reply to post by InterestedObserver
The fact that people ignore what you state, even repeatedly, is the biggest bane of the experience of posting on ATS. Especially when they not only
ignore it, but accuse you of saying what you are, in reality, constantly making a point of not saying. That is what you have achieved here.
Whenever the word 'homosexual' has cropped up in the translation I use I have been adding square brackets and saying "[i.e. practising]". This was
in order to avoid the possibility of anyone thinking it was the orientation, not the practise that was condemned as sinful in the Bible. I made this
point unceasingly in previous threads.
I was getting tired of spoon-feeding the readers, and let up with this the last two times it occurred, I believe.
...it is completely irresponsible for you to turn 'sodomites' into 'homosexuals'.
You have also misconstrued my remark earlier on this page. In quoting from an external source I thought I'd better just clarify - again using square
brackets - that the English word used in the Bible Dictionary ('sodomy') to translate the Greek word corresponded to a different word in the quote
from my own Bible ('homosexuality').
It was not my personal translation, so your accusation that I was somehow irresponsible ought to be
withdrawn.
I do, however, concede that the translator's selection of 'homosexuals' in 1 Corinthians 6:9 requires constant clarification. To those who know and
accept what the Bible teaches throughout - that sex outside male-female marriage is wrong - it is obvious that it is
practise that is in view,
not orientation.
The other point you make, InterestedObserver, has been comprehensibly refuted so many times on these threads I can only assume you hold to your
doctrine through sheer bloody-mindedness or because you, as with the opening poster, have an agenda to promote.
Here we go again. (Do you really enjoy merry-go-rounds?)
You quote:
Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were
haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
Ezekiel 16:49-50
You then say:
Their sin was not homosexuality... Those are Jesus' own words, plain and simple.
(Ezekiel is, of course, in the Old Testament - these were not Jesus' words, if that was your meaning, but it really makes no difference.)
So what were the detestable things that are referred to that led to God's severest anger?
...Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions... and serve as an example by
undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 7
You just keep on ignoring what the Bible actually says, such as this text. All the passage from Ezekiel shows is that the ungodly behaviour of Sodom
and Gomorrah's citizens was seen in more ways than just homosexual sex.
Please spare me another circuit on the merry-go-round by trying to shift the ground yet again to 'it was homosexual rape, not consensual sex'. Just
to save you the trip I'll quote from what I said on page 8:
The [O.T.] passage nowhere says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of rape. The angels were sent to destroy it because of the immorality
and perversions (as is proved conclusively by the O.T. passage itself and by the teaching in Jude that both I and Conspiriology have mentioned). Only
when they actually turned up to extract Lot and his family before the destruction occurred was there any hint of the issue of rape.
You are trying to twist the plain meaning of both O.T. and N.T. Scriptures to fit your own agenda.
Whether or not today's society regards homosexual sex as immoral the the Bible says the opposite.
Is it really asking too much to say 'Don't twist the Bible to justify a politically correct agenda?'
reply to post by marg6043
You referred to
...widely misinterpreted quotes in the bible more often than not to further religious agendas to promote modern persecution against
homosexuals.
What has changed in modern times is the politically-correct agenda to say sex - heterosexual or homosexual - is not immoral as long as it is
consensual. The shift has occurred because people use themselves and other people as the yardstick for morality. The Bible has always stated that sex
outside male-female marriage is immorality from God's perspective, in whatever form.
The 'religious agenda', if you will, of the Bible is that all sex outside male-female marriage is the symptom of fallen human nature, which leaves
people unable to control their passions and submit to God's moral Law. The reason this is in the Bible is that the eternal God is the judge of those
he has made, and people have to chose whether to face him full of shame or accept his offer of blood-bought mercy and receive the power to live
differently though the power of His Spirit.
I really do hope what you said here about furthering the persecution of homosexuals was not directed at true disciples of Christ or me personally. I
have put myself out
here
and
here to condemn such attitudes and behaviour outright.
If you haven't done so already, please take a few minutes to read those posts just to appreciate that
Christ's true Church - consisting of
sinners who have been truly born again across the denominations - welcomes those who have practiced homosexuality in the same way it welcomes those
who have committed any other sin. The Gospel message is the same for everyone: 'Turn from your sin, believe the Gospel, and receive forgiveness
and eternal life, as Christ promised'.
That is the message of the Bible. It always has been, is now, and always will be. Until Christ returns.
If I show
animosity for anyone, I am subject to be discounted when I get that chance to tell someone how much Jesus really loves them. That is something I do
not want to happen. Let's see, there is another verse I can think of... 
.. which is why theres been such a big hullabaoo causing the breakup of the angelicans...
