are red herrings, and these points we're hitting upon all seem pretty close in the realm of what we're discussing. Why are you upset about that?

I am getting upset because you are using all of these tangents to skirt the primary issue.

,

is sexual intercourse before marriage still a bad thing?"

It called fornication in the KJV

[/quote]