Adventist Online

To Man Flower Grow

I am compelled to share what my humble knowledge of the scriptures says about the matter you have shared in your discussion. I opted to post a new discussion as a reply so that this post will not be buried under even more replies from the users of this site.

Let us start on a common ground. You may interpret the text upon posting as someone angry, sad, happy, or whatever manner of emotion this may seem to you. But I am hoping that this reply will sound as CALM and as ENLIGHTENING as possible. Not that this post will prove you or me wrong but that it may send my message from me to you in the most loving manner that I can possibly hope to do.

This post is by no means a way to change your way of thinking for it is not my job to do so. No, not in the very least for it is by the spirit that we are changed.

I bid you blessings and good health.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Your claim on the word PAIS which is pronounced as PAHEECE

I would like to humbly share my opinion on this matter base on concrete evidences and resources (as far as I am concerned and my little knowledge) that the word PAIS by no means does not refer to any homosexual relations or any tint of it (I hope I don't sound angry at all)

The word PAIS occurs 24 times through the entire scriptures and everytime it is used it refers to the definition stated by the image above. The image above is a snapshot of my computer and e-sword feel free to download online.

Philisophically and mathematically and even biblically saying, IF SOMETHING IS TRUE IT HAS TO BE TRUE IN ALL CASES - only one counter example is required to disprove a claim that something is true but that counter example must be very solid.

(Smiling and calm) my point here that I would love to share (humbly of course) is that you wrote and qouted this

For many centuries before Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, the Greek word pais was commonly used to refer to the younger partner in a same sex relationship. The younger partner was often an adult male but was sometimes a teenager.

I on the other hand would like to share my humble opinion on your post. The text above says that PAIS WAS COMMONLY USED TO REFER TO THE YOUNGER PARTNER IN A SAME SEX RELATIONSHIP (I am not shouting when I pressed the capslock forgive me if it sounds like that).

The definition above about PAIS on the image I posted is based on bible scholar definition and years of study on WHAT and HOW greek or hebrew scriptures are interpreted in our modern language - the english language.

If that is the case, then it disproves your claim on referring to a same sex relationship. PAIS even refers to someone who serves a KING or even GOD. (still not shouting or anything like that keeping everything calm for this text)

  • Receive the entire scripture and do not build a doctrine on an isolated bible verse or story

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church of the General Conference (my church and I hope yours too) obeys this simple biblical rule and that is why it's doctrines are solid through the years.

I couldn't help but notice that your claims on the existence on homosexuality on this certain bible story do not contain any biblical references or whatsoever but instead a random explanation which we do not know the source.

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Deutronomy 19:5

Our first doctrine of the SDA Church is about the SCRIPTURES and it plainly tells us one of the ways on how to use the scriptures through the prophet ISAIAH.

Isaiah 28:9-11King James Version (KJV)

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Deutronomy and Isaiah lays out a foundation on how to find God's message embedded in the bible. We do not assert or conclude something base on other people's opinion (although scholarly study of the bible is very helpful) nor should we create a doctrine on an isolated verse. We need witnesses or as Isaiah puts it, precepts upon precepts or simply saying - LET THE BIBLE EXPLAIN ITSELF.

So my brother in Christ, I humbly lay these reasons on scriptures upon you.

  • CHRIST IS OUR ULTIMATE MODEL NOT THE FRAILTIES OF ANY BIBLE CHARACTER

The failure of many who do not understand the word of God (that includes myself) is to look upon others and not Jesus.

1 John 2:6New International Version (NIV)

Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

I will not go down the endless argument of homosexuality and blah blah blah.

If we all claim to be Christians then why do we look at the CENTURION? Many bible characters failed in their stories.

Solomon was POLYGAMOUS

ABRAHAM, JACOB and a lineage of bible characters had disobeyed and did something wrong.

What most people do is look upon these faults and use them as excuses to justify there errors and then when confronted by the word of God they tend to despise whoever points out the error in their ways.

