Dealing With Gay Divorce (or not)

[Reformed Guy]

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

Almost all of these would ordinarily be a violation of one of the Ten Commandments when rightly applied (although in some circumstances the first two would not apply - (a prohibition against all piercings does not exist, and although I am not a fan of tattoos and believe a case can be made against them, I'm not ready to say that scripture labels them sin in every instance)- and even a fist-fight in a bar could not be sinful in certain circumstances (ex: a Christian police officer is called to a bar, is attacked and must defend himself). 

We know that sin is a trnsgression of the Law, therefore under ordinary circumstances most of the above could rightly be labeled sinful.

If we take your arguement to the next logical step, it leads to the notion that Christians stop sinning and stop fellowshipping with those who do.  That's fine as an imperative- we are commanded to abstain from sin- but fails as a descriptive requirement to qualify as a Christian.  Fact is, Christians are sinners too and sin daily in thought, word and deed.  It is the merits of Christ that earn and keep our salvation, not our sinless perfection.  If you, I or anyone else depends on our "not sinning" for salvation, that amounts to falling from grace and denying the gospel.

The notion that homosexuals are given over to a condition that is beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ is a rotten framework built on a most unstable foundation.

 

[Reformed Guy]

.

 

[Ransom]

prophet blathers on:

Ransom: 
1.  You don't know what word Paul actually said.

There is no question what word Paul actually said, as all extant Greek MSS of 1 Cor. 6:9 read arsenokoites ("homosexual").

There is only one reason that you doubt what is certain: a presupposition that the English Bible is actually superior to the language from which it was translated.  That's just stupid.

By faith, I trust the Common English Bible, as the authority.

By skepticism, you doubt what is certain.

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.

Plenty of people understand Koine just fine. Some of them can even speak it fluently.

3.  With that said,...how many times does that word appear in the TR of your choice (pick any 1 of the 7)?

Twice, in 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10. Same number as any modern critical text of your choice. It's not in dispute.

 

[prophet]

Again, you have anachronistically messed up again... just in the other direction.

The KJV translators did not live in the 1st century and they certainly did not choose the words they used because of a 20th century film.

You are working too hard to avoid the clear meaning of scripture. Learn how to interpret the Bible and learn why the KJV translators used the words they used. Don't fight against the clear meaning of scripture by foisting your own understanding on it.

As Ransom pointed out above, you approach this passage with the exact approach of the homosexuals. They don't want to see their activity condemned in this passage either.

I find it curious that you don't want us to explain the original word God used and how the KJV translators translated it. YET you tell us to go watch a rated R hollywood movie to understand the Bible.

You have tried to punk us but you really are looking quite ridiculous.

There is no 'us', and I attempted to 'punk' no one.  I answered you.  And I didn't seriously expect you to go watch a movie, the comment was sarcastic.
I don't care how YOU explain what 'abusers of themselves with mankind' means, because YOUR reasoning, made very apparent on the old forum version discussions, leaves YOU as the final authority.
I don't care what the Greek says, I speak English.
  I made a long, but hardly exhaustive list of ways I have seen man abuse himself with mankind. 
  I also gave my reasoning, that God would have implied sex, here, if He meant sex...Like every other passage that refers to man lying with mankind as with a woman.
  If ICor. 6:9 refers to saved people, who were washed from 'homosexuality', than it overturns the plain teaching of Romans 1.
  Please address these points, and with some level of maturity.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

prophet blathers on:

Ransom: 
1.  You don't know what word Paul actually said.

There is no question what word Paul actually said, as all extant Greek MSS of 1 Cor. 6:9 read arsenokoites ("homosexual").

There is only one reason that you doubt what is certain: a presupposition that the English Bible is actually superior to the language from which it was translated.  That's just stupid.

By faith, I trust the Common English Bible, as the authority.

By skepticism, you doubt what is certain.

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.

Plenty of people understand Koine just fine. Some of them can even speak it fluently.

3.  With that said,...how many times does that word appear in the TR of your choice (pick any 1 of the 7)?

Twice, in 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10. Same number as any modern critical text of your choice. It's not in dispute.

