Dealing With Gay Divorce (or not)

[prophet]

I take the stance that no sodomite can be saved, from Romans 1, and therefore they can't be voted in.

While I agree that a homosexual is not a believer, I reject the idea that they cannot be saved. Paul also said in 1 Corinthians 6 that some of the believers WERE (past tense) homosexuals. Hoping you clarify your position.

I'm sorry, The AV doesn't say 'homosexual', and don't give me any of your original languages crap, you couldn't order off of a menu in 1st Century common Greek.  You can get speculation from a commentary, if you like.  But the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' is easy to see, in this culture of 'extreme sports' 'hardcore' tatoo parlors, and rampant substance 'ABUSE'.  Not to mention masturbation suicide. 
  If God wanted a sexual element in that description, He would have put it in there.  He had no problem describing Sodomy in other passages.  This is just a weak attempt to overturn the obvious reiteration of God's rejection of Sodomites in Romans 1.

Anishinabe

 

[subllibrm]

I take the stance that no sodomite can be saved, from Romans 1, and therefore they can't be voted in.

I am so thankful that my fornication (real) and my adultery (lust) fall under the power of the blood of Christ. Ad to those all of the other commandments that I have broken pre and post salvation and you can see how much grace I have received from God. I would hate to be one of those sinners that the cross can't reach.

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

I'm sorry, The AV doesn't say 'homosexual',

I really don't care what "the AV" says.

and don't give me any of your original languages crap, you couldn't order off of a menu in 1st Century common Greek.  You can get speculation from a commentary, if you like.  But the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' is easy to see, in this culture of 'extreme sports' 'hardcore' tatoo parlors, and rampant substance 'ABUSE'.  Not to mention masturbation suicide. 
  If God wanted a sexual element in that description, He would have put it in there.  He had no problem describing Sodomy in other passages.  This is just a weak attempt to overturn the obvious reiteration of God's rejection of Sodomites in Romans 1.

LOL. What a hilarious, anti-intellectual tirade. Of course, it doesn't get around what Paul actually wrote, which is a word referring to men who lie with men.

See, we can believe the apostle Paul, Jesus' hand-picked messenger; or we can believe an anonymous nobody and his  "don't give me any of your original language crap."  It seems to me that the latter, in claiming "abusers of themselves with mankind," sides with the gay-Christianity advocates like Mollenkott, Boswell, and Scroggs, who falsely claim that Paul's word can mean anything. Congratulations, you've just conceded the argument to the gay activists.

And you know exactly what "homosexual" means. Grow up and don't pretend otherwise.

 

[Vandal]

The Apostle Paul dealt with this in the Corinthian church. Though we do not have specific examples, Paul does say of them in 1 Corinthians 6:11 that "some of them were."

Deal with them as an unbeliever. The needful thing to do is to work through the passage with him and his salvation. Church membership would not even be a part of the discussion.

A good point, but I was going on the assumption that John was legitimately converted.

If it weren't so hard for some people to understand the shorthand "saved" in the context the need to determine the legitimacy of his conversion would be assumed.  8)

You gotta love self appointed "fruit inspectors"...

 

[rsc2a]

The Apostle Paul dealt with this in the Corinthian church. Though we do not have specific examples, Paul does say of them in 1 Corinthians 6:11 that "some of them were."

Deal with them as an unbeliever. The needful thing to do is to work through the passage with him and his salvation. Church membership would not even be a part of the discussion.

A good point, but I was going on the assumption that John was legitimately converted.

If it weren't so hard for some people to understand the shorthand "saved" in the context the need to determine the legitimacy of his conversion would be assumed.  8)

Yes, because false conversions never present themselves...or something.  :

 

[subllibrm]

Not to mention masturbation suicide.

 

[subllibrm]

Yes, because false conversions never present themselves...or something.  :

I find it interesting how you want to question the conversion claim of a hypothetical person in a hypothetical situation.

 

[4everfsu]

If homosexuals, queers, fags, gays cannot be saved then what Christ said at Cavalry not true? It is finished.
So he died for almost all sins but what I mentioned above?

