Dealing With Gay Divorce (or not)

[prophet]

Your opinion just gets more and more absurd.

Your fallacy is that you misunderstand the 1611 idiom. Reading a 2013 meaning back into 1611 is anachronistic.

Further, you ignore and misunderstand the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, "abusers of themselves" in the list of terms "adulterers" and "effeminate."

The KJV translators understood the term to refer to homosexuality and used an appropriate phrase for their time. Unfortunately you are unwilling to accept it

The KJVO claims to uphold the word of God as his standard, YET, the KJVO demonstrates, once again, that he does not even understand the KJV.

There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. Really. 

Yet, you have no proof that God divinely intervened. All you have is your own opinion that you've presenting as God's own action. Don't you believe that saying God did such and such.... when God didn't.... is just as bad as saying God didn't do such and such... when He did? In fact, sometimes, its worse.

I see that you ignored my posting detailing why you're wrong about Romans 1 in the KJV. Care to respond?

Read my earlier posts.  I answered it before you posted it.  I agree, that no one knows exactly the point that someone is given up, or over.  The purpose of this thread, was how to deal with... and I am doing just that.  Since I don't know when, on an individual basis, a queer is given up, I assume , for ministry's sake, that they already are.  They are very dangerous people, depending on how far along they are, in that progression, and they actively recruit young people.  They are sue happy, being easily offended over every thing normal/ natural...wouldn't you agree?

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]But seriously, why use a dead tongue?  Whether there be tongues, they shall cease.

Anishinabe

Yay for completely random verses that have nothing to do with the topic!

Tongues shall cease, refering to one that ceased, is somehow off topic?

Anishinabe[/quote]

Yes, since tongues in this context had nothing to do with dead languages.

 

[FSSL]

But no one can be washed fron reprobacy, it is a final state, by defenition.

Anishinabe

A person who has these obvious difficulties with the 2013 English language is hard pressed to convince the rest of us what 1611 English meant.

Your opinions lack logical integrity, lexical support and historical fact.

What obvious difficulties, that I typoed on that post?  So does everyone, once in a while.  I know I spelled from, and definition wrong, I didn't do it out of ignorance.  You really are petty.

Anishinabe

If your problems with the English language were limited to the typos, I would have overlooked it. You continue in your abuse of the KJV English by denying the context and refusing to admit that you are foisting a 2013 usage on a 1611 idiom used by the KJV translators.

Does anyone else share your private interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9?

 

[christundivided]

Your opinion just gets more and more absurd.

Your fallacy is that you misunderstand the 1611 idiom. Reading a 2013 meaning back into 1611 is anachronistic.

Further, you ignore and misunderstand the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, "abusers of themselves" in the list of terms "adulterers" and "effeminate."

The KJV translators understood the term to refer to homosexuality and used an appropriate phrase for their time. Unfortunately you are unwilling to accept it

The KJVO claims to uphold the word of God as his standard, YET, the KJVO demonstrates, once again, that he does not even understand the KJV.

There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. Really. 

Yet, you have no proof that God divinely intervened. All you have is your own opinion that you've presenting as God's own action. Don't you believe that saying God did such and such.... when God didn't.... is just as bad as saying God didn't do such and such... when He did? In fact, sometimes, its worse.

I see that you ignored my posting detailing why you're wrong about Romans 1 in the KJV. Care to respond?

Read my earlier posts.  I answered it before you posted it.  I agree, that no one knows exactly the point that someone is given up, or over.  The purpose of this thread, was how to deal with... and I am doing just that.  Since I don't know when, on an individual basis, a queer is given up, I assume , for ministry's sake, that they already are.  They are very dangerous people, depending on how far along they are, in that progression, and they actively recruit young people.  They are sue happy, being easily offended over every thing normal/ natural...wouldn't you agree?

Anishinabe

NO. I wouldn't agree. They are generally no more destructive than an over zealous "minister" that arbitrarily chooses to believe only one specific early modern English translation of the Bible is God's Word.

Also, if you're going to say such about "gays". Then you should include an entire list of peoples that likely fall under the decree given in Roman's 1. Including many that are heterosexual. I personally abhor the gay agenda. Yet, I do not try to make the Scriptures say something that isn't there.

 

[prophet]

[quote author=prophet]But seriously, why use a dead tongue?  Whether there be tongues, they shall cease.

Anishinabe

Yay for completely random verses that have nothing to do with the topic!

Tongues shall cease, refering to one that ceased, is somehow off topic?

Anishinabe

Yes, since tongues in this context had nothing to do with dead languages.
[/quote]A tongue ceasing, is not a language dying?

