Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 | Posted by: Selecia Jones- JAX FL | Full story: www.smh.com.au

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Comments (Page 765)

Showing posts 15,281 - 15,300 of24,666
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Robsan5

Bixby, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17058
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Snicker.
I didn't think you could.
Snicker Snort.(Blow blow blow, NoIQ!)

Robert
really

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17060
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a queer?
No Jake, not that it matters...Are you?
really

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17062
Mar 6, 2013
 
Jake wrote:
No, I'm not a queer, and it does matter.
No sweetheart, it really doesn't matter! When you finally realize that you can be happy and at peace.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17065
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
4. If you equate the diversity of two genders with the redundancy of same genders
rK; The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
KiMare'a wrote; I did not say anything about 'stereo typing genders', I was talking about the distinctions between genders. The numerous distinctions between genders are obvious and clearly understood.
Moreover, the point was the complimentary nature of diverse genders, verse the duplication of genders in a union. The result of the first is a completely unique presence, versus the redundancy of always only half of what marriage creates.
You know this, but slyly attempt to avoid the point because it exposes the foolishness attempt to equate marriage with gay couples.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I think you are mistaking my speaking the truth for your denial.
Smile.
LOL!

You bet.

Keep on with your bigotry bu don't pretend it's God's....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17066
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
4. If you equate the diversity of two genders with the redundancy of same genders
rK; The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
KiMare'a wrote; I did not say anything about 'stereo typing genders', I was talking about the distinctions between genders. The numerous distinctions between genders are obvious and clearly understood.
Moreover, the point was the complimentary nature of diverse genders, verse the duplication of genders in a union. The result of the first is a completely unique presence, versus the redundancy of always only half of what marriage creates.
You know this, but slyly attempt to avoid the point because it exposes the foolishness attempt to equate marriage with gay couples.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I think you are mistaking my speaking the truth for your denial.
Smile.
MiddleWay wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
You bet.
Keep on with your bigotry bu don't pretend it's God's....
You bet.
Keep on with your denial but don't pretend it's God's....

Genesis 1:27 (GW)
27 So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.

Smile.
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17067
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
4. If you equate the diversity of two genders with the redundancy of same genders
rK; The difficulties in stereotyping gender are obvious and should be understood, especially by you.
KiMare'a wrote; I did not say anything about 'stereo typing genders', I was talking about the distinctions between genders. The numerous distinctions between genders are obvious and clearly understood.
Moreover, the point was the complimentary nature of diverse genders, verse the duplication of genders in a union. The result of the first is a completely unique presence, versus the redundancy of always only half of what marriage creates.
You know this, but slyly attempt to avoid the point because it exposes the foolishness attempt to equate marriage with gay couples.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I think you are mistaking my speaking the truth for your denial.
Smile.
<quoted text>
You bet.
Keep on with your denial but don't pretend it's God's....
Genesis 1:27 (GW)
27 So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female.
Smile.
Why are you quoting GW, Genius? Don't you remember saying that the NASB is the most accurate?

Genesis 1:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
So only man is created in god's image, and woman is just created, the same as trees, fish, birds and everything else.

This is right in the middle of your other assertions you haven't pr
Wow are you stupid. Still.

Snicker Snort.(Suck suck suck, NoIQ!)

Robert
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17068
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
...
I'm fully ready to answer any assertions I made.
Smile.
Apparently not, Genius:

Please prove your assertion that homosexuality is a mistake of genetic epi-markers.
Please prove your assertion that the article Regnerus wrote has received awards.
Please prove your assertion that the sun is a form of radiation.
Please prove your assertion that god evolved into Adam.
Please prove your assertion that Adam was evolved, not created.
Please prove your assertion that god is genderless.
Please prove your assertion that 80% of all seafood poisoning is from shellfish.
Please prove your assertion that eve is created in god's image.
Please prove your assertion that radiation caused Moses' face to shine.
Please your assertion that the biblical use of the word 'shine' means 'glow'.
Please prove your assertion that god can reduce radiation exposure by holding out his hand or turning his back.
Please prove your assertion that god is radioactive.
Please prove that homosexual is a better translation for the word that it replaced in bibles in 1946.

Snicker Snort.(Suck blow suck, NoIQ!)

