Quotations and Literature Forum

It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:53 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: ROM 1.26-27
PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:29 am 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:04 pm
Posts: 83
Location: Yarmouth Maine
"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also with the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men commited shameless acts with men, and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." (ROM 1.26-27)

Discuss: What is this due penalty? Furthermore, what, specifically, is the error? What are the charges brought against homosexuals?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:59 pm 
Offline
New member
New member

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:11 pm
Posts: 3
Romans 1:21-25

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Disobeying and turning away from God is the error. There are no charges brought against homosexuals. It it more like because they had sinned, so God did not help them from falling into temptation. Did I make sense? =S


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:38 pm 
Offline
QuoteMaster
QuoteMaster

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 3:29 am
Posts: 201
Location: Australia
An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.
Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).
So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.
~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:00 pm 
Offline
QuoteSage
QuoteSage

Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:41 am
Posts: 324
Flametree85 wrote:
Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).
So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.
~Deb Price, And Say Hi To Joyce


Gay, or not gay, I'm not going to judge. But, all that you had mentioned as sins are in the OLD testament. All that has been wiped clean and no longer considered a sin in the NEW testament. Those were considered crimes for that era. Those laws pertained to that way of life, to govern that culture.

Exodus 20:12-17

V Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

With the beginning of the second tablet which involves our relationships with people, we have a call out to honor our father and mother. This may seem rather obvious to most, however, many of us fall hopelessly short in keeping this commandment. Because God created us and knows best how things should operate, He established a certain order based on honoring those in authority over us. Anyone who has been involved in situations where many people wanted to be the leader can see the need for a sort of "chain of command" for keeping order.

We must understand that when we take it upon ourselves to honor only those who we deem worthy, our attitude may come from an unchanged heart still in rebellion. Honoring our parents is part of honoring God.


This is only a theory often mentioned of my elders: Some may dispute this to also symbolize honoring the laws of your country that your Fathers and Mothers help create. Whatever your laws are, not following them is a sin.
I'm not sure if this is true, but my point is those silly laws of dress and eating pork were history of the old testament.

I don't think the originator of this post was trying to lash out at gay people. If they were then please find a new forum, that is not welcome here, perhaps you would find better arguement at a relegious forum. This person hasn't given thier opinion yet, so perhaps it was only curiousity and perhaps they dis-agree with the above mentioned post.

_________________
Don't walk behind me, I may not lead. Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow. Just walk beside me and be my friend. -Albert Camus


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AcallAttexact, Fainakaptrawn, ignohadyday, josephgpy, larBlistblubs, MerbSirekix and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group