Originally posted by Rajk999
I know what the Bible says. I read the reviews in the link you provided.

My conclusion as stated .. the writer has an axe to grind and in my opinion presents a biased view.

Eg .. one review says [i] .. Most of the points Dr. Helminiak makes are nothing new to anyone who has seriously looked into the subject. The Sodom story in Gen. 19:1-29 is really ...[text shortened]... le grasping at straws and seeking justification for an act considered to be sinful in the Bible.

I am glad to hear of at least some consideration of what was presented to you. Otherwise, it sounded like knee-jerk reaction. I am interested in informed discussion. I had no clue that anyone went to look at the link. These bible verses are being analyzed these days, and I am interested in that.

Originally posted by JS357
You are all missing the point and have derailed this thread. The book discusses the Bible. It presents the view that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It's apparent that you all disagree with this, but apparently no one has read the book or seen the reasons it presents for its POV.

There a probably hundreds maybe thousands of books, website, blogs, pamplets and magazines claiming that the Bible's stance on homosexuality is either wrong or misinterpreted. Is it necessary to read every one in order to host an opinion on their general suppositions?

Originally posted by divegeester
There a probably hundreds maybe thousands of books, website, blogs, pamplets and magazines claiming that the Bible's stance on homosexuality is either wrong or misinterpreted. Is it necessary to read every one in order to host an opinion on their general suppositions?

Apparently not, if "host" means "post." An object lesson for me.

Originally posted by JS357
Apparently not, if "host" means "post." An object lesson for me.

How/why do you differenciate between a hosted opinion and posted one, in regard to my question to you?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Is this one of those Catholic priests that believes it is okay to sexually molest young boys?

yes, all people who do not condemn homosexuality also condone the molestation of young boys, you sorry excuse of a human being

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, all people who do not condemn homosexuality also condone the molestation of young boys, you sorry excuse of a human being

I understand the molestatiom of young boys by a Catholic priest to be a homosexual act worthy of condemnation. How does that opinion make me a sorry excuse of a human being?

Originally posted by JS357
You are all missing the point and have derailed this thread. The book discusses the Bible. It presents the view that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. It's apparent that you all disagree with this, but apparently no one has read the book or seen the reasons it presents for its POV.

I don't think you are going to see the word "homosexuality" in scripture if you do
it will more than likely be in a modern translation. Where the acts have been
discussed in scripture are never shown in a good light and more times than not
condemnation follows. I can point you to a few places where it is clear it isn't
something that is accepted, you can make up your own mind then.
Kelly

Amplified Bible (AMP)
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as if he were a woman, both men have committed an offense (something perverse, unnatural, abhorrent, and detestable); they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


NIV
Romans 1:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]"What the Bible really says ..." encourages me to write about what it really says about morality in Christ's New Testament teaching. No ?

I did not mean to derail the thread. But if we talk about what the Bible really says, it really says that even the very highly moral person, (Nicodemus), must be "born again".[/b]

you mention that both hetro and homo-sexuals need to be born again. when the hetro is born again they remain hetro. just to clarify does the same apply for homo, when they are born again do they remain homo. its just you said 'christ doesnt care what you are when first born' this implied to me that homosexuality is a problem for christ when people are born again or that christ 'cures' it when people are born again?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you mention that both hetro and homo-sexuals need to be born again. when the hetro is born again they remain hetro. just to clarify does the same apply for homo, when they are born again do they remain homo. its just you said 'christ doesnt care what you are when first born' this implied to me that homosexuality is a problem for christ when people are born again or that christ 'cures' it when people are born again?

What happens to a person that is Born again that isn't true of one who is not?
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand the molestatiom of young boys by a Catholic priest to be a homosexual act worthy of condemnation. How does that opinion make me a sorry excuse of a human being?

a catholic priest mentions the bible is mostly ok on homosexuality, you immediately jump to the conclusion that he must support the molestation of boys. you do understand the 2 are in no way related, right? that is is one thing to be attracted to consenting adults of the same gender and another thing entirely, and an abomination, to be attracted to little children? or you wish to persist in your despicable ignorance and prejudice?

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] It is besides the point whether one was born as a homosexual or one was not, as far as the Gospel of Christ is concerned.

Thats a bit harsh when talking about homosexuality!

It s like saying its besides the point how stupid you are so far as believing in supernatural creatures is concerned.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand the molestatiom of young boys by a Catholic priest to be a homosexual act worthy of condemnation. How does that opinion make me a sorry excuse of a human being?

The molestation of young boys is a pedophile act, regardless of the religion of the perpatrator.

....

And you are ....

Originally posted by KellyJay
What happens to a person that is Born again that isn't true of one who is not?
Kelly

i guess thats a more precise way of asking the question i was asking jaywill, only i was specifically interested how it effects homosexuality.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Thats a bit harsh when talking about homosexuality!

It s like saying its besides the point how stupid you are so far as believing in supernatural creatures is concerned.

Thats a bit harsh when talking about homosexuality!

It s like saying its besides the point how stupid you are so far as believing in supernatural creatures is concerned.

I don't think it is harsh on only homosexuality. It is equal opportunity "harsh" because it puts everyone on the same level.

Whatever we are from Adam as a natural man, whether good or bad, is not qualified to enter into the kingdom of God. To enter into God's kingdom we have to have God's life.

So it puts everyone on the same level. We all must be born again with the kingdom life.

Name one group of fallen people to which the passage is more demanding than another. All must be born of God, born from above, born again. And they "MUST" be so.

www.regenerated.net

Originally posted by divegeester
How/why do you differenciate between a hosted opinion and posted one, in regard to my question to you?

I have no idea what makes an opinion "hosted".