salmoneous
<img src="http://www.wdwinfo.com/dis-sponsor/image
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2005
- Messages
- 6,466
Jimmiej,
I assume you are going to get tired of my questions pretty soon - but before you sign off I just want to say again I appreciate the conversation even if I disagree.
God's word is not nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound. From now on, as you listen to sermons and bible studies, notice how many times the lesson is more complicated that just reading the Bible and doing what it says. Notice how many times something has to be interpreted or explained.
And while I doubt you will ever come to the conclusion that there are interpretation that make being homosexual OK, perhaps you can at least decide that other Christian in good faith can come to that conclusion.
I assume you are going to get tired of my questions pretty soon - but before you sign off I just want to say again I appreciate the conversation even if I disagree.
No longer in effect for salvation - or no longer in effect period? It's one thing to say that we no longer need to obey the law to be saved. But it's another thing to say that the whole OT is no longer in effect. The 10 Commandments - Christians no longer need to obey those. Is that really what you are saying? If that's not what you are saying, then how do you justify picking some rules from the OT that we should still obey (the 10 Commandments) but saying that we shouldn't obey others (stoning non virgin brides)?That's OT law. It is no longer in effect for salvation after Jesus came.
But that's exactly what the Bible says - should not speak, must be silent.OK, you've got me on the silent part. Our women aren't silent in every room of the building.
Why are you willing to bend the rules on women being silent, but aren't willing to bend the rules on homosexuality?No, because even if we "bend" the rule, it doesn't make it right. God doesn't wink at us.
There are a number of ways of looking at this verse. Try this one: You'll note that Paul doesn't say homosexuals. He says homosexual offenders. Using your logic from above, isn't the implication that being a homosexual is OK, so long as you don't "offend"? A married man having a homosexual affair - that's an offense that Paul is blasting, not being homosexual per se.9Do 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 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
With all due respect, you don't always defer to God's Word. If you did, you would insist that women not speak in Church. If you did, you would insist they remain silent. Instead, you defer to a particular interpretation of God's word that you have chosen.But I will always defer to God's Word. Remember, God's ways are not our ways.
God's word is not nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound. From now on, as you listen to sermons and bible studies, notice how many times the lesson is more complicated that just reading the Bible and doing what it says. Notice how many times something has to be interpreted or explained.
And while I doubt you will ever come to the conclusion that there are interpretation that make being homosexual OK, perhaps you can at least decide that other Christian in good faith can come to that conclusion.


All the best to you in your Crusade discerment, Jimmie and Joe...