Allergic to nuts

Originally posted by josephw
That argument is of human origin and full of biases based on a perceived prejudice which promotes a system designed to defy God's intent and purpose for men and women.

It's convoluted and is in opposition to healthy thinking. A mental gymnastic which throws the truth under the bus, marginalizes our creator and makes fools out of men and women. It's amazin ...[text shortened]... is wrong and make it right.

Homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because God says so. Get over that!

Consider this: there are no female angels mentioned in the bible, the Trinity is comprised of males, the special "144,000" are all men considered special partly because they've never "defiled" themselves with women, Paul says not liking women is a "gift", only men can be priests and interact with God directly, Jesus surrounded himself with 12 men....where there was an instance of one them "reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23) and the first person God ever created was---shocker---a dude. Not a man AND a woman...just a dude.

It's been said that a lot of homophobes haves something to hide...

Originally posted by vivify
Consider this: there are no female angels mentioned in the bible, the Trinity is comprised of males, the special "144,000" are all men considered special partly because they've never "defiled" themselves with women, Paul says not liking women is a "gift", only men can be priests and interact with God directly, Jesus surrounded himself with 12 men....where the ...[text shortened]... D a woman...just a dude.

It's been said that a lot of homophobes haves something to hide...

In the bible, angels came down to earth because they thought women were hot (the bible really says this). So the angels, tired of the sausage fest in Heaven, got laid by the women and created children (called "Nephilim" ). God apparently disliked this, and wiped out the earth with a flood soon after.

Originally posted by vivify
Consider this: there are no female angels mentioned in the bible, the Trinity is comprised of males, the special "144,000" are all men considered special partly because they've never "defiled" themselves with women, Paul says not liking women is a "gift", only men can be priests and interact with God directly, Jesus surrounded himself with 12 men....where the ...[text shortened]... D a woman...just a dude.

It's been said that a lot of homophobes haves something to hide...

Yep. I know all that. Not sure what you're driving at though.

God's Word, the Bible, tells a story with an infinite number of particulars. One could study God's Word everyday all day for an entire lifetime and never exhaust its treasures. But the basic outline is simple enough for even a babe when it is understood that God's Word is the final authority on all matters of life and living.

Yes, man was made first, and the woman was made for man. Beyond that the Word of God is full of instructions concerning that relationship. Much of it is misunderstood and misapplied.

But nowhere in scripture can it be found any sanction by God for any union between same sex couples. In fact they are condemned.

Originally posted by josephw
...nowhere in scripture can it be found any sanction by God for any union between same sex couples. In fact they are condemned.

You follow the teachings of Jesus. Have you ever wondered why Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality in any of his teachings?

Originally posted by josephw

But nowhere in scripture can it be found any sanction by God for any union between same sex couples. In fact they are condemned.

David's words about Jonathan in 2 Samual 1:26:

"You were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Like I said: some thing to hide....

Originally posted by vivify
Consider this: there are no female angels mentioned in the bible, the Trinity is comprised of males, the special "144,000" are all men considered special partly because they've never "defiled" themselves with women, Paul says not liking women is a "gift", only men can be priests and interact with God directly, Jesus surrounded himself with 12 men....where the ...[text shortened]... D a woman...just a dude.

It's been said that a lot of homophobes haves something to hide...

Consider this: there are no female angels mentioned in the bible,
angels are actually genderless.

The Trinity is comprised of males,
while I do not profess belief in the trinity personification does not mean personality otherwise ships really would be female.

the special "144,000" are all men
No they are not they are infact bought from mankind, that is humane race and could conceivably therefore contain many females. “You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ . . . there is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus.” (Ga 3:26-28)

Paul says not liking women is a "gift",
another blatant falsehood, what Paul said was that if you can maintain singleness it will be like a gift because it will free one from the responsibility due to a marriage partner, this applies equally to both men and women.

Only men can interact with God directly? really? at Pentecost 33CE God communed with both male and female,

'“And in the last days,” God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams, and even on my male slaves and on my female slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy."

I don't mean to be rude, really i don't but your post has more bull than a herd of Texan longhorns

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't mean to be rude, really i don't but your post has more bull than a herd of Texan longhorns

Have you ever wondered why Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality?

Originally posted by FMF
You follow the teachings of Jesus. Have you ever wondered why Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality in any of his teachings?

No.

Originally posted by josephw
No.

So why didn't Jesus condemn homosexuality in any of his teachings?

Originally posted by vivify
David's words about Jonathan in 2 Samual 1:26:

"You were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

Like I said: some thing to hide....

If you're saying that verse is talking about a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan, then you are light years away from its true meaning.

That interpretation is as a result of a personal bias projected on the scripture based in faulty exegesis. One vaguely understood verse does not overturn the preponderance of scriptural evidence that condemns homosexual conduct.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of that verse altogether if that's your interpretation.

Light doesn't hide, it reveals.

Originally posted by josephw
One vaguely understood verse does not overturn the preponderance of scriptural evidence that condemns homosexual conduct.

Is there a "preponderance of scriptural evidence" that Jesus condemned homosexual conduct?

Originally posted by FMF
So why didn't Jesus condemn homosexuality in any of his teachings?

That question is without merit and irrelevant, undeserving of even the remotest consideration because the outline for human relationships is clearly expressed throughout scripture, and was without doubt clearly understood by Jesus, who, by the way, is its author.

Besides that the question is presumptive in the extreme. The purpose of which is to cloud the truth.

Originally posted by josephw
That question is without merit and irrelevant, undeserving of even the remotest consideration because the outline for human relationships is clearly expressed throughout scripture, and was without doubt clearly understood by Jesus, who, by the way, is its author.

Besides that the question is presumptive in the extreme. The purpose of which is to cloud the truth.

So - if it was clearly expressed, as you claim - what then did Jesus clearly express about homosexuality?

Originally posted by FMF
Is there a "preponderance of scriptural evidence" that Jesus condemned homosexual conduct?

In fact I think here you have it wrong. There is enough (nonbiblical) evidence that the Jewish Society of Jesus time did not aprove of homosexuality (this is expressed in the judging of the Greek who were "well known" for homosexuality in the Antic world [as per non biblical sources]). If Jesus would have ahd a different Position it would be you to provide it. That Jesus did not comment on it doesn't say anything. He didn't talk about a lot of Topics btw.

Originally posted by Ponderable
In fact I think here you have it wrong. There is enough (nonbiblical) evidence that the Jewish Society of Jesus time did not aprove of homosexuality (this is expressed in the judging of the Greek who were "well known" for homosexuality in the Antic world [as per non biblical sources]). If Jesus would have ahd a different Position it would be you to provid ...[text shortened]... hat Jesus did not comment on it doesn't say anything. He didn't talk about a lot of Topics btw.

We don't live in "the Jewish Society of Jesus time". I am not an ancient Hebrew. If the Bible isn't a book for the 21st century world, then what is it?