Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites
- Thread starter Jon-E
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'd avoid it like Covid-19.
Jeremiah 31:33-34 NLT - "But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day," says the LORD. "I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, 'You should know the LORD.' For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already," says the LORD. "And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins."
I implore you to stop reading that garbage and start depending on the Lord for instruction.
Jeremiah 31:33-34 NLT - "But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day," says the LORD. "I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, 'You should know the LORD.' For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already," says the LORD. "And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins."
I implore you to stop reading that garbage and start depending on the Lord for instruction.
Killing a baby in the womb is murder. But this is not my thread to bring this topic up. The United States is under judgment today for the 61 million abortions done as innocent blood cry out to the living God just as the Blood of Able did. 20-24 weeks? God did not say I knew you at the second trimester of pregnancy of your mother's womb. The word of God says :
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
I guess you are not a Calvinist who holds to Election huh? Either way 20-24 weeks is not contextual to what God said HE knew. IN the womb while being formed there in the womb.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
I guess you are not a Calvinist who holds to Election huh? Either way 20-24 weeks is not contextual to what God said HE knew. IN the womb while being formed there in the womb.
I do not believe I've ever witnessed such pride in a professing believer in my 80 years! I guess we should throw out the KJV since it comes from the age of the Puritans. Calvin and Luther were such ignoramuses I suppose? Well, I'll surely read the Puritans over anyone in this apostate 'churchy' age in which we live. Another Puritan, Matthew Poole, still a man valued and in print after 400 years, comments well on the verses you quote.
"This must not be so interpreted as if under the gospel there should be no more need of ministerial teaching, for Christ himself sent out his apostles to preach; nor yet as if there should be no more need of brotherly teachings, by instruction or conception; the contrary is commanded, Col 3:16. It is only an expression signifying the increase of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord, that should be after the pouring out of the Spirit: we have such expressions 1Jo 2:27. The learned author of our English Annotations thinks this phrase signifies, that under the gospel there should be a greater measure of means of knowledge, and of knowledge got by that means, and of clearness of understanding in persons, or ability to conceive things revealed, and a greater number of persons that should be enlightened with the saving knowledge of God. Others say, that by knowing the Lord is to be understood the first knowledge of God; Christians should not need be taught the first rudiments: but the apostle speaks otherwise, Heb 5:12. Others by knowledge understand the fear of the Lord. God saith, they should all know him; but it must not be understood of the same degree and measure, but in a degree of sufficiency for the duties which God expected from them upon their notion and apprehension of God. God makes the root of all this grace to be the free pardon and remission of their sins."
1 Peter 5:5 NRSV - In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for
“God opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble.”
"This must not be so interpreted as if under the gospel there should be no more need of ministerial teaching, for Christ himself sent out his apostles to preach; nor yet as if there should be no more need of brotherly teachings, by instruction or conception; the contrary is commanded, Col 3:16. It is only an expression signifying the increase of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord, that should be after the pouring out of the Spirit: we have such expressions 1Jo 2:27. The learned author of our English Annotations thinks this phrase signifies, that under the gospel there should be a greater measure of means of knowledge, and of knowledge got by that means, and of clearness of understanding in persons, or ability to conceive things revealed, and a greater number of persons that should be enlightened with the saving knowledge of God. Others say, that by knowing the Lord is to be understood the first knowledge of God; Christians should not need be taught the first rudiments: but the apostle speaks otherwise, Heb 5:12. Others by knowledge understand the fear of the Lord. God saith, they should all know him; but it must not be understood of the same degree and measure, but in a degree of sufficiency for the duties which God expected from them upon their notion and apprehension of God. God makes the root of all this grace to be the free pardon and remission of their sins."
1 Peter 5:5 NRSV - In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for
“God opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble.”
