|
|
ToujoursDan
11/29/2006 3:59 PM
|
121 out of 129 |
|
|
|
Sorry Jesus is Greek is Iesous. In the Latin Vulgate it is Iesus.
But my larger point stands.
Dan
|
|
|
|
trulyalarmed
11/29/2006 4:14 PM
|
122 out of 129 |
|
|
|
I love you, you just won't accept it becuase I am talking a truth here that you aren't accepting from God.
Conditions and restrictions is the sum of what you are teaching here. I do not accept that you love anyone simply because you insist that you do. Actions speak louder than words. Your actions indicate that you do not understand God's Will and your logic indicated in each post convinces me that you are hopelessly deceived and are trying to decieve others.
Now, there is no way I believe that God is "leading" you down a homosexual path.
There is no such thing as a homosexual path. Your choice of euphemisms is funny and I want you to know you are intitled to your beliefs however inaccurate to the scriptures they may be.
And as far as "translation" goes.
The words were either sodomy or pornea.
Are you willing to bet on that? You act as if you really don't know, it's evident with your choice of the words either and or. You ought to be sure now, since you don't want to be responsible for deceiving people or leading them down the wrong paths towards unrighteousness.
There are some groups of people that will fight tooth and nail that Jesus NEVER WAS because the letter 'J' was not in use until 400 years ago.
However, that is a discussion topic that is not germane to this. None of us are doubting the existence of Jesus because there was no "J" 400 years ago.
No 'j' in Hebrew means to them that there is absolutely NO Jesus. And absolutely NO GOD...only Yahweh and Yashua. Jesus never existed. They will not even say that Yahshua and Jesus are the same person. They are in denial...
They are intitled to be in denial, the same way you are intitled to your own beliefs, however, you must accept the fact that the beliefs are YOURS, and not everyone must believe you. I don't for one second believe you because I have read your arguments and the logic has failed every single time.
We, in English, use homosexuality...you denying its existance is futile.
Futile for whom? You understand that in English we use words that have a completely different etymology than it's origin, to deny that fact is useless.
Homosexuality was rampant then as it is now...and it is frowned on by God.
But that doesn't prove your point. It's not denial on my part, it's my refusal to accept your understanding of logic and reason. The rampant degree of homosexuality past or present doesn't make the use of the term factually present in the original language or text- it just indicates a lack of integrity and scholarship and a translation error is apparent and some religious bigots refuse to accept that FACT.
|
|
|
|
REteach
11/29/2006 8:41 PM
|
123 out of 129 |
|
|
|
I'll ask you, Aneternity, the same question that Ex has not answered: What does "put the torch in the boot" mean. Simple, English, should be easy enough to answer.
|
|
|
|
Uriah_fan
12/19/2006 8:56 AM
|
124 out of 129 |
|
|
|
It is not love to take away the restrictions of letting your child (or friend) play on a freeway.
It is time for homosexuals to love those that cannot accept the sexual practices and personal beliefs of gays and lesbians.
Where's the love "for" people that do not believe in, and cannot agree with LGBT culture, ideology, aims and goals within their Christian community?
It is not unloving to read the New Testament and conclude that certain kinds of behaviors should not be promoted, affirmed and encouraged for Christians to engage in.
And IF enegaged in, then repentance and forgiveness are to follow. In love.
It seems both sides of this issue feel the same about that.
|
|
|