They tend to cover up and say IF GOD IS LIKE YOU THEN I DON'T LIKE CHURCH (for being reprimanded) or something like YOU ARE SO PREJUDICE AND YOU LACK LOVE

When DAVID was confronted by the prophet Nathan the prophet DID NOT SUGAR COAT his message and he sternly pointED out the fault of David.

But since DAVID WAS A MAN OF GOD, he DISPLAYED GOD'S CHARACTER moved by the HOLY Spirit and did not tend to excuse himself. Instead confessed and saw the folly in his ways.

AREN'T WE ALL CLAIMING TO BE CHRISTIANS? THEN WHY DON'T WE LOOK TO JESUS AND HIS LIFE AND MINISTRY?

WAS JESUS A HOMOSEXUAL? No, since it will violate the plan of salvation and a myriad of bible scriptures which I don't have time to post.

WAS JESUS BOASTFUL or HATEFUL? NO NO NO NO

What is my point? (I am not raising my tone in anger)

If we claim to be God's people though we stumble and fall we look upon the Savior and follow his examples and not the examples of the weak bible characters compared to the strength of our Savior Jesus Christ.

Upon writing this post a thought just occurred to me.

Jesus came to seek and save the lost but his pure and perfect character would clearly pierced through the soul of any imperfect person approaching him. I'm sure homosexuals existed in his time, but the question remains.

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAVIOR, WOULD ANY HOMOSEXUAL STILL EXCUSE AND DEFEND THEIR BEING HOMOSEXUAL KNOWING THAT THEY STAND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ALMIGHTY?

I leave that as it is.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may post more updates on this post but for now I hope I delivered my perspective on your post. I do not want to change you or your way of thinking for it is beyond me. It is only by the spirit of God that we are change.

Blessings be upon you and your family.

P.S.

My youngest brother is gay and I sometimes catch him watching gay porn in hiding so I am not prejudice against you being gay because it is burden enough for me to help my brother through Christ in his sexual issues but all I can do is share God's word I know I can't change my brother only Christ and His Spirit.

Views: 579

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Manuella...

This is just one example of how we can approach the scripture. Yours is a good one also. I heard other pastors and religious executives do a different approach also. To each individual is a different experience when reading the scriptures that is why I said I cannot change his point of view even after sharing this post.

I wasn't imposing, I was suggesting and sharing. We could argue the whole day and never agree entirely. We will always be ready to answer when we see something we don't like (that is how I see it and you don't have to see it that way also unless you yourself would agree).

I took the qoute if something is true then it has to be true in all cases unless proven wrong  (which was taught in our philosophy class when I was in college and scientifically sensible) for only one purpose - to show that he's claim on the centurion being homosexual does not hold water (as far as I am concern but if he still insist it does then why would I insist also?).

Still he has all the right to disregard this post after reading.

And oh by the way, capslock are personal opinion and how you see it. It never really relates to being humble it's just a 21st century notion and another good example that people may differ in their point of views and interpretation.

"This is just one example of how we can approach the scripture. Yours is a good one also. I heard other pastors and religious executives do a different approach also. To each individual is a different experience when reading the scriptures that is why I said I cannot change his point of view even after sharing this post."

Scripture is a "living" text and 1 single word can and will have different meanings in many instances.

One can not say that a specific word must mean every time the same thing thats all what i was pointing out. Thats theologically not possible.

"I took the qoute if something is true then it has to be true in all cases unless proven wrong  (which was taught in our philosophy class when I was in college and scientifically sensible) for only one purpose - to show that he's claim on the centurion being homosexual does not hold water (as far as I am concern but if he still insist it does then why would I insist also?)."

Well you explicitly added "biblically" on top of this quote and thats what i showed as not possible.

I would not go so far to claim that the centurion was a "homosexual" as we understand the term and the meaning today. That we can not ever prove or show with scripture.