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17070
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you quoting GW, Genius? Don't you remember saying that the NASB is the most accurate?
Genesis 1:27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
So only man is created in god's image, and woman is just created, the same as trees, fish, birds and everything else.
This is right in the middle of your other assertions you haven't pr
Wow are you stupid. Still.
Snicker Snort.(Suck suck suck, NoIQ!)
Robert
http://biblos.com/genesis/1-27.htm

Strong's Transliteration Hebrew English
1254 [e] wayyi&#7687;r&#257; &#1493;&#1463;&#14 97;&#1460;&#1468;& #1489;&#1456;&#1512; &#1464;&#1448;&#14 88; created
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1444;&#1497; &#1501; &#1472; God
853 [e]e&#7791;- &#1488;&#1462;&#15 14;&#1470; -
120 [e] h&#257;&#257;&# 7695;&#257;m &#1492;&#1464;&#14 69;&#1488;&#1464;& #1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1433; man
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;alm &#333;w, &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1463;& #1500;&#1456;&#1502; &#1428;&#1493;&#14 65; image
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;elem &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1462;& #1445;&#1500;&#1462; &#1501; the image
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1430;&#1497; &#1501; of God
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1443;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#333;w; &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1425;&#1493;& #1465; -
2145 [e] z&#257;&#7733;&#2 57;r &#1494;&#1464;&#14 99;&#1464;&#1445;& #1512; male
5347 [e] &#363;n&#601;q &#7687;&#257;h &#1493;&#1468;&#15 04;&#1456;&#1511;& #1461;&#1489;&#1464; &#1430;&#1492; and female
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1445;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#257;m. &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1464;&#1469;& #1501;&#1475; -

Smile.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17073
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Cultural and religious insensitivity has nothing to do with the Constitution. It simply is or isn't. Calling gay couples 'married' clearly is insensitive.
2. Jumping the gun there rev. SCOTUS has validated traditional marriage a number of times. It has not ruled on calling gay couples married.
3. Nor do genetics have anything to do with cultural and religious insensitivity. Especially your gay twirl twist on genetics... At it's basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a definitive defective contradiction of the very basic goal of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'. A court or legislative ruling that contradicts that only flails at reality. Always a losing proposition.
4. The same goes for your designer religion. It will not change the reality of evolution or Christianity. Both condemn gay sex as abnormal.
5. Where did I 'howl about sin'? That very claim is another example of your gay twirl lies, rev.
Just a note. A believer would repent and apologize about lying rev.
Smile.
LOL!!!.... YES!, Right!... A believer in YOUR point of view.

You call the Constitution a matter of religious and cultural "insensitivity?"

Son, you haven't got a clue! No wonder you write the things that you do. Time for you to go back to school. The Constitution is largely based upon principles established through the Magna Carta. This was the 14th Century declaration of personal freedom that put the Lords and Bishops, and the common man, on equal footing with His Majesty, the King.

The Constitution is the very essence of the recognition of sensitivity. It is the Rule of Law that makes every person equal BEFORE the Law. It is a study in personal freedom and the right to exchange ideas and viewpoints!

Insensitivity, my foot!- unless by insensitivity, you mean the stubborn refusal to propagate traditional hypocrisies and bigotry.

For thousands of years, the Free Masons worked through every advancing form of civil law and reason-based culture to establish the principles of freedom of thought and of lawful assembly. These principles are held to be furnished to humanity as divinely made in "God's Image."

The Image is not anthropomorphic, as in Michelangelo's Finger of a languishing God touching the finger of the human with the sense of equality - yet the idea is the same. The Human Being is the outer manifestation of the Inner Being. The Inner Being is Light and Life and Love, expressed in the spectrum of polarized energy. But, that spectrum includes the centered, asexual being.

Jesus said, "In Heaven they are neither married nor given in marriage."

You continue to refuse to see from the view of the two individuals who seek marriage. YOU do not have the right to deny them the capacity to regard each other. This is not a matter of YOUR definition. It is a matter of THEIR definition and it is THEIR Constitutional right.

Hence, I said that the SCOTUS - WILL - recognize their right. I did not write that it already had. So, no, I did not jump the gun.

And there you go again with your "cross cultural constraint." Malarky. Marriage is the cultural recognition of the pair-bond. Yes, it is generally understood to be a male & female couple. But, there have been other legitimate forms of marriage, involving a lot more than sexuality. But, ultimately, marriage is a formal recognition of the bond. This bond is spiritual.

That is why Jesus said, "What God has put together, let no man tear apart."

Now you are howling about the sin of two non-heterosexuals developing a spiritual bond and an emotional and physical bond and trust and mutual care and the amassing of inheritable, communal property, that for ALL intents and purposes, FOR THEM, is a marriage. That is what it is.

For a while, States will find it easier to define this as "civil union." However, from a religious viewpoint, some will rightly call it marriage.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17075
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

3

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Cultural and religious insensitivity has nothing to do with the Constitution. It simply is or isn't. Calling gay couples 'married' clearly is insensitive.

