| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Glenn Christian Mystic" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2003 11:07:11 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Glenn,a real MYSTIC. |
Thanks for acknowledging my discipline
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:08:44 +0800, "FRANKIE LEE"
<phebe@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
Romans 1;26 For this cause God give them up unto VILE AFFECTION...
See context for WHO He turned over to "VILE AFFECTION"
Now I know fully why even the Almighty God has given up on people who had
VILE AFFECTIONs, and how men and women corrupt the natural use of their
bodies.
Homosexuals are VILE affection.
And I suppose they all made God into images of man, birds, fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things, as well
If God has given up on them, aren't we Christian chould follow suit?
The Greek version of the Bible condemned Homosexuals as well.
Yeah, I guess that is why ONLY English texts interpret the Greek as
saying such, huh ???
It is not clever and cannot fool anyone,when we just take out a word of context, and
twist the definition.The meaning of the sentence must be taken into
account. What the Author is trying to mean,
Did you revive Paul, and ask him ?
and what the context was it is the issue. It boils down to the ability of Glenn to comprehend passsages.
I am not the one unable to read the words like "exchanged", "changed",
"leaving", etc
<snip>
Since God told us to bear witness,so here I am.Glenn is wrong
Please demonstrate with the text
and must
repent,
Of what ?
and the state he/she is in,stood condemned,unless Repentence
comes.Not just repentence from that Ungodly state,but also from abuse of
God's truths,and false interpretations.
If they persists in their vile affections,which is understood,fully
understood,God give up on them.So am I.
.
|
|
| User: "J Shoemaker" |
|
| Title: Re: Glenn,a real MYSTIC. |
26 Sep 2003 11:29:08 PM |
|
|
"gm" == Glenn (Christian Mystic) <christianmystic@ev1.net> writes:
[...]
gm> I am not the one unable to read the words like "exchanged",
gm> "changed", "leaving", etc
This word is ambiguous. Until the ambiguity is cleared, one
cannot make reasonable sense of the argument. The phrase
states 'leaving the natural use of the woman...' (Rom 1:27)
The Strong's concordance defines leaving (Greek term 863) as
'leave, put or send away, lay aside,' or in other words, it
means the same thing we commonly mean with the English word
used in its place. As has been stated by members of one side
of the argument, one who has been a heterosexual and becomes a
homosexual has left off their original behavior, and this
sentence applies to them. This is not the only way to
interpret the phrase in context, however.
1. Those who have been heterosexual and are now homosexual
have 'left.'
2. Anyone who 'leaves' the designed use of the sex act as God
is described as having created it for, has likewise left
the natural use of the woman, whether he has had sex with a
female or not.
This would change the key word from 'woman,'
to 'natural.'
Either of these sentences can be supported due to the
ambiguous nature of the wording. The context isn't ambiguous
though, and serves to clarify and isolate which is meant. The
key is linked to what the term 'natural' means. If one
accepts what the bible has said in other places, then any act
that goes against the design of God is, by definition,
unnatural, and a sin. Since this is a clearly established
doctrine of the bible, and not ambiguous in the slightest, it
follows that if one accepts the bible in other areas, they
must accept sentence number two while holding sentence number
one as true and correct, but not inclusive of the situation.
If the term 'natural' can be shown in this context to
definitely not mean 'as designed by the creator,' then the
question is still ambiguous...
// J Shoemaker
[...]
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Glenn,a real MYSTIC. |
29 Sep 2003 09:06:45 PM |
|
|
On 26 Sep 2003 22:29:08 -0600, (J Shoemaker)
wrote:
"gm" == Glenn (Christian Mystic) <christianmystic@ev1.net> writes:
[...]
gm> I am not the one unable to read the words like "exchanged",
gm> "changed", "leaving", etc
This word is ambiguous. Until the ambiguity is cleared, one
cannot make reasonable sense of the argument. The phrase
states 'leaving the natural use of the woman...' (Rom 1:27)
The Strong's concordance defines
Strongs tends to disregard anything outside of what is conservitively
believed, but we will go with it, because at first glance it doesn't
seem to support the anti-gay as much as they would like
leaving (Greek term 863) as
'leave, put or send away, lay aside,'
Thanks, doesn't appear to disagree with what I pointed out, you have
to have something to "lay aside" they who were always homosexuals are
"laying aside" what ?
or in other words, it
means the same thing we commonly mean with the English word
used in its place.
Yeap, in place of...... what ?
As has been stated by members of one side
of the argument, one who has been a heterosexual and becomes a
homosexual has left off their original behavior, and this
sentence applies to them.
Exactly
This is not the only way to
interpret the phrase in context, however.
1. Those who have been heterosexual and are now homosexual
have 'left.'
2. Anyone who 'leaves' the designed use of the sex act as God
is described as having created it for, has likewise left
the natural use of the woman, whether he has had sex with a
female or not.
Again, they who were always homosexuals, had nothing to "leave", they
weren't there in the first place
This would change the key word from 'woman,'
to 'natural.'
How ? What did they "change" ?
Either of these sentences can be supported due to the
ambiguous nature of the wording.
So far, the only thing "ambiguous" about it, is in your mind
The context isn't ambiguous
though, and serves to clarify and isolate which is meant.
Sure does, it isolates it to former hetrosexual who because of their
making images of God, into man, fourfooted creatures, and creeping
things (among other things), became homosexuals because they were
turned over to a depraved mind.
And doesn't cover they who always were homosexuals
Thanx
The
key is linked to what the term 'natural' means. If one
accepts what the bible has said in other places, then any act
that goes against the design of God is, by definition,
unnatural, and a sin.
Your mix of personal opinion and Biblical text, makes this a little
hard to respond to, but in these "other places" that is the OT, Jesus
declared that He finished what He came to do, on the cross, with "It
is finished"
Do you remember whhat He came to do ?
Since this is a clearly established
doctrine of the bible, and not ambiguous in the slightest,
Just as I said.
it
follows that if one accepts the bible in other areas, they
must accept sentence number two while holding sentence number
one as true and correct, but not inclusive of the situation.
If the term 'natural' can be shown in this context to
definitely not mean 'as designed by the creator,' then the
question is still ambiguous...
Only in confused minds, there isn't anything "ambiguous" about it, the
text is very clear
// J Shoemaker
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
[...]
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