However i do think that you missed the point to be honest. I do no think that the thread was about suggesting Jesus would condone or allow or say its not sin or anything.

The point was to show that Jesus did not condemn anyone and even someone who had same-sex sexual activity with his slaves, as it was common during that time and that the word pais means basically, could ask for help and he wasnt sent away. 

While, if we look in our Churches today or in this forum, homosexuality or homosexual activities are made out to be the worst possible sin there is and if we would believe in "eternal hell" homosexuals would be burning forever in it by their mere sin of existence.

"And oh by the way, capslock are personal opinion and how you see it. It never really relates to being humble it's just a 21st century notion and another good example that people may differ in their point of views and interpretation."

Well it hurts the eyes to read through capslock and there is a netiquette for the internet and writing etc. 

Today it usually means you are yelling when you use capslock for whole sentences etc. Thats common courtesy and as we understand any texts today. 

My point being is: Nobody likes being yelled at and yes your caps lock usage in this text does indeed suggest a yelling.

Regard

"While, if we look in our Churches today or in this forum, homosexuality or homosexual activities are made out to be the worst possible sin there is and if we would believe in "eternal hell" homosexuals would be burning forever in it by their mere sin of existence."

So, if homosexual acts are somehow acceptable, why not all sexual sin?  In point of fact, there has been a campaign to demand that homosexual activity be considered acceptable, despite what scripture says.  You say, that people want homosexuals to burn in "eternal hell" hyperbole.  Actually, those of us who oppose it, are trying to avoid that from happening.  Not "eternal hell" as that does not exist, nor ever will.  We are opposing such sin because we don't want them to be destroyed eternally.

That is the ironic point:. those who have a basic understanding of scripture, and demand and encourage people to continue in homosexual activity are soliciting their destruction.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11, "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

So, we are opposing active, participating homosexuality to save life, not what you suggest.  To aid, abet, and encourage active homosexuality is to take eternal life away from someone.

It is no different than telling the  alcoholic to keep on drinking, defending their alcoholism, and trying to find excuses that make it acceptable.  That would destroy them no less than the practicing homosexual.

Or to tell the woman to keep cheating on her husband, telling her to be empowered, modern, and to teach her husband a lesson on who exactly is in charge.

That would be no less destroying her.

Or to tell the thief to keep on stealing, because after all it is an insurance write off, and "everyone does it" and it is the problem of kleptomania and we should just accept it as some sort of inborn proclivity.

That would be no less destroying the thief.

There are solid reasons we oppose active homosexuality.  1. It is an anathema to God, 2. It leads to the permanent destruction of the practitioner.

Why would we want to encourage anyone to be lost?

"So, if homosexual acts are somehow acceptable, why not all sexual sin?  In point of fact, there has been a campaign to demand that homosexual activity be considered acceptable, despite what scripture says.  You say, that people want homosexuals to burn in "eternal hell" hyperbole.  Actually, those of us who oppose it, are trying to avoid that from happening.  Not "eternal hell" as that does not exist, nor ever will.  We are opposing such sin because we don'twant them to be destroyed eternally.

That is the ironic point:. those who have a basic understanding of scripture, and demand and encourage people to continue in homosexual activity are soliciting their destruction."

1) i never claimed what you are suggesting. I did not even state that homosexual activity is acceptable or anything similar. I stated it is not any kind of a bigger sin than so many other sins and that the church and this forum here, more to the point especially you in many cases, make it out as the worst sin there is. This however is not argumentable with scripture in any form quite the opposite.

2) You used 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. So lets take a look at the verse and check it out:

a) sexual immorals - i guess self explanatory to some decent. 

b) idolaters - Worshipping an idol. Now here we begin our journey and check what everything could possibly be an "idol". Might be persons being worshipped but could possible be as well an object. "a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered. is a safe explanation of an idol wouldnt you agree?

