12 Jul 17
Originally posted by divegeesterThat's New Testament?
Sure, Deut 21:20 equates gluttony with drunkenness. And we all know about how God feels about us being inebriated, right? So your overeating is as bad as drunkenness which is as bad as you desiring one of the local bad boys holding you down...
I'm just saying dude. You need to shape up!
Does it define gluttony?
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarIt is by your bigoted definition sexual immorality.
It is by definition sexual immorality.
According to Jesus marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Any sex outside such a union is sinful.
There is your answer. Glad to have been of service.
Are you referring to when Jesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". Jesus answered within that context. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by divegeesterI would say that gluttony is worse than drunkenness, and lying worse than sexual immorality .
Sure, Deut 21:20 equates gluttony with drunkenness. And we all know about how God feels about us being inebriated, right? So your overeating is as bad as drunkenness which is as bad as you desiring one of the local bad boys holding you down...
I'm just saying dude. You need to shape up!
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHe defined marriage by its beginning. Perhaps you can show me where Jesus stated otherwise.
It is by your bigoted definition sexual immorality.
Are you referring to when Jesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". Jesus answered within that context. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
Originally posted by EladarJesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". So naturally He answered in the context of a man and woman. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
He defined marriage by its beginning. Perhaps you can show me where Jesus stated otherwise.
How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? With neither of them making any sense? Could it be because you're a glutton and not a homosexual?
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhere did Jesus actually state that homosexuality is not a sin?
Jesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". So naturally He answered in the context of a man and woman. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? With neither of them making any sense? Could it be because you're a glutton and not a homosexual?
At the time it was a stoning offense. Did Jesus ever say those kinds of things are no longer sinful?
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarHow about addressing the following?
Where did Jesus actually state that homosexuality is not a sin?
At the time it was a stoning offense. Did Jesus ever say those kinds of things are no longer sinful?
Jesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". So naturally He answered in the context of a man and woman. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? With neither of them making any sense? Could it be because you're a glutton and not a homosexual?
Or are you going to ignore it and instead continue to bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? And not make any sense?
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.
How about addressing the following?
[quote]Jesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". So naturally He answered in the context of a man and woman. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? With neither of them ...[text shortened]... it and instead continue to bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? And not make any sense?
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarI know what it says and I've already addressed it as follows:
[b]The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two wil ...[text shortened]... come one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.[/b]
Jesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". So naturally He answered in the context of a man and woman. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? With neither of them making any sense? Could it be because you're a glutton and not a homosexual?
Are you going to continue to ignore it and instead continue to bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? And continue to not make any sense?
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIgnore what?
I know what it says and I've already addressed it as follows:
[quote]Jesus was asked, ""Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?". So naturally He answered in the context of a man and woman. He makes no mention of homosexuality there or elsewhere.
How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexua ...[text shortened]... ead continue to bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? And continue to not make any sense?
Do you believe that pedophilia is moral too because Jesus never expressly stated otherwise?
Originally posted by EladarIgnore what?
Ignore what?
Do you believe that pedophilia is moral too because Jesus never expressly stated otherwise?
lol. You haven't noticed the following the first few times I posted it? Even more evidence of just how much your bigotry blinds you:
How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? With neither of them making any sense? Could it be because you're a glutton and not a homosexual?
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI am not defending gluttony. I am telling you that your definition of gluttony is incorrect.
[b]Ignore what?
lol. You haven't noticed the following the first few times I posted it? Even more evidence of just how much your bigotry blinds you:How is it that you bend over backwards to defend gluttony and bend over backwards to attack homosexuality? With neither of them making any sense? Could it be because you're a glutton and not a homosexual?[/b]
But hey, you are wrong on so many definitions of sin. It isn't your fault, you are simply trying to do what seems right in your heart.
Btw, does your heart tell you that pedophilia is sinful? If not, can you find where Jesus says it is sinful?
Originally posted by EladarI am not defending gluttony. I am telling you that your definition of gluttony is incorrect
I am not defending gluttony. I am telling you that your definition of gluttony is incorrect.
But hey, you are wrong on so many definitions of sin. It isn't your fault, you are simply trying to do what seems right in your heart.
Btw, does your heart tell you that pedophilia is sinful? If not, can you find where Jesus says it is sinful?
lol. Anyone who's been following along knows otherwise. You're a real piece of work.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm sure in your twisted mind what you wrote is absolutely true.
[b]I am not defending gluttony. I am telling you that your definition of gluttony is incorrect
lol. Anyone who's been following along knows otherwise. You're a real piece of work.[/b]
Btw, as par for the course the liberal refuses to answe a simple question
13 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarYou try to use the Bible as a weapon to further your bigotry, just as the KKK tries to use the Bible to further their bigotry. This is obvious to anyone who understands the teachings of Jesus.
I'm sure in your twisted mind what you wrote is absolutely true.
Btw, as par for the course the liberal refuses to answe a simple question