always been interested in a straight answer from Christians re: this letter

[Soundbear]

LOL...your ego is amazing

Yeah, well so was his answer, clear and comprehensive.

[RWGR]

Yeah, well so was his answer, clear and comprehensive.

Too long-winded, I didn't read it.

[Anapeg]

Too long-winded, I didn't read it.

I found it concise and to the point. Now for long winded you might go back through your 21,406 some odd posts and get a real eye full. You say much but answer nothing. Then when people are spoken down to rather than across to they tend to neither hear nor pay attention. A shame really.

[Soundbear]

Too long-winded, I didn't read it.

I don't believe that, because you are not that stupid.

[Larimar]

I don't believe that, because you are not that stupid.

Attention span and intelligence aren't the same thing

[Soundbear]

Goldfish??

That makes sense. You can't type that many words in three seconds.

[dancingqueen]

So RWGR, here are some things I don't understand
But first, I will answer your question, My purpose for bringing this up, is clearly, wondering why rules around homosexuality still remain important, yet these do not.
Seems these "rules" are addressed in the old testament, just like any "rules" I can find regarding homosexuality. All in the old testament, yet, you and your ilk hang on to the idea that homosexuality is wrong. I can come to one of two conclusions here: The old testament rules are still important and must be followed, unless specified elsewhere. The problem with that conclusion is that I do not know of any place in the Bible where it says you may cut your hair, you may wear different kinds of clothing blends, you may plant crops next to each other etc... My other conclusion is that all these rules made in the old testament are to be discarded and no longer necessary for man to follow because of the "sacrifice" of his son (himself). The problem I have with that is that the apparent rules around sexuality are still followed to this day by Christians.... But why would they do that if old testament laws are to be discarded?

Typical... I like how this gets ignored....
Will full ignorance, Typical Christian tactic....

[Anapeg]

DQ, if this showed up in the Old Testament then the New Testament supersedes it. The old rules where like primers cause something was need to keep people in line quickly and then He, God, Jesus, it matters not as all one took His time, refined the original contracts and when Jesus can down that rendered the old contracts null and void and the new one took over. Now to the best of my knowledge the new one is the Ten Commandments. Hows that, am I close?

[Soundbear]

Written by a non-willfully ignorant Christian. Read by non-willfully ignorant Christians.

http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

[dancingqueen]

DQ, if this showed up in the Old Testament then the New Testament supersedes it. The old rules where like primers cause something was need to keep people in line quickly and then He, God, Jesus, it matters not as all one took His time, refined the original contracts and when Jesus can down that rendered the old contracts null and void and the new one took over. Now to the best of my knowledge the new one is the Ten Commandments. Hows that, am I close?

as my question asks, these "rules" allegedly against homosexuality are also in the Old testament.

[dancingqueen]

Written by a non-willfully ignorant Christian. Read by non-willfully ignorant Christians.

http://bible-truths.com/homosex.htm

Too long, might read later.... Can you answer ANYTHING on your own? I mean directly.....

[Soundbear]

Too long, might read later.... Can you answer ANYTHING on your own? I mean directly.....

Gee, can I quote the bible even??

No, that's no good, you'll say the interpretation is wrong.

No, I reviewed what this guy had to say, and I felt is was something I could agree with. So, if you want answers, you'll look. Otherwise, that's fine, I'll assume you don't.

[dancingqueen]

Well, According to SB, I'm not sure if he is talking to me... I mean he quoted me, and responded directly to what I was talking about... but he may be talking to someone else....

[dancingqueen]

Too long, might read later.... Can you answer ANYTHING on your own? I mean directly.....

Allow me to explain my skepticism....
This link sports a good 5 pages.... to answer a simple question, sorry, but that reeks of twisting and bending meanings and phrases to suit an agenda....
It would be like me taking 5 pages to answer why I don't like horizontal stripes on shirts...

[dancingqueen]

Not very convincing... Opening paragraph dismisses legitamete questions with "come on"

Just a couple of comments: Clearly it is admitted that same gender sex was condemned under Moses (being punishable by death), and that it was a practice of "Baal worship." And so it suggested that homosexuality was not inherently wrong, but rather it was wrong because it was practiced in the worship of Baal.

Apparently, had not the pagans used homosexuality in their worship of Baal, God would have allowed it. I think not.

It is a fact that currently, Baal worship is not the purpouse of homosexual activity... But aside from that, Who is this guy to say that is true or not, any evidence? was he there? no... again dismissing relevant information with "nah"
and he keeps doing this.... multiple times

Now I must admit that statement overwhelms me. Since it cannot be denied that Paul is speaking of same gender sex in Rom. 1:26-27, what are they to do? Well, they dogmatically state that Paul is not condemning homosexuality sex between homosexuals, but rather they state that Paul is CONDEMNING HOMOSEXUAL SEX BETWEEN HETEROSEXUALS! Is that not akin to
suggesting that it is not wrong for alcoholics to get drunk, but rather it is wrong for NON-ALCOHOLICS to get drunk?

No, he is wrong. I think a lack of understanding in sexuality is a huge problem people face when discussing this. It is clear the author does not understand sexuality at all. I am very tempted to stop reading at this point.

The elements of the Greek word arsenokoites are "male-lier"-A male who lies with a male. "Male bed partners"--Wycliffe Bible Dictionary.

From the terms Male lier it is automatically meant bed partners??? I would be interested in understanding that corelation... and again... interesting that it only speaks to males... not females. Also, do bed partners in clude loving commited relationships, or are we talking about prostitutes, or ritualistic homosexuality? very different than loving commited relationships. The rest of the terms mentioned have nothing to do with homosexuality so are disregarded as they should be.

I have to stop and take a break, this trash hurts my eyes and is in no way painting a very reliable picture at all. It is clear this person has an agenda, the fact it took this long to say absolutly nothing.

[Soundbear]

Allow me to explain my skepticism....
This link sports a good 5 pages.... to answer a simple question, sorry, but that reeks of twisting and bending meanings and phrases to suit an agenda....
It would be like me taking 5 pages to answer why I don't like horizontal stripes on shirts...

Your orignal post is a 600 word, 10 point "question".

Sorry the answers are so long.

[Soundbear]

It is clear this person has an agenda, ....

I admit to being curious as the what you really think the Christian agenda is, but I guess that's for another thread.

[dancingqueen]

I admit to being curious as the what you really think the Christian agenda is, but I guess that's for another thread.

Yes, yes it is