Brother bob -

You seem to be of the opinion that I am obligated to answer the questions you put. I am not.

I stated a number of posts back that there are NT statements condemning at least some form of homosexuality. I don't care squat what the OT said about it. The OT approves of sex slavery. That puts it in a category with ISIS. Or do you draw authority from them as well?

MAybe you should read the new testament too. You know the other HALF of the BOOK. romans 1 speak extensively about homosexuality. there are many other passages dealing with sexual lust - lasciviousness. Jesus spoke of marriage clarification and said it was between a man and a woman. If their practice was wrong, He obviously would have clarified the situation. Like he did with the Sabbath, lust, enemies and much more. You need to look at the full context and not just your prejudiced opinion by life examples.

You are willing to draw conclusions about what Jesus thought because he "would have clarified"? Did he talk about eating meat offered to idols? Did he address child marriage? Was he for or against education, you who can read Jesus' mind?

Didn't he say not to take any thought for what we should wear? And didn't he command us to give to those who beg from us, and to lend without expecting return (Luke 6: 30, 35). Now that strikes me as needing no clarification - do we hold the banks to that? Do you even hold yourself to it?

Homosexuality is not equivalent to lust. Just like heterosexuals, many homosexuals simply want to be with the person who means the most to them in all the world. There are passages in Romans which "proof-text" some idea that homosexuality is sinful. In the main discussion, Paul goes on to give "slanderer" the same category. If I were you I would look out for who I slander, given the things you say about gays.

quote "Homosexuality is not equivalent to lust. Just like heterosexuals, many homosexuals simply want to be with the person who means the most to them in all the world."

You have missed the greatest point of Christianity. SELFISHNESS is our sin nature. Serving God is not about pleasing self, but doing his will. Romans 1 clearly points lust to homosexuality. You have violated the principals of hermeneutics.


24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

King James Version (KJV)

Can't get much clearer than that!

Homosexuality, adultery, sex outside of marriage are just a few of the sexual sins that fall under lasciviousness or debauchery

brother bob wrote:quote "Homosexuality is not equivalent to lust. Just like heterosexuals, many homosexuals simply want to be with the person who means the most to them in all the world."

You have missed the greatest point of Christianity. SELFISHNESS is our sin nature. Serving God is not about pleasing self, but doing his will.

So having sex with my wife is okay, but not if we enjoy it? And of course, after menopause it is not allowed, since the purpose of giving children is gone? Expressing love counts for nothing? It is just selfishness?

This is a very sick philosophy.

brother bob wrote:Romans 1 clearly points lust to homosexuality. You have violated the principals of hermeneutics.

Evidently Paul had heard some stories about homosexuality among the upper classes (and maybe more) of Hellenistic society. Their methods of birth control were not very advanced, and "unnatural" practices thrived in the resulting tension between male sex drive and management of the number of children.

The term he used in Greek may have really meant "homosexual prostitution" - he probably was not too plugged in to careful distinctions to be made on the matter. He was Jewish and disgusted, and that was enough for him.

brother bob wrote: to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
King James Version (KJV)
Can't get much clearer than that!

Very clear. People who are unmerciful, people who slander other people, people who boast, people who covet the stuff they see advertised on television, are "of a reprobate mind". We should exclude them from churches, and never, never allow two of them to marry one another.

brother bob wrote:Homosexuality, adultery, sex outside of marriage are just a few of the sexual sins that fall under lasciviousness or debauchery

Your language of "fall under" displays your legalistic mentality. These are human beings, and Jesus came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly. Paul was wrong, but not as wrong as the people who misuse his words to be unmerciful and then boast about it.

Marks you are so far off base I am done providing a logical argument. If you reject the concepts of God so be it. However, God does not change. His ways are timeless. Best wishes.

brother bob wrote:However, God does not change. His ways are timeless.

Except of course when God's ways do change. God requires folks to do things, issuing commands that may become obsolete as times change. (See Exodus verses below.) There's even a fancy seven syllable word that fully justifies this: dispensationalism. In addition, many of God's commands apply to only one people or country and no one else. For example Jews were required to kill people for numerous infractions, but those commands do not apply to modern Europeans or Americans. Wait, do they still apply to modern Jews?

None of these concerns are relevant as long as you understand that God and His Ways are indeed unchanging and timeless.

Landroid, Excellent, Brilliant, very logically driven!! Bingo

Now to address the question "Does God change?"

NO, he emphatically does not. His scripture claims that he does not change as it state "he is the same yesterday, today and forever."

Let me illustrate how this can be fact. We could logically and accurately access that God is encompassed and all about the 10 commandments. It identifies who he is by what he expects from us. Just like I fathered three children and told them the standards to live by. IN my case they were almost always the same. Just ask them.

They would say, Dad you never change! The essence of who I am is still quite intact. Us men hate to change. Since according to the Bible we are made in his likeness or image, we are a "chip off the old block."

so how can God not change when he has directed us to different practices (dispensationalism). Just because our PRACTICES that we are told to do change, does not mean He has changed.

Stay with me! As I raised my children and let's say my oldest, David, at the age of 5 asked to go to the park. I quickly said no, but would have taken him myself. But when he was 10 I allowed this very same request to be approved by me. Why? He had changed to be able to handle more. He had shown me the trust and maturity that he could handle it. I did not change, HE DID.

You could easily equate and expect that God lives by the 10 commandments today as he did when they were first written by his fingertips. His CHARACTER is unchanging.

God deals with us differently today than the Israelites some 3,500 years ago. Society has progressed technologically and intellectually (more stuff) and God responds in like kind. He "bends" the rules for us to practice differently due to these accomplishment and responsibility cast upon us. Just like we eat crustaceans today that could not be ate some 3,500 years ago due to the lack of preparing and preserving those types of food.

Very exciting stuff!

Eternal and steadfast yet changing and evolving, especially regarding objective standards of morality and justice. Got it, very exciting indeed!

Ok, let's take the crustaceans and split hoof.

1) What did God say at creation of making all the animals. "IT WAS GOOD"

He didn't say some are good and some are bad.

2) he commanded the Israelites to not eat a certain type of food because of their inability to handle it.

3) He told Peter in the New Testament that all things were made by him and that man could partake of them.

Which part is his changing? He never cared if man ate them, as long as, he had the capability to process and store them properly.