Replies

Your really stretching it here, because Jesus does not say the actual word "Homosexual" you want to believe that it is permissive for a Christian or that it is not a sin? Because Jesus does not say the word "rape" or address it directly is rape okay? What you would like to do is remove Christ from the Bible and place Him in your own context, removing His loyalties and affirmation to the Law of God, of whom he is apart.

Jesus clearly made known His views concerning homosexuality in direct affirmation of Gods Laws and affirmation of heterosexuality and in Gods statements on the matter (as Jesus is God, I guess Jesus did say something directly to the matter) and though His Apostles.

You must go against the foundational principle of God in three persons to avoid the law of God spoken by God, which would include Jesus. Only God can change the law or the punishment of sin and Jesus did not remove homosexuality from the sin column, He changed the punishment time table and allowed for a pardon upon repentance and acceptance of His Godhood and sacrifice. These are very basic principles and I am not sure why so many Christians never learn them.

To remove Jesus from the Transcendent Godhood or to rationalize what is sin and what is not sin based on the lack of direct statement from one personhood of God is neo-paganism. It also violates the very words of Jesus as He did not nor could He contradict God (or Himself as it is).

Lastly, Jesus was most critical of sin, all sin being sin.

Your really stretching it here, because Jesus does not say the actual word "Homosexual" you want to believe that it is permissive for a Christian or that it is not a sin?

Huh? Who said that?

I said;
"Not that homosexuality isn't clearly defined as sin by the Bible. It is."

It helps to actually read a post before you respond to it. Ok? Just a suggestion.

Because Jesus does not say the word "rape" or address it directly is rape okay?

Of course not. Jesus didn't address incest or bestiality either and nobody in their right mind would believe this means He thinks these things are OK.

But again, you miss my point.
Firstly I was responding to your claim that Jesus "spoke out" against homosexuals.
The fact is Jesus never actually spoke out against homosexuals. Your statement was factually wrong.

Secondly, the fact that Jesus might have been against many things He never directly addressed does nothing to support your attempt to use Jesus to defend Jerry Falwell pointing at "homosexuals, pagans and feminists" as bringing God's judgement upon America on 9-11.

By your reasoning we could also say that since lying, adultery, lust, greed, gossip and self righteousness are sins that Jesus was against, therefore 9-11 was a judgement against those things.

The fact is Jerry Falwell picked out those sins which he personally finds most offensive and blamed them for 9-11.
When the fact is He doesn't have a clue.

You must go against the foundational principle of God in three persons to avoid the law of God spoken by God, which would include Jesus.

With all due respect this is totally amusing.

First you claimed that Jesus "spoke out" against homosexuality.

When I challanged you to show me any actual statements in the Bible by Jesus against homosexuality, you couldn't do it.
(probably because there aren't any)

So you then attempted to modify it with "look for the words they used like effeminate".

( who are "they"?)

Well guess what. There are no verses in the Bible where Jesus even uses words like "effeminate" to "speak out" against homosexuality either.

Once again you were wrong.

Now your denial has morphed into yet another shape.....the "God in three persons" argument.

You actually accuse me of going against the "the foundational principle of God in three persons to avoid the law of God spoken by God" (even though I did no such thing) to avoid having to admit you were wrong when you claimed Jesus personally "spoke out" against homosexuality.

What a convoluted argument. Give me a break.