A baby in the womb? I've looked for definitions of "baby" where it ever includes the embryo or fetus in the definition. It is always after birth. Think on the verse, God knows someone from eternity past who actually exists as a person in time. Augustine and Luther also believed in the Bible doctrine of unmerited election, not just Calvin.
We who are younger do accept the authority of the Elder = mature in the Lord and HIS word Age has nothing to do with it.
Elder:
- among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
There are plenty of elderly foolish people Joe Biden comes to mind and Nancy Pelosi. The ungodly authority was are to do as Peter did in the book of Acts Obey God.
I did not say that. I just noted that people with lax attitudes toward allowing the murder of babies in the womb tend to be okay with sexually perverse activities between those of the same sex. It makes sense the two would cluster together if you think about it.
As other posters have pointed out, John the Baptist was a baby in his mothers womb. There are plenty of people who are not 'viable' without the help of others at least for brief periods of time. Someone in the situation like the injured man in the parable of the good Samaritan would die without help. Babies who are born need their mothers or someone to care for them.
Suppose you were sort of right, but the real cut-off was 18 weeks, and you think killing just some babies is okay. Does that sit well with you? Why would you want to take a moral gamble like this with human life?
As other posters have pointed out, John the Baptist was a baby in his mothers womb. There are plenty of people who are not 'viable' without the help of others at least for brief periods of time. Someone in the situation like the injured man in the parable of the good Samaritan would die without help. Babies who are born need their mothers or someone to care for them.
Suppose you were sort of right, but the real cut-off was 18 weeks, and you think killing just some babies is okay. Does that sit well with you? Why would you want to take a moral gamble like this with human life?
So is this your way of admitting that your previous post was false? You said the commentators did not offer any support for malakos referring to the receptive individual (the one doing something or being used to stimulate the other guy's male part), you referred to BADG, and yet you quote the source and right there it is, a list of primary sources to back up the assertion the idea that malakos was indeed used that way.
You totally missed the point! My reference was in all my years I've not seen as much pride as 2nd Timothy Group displays. He said he had never heard the real gospel in 49 years of his being in the body of Christ. He has rejected the witness of the body of Christ through the centuries as expressed in statements in confessions that represent a cross section of denominations. I did not realize until this morning that "2nd Timothy Group" was a heretical group with a weird teaching based on circumcision of the heart totally removing the sin nature, original sin, from a person so he is in a state of perfection. I found a youtube presentation by a female in this group, where like all other cults, they have the real truth and the churches have been wrong down through the centuries and all the other pastors are just all wrong. That is the same argument used by Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.
So, regarding the poster 2n Timothy Group, I'll follow the instructions in Titus and ignore him.
"A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11, ERV)
So, regarding the poster 2n Timothy Group, I'll follow the instructions in Titus and ignore him.
"A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11, ERV)
It lists the references, but does not give the texts themselves, and a mere reference without the statement is not support. Years ago, as I mentioned, these texts were written out and placed online so you could read them. They were just like those that web page listed from Philo, they did not prove what they claimed.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. You had questioned about my view of election to which I referenced Augustine and Luther and I did not bring their names up on the topic of abortion. But as to Augustine, he apparently was a traducianist early and then adopted creationism later as John Trapp writes in his commentary on Ex. 21:22 -
"Ver. 22. And yet no mischief follow,] i.e., No life be lost. There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God. Infundendo creatur, et creando infnnditur, saith Augustine, who at first doubted, till overcome by Jerome’s arguments."
As to "fetus", I believe we are writing in English, not Latin and Merriam-Webster defines it like this:
"Definition of fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kindspecifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"
You are incorrect on the Latin as well as the etymology shows:
"fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring," from suffixed form of PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck."
In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (as in Horace's Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus), but this was not the usual meaning. It also was used of plants, in the sense of "fruit, produce, shoot," and figuratively as "growth, production." The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is unetymological (see oe)."