Now if someone lets say takes a verse out of scripture and completely out of context to give the text a complete different meaning and than engrave that verse onto things we shouldnt admire or use or similar things we could assume thats idolatry now wouldnt we? Even more so when the object in question is proudly exhibited and spread around.

This picture comes to mind especially where the scripture is completely taken out of its context given a complete different meaning to worship an object we, as christians, shouldnt even hold or use:

I am sure you recognize the picture Heisenberg.

c) adulterers - self explanatory again.

d) "homosexuals" - Now i am not going to argue this one and just take it and include it. Translations however are a tricky thing and values and definitions change.

e) thieves - self explanatory.

f) greedy - Here it becomes tricky once more. In a biblical sense greed covers much more than the society sense of today. Biblically speaking when you have and safe more earthly posessions than you need for your daily life it is greed. Now since nobody can say when exactly greed starts or when greed is not present its tricky to define that. However if one owns several cars or a big house or buys every year new car and so on or generally safes more than he would need for a "normal" living we can assume its greed.

So ask yourself how much of what you own is neccessary and what is not. Or other way said do you think you really need, lets say 3 TVs etc? (I do not know what you or anyone posses nor would i want to but i guess you get the point) 

g) drunkards - Today the Seventh Day adventist Church claims more than this verse tells. The church forbids any alcohol this verse would allow some.

h) slanderers - Now this part is really something for you. "reviler" is another translation from KJV for this. revile: to speak about (someone or something) in a very critical or insulting way.

Now if we look through the discussions here on this forum and the comments made about women, feminists, socialists, non-christians, homosexuals or generally every other group which does not fit in your world of view or in your belief system it is safe to say that this would account on multiple accounts as "revile" or "slander". Especially when comments and claims are proven wrong.

i) swindlers - self explanatory.

Notice that there is not even a hint of some of these things being worse than others.

They are all equal in essence and are all equally punished. So if you violate one of those and be it "only" the reviler part than your just as guilty as the sexual immoral sitting next to you in church.

So as you can see it might be a good idea to follow another verse first before trying to go offensive against feminists or homosexuals etc: 

Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

It is not your place to judge anyone else or slander them or revile them. The day your sinless you can come and judge others. It is between the person in question and God whether or not something is sin or in what extent or if its forgiven or not.

This goes especially into this part: There are solid reasons we oppose active homosexuality.  1. It is an anathema to God, 2. It leads to the permanent destruction of the practitioner.

If we follow your standards about judging others and especially considering the Cor verse your behaviour leads to permanent destruction as well yet you claim you can judge and oppose and slander others because they practice homosexual acts or fight for women rights or are from another religion etc?

Interesting....

Regards

You always say scripture is out of context when you don't like it.  Further, Paul states we don't judge the world, but we do make judgments within the body.

1 Corinthians 5:9-12, " wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[

Perhaps more scripture you don't like, and therefore has no context?

"You always say scripture is out of context when you don't like it.  Further, Paul states we don't judge the world, but we do make judgments within the body."

To take and engrave Luke 22:36 on a weapon is taking scripture out of context. So much every theologian can tell you. Jesus needed swords in his midst to fulfill a prophecy, that he would be taken in custody among "bandits", not because he wanted them to be used or even possessed, else they wouldnt have to get them in a short period of time in the first place. He showed as much 2 verses later where he told the whole group 2 swords is enough and furthermore Luke 22:51-52 shows that we should not use weapons even in self defense.

So yes to engrave Luke 22:36 on a weapon does take the text out of its context and empowers something we shouldnt use or possess and shows that one worships such a thing. Shortly we call this: Idolatry.

"Perhaps more scripture you don't like, and therefore has no context?"

No it is fine i like your scripture.

So since i have shown your transgressions of idolatry and reviling we should all judge you after 1 Cor 5:9-12 and punish you for those 2 transgressions through expulsion?

