Homosexuality and the Torah -and- the Christian NT

[Statistikhengst]

If you all don't mind casting another look at the OP, some things to consider.

The OP mentions that Homosexuality has been mentioned on a number of threads in USMB, and invariably, religion is justified for the condemnation of Homosexuality.

So, I went to the Tanakh and found exactly two, and no more than two, verses that deal very directly with homosexual acts, not necessarily with Homosexuality itself. That's two verses, out of 5,888 verses in the Torah alone and out of around 27,250 in the entire Tanakh, depending on how you count some verses.

That is just 0.03% of the Torah (Pentateuch, 5 books of "Moses") and a microscopic 0.007% of the entire Tanakh that concerns itself with homosexual acts.

That's it.

In the Christian New Testament, I pointed out that Yeshua himself never addressed Homosexuality or any homosexual acts in specific at all.

Now, I saw some very evasive arguments that Yeshuah, by clearly outlining marriage as between one man and one woman, had automatically spoke against Homosexuality. Really? That's the best argument to be made? I think that is very, very weak sauce. Yeshuah was so blazingly clear and detailed on so many things. Why not on this topic?

Anyone done the statistics yet on how many verses in the New Testament deal specifically with homosexual acts at all?

Hint: there are 7,956 verses in the NT.

In my opinion how a person "acts" defines the person. People who steal all the time are habitual thieves. People who often lie are liars. So ... people who commit homosexual acts are homosexuals. That means that if God speaks out against a particular act even once then He's speaking out against the mindset that leads to the act.

I was reading a portion of the New Testament this morning and came across this:

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

The city of Sodom has become the root word for "sodomy." But an in-depth study of Sodom and Gomorrah will reveal that they were cities of unbridled sexual license and debauchery (including rampant homosexuality). Some of the men of that region sought the angels that Lot sought to protect by offering his daughters instead. There's lots more to the story but I have to get ready for work.

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

 

[Chuckt]

If you all don't mind casting another look at the OP, some things to consider.

The OP mentions that Homosexuality has been mentioned on a number of threads in USMB, and invariably, religion is justified for the condemnation of Homosexuality.

So, I went to the Tanakh and found exactly two, and no more than two, verses that deal very directly with homosexual acts, not necessarily with Homosexuality itself. That's two verses, out of 5,888 verses in the Torah alone and out of around 27,250 in the entire Tanakh, depending on how you count some verses.

That is just 0.03% of the Torah (Pentateuch, 5 books of "Moses") and a microscopic 0.007% of the entire Tanakh that concerns itself with homosexual acts.

That's it.

In the Christian New Testament, I pointed out that Yeshua himself never addressed Homosexuality or any homosexual acts in specific at all.

Now, I saw some very evasive arguments that Yeshuah, by clearly outlining marriage as between one man and one woman, had automatically spoke against Homosexuality. Really? That's the best argument to be made? I think that is very, very weak sauce. Yeshuah was so blazingly clear and detailed on so many things. Why not on this topic?

Anyone done the statistics yet on how many verses in the New Testament deal specifically with homosexual acts at all?

Hint: there are 7,956 verses in the NT.

In my opinion how a person "acts" defines the person. People who steal all the time are habitual thieves. People who often lie are liars. So ... people who commit homosexual acts are homosexuals. That means that if God speaks out against a particular act even once then He's speaking out against the mindset that leads to the act.

I was reading a portion of the New Testament this morning and came across this:

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

The city of Sodom has become the root word for "sodomy." But an in-depth study of Sodom and Gomorrah will reveal that they were cities of unbridled sexual license and debauchery (including rampant homosexuality). Some of the men of that region sought the angels that Lot sought to protect by offering his daughters instead. There's lots more to the story but I have to get ready for work.

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

They were called dogs back then.

 

[thebrucebeat]

In my opinion how a person "acts" defines the person. People who steal all the time are habitual thieves. People who often lie are liars. So ... people who commit homosexual acts are homosexuals. That means that if God speaks out against a particular act even once then He's speaking out against the mindset that leads to the act.

I was reading a portion of the New Testament this morning and came across this:

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

The city of Sodom has become the root word for "sodomy." But an in-depth study of Sodom and Gomorrah will reveal that they were cities of unbridled sexual license and debauchery (including rampant homosexuality). Some of the men of that region sought the angels that Lot sought to protect by offering his daughters instead. There's lots more to the story but I have to get ready for work.

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

They were called dogs back then.

Perhaps. That would only show there was a social bias against them at the time, a bias the faith of the time may have shared as it did against women.
But just to see if this is simply an agenda-driven declaration, can you cite where you learned this? Some source that supports your drive-by statement?

 

[Newby]

Fascinating thread. No input from me, but I will continue to read it.

Meanwhile, ol Bruce just can't see the irony of his own posts:

continued rudeness and coarseness

That's all I have seen from him since he began posting in this thread. Oh, and commenting on avies alluding to gayness of the poster he disagrees with.

By rude and coarse I was referring to the swearing and name calling and playground stuff. I don't do that. Glad to see you give that a pass.
I think the avatar is hilarious. You don't see the irony?
Oh well.

No, you're MO is to belittle, denigrate, insult, etc.. Just like you did with me initiating the comments about my avatar and trying your damdest to imply it somehow went against my Christian faith. 'Use their own morals and beliefs against them' - who said that? Tear down, destroy, or at least attemt to, that's what you do because that's the only defense you have unfortunately. You don't have the knowledge, the integrity, or honesty to act honorably you're incapable of it. You try to anger so you can point your finger at the behavior you've coerced with that anger. Lowlife scum, that's my opinion of you, I have nothing but pity for you and others like you.

 

[Chuckt]

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

They were called dogs back then.

Perhaps. That would only show there was a social bias against them at the time, a bias the faith of the time may have shared as it did against women.
But just to see if this is simply an agenda-driven declaration, can you cite where you learned this? Some source that supports your drive-by statement?

Deuteronomy 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Now go learn what this means.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Fascinating thread. No input from me, but I will continue to read it.

Meanwhile, ol Bruce just can't see the irony of his own posts:



That's all I have seen from him since he began posting in this thread. Oh, and commenting on avies alluding to gayness of the poster he disagrees with.

By rude and coarse I was referring to the swearing and name calling and playground stuff. I don't do that. Glad to see you give that a pass.
I think the avatar is hilarious. You don't see the irony?
Oh well.

No, you're MO is to belittle, denigrate, insult, etc.. Just like you did with me initiating the comments about my avatar and trying your damdest to imply it somehow went against my Christian faith. 'Use their own morals and beliefs against them' - who said that? Tear down, destroy, or at least attemt to, that's what you do because that's the only defense you have unfortunately. You don't have the knowledge, the integrity, or honesty to act honorably you're incapable of it. You try to anger so you can point your finger at the behavior you've coerced with that anger. Lowlife scum, that's my opinion of you, I have nothing but pity for you and others like you.

Like I said, the name calling and that sort of thing, it marginalizes your posts as the work of an infantile mind.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Why don't you reflect the traits of the man indwelt by the Holy Spirit, according to Paul in Galatians? Why do you not at least aspire to them? Why has scripture become a punch line for you?
Have you turned your back on the Holy Spirit, or has He turned His to you?

 

[Newby]

If you all don't mind casting another look at the OP, some things to consider.

The OP mentions that Homosexuality has been mentioned on a number of threads in USMB, and invariably, religion is justified for the condemnation of Homosexuality.

So, I went to the Tanakh and found exactly two, and no more than two, verses that deal very directly with homosexual acts, not necessarily with Homosexuality itself. That's two verses, out of 5,888 verses in the Torah alone and out of around 27,250 in the entire Tanakh, depending on how you count some verses.

That is just 0.03% of the Torah (Pentateuch, 5 books of "Moses") and a microscopic 0.007% of the entire Tanakh that concerns itself with homosexual acts.

That's it.

In the Christian New Testament, I pointed out that Yeshua himself never addressed Homosexuality or any homosexual acts in specific at all.

Now, I saw some very evasive arguments that Yeshuah, by clearly outlining marriage as between one