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fetus
"Ver. 22. And yet no mischief follow,] i.e., No life be lost. There is a time, then, when the embryo is not alive; therefore the soul is not begotten, but infused after a time by God. Infundendo creatur, et creando infnnditur, saith Augustine, who at first doubted, till overcome by Jerome’s arguments."
As to "fetus", I believe we are writing in English, not Latin and Merriam-Webster defines it like this:
"Definition of fetus
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kindspecifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth"
You are incorrect on the Latin as well as the etymology shows:
"fetus (n.)
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring," from suffixed form of PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck."
In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (as in Horace's Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus), but this was not the usual meaning. It also was used of plants, in the sense of "fruit, produce, shoot," and figuratively as "growth, production." The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is unetymological (see oe)."
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fetus
-
1
- Show all
It most certainly is, especially for specialists in Greek who look up the citation. Claiming there is no support given seems disingenuous to me.
One of the quote talked about love of boys and lusts. It is not as explicit as Paul by references man&^%ers (pardon my nonexistent French) for those who did stuff to the boys and men who'd gone the equivalent of gay transgender. Either Philo went much further than the law of Moses thinking such men deserved to be executed (not sure if that is in the Philo quotes on that site off the top of my head), or else he considered those who did such to be participants in male homo-sex.
I also noticed I did not include the link to the article that went into some depth on the BDAG article: https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/06/26/the-story-of-ἀρσενοκοίτης-according-to-bdag/
If scholars can accept motherbedder, slavebedder, unclebedder, and brotherbedder as literal terms meaning what they sound like, and refer to men who penetrate or otherwise similarly stimulate themselves with these types of individuals, why would only 'manbedder' mean something different? There is actually a passage where arsenos koiten with their partners were to be put to death in the Old Testament, and the passage explains it is a man lying with a man as one does with a woman. A restriction on this falls in a passage against adultury and sex with animals. It is clear what it means.
There are some ideologically PhDs (ThDs, MAs, MTh's etc.) who want to change the meaning of this word because it doesn't fit with their socio-political viewpoint. You have not presented anything convincing to those who hold the scriptures in high esteem. Trying to twist Paul's condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior into people going against their own nature/sexual orientation, while admitting that scholars point out that sexual orientation was not a first century concept, is absurd. Since I came across the idea nearly three decades ago, I am guessing that you borrowed it from other scripture-twisters.
Maybe you have some years of your life invested in all this stuff. Rather than to work so hard to try to justify yourself and to mislead others down this same harmful path, why don't you confess your sin and repent? Just think of the harm you could be causing to young people you influence down the path of sin.
I also have a question for you. How do you think this all fits with God's overall plan for marriage? Paul wrote in in I Corinthians 7 to prevent fornication let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband. He also presents celibacy as an option. He says one has a gift after this manner, and another after that. We are talking about two choices here-- marriage or celibacy. Where does homo-sex fit into that?
Are you consistent in allowing and encouraging singles to fornicate? If a man feels oriented toward having sex with married women, is that okay with you? What if two gay twin brothers wanted to 'gay marry' each other. Is that okay with you? What about father and son?
In Ephesians 5, marriage is to express the relationship between Christ and the church. How do two men or two men do that?
One of the quote talked about love of boys and lusts. It is not as explicit as Paul by references man&^%ers (pardon my nonexistent French) for those who did stuff to the boys and men who'd gone the equivalent of gay transgender. Either Philo went much further than the law of Moses thinking such men deserved to be executed (not sure if that is in the Philo quotes on that site off the top of my head), or else he considered those who did such to be participants in male homo-sex.
I also noticed I did not include the link to the article that went into some depth on the BDAG article: https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/06/26/the-story-of-ἀρσενοκοίτης-according-to-bdag/
If scholars can accept motherbedder, slavebedder, unclebedder, and brotherbedder as literal terms meaning what they sound like, and refer to men who penetrate or otherwise similarly stimulate themselves with these types of individuals, why would only 'manbedder' mean something different? There is actually a passage where arsenos koiten with their partners were to be put to death in the Old Testament, and the passage explains it is a man lying with a man as one does with a woman. A restriction on this falls in a passage against adultury and sex with animals. It is clear what it means.