2. Jumping the gun there rev. SCOTUS has validated traditional marriage a number of times. It has not ruled on calling gay couples married.

3. Nor do genetics have anything to do with cultural and religious insensitivity. Especially your gay twirl twist on genetics... At it's basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior....

4. The same goes for your designer religion. It will not change the reality of evolution or Christianity. Both condemn gay sex as abnormal.

5. Where did I 'howl about sin'? That very claim is another example of your gay twirl lies, rev.
Just a note. A believer would repent and apologize about lying rev.
Smile.
LOL!!!.... YES!, Right!... A believer in YOUR point of view.

And, yes. You do howl about sin and define the same-sex relationship as sin. Read your own posts.

Above, you call the Constitution a matter of religious and cultural "insensitivity?"

Son, you haven't got a clue! No wonder you write the things that you do. Time for you to go back to school.

The Constitution is largely based upon principles established through the Magna Carta. This was the 14th Century declaration of personal freedom that put the Lords and Bishops, and the common man, on equal footing with His Majesty, the King.

The Constitution is the very essence of the recognition of sensitivity. It is the Rule of Law that makes every person equal BEFORE the Law. It is a study in personal freedom and the right to exchange ideas and viewpoints!

Insensitivity, my foot!- unless by insensitivity, you mean the stubborn refusal to propagate traditional hypocrisies and bigotry.

For thousands of years, the Free Masons worked through every advancing form of civil law and reason-based culture to establish the principles of freedom of thought and of lawful assembly. These principles are held to be furnished to humanity as divinely made in "God's Image."

The Image is not anthropomorphic, as in Michelangelo's Finger of a languishing God touching the finger of the human with the sense of equality - yet the idea is the same. The Human Being is the outer manifestation of the Inner Being. The Inner Being is Light and Life and Love, expressed in the spectrum of polarized energy. But, that spectrum includes the centered, asexual being.

Jesus said, "In Heaven they are neither married nor given in marriage."

You continue to refuse to see from the view of the two individuals who seek marriage. YOU do not have the right to deny them the capacity to regard each other. This is not a matter of YOUR definition. It is a matter of THEIR definition and it is THEIR Constitutional right.

Hence, I said that the SCOTUS - WILL - recognize their right. I did not write that it already had. So, no, I did not jump the gun.

And there you go again with your "cross cultural constraint." Malarky. Marriage is the cultural recognition of the pair-bond. Yes, it is generally understood to be a male & female couple. But, there have been other legitimate forms of marriage, involving a lot more than sexuality. But, ultimately, marriage is a formal recognition of the bond. This bond is spiritual.

That is why Jesus said, "What God has put together, let no man tear apart."

Now you are howling about the sin of two non-heterosexuals developing a spiritual bond and an emotional and physical bond and trust and mutual care and the amassing of inheritable, communal property, that for ALL intents and purposes, FOR THEM, is a marriage. That is what it is.

For a while, States will find it easier to define this as "civil union." However, from a religious viewpoint, some will rightly call it marriage.

Rev. Ken
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17076
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jake wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a queer?
Jake, this isn't really a gay pick up site. Perhaps you should ask NoIQ for his favorite gay anal sex hookup sites...
Or KickMe, they both seem to be the resident experts on the subject.

Robert

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17077
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

5

4

3

7.If you think a law can change the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

rK; Law requires consistency and judicious recognition through the principles of individual rights and freedom of expression. Read on Thomas Jefferson.

KiMare'a wrote; The law defines and defends distinctions in relationships! It is at the basis of this very issue. The question isn't can individuals claim identity at their discretion, but rather how the law protects the rest of society from such abusive indiscretion of clear inequality. Hence we give special consideration to the handicapped and minorities. And marriage.

In essence, this is a gay personification of the fable,'The Emperor's New Clothes'. Duplicate gendered couples trying to imitate marriage. Incredibly silly and obviously ridiculous. Even a child can see the obvious distinction between gay couples and marriage, especially if one is mom and dad.
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17078
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

KiMare wrote:
7.If you think a law can change the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
rK; Law requires consistency and judicious recognition through the principles of individual rights and freedom of expression. Read on Thomas Jefferson.
KiMare'a wrote; The law defines and defends distinctions in relationships! It is at the basis of this very issue. The question isn't can individuals claim identity at their discretion, but rather how the law protects the rest of society from such abusive indiscretion of clear inequality. Hence we give special consideration to the handicapped and minorities. And marriage.
In essence, this is a gay personification of the fable,'The Emperor's New Clothes'. Duplicate gendered couples trying to imitate marriage. Incredibly silly and obviously ridiculous. Even a child can see the obvious distinction between gay couples and marriage, especially if one is mom and dad.
"The Emperor's New Clothes"?!? Do you just pick random concepts to use as analogies, Genius? You're nuts!
Why don't you pick one of your baseless assertions and prove it?
I've made a list of them for you:

Please prove your assertion that homosexuality is a mistake of genetic epi-markers.
Please prove your assertion that the article Regnerus wrote has received awards.
Please prove your assertion that the sun is a form of radiation.
Please prove your assertion that god evolved into Adam.
Please prove your assertion that Adam was evolved, not created.
Please prove your assertion that god is genderless.
Please prove your assertion that 80% of all seafood poisoning is from shellfish.
Please prove your assertion that eve is created in god's image.
Please prove your assertion that radiation caused Moses' face to shine.
Please your assertion that the biblical use of the word 'shine' means 'glow'.
Please prove your assertion that god can reduce radiation exposure by holding out his hand or turning his back.
Please prove your assertion that god is radioactive.
Please prove that homosexual is a better translation for the word that it replaced in bibles in 1946.

Snicker Snort.(Thanks for the BJ, NoIQ!)

Robert

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17079
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://biblos.com/genesis/1-27.htm
Strong's Transliteration Hebrew English
1254 [e] wayyi&#7687;r&#257; &#1493;&#1463;&#14 97;&#1460;&#1468;& #1489;&#1456;&#1512; &#1464;&#1448;&#14 88; created
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1444;&#1497; &#1501; &#1472; God
853 [e]e&#7791;- &#1488;&#1462;&#15 14;&#1470; -
120 [e] h&#257;&#257;&# 7695;&#257;m &#1492;&#1464;&#14 69;&#1488;&#1464;& #1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1433; man
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;alm &#333;w, &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1463;& #1500;&#1456;&#1502; &#1428;&#1493;&#14 65; image
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;elem &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1462;& #1445;&#1500;&#1462; &#1501; the image
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1430;&#1497; &#1501; of God
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1443;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#333;w; &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1425;&#1493;& #1465; -
2145 [e] z&#257;&#7733;&#2 57;r &#1494;&#1464;&#14 99;&#1464;&#1445;& #1512; male
5347 [e] &#363;n&#601;q &#7687;&#257;h &#1493;&#1468;&#15 04;&#1456;&#1511;& #1461;&#1489;&#1464; &#1430;&#1492; and female
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1445;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#257;m. &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1464;&#1469;& #1501;&#1475; -
Smile.
Best post you've written yet!

LOL.....

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17080
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KiMare wrote:
7.If you think a law can change the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

rK; Law requires consistency and judicious recognition through the principles of individual rights and freedom of expression. Read on Thomas Jefferson.

KiMare'a wrote; The law defines and defends distinctions in relationships! It is at the basis of this very issue. The question isn't can individuals claim identity at their discretion, but rather how the law protects the rest of society from such abusive indiscretion of clear inequality. Hence we give special consideration to the handicapped and minorities. And marriage.

In essence, this is a gay personification of the fable,'The Emperor's New Clothes'. Duplicate gendered couples trying to imitate marriage. Incredibly silly and obviously ridiculous.

Even a child can see the obvious distinction between gay couples and marriage, especially if one is mom and dad.
LOL!!!... Pure Baloney on your part!

Well, that IS the point, isn't it?

If a gay couple, or for that matter any couple, decides to raise children in a family, they have every right and at least a legitimate partial capacity to do so. Apart from adoption or the conferring of legal gaurdianship, there are actual genetic options.

If able, one or the other can simply supply either egg or sperm added to a donor sperm or egg and have an in vitro insemination followed by implantation of the zygote human into a person willing to carry the child to term.

When the child is born, the couple has a family. And YOU have no right, moral, social, cultural or legal, to interfere. Moreover, they can function as parents.

And yes, the issue is exactly that the couple has the subjective right to define themselves.

The Five Freedoms are as follows:

The Right of Freedom of the Press.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Religion.
Freedom of Assembly.
The Right to Petition the Government.

These are based upon the Rights of the Individual, the ultimate minority, to define His, Her or [Its] or Their perception of reality, within the Rule of Law under our Constitution. The form reflects the nature of the individual created in the Image of God as understood by the Free Masons and the Anglican Church colonialists and those who wrote and ratified the Federal form of the new government.