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

But no one can be washed fron reprobacy, it is a final state, by defenition.

Anishinabe

A person who has these obvious difficulties with the 2013 English language is hard pressed to convince the rest of us what 1611 English meant.

Your opinions lack logical integrity, lexical support and historical fact.

What obvious difficulties, that I typoed on that post?  So does everyone, once in a while.  I know I spelled from, and definition wrong, I didn't do it out of ignorance.  You really are petty.

Anishinabe

If your problems with the English language were limited to the typos, I would have overlooked it. You continue in your abuse of the KJV English by denying the context and refusing to admit that you are foisting a 2013 usage on a 1611 idiom used by the KJV translators.

Does anyone else share your private interpretation of 1 Cor 6:9?

The word 'abuse' hasn't changed, homie.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Your opinion just gets more and more absurd.

Your fallacy is that you misunderstand the 1611 idiom. Reading a 2013 meaning back into 1611 is anachronistic.

Further, you ignore and misunderstand the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, "abusers of themselves" in the list of terms "adulterers" and "effeminate."

The KJV translators understood the term to refer to homosexuality and used an appropriate phrase for their time. Unfortunately you are unwilling to accept it

The KJVO claims to uphold the word of God as his standard, YET, the KJVO demonstrates, once again, that he does not even understand the KJV.

There you go again, attacking the messenger. God is the King James Translator...if I believed it was left to men, I'd do something else with my time. Really. 

Yet, you have no proof that God divinely intervened. All you have is your own opinion that you've presenting as God's own action. Don't you believe that saying God did such and such.... when God didn't.... is just as bad as saying God didn't do such and such... when He did? In fact, sometimes, its worse.

I see that you ignored my posting detailing why you're wrong about Romans 1 in the KJV. Care to respond?

Read my earlier posts.  I answered it before you posted it.  I agree, that no one knows exactly the point that someone is given up, or over.  The purpose of this thread, was how to deal with... and I am doing just that.  Since I don't know when, on an individual basis, a queer is given up, I assume , for ministry's sake, that they already are.  They are very dangerous people, depending on how far along they are, in that progression, and they actively recruit young people.  They are sue happy, being easily offended over every thing normal/ natural...wouldn't you agree?

Anishinabe

NO. I wouldn't agree. They are generally no more destructive than an over zealous "minister" that arbitrarily chooses to believe only one specific early modern English translation of the Bible is God's Word.

Also, if you're going to say such about "gays". Then you should include an entire list of peoples that likely fall under the decree given in Roman's 1. Including many that are heterosexual. I personally abhor the gay agenda. Yet, I do not try to make the Scriptures say something that isn't there.

What decree is given in Romans 1?

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Back to the OP.  Anyone think that lawsuits for discrimination against same-sex couples is not coming to a church near you?

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

A tongue ceasing, is not a language dying?

Anishinabe

Yes...that's exactly it.  :

 

[subllibrm]

Back to the OP.  Anyone think that lawsuits for discrimination against same-sex couples is not coming to a church near you?

Anishinabe

I'm not sure that your plan to insulate yourself by drawing the "reprobate" line so hard is going to work. After all, you have been posting here repeatedly that your main motivation in having a hard line is to keep your church law suit proof.

 

[Torrent v.3]

So what will be the proper advice to John when he gets saved and is "married" to Tom? John wants to honor Jesus and live for Him. He also has a commitment to Tom. And so that I'm not accused of goal posting, let's add right from the get go that John and Tom have two kids (from surrogates) 6 and 9.

What are the needful things for John to do before we let him join the church? Divorce Tom? Abandon the kids? Fight for custody? Walk away? Stay married and faithful but celibate?

Well that should be enough worms to get this fishing trip going.  8)

Divorce, find a home for the kids if he is not able to get custody.

 

[prophet]

Back to the OP.  Anyone think that lawsuits for discrimination against same-sex couples is not coming to a church near you?

Anishinabe

I'm not sure that your plan to insulate yourself by drawing the "reprobate" line so hard is going to work. After all, you have been posting here repeatedly that your main motivation in having a hard line is to keep your church law suit proof.

It matters how the 'State' views you, if you have maintained a strict line, of consistently interpreting the passage in question as I believe it to be.  A church cannot be sued for believing what it consistently says it believes.  It can be sued for obviously changing its beliefs  in order to exclude an 'uundesirable' individual.  This instruction came from a lawyer, who said 'put it in your statements of faith, and they won't be able to sue you for discrimination'.

Anishinabe