And neither translation plainly implies sex..defiles themselves, or abusers of them selves.  Not that the translators notes are available for perusal, but assuming its the same Greek word, and assuming that Koine Greek is somehow still relevant, In the English, homosexuality isn't plainly mentioned, like elsewhere.
  Keep in mind  that I am only giving my reasoning for excluding Reprobates from church membership, to avoid having to sort out the kind of mess dealt with in the OP.  I dont pretend to know the exact point when God actually gives someone up. 
  Guilty as charged, with believing that the AV text is superior to any EXISTENT Greek mss.
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

Almost all of these would ordinarily be a violation of one of the Ten Commandments when rightly applied (although in some circumstances the first two would not apply - (a prohibition against all piercings does not exist, and although I am not a fan of tattoos and believe a case can be made against them, I'm not ready to say that scripture labels them sin in every instance)- and even a fist-fight in a bar could not be sinful in certain circumstances (ex: a Christian police officer is called to a bar, is attacked and must defend himself). 

We know that sin is a trnsgression of the Law, therefore under ordinary circumstances most of the above could rightly be labeled sinful.

If we take your arguement to the next logical step, it leads to the notion that Christians stop sinning and stop fellowshipping with those who do.  That's fine as an imperative- we are commanded to abstain from sin- but fails as a descriptive requirement to qualify as a Christian.  Fact is, Christians are sinners too and sin daily in thought, word and deed.  It is the merits of Christ that earn and keep our salvation, not our sinless perfection.  If you, I or anyone else depends on our "not sinning" for salvation, that amounts to falling from grace and denying the gospel.


I listed ways that people abuse themselves with mankind. 1Cor.6 says that 'such were some of you'.


The notion that homosexuals are given over to a condition that is beyond the saving grace of Jesus Christ is a rotten framework built on a most unstable foundation.

No, it is built on Romans 1, a very stable foundation.
Romans 1 chronicles a progression, it is not static. The grace is available to them, they just reject it, prior to being finally rejected(reprobate).
Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

prophet said:

Guilty as charged, with believing that the AV text is superior to any EXISTENT Greek mss.

Great. Well, as an admitted KJV-onlyist, you've forfeited any right to be taken seriously by me.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]No, it is built on Romans 1, a very stable foundation.
Romans 1 chronicles a progression, it is not static. The grace is available to them, they just reject it, prior to being finally rejected(reprobate).[/quote]

If it's a progression shown in Romans 1, then disobedient children are absolutely doomed.

 

[JrChurch]

prophet said:

Guilty as charged, with believing that the AV text is superior to any EXISTENT Greek mss.

Great. Well, as an admitted KJV-onlyist, you've forfeited any right to be taken seriously by me.

We are used to it. 

 

[prophet]

Again, you have anachronistically messed up again... just in the other direction.

The KJV translators did not live in the 1st century and they certainly did not choose the words they used because of a 20th century film.

You are working too hard to avoid the clear meaning of scripture. Learn how to interpret the Bible and learn why the KJV translators used the words they used. Don't fight against the clear meaning of scripture by foisting your own understanding on it.

As Ransom pointed out above, you approach this passage with the exact approach of the homosexuals. They don't want to see their activity condemned in this passage either.

I find it curious that you don't want us to explain the original word God used and how the KJV translators translated it. YET you tell us to go watch a rated R hollywood movie to understand the Bible.

You have tried to punk us but you really are looking quite ridiculous.

There is no 'us', and I attempted to 'punk' no one.  I answered you.  And I didn't seriously expect you to go watch a movie, the comment was sarcastic.
I don't care how YOU explain what 'abusers of themselves with mankind' means, because YOUR reasoning, made very apparent on the old forum version discussions, leaves YOU as the final authority.
I don't care what the Greek says, I speak English.
  I made a long, but hardly exhaustive list of ways I have seen man abuse himself with mankind. 
  I also gave my reasoning, that God would have implied sex, here, if He meant sex...Like every other passage that refers to man lying with mankind as with a woman.
  If ICor. 6:9 refers to saved people, who were washed from 'homosexuality', than it overturns the plain teaching of Romans 1.
  Please address these points, and with some level of maturity.

Anishinabe

Go ahead and walk back your arguments. Your claim to sarcasm has left your initial point absurdly lacking in both content and maturity.

I have pointed out your flaw concisely and directly. You are anachronistic. You obviously do not know what that word means.

You don't understand Romans 1 either. Not everyone who practices homosexuality will be confirmed into that lifestyle. It shows the progression of where that sin can and has led many. It is not a guarantee that must be the case for all who have abandoned that lifestyle.

Go ahead and continue in your private interpretation delusion. Your KJV has failed you. It is not up to date with modern vernacular. You have not taken the time to understand one of the meanings of "abuse" in 1611. "Men abusing themselves" has NOTHING to do with the XGames and tatoos.