Are you tell me that the blood of Christ cannot not cover all sins of mankind?

 

[rsc2a]

Yes, because false conversions never present themselves...or something.  :

I find it interesting how you want to question the conversion claim of a hypothetical person in a hypothetical situation.

I was going on the assumption that John was legitimately converted. - rsc2a

That there...that's the opposite of questioning, ergo the reason for the word "assumption".

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

I take the stance that no sodomite can be saved, from Romans 1, and therefore they can't be voted in.

I will add to my previous post that the above assertion is a direct denial of the sufficiency of Christ's death to atone for sin, and is therefore heretical.

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

I'm sorry, The AV doesn't say 'homosexual',

I really don't care what "the AV" says.

and don't give me any of your original languages crap, you couldn't order off of a menu in 1st Century common Greek.  You can get speculation from a commentary, if you like.  But the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' is easy to see, in this culture of 'extreme sports' 'hardcore' tatoo parlors, and rampant substance 'ABUSE'.  Not to mention masturbation suicide. 
  If God wanted a sexual element in that description, He would have put it in there.  He had no problem describing Sodomy in other passages.  This is just a weak attempt to overturn the obvious reiteration of God's rejection of Sodomites in Romans 1.

LOL. What a hilarious, anti-intellectual tirade. Of course, it doesn't get around what Paul actually wrote, which is a word referring to men who lie with men.

See, we can believe the apostle Paul, Jesus' hand-picked messenger; or we can believe an anonymous nobody and his  "don't give me any of your original language crap."  It seems to me that the latter, in claiming "abusers of themselves with mankind," sides with the gay-Christianity advocates like Mollenkott, Boswell, and Scroggs, who falsely claim that Paul's word can mean anything. Congratulations, you've just conceded the argument to the gay activists.

And you know exactly what "homosexual" means. Grow up and don't pretend otherwise.

Read Romans 1, in the AV, and tell me Sodomites aren't given up by God.

Anishinabe

 

[Reformed Guy]

When I taught the missions students at HAC, I told them quote the death penalty for Sodomy verses every public service that a visitor shows up in, to 'thin the herd'.

Anishinabe

If you had also had them quote the death penalty for Adultery verses in every public service that the regulars showed up, you would have thinned the herd a bit more.





(btw, that's neither a slam on the death penalty for sodomy or adultery.  I praise God for showing His wisdom in both instances.)

 

[prophet]

If homosexuals, queers, fags, gays cannot be saved then what Christ said at Cavalry not true? It is finished.
So he died for almost all sins but what I mentioned above?

Are you tell me that the blood of Christ cannot not cover all sins of mankind?

They reject God, and He gives them up.  'Reprobate' means :'no more chances', 'finally rejected'.
They had their chance, it's over. 
  This is the doctrinal position I take. Forseeing the evil, I am hiding myself in a strict interpretation of the legal term 'reprobate'.
  You got a better plan?
  Of course, I can't determine when another human has crossed that line, so I just preach Romans1, and see whose head pops up, and then I play 'whack-a-mole'.  If I consistantly hold to this position, I can't be prosecuted for withholding services of the church from those who leave nature.
  The OP was :dealing with g.d.(or not).  I vote for 'not'.
Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

Read Romans 1, in the AV, and tell me Sodomites aren't given up by God.

Romans 1 in the AV doesn't say "sodomite." So by your logic, it doesn't talk about them. Bye.

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

Read Romans 1, in the AV, and tell me Sodomites aren't given up by God.

Romans 1 in the AV doesn't say "sodomite." So by your logic, it doesn't talk about them. Bye.

No, it doesn't.  It describes the 'homosexuals' trip down reprobation road, in plain words, easy to be understood.  Which was my point.  1 Cor 6 doesn't reference 'homosexuality' at all.  Not in word, not in deed.  The general reference to those who abuse themselves, does not overturn Romans 1.  It would have to be specific, like Romans 1 is, referring to acts, or Sodom, as other passages, to introduce a nuance to the line between temptation, and 'given over'. 


Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

prophet said:

Read Romans 1, in the AV, and tell me Sodomites aren't given up by God.

Romans 1 in the AV doesn't say "sodomite." So by your logic, it doesn't talk about them. Bye.

No, it doesn't.  It describes the 'homosexuals' trip down reprobation road, in plain words, easy to be understood.  Which was my point.  1 Cor 6 doesn't reference 'homosexuality' at all.  Not in word, not in deed.  The general reference to those who abuse themselves, does not overturn Romans 1.  It would have to be specific, like Romans 1 is, referring to acts, or Sodom, as other passages, to introduce a nuance to the line between temptation, and 'given over'. 


Anishinabe

And those passages that say the sin of Sodom was prideful arrogance and a general lack of concern for the poor?

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

Read Romans 1, in the AV, and tell me Sodomites aren't given up by God.

Romans 1 in the AV doesn't say "sodomite." So by your logic, it doesn't talk about them. Bye.

No, it doesn't.  It describes the 'homosexuals' trip down reprobation road, in plain words, easy to be understood.  Which was my point.  1 Cor 6 doesn't reference 'homosexuality' at all.  Not in word, not in deed.  The general reference to those who abuse themselves, does not overturn Romans 1.  It would have to be specific, like Romans 1 is, referring to acts, or Sodom, as other passages, to introduce a nuance to the line between temptation, and 'given over'. 


Anishinabe

And those passages that say the sin of Sodom was prideful arrogance and a general lack of concern for the poor?

Don't ignore the reason why the law in the US calls Sodomy: 'Sodomy', just to make your point.
Yes, the Bible lists those as Sodom, the city's, national sin. And isn't it pride, against God,  that sends us all to Hell, who do not recieve His Son?
  Neither fact overturns the specific graphic descriptions , or the reprobate rejection of Sodomites by God in Romans 1.  Why can't we read the whole Bible? 
  The OP was about how we deal with a very troubling issue in this present world.  I've given my way.
I avoid it all by rejecting them. It's easy.  It won't work out, anyway.  Eventually the Son of Perdition will make war against the saints, and overcome them.  There is a very real trap set here, and I'm trying to avoid it, the only legal way I can, by taking a hard line Biblical stance against a sin that used to bring the death penalty in 17 states.

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

1 Cor 6 doesn't reference 'homosexuality' at all.  Not in word, not in deed.  The general reference to those who abuse themselves, does not overturn Romans 1.

Of course, the actual word Paul used in 1 Cor. 6:9 was arsenokoites, a word that means men who lie with men, i.e. homosexuals.

But hey - for no good reason, you refuse to accept the actual wording that Paul himself used. Not my problem. If you want to be ignorant, be ignorant. I'm going to stand with the Bible instead of the ignoramuses of the world.

 

[prophet]

Ransom: 
1.  You don't know what word Paul actually said. By faith, I trust the Common English Bible, as the authority.
2. If you knew what actual word Paul used, you would have to trust some man's translation of it, since you don't speak Koine, and neither does any other current resident of Earth.
3.  With that said,...how many times does that word appear in the TR of your choice (pick any 1 of the 7)?
Let me add, that I'm really just posturing, to avoid Governmental interference.  Watch how you answer, Canuck, big Maple Leaf is watching.  8)
Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

I believe the words He originally chose are preserved by Him in the AV.
And how hard is it to understand that people who get saved stop abusing themselves, and fellowshipping with others who do?
  They stop:
Piercing themselves
Tatooing  "
Participating in Frat party hazing
Fistfighting in bars
Riding with a biker gang
Abusing substances
Trying the newest crazy stunt
Binging
Trashing a hotel room after a concert
Cutting themself with razor blades
Playing chicken
Cage fighting
Klan Rallying
Get it yet?  Abusing themselves with mankind.
For further context watch Gladiator, or read about the Culture of 1st Century Roman Empirical Entertainment.
Anishinabe