Especially the reviling/slandering part is well established and proven Heisenberg in multiple threads. But i guess you will claim freedom of speech now but thats not what your own scripture verse tells us. After your own text there is no such thing as freedom of speech and reviler should be expelled...

I think its better we stick with Matthew 7:1-5 else you would be among the firsts who need to be expelled...

Regards

What is the modern equivalent of a sword?  Ironically, I had it put on a firearm your country exports, but denies its citizens from owning.  That is also my hunting back up pistol.  The barrel is made to shoot lead.  It is good for knocking over an errant hog, or even a deer.  Of course, I would let the hog lay. 

Luke 22:36-36, "Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

A positive command.  I really don't care if your socialist culture, compounded by Adventist culture decided to counterman and ignore what He said.

He went so far as to say to them, sell your outer clothes to buy a sword.  That was the firearm of the day.

Thanks for the red herring.  It was tasty.  But, do keep exporting those Glocks to us from Austria.  They are light, reliable, and have few moving parts.  An engineering feet by Gaston that has been exported to every corner of the globe from Austria.  It is almost as successful as Mikhail Kalishnikov's  design.  However, it is a similar concept in rugged wear and tear.

Again, thank you Gaston Glock, thank you Austria.

and your taking scripture again out of its context as the reason for this command is given right afterwards:

Luke 22:37-38:

"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

So no Luke 22:36 was only to fulfill a prophecy about Jesus not to be taken as a commandment to get weapons in general and not to be taken away of the context for why it was needed to get 2 swords amongst their midst.  Unless you think you need to be labelled as a bandit for a prophecy Luke 22:36 does not mean you should get weapons.

If we would apply the same or similar standards you show in interpreting Luke 22:36 onto interpreting verses about homosexuality than it would not be a sin at all thats the ironic part of this episode.

But than again for all other sins you do not commit the standards are much higher in every department. Be it generally or even in the interpretation of scripture you use higher standards for others than you use for yourself.

Still a positive command.  He told them to have a purse of money, a bag to carry their possession and to purchase a sword.

So, out of all those modern equivalents do you object to? The wallet, the backpack or the firearm?

Surely, you probably own a purse.  So, if you want to deny part of it, I suggest you get rid of your purse and or the backpack you own as well.

So, you are trying to justify active homosexual behavior?  If you are, I would argue that you hate homosexuals more than anyone else here.  Because, to encourage them to continue to engage in homosexual acts, is to encourage them to continue sinning and losing their salvation.

I want them to be saved.  But, living in open sexual sin, as scripture is quite clear, keeps them out of heaven.

Still a positive command.  He told them to have a purse of money, a bag to carry their possession and to purchase a sword.

It is a command for a specific situation and a specific reason and to a specific group of people. This is not a command for all christians now can it ever be unless you find me a prophecy which needs fulfillment by you carrying guns.

Lastly you are still violating the context of the scripture and worshipping idols we shouldnt hold or have.

"So, you are trying to justify active homosexual behavior?  If you are, I would argue that you hate homosexuals more than anyone else here.  Because, to encourage them to continue to engage in homosexual acts, is to encourage them to continue sinning and losing their salvation."

You really do not know when to stop Heisenberg do you?

Your judgement is wrong and your interpretation on scripture is wrong but ok.

What i said is the following:

"If we would apply the same or similar standards you show in interpreting Luke 22:36 onto interpreting verses about homosexuality than it would not be a sin at all thats the ironic part of this episode."

Thats a true statement as you very narrowly interpret scripture 22:36.

Your interpretation is based on 2 main concepts:

1) Take only the specific verse. The reason the context and the embedded story do not matter only the specific verse matters and justifies.

2) Take the verse not literally but take the verse by its equivalent meaning. As in you take the type of weapon define a standard weapon for that time period and than look in our society which weapon in todays time would be the closest match or the equivalent. Culture, society and time is applied onto the interpretation.