Ok, you have your opinion.
I have stated mine.
Mine dealt with the theme of the thread. 
I have no idea what you are doing, besides stalking KJO's.
 
Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]No, it is built on Romans 1, a very stable foundation.
Romans 1 chronicles a progression, it is not static. The grace is available to them, they just reject it, prior to being finally rejected(reprobate).

If it's a progression shown in Romans 1, then disobedient children are absolutely doomed.
[/quote]Disobedience to parents is  PART of the 'all unrighteousness' that the 'reprobate' is 'filled with', not the reason he is given up.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

prophet said:

Guilty as charged, with believing that the AV text is superior to any EXISTENT Greek mss.

Great. Well, as an admitted KJV-onlyist, you've forfeited any right to be taken seriously by me.

Ok. 

Anishinabe

 

[Biker]

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.

He nailed it ^^^

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]No, it is built on Romans 1, a very stable foundation.
Romans 1 chronicles a progression, it is not static. The grace is available to them, they just reject it, prior to being finally rejected(reprobate).

If it's a progression shown in Romans 1, then disobedient children are absolutely doomed.

Disobedience to parents is  PART of the 'all unrighteousness' that the 'reprobate' is 'filled with', not the reason he is given up.

Anishinabe[/quote]

So you didn't actually mean that Romans 1 is a progression...

...you meant that it's a progression till you get to homosexual activity, then you can ignore all that progression stuff because that's clearly the worst.  :

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]No, it is built on Romans 1, a very stable foundation.
Romans 1 chronicles a progression, it is not static. The grace is available to them, they just reject it, prior to being finally rejected(reprobate).

If it's a progression shown in Romans 1, then disobedient children are absolutely doomed.

Disobedience to parents is  PART of the 'all unrighteousness' that the 'reprobate' is 'filled with', not the reason he is given up.

Anishinabe

So you didn't actually mean that Romans 1 is a progression...

...you meant that it's a progression till you get to homosexual activity, then you can ignore all that progression stuff because that's clearly the worst.  :
[/quote]Romans 1 is a progression.  The progression  ends with the final stae of the reprobate: 'being filled with all unrighteousness'.  It lists SOME EXAMPLES OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, and then clearly states that the reprobate deserves death, and loves reprobate company.  The list is obviously not progressive.  What is progressive,  is also obvious...'for this cause...', etc.
Please don't try to convince me that you are completely incapable of rightly dividing, or English comprehension.  Don't try to 'gotcha' me, or 'make a point', by reading with sunglasses on.  Why are uou so afraid of what this teaches?  There is a point where someone finally rejects God, and He returns the favor.  This person is then given up, and over to reprobacy, at which point he 'leaveth nature', and natural desires. 
  None of this is even remotely arguable.  The only 'gray area' is where a self professed homo is in the progression.  I have no doubt that their are people going along with the 'in thing', who have not left nature yet.  But wisdom tells you that the reprobate is incapable of telling the truth, or laying aside his agenda, so sorting it out becomes extremely messy.  And the danger, if you accept a reprobate into your membership, in this sue-happy generation, is far too clear.  You might as well put your foot in a bear trap.  So I choose to avoid the mess, preach the gospel to every creature, remind men of God's original intent for marriage, and His wrath against those who reject Him  and let the chips fall where they may.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]Ok, you have your opinion.
I have stated mine.
Mine dealt with the theme of the thread. 
I have no idea what you are doing, besides stalking KJO's.
 
Anishinabe

While you were busy stating your opinion, I have stated what God said in his word.

There is no stalking on my part.  :

I made a point that YOU responded to. I just point out the glaring errors in your logic. We are just witnessing a person who can no longer support his opinion and must obfuscate by making a silly stalking charge.
[/quote]You avoided addressing the points, to attack me.  You claimed that I was the problem, my logic, lack of education, ignorance, etc. 
  You hate the KJO so much, that you can't conceal your haughty, arrogant condescencion.  In your mind, it is the man who decides what is truth, so if I disagree with you, I must be wrong.
  I have shared what the Holy Spirit has taught me, through the Common English Bible, which I hold as the final authority:
  Romans 1: 18-32 shows the progression of those who finally reject God, and are finally rejected by Him.  The progression takes the reprobate away from nature, into vile affections.  The end of that person is a loathsome being, filled with all unrighteousness  deserving of death, and desiring only the company of fellow reprobates. 
God's judgement of the cities in the well-watered plains of Jordan, and His pointed explanation of how they got there, in Romans 1, serves as a warning to us in churches age, that we aren't going to get very far trying to evangelize Sodomites.
  Now, step out from behind your prideful lectern, and sit accross from me, and rather than attack me, or my Bible, give your take on 'deal or no deal, with gay marriage'.
Since that is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

You avoided addressing the points, to attack me.  You claimed that I was the problem, my logic, lack of education, ignorance, etc. You hate the KJO so much, that you can't conceal your haughty, arrogant condescencion.  In your mind, it is the man who decides what is truth, so if I disagree with you, I must be wrong. I have shared what the Holy Spirit has taught me, through the Common English Bible, which I hold as the final authority:

Your desperation is obvious. While you may feel that you are uneducated and ignorant, I did not say so.