There are some ideologically PhDs (ThDs, MAs, MTh's etc.) who want to change the meaning of this word because it doesn't fit with their socio-political viewpoint. You have not presented anything convincing to those who hold the scriptures in high esteem. Trying to twist Paul's condemnation of same-sex sexual behavior into people going against their own nature/sexual orientation, while admitting that scholars point out that sexual orientation was not a first century concept, is absurd. Since I came across the idea nearly three decades ago, I am guessing that you borrowed it from other scripture-twisters.
Maybe you have some years of your life invested in all this stuff. Rather than to work so hard to try to justify yourself and to mislead others down this same harmful path, why don't you confess your sin and repent? Just think of the harm you could be causing to young people you influence down the path of sin.
I also have a question for you. How do you think this all fits with God's overall plan for marriage? Paul wrote in in I Corinthians 7 to prevent fornication let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband. He also presents celibacy as an option. He says one has a gift after this manner, and another after that. We are talking about two choices here-- marriage or celibacy. Where does homo-sex fit into that?
Are you consistent in allowing and encouraging singles to fornicate? If a man feels oriented toward having sex with married women, is that okay with you? What if two gay twin brothers wanted to 'gay marry' each other. Is that okay with you? What about father and son?
In Ephesians 5, marriage is to express the relationship between Christ and the church. How do two men or two men do that?
The following is the teaching of heretics and I took if off of their youtube presentation, the 2nd Timothy Group:
"Circumcision of the heart
The mysterious plan of God"
"We were indeed unaware of the Doctrine of Circumcised Hearts, but even worse, in all the Churches that we have attended, and considering of all the online sermons that we have heard, and with all the spiritual recordings that we have purchased and studied...(from the likes of John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, Gary Habermas, Billy Graham, Tony Campolo, Ravi Zacharias, Rick Warren, John Hagee, Charles Stanley, and many more), we have never heard nor known the utter Core and Center of the entire Bible, as we know and believe it to be today. Therefore, because we are persuaded to think that Holy Salvation for nearly everyone alive is at stake, we humbly ask that you would consider what we believe is the Core message and Plan of the entire Bible."
"And we will also show that Jesus is the One who performs the Work upon our Hearts, the removal of the Sinful Nature, Who decrees our Hearts as Triumphant over the Devil."
"However, the entire Scope and Work of Jesus is more than just the removal of the Sinful Nature."
The above is heresy and it is stated in typical style of the cults! By they way, my remark of being 80 and never seeing such pride in this poster, was patterned on his remark that in his 49 years of being in the body of Christ he did not know this mysterious plan of God.
"Circumcision of the heart
The mysterious plan of God"
"We were indeed unaware of the Doctrine of Circumcised Hearts, but even worse, in all the Churches that we have attended, and considering of all the online sermons that we have heard, and with all the spiritual recordings that we have purchased and studied...(from the likes of John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, Gary Habermas, Billy Graham, Tony Campolo, Ravi Zacharias, Rick Warren, John Hagee, Charles Stanley, and many more), we have never heard nor known the utter Core and Center of the entire Bible, as we know and believe it to be today. Therefore, because we are persuaded to think that Holy Salvation for nearly everyone alive is at stake, we humbly ask that you would consider what we believe is the Core message and Plan of the entire Bible."
"And we will also show that Jesus is the One who performs the Work upon our Hearts, the removal of the Sinful Nature, Who decrees our Hearts as Triumphant over the Devil."
"However, the entire Scope and Work of Jesus is more than just the removal of the Sinful Nature."
The above is heresy and it is stated in typical style of the cults! By they way, my remark of being 80 and never seeing such pride in this poster, was patterned on his remark that in his 49 years of being in the body of Christ he did not know this mysterious plan of God.