It literally defines the Right of Assembly and Freedom of thought and expression as a matter of Law. In essence, that is, the Right of two individuals to subjectively define themselves in relationship - in this case, marriage. Not marriage in theological terms; civil terms, in order to legally clarify and establish issues such as mutual care, child-rearing, communal property and inheritance; the things that are the trappings of marriage.

Maybe the Founding Fathers never contemplated how some inequalities would be rectified. But, if you read the Federalist Papers, you will understand that they knew these inequalities would be addressed.

We will legally stop the discrimination. After that, or coincident with that, religious institutions will determine for themselves whether or not such unions can be sanctified.

This is what the SCOTUS will confirm.

This is life under a Constitutional Republic. It is NOT a democracy. Neither do we live in a theocratic monarchy in subjection to the Emperor of Rome like the Jews of 2500 years ago.

You see, Kimare, there really is no such thing as "duplicate gendered couples." That is an objectified stereotype.

Out of convenience, we use "same-sex couple" as an objectified term describing the subjective understanding that exists between the two people. What actually occurs between them, as consenting adults, is something that you don't understand and in which you cannot intervene.

All you can do is howl about the sin in terms of your own perception.

Even Holy Scripture itself does not make their relationship and their behavior into sin.

Rev. Ken
Timothy

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17081
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Mickaela wrote:
we will all burn in hell, if there is a God,'cuse we have all done some sins acording to the bibel.
ps:the only thing i got aginst homosexuall guys is that they are stelling all the cute boys...
You're right we have all sinned.(Rom 6:23) But Jesus Christ gave his life and saved us from hell and we are saved by the grace of God. Homosexuality is an abomination because everyother sin is either agasinst God or humanity but this sin is against nature itself
Robsan5

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17082
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Timothy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right we have all sinned.(Rom 6:23) But Jesus Christ gave his life and saved us from hell and we are saved by the grace of God. Homosexuality is an abomination because everyother sin is either agasinst God or humanity but this sin is against nature itself
What???
Where did you get that idea from?

Robert

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17083
Mar 8, 2013
 

Judged:

4

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://biblos.com/genesis/1-27.htm
Strong's Transliteration Hebrew English
1254 [e] wayyi&#7687;r&#257; &#1493;&#1463;&#14 97;&#1460;&#1468;& #1489;&#1456;&#1512; &#1464;&#1448;&#14 88; created
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1444;&#1497; &#1501; &#1472; God
853 [e]e&#7791;- &#1488;&#1462;&#15 14;&#1470; -
120 [e] h&#257;&#257;&# 7695;&#257;m &#1492;&#1464;&#14 69;&#1488;&#1464;& #1491;&#1464;&#1501; &#1433; man
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;alm &#333;w, &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1463;& #1500;&#1456;&#1502; &#1428;&#1493;&#14 65; image
6754 [e] b&#601;&#7779;elem &#1489;&#1456;&#14 68;&#1510;&#1462;& #1445;&#1500;&#1462; &#1501; the image
430 [e]&#277;l&#333;hm &#1488;&#1457;&#15 00;&#1465;&#1492;& #1460;&#1430;&#1497; &#1501; of God
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1443;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#333;w; &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1425;&#1493;& #1465; -
2145 [e] z&#257;&#7733;&#2 57;r &#1494;&#1464;&#14 99;&#1464;&#1445;& #1512; male
5347 [e] &#363;n&#601;q &#7687;&#257;h &#1493;&#1468;&#15 04;&#1456;&#1511;& #1461;&#1489;&#1464; &#1430;&#1492; and female
1254 [e] b&#257;r&#257; &#1489;&#1464;&#14 68;&#1512;&#1464;& #1445;&#1488; created
853 [e]&#333;&#7791; &#257;m. &#1488;&#1465;&#15 14;&#1464;&#1469;& #1501;&#1475; -
Smile.
Yea great post! It's the first one which makes any sense.
Buds

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17086
Mar 9, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Robsan5 wrote:
<quoted text>
What???
Where did you get that idea from?
Robert
If you're going to troll Bible threads, you really should learn something about the Bible.

All homosexual behavior is repeatedly condemned in both Testaments and in the plainest of terms.

That fact stands for all eternity.
Robsan5

Chowchilla, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17087
Mar 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buds wrote:
<quoted text>If you're going to troll Bible threads, you really should learn something about the Bible.
All homosexual behavior is repeatedly condemned in both Testaments and in the plainest of terms.
That fact stands for all eternity.
There's no Bud here, David.
If you're going to troll human sexuality threads, why don't you tell us what word was replaced with 'homosexual' in bibles in 1946, and why 'homosexual' is a better translation?

Robert

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 15,281 - 15,300 of24,666
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••