I also do not hate the KJVO.

I concisely challenged your wrong, private interpretation. You rely on anachronisms. The Holy Spirit does not teach people to rely on anachronisms.

 

[christundivided]

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

Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Regardless of your lack of understand concerning the kjV. The kjV doesn't even come close to saying what you demand of it. Verse 28 clear says why God gave "them" over to reprobate mind. The "them" of verse 28 doesn't exclusively reference homosexuals. The truth of the matter, and anyone with a thimble full of bible knowledge would admit, no one knows exactly WHEN God turns anyone over to a reprobate mind. You can't claim to know and there is no reference in the kjV that details a practicing homosexual is always considered by God to be a reprobate.

 

[prophet]

You avoided addressing the points, to attack me.  You claimed that I was the problem, my logic, lack of education, ignorance, etc. You hate the KJO so much, that you can't conceal your haughty, arrogant condescencion.  In your mind, it is the man who decides what is truth, so if I disagree with you, I must be wrong. I have shared what the Holy Spirit has taught me, through the Common English Bible, which I hold as the final authority:

Your desperation is obvious. While you may feel that you are uneducated and ignorant, I did not say so.

I also do not hate the KJVO.

I concisely challenged your wrong, private interpretation. You rely on anachronisms. The Holy Spirit does not teach people to rely on anachronisms.

You used the phrase 'You don't understand' 3 times.  You used the phrase 'anachronistic twisting', and told me to 'google it'. 
  Like I said, you hate the 'KJO' so much (you misquoted me), that you are blind to your own condescencion.  You assume that your private interpretation of whatever scripture you hold to is correct, and that the plain English wording in the Authorized Version can't really mean what it says.  You are adding  a sexual theme to the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' which is a stretch at best, straining at a gnat.  You swallow a camel in Romans 1, which clearly damns homosexual reprobates.
  I'm insisting, show how that Romans 1 teaches anything other than God's rejection of homosexuality, without dancing between languages in rederence to 1 Cor. 6. 
  Thank You.

Anishinabe

 

[christundivided]

You avoided addressing the points, to attack me.  You claimed that I was the problem, my logic, lack of education, ignorance, etc. You hate the KJO so much, that you can't conceal your haughty, arrogant condescencion.  In your mind, it is the man who decides what is truth, so if I disagree with you, I must be wrong. I have shared what the Holy Spirit has taught me, through the Common English Bible, which I hold as the final authority:

Your desperation is obvious. While you may feel that you are uneducated and ignorant, I did not say so.

I also do not hate the KJVO.

I concisely challenged your wrong, private interpretation. You rely on anachronisms. The Holy Spirit does not teach people to rely on anachronisms.

You used the phrase 'You don't understand' 3 times.  You used the phrase 'anachronistic twisting', and told me to 'google it'. 
  Like I said, you hate the 'KJO' so much (you misquoted me), that you are blind to your own condescencion.  You assume that your private interpretation of whatever scripture you hold to is correct, and that the plain English wording in the Authorized Version can't really mean what it says.  You are adding  a sexual theme to the phrase 'abusers of themselves with mankind' which is a stretch at best, straining at a gnat.  You swallow a camel in Romans 1, which clearly damns homosexual reprobates.
  I'm insisting, show how that Romans 1 teaches anything other than God's rejection of homosexuality, without dancing between languages in rederence to 1 Cor. 6. 
  Thank You.

Anishinabe

I am rather curious why you would believe no one today knows what a Greek manuscript of Romans actually says, and yet you believe the kjV translators KNEW PERFECTLY what it said? Do you really think 400 years makes that much difference?

By the way, if you're going to claim that the KJV is perfect and better than any other translation.... in an attempt to prove your point about homosexuals..... then you should realize that you've "hinged" your belief on the kjV.... thus, you shouldn't complain when someone tries to hang the "door straight" by removing your crooked "hing".