This you do not even contest at all quite the opposite you even state this yourself: "So, out of all those modern equivalents do you object to? The wallet, the backpack or the firearm?"

Now as we established your way of interpreting Luke 22:36 lets look what happens when we apply the very same standards, as you did with Luke 22:36, onto the main verse regarding homosexuality in the New Testament:

Romans 1:27 "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

So we have the verse we need.

The equivalent for that of what Paul speaks in todays society would not be every homosexual activity but rather homosexual activity outside of committed and monogamous relationship between males and nothing about lesbian activity. Here is why:

1) In Pauls times there has not been any knowledge or pattern of sexual orientation. Furthermore Pauls society knew about homosexual activities only in the form of non-relationships and in form or in combination with willful idolatry. Homosexuality in Pauls time was committed nearly exclusively by heterosexual males which were married and went to arsenokoitai (male prostitutes) outside of their marriage or bought a pais (young slaves bought for sex) into their household and had sex with these males.

2) The verse very clearly points out that Paul thinks the behaviour he describes is an expression of insatiable lust (were consumed with passion). So he does not speak of monogamous relationships and sexual orientation but rather speaking of "wanting more (sex)" or "lusting after more(sex)". The same description is often used in reference to gluttony in scriptures.

3) The verse very clearly states male to male. Nothing is said about women. There is a reason for it based in the culture around that time: Lesbian sexual activity was rarely known and did not take the forms of male to male sexual activities.

So as you can see if we read scripture with YOUR definition and YOUR standards you apply onto scripture when it is about something YOU are committing we end up with a complete other meaning of the text.

It is quite astonishing that you think if it comes to YOUR actions and YOUR behaviour your standards on how to read and interpret scripture must be lower than when it comes to the actions and the behaviour of others.

But i am sure you are going on and on and defining more nonsense into this discussion just to justify why your actions must be compared with a lower standards than those of others.

Remember just one thing i used your definition and your way to interpret scripture this way. I however do not agree at all with your way of reading scripture i just find it ironic that if we apply your standards onto homosexuality it does not become sin any longer as long as it is a committed and monogamous relationship.

But than again i know we must apply different standards for sins we are not tempted to commit than for those committed daily in our church to justify..

Regards

So, you do hate them.  I don't.  I want them to be saved.  You are trying to argue that monogamous sexual sin is okay.  That will condemn them.  You are advocating their demise.  I have no words on how horrible that is.

You say this, "The equivalent for that of what Paul speaks in todays society would not be every homosexual activity but rather homosexual activity outside of committed and monogamous relationship between males and nothing about lesbian activity."

I have no words to express how exactly evil that is.  That you would try to justify active homosexuality and teach it to others as acceptable.

But Jesus did:

John 8:44-47, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

"So, you do hate them.  I don't.  I want them to be saved.  You are trying to argue that monogamous sexual sin is okay.  That will condemn them.  You are advocating their demise.  I have no words on how horrible that is...."

You are hilarious Heisenberg.

Seriously you are so much out of touch with reality its hard to describe.

"Remember just one thing i used your definition and your way to interpret scripture this way. I however do not agree at all with your way of reading scripture i just find it ironic that if we apply your standards onto homosexuality it does not become sin any longer as long as it is a committed and monogamous relationship."

I used YOUR definition on how YOU read scripture when it comes to YOUR transgressions and applied the SAME standards on Pauls writings.

In response to this you claim i advocate for their demise.

Well it is YOUR standards and YOUR way to interpret scripture which does that if anything at all and you as well if it happens.

So basically what you are saying your sins are to be judged less than the sins of a homosexual or any other persons who does not agree with your view.

Now that is quite something to claim but than again keep going on with your hypocrit ways and cast judgement on others while you twist the meaning of scripture when it comes to your transgressions and sins you commit.

In the end it will be God who you will have to answer to for twisting his message.

Regards

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service