Religious discussion thread

[Subzero]

He goes on in Timothy to explain his position first by explaining how he himself is unjust according to the law, and how this was undone: "Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious... Now the grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus... A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners...But for this cause have I obtained mercy: that in me first Christ Jesus might shew forth all patience" (Tim 1:13-16). Then he explains who all is worthy of this: "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men... Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Tim 2:1-4)


But does that not mean that ****sequality is a sin?Surely u would need to apologise for it (like cannon gefory john was asked to).


More important than law is surely is surely heaven.what about my other quote.It clearly states that you won't get into heaven if you "defile yourself with mankind".

And i don't care about a persons sexuality.And i'm certainly not christain.

I don't think anyone has ever asked me that on a religion discussion b4.


I was just wondering how the church could possibly start to say that it would accept ****sxual church members (who didn't won't to apologise for there sexuality).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
But does that not mean that ****sequality is a sin?

No, it does not mean that ****sexuality is a sin. Where did you get that?

More important than law is surely is surely heaven.what about my other quote.It clearly states that you won't get into heaven if you "defile yourself with mankind".

No it doesn't. It clearly establishes a position based around that idea, then discards it as untenable.

This is analogous to you saying "You know what I hate? This idea that we should hate ****sexuals." And someone quoting you as saying "We should hate ****sexuals." Obviously, not a fair assessment.

And i'm certainly not christain.

Then why are you trying to interpret Christian scripture, and telling the Christians their interpretation is wrong and they must follow yours? Isn't that a little silly?

I was just wondering how the church could possibly start to say that it would accept ****sxual church members.

Again, maybe if they'd read Paul. I'd wager there's a high probability that they have, BTW.

[Subzero]

:



No it doesn't. It clearly establishes a position based around that idea, then discards it as untenable.

This is analogous to you saying "You know what I hate? This idea that we should hate ****sexuals." And someone quoting you as saying "We should hate ****sexuals." Obviously, not a fair assessment.



Then why are you trying to interpret Christian scripture, and telling the Christians their interpretation is wrong and they must follow yours? Isn't that a little silly?

Give me a qoute to show this and i wll apologise for my mistranslation.BU i don't see why paul would change his mind (or get to his point) so late after is original point.
It has been sugested that paul was not responsiblr for everything that went into the bible in his name.BUt it is unknown which is Paul and whic is this other person.



Again, maybe if they'd read Paul. I'd wager there's a high probability that they have, BTW. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Christopher M]

You haven't brought up anything which I didn't respond to in my original reply on 07-31-2003 03:38 PM. Until you've read that, I don't think a discussion can continue in an intelligible manner.

[Subzero]

Isn't the point of a disussion to try and fully defend your point?

Or can u just not give me a qoute?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Subzero
Or can u just not give me a qoute?

I gave six in my original reply. Since you've never mentioned them and continue to act like I've never given any, I'm given the impression that you're simply not reading what I write. This isn't a discussion.

Isn't the point of a disussion to try and fully defend your point?

Yes, and I did in my original reply. If you would like to read that and respond to what's in it, then perhaps a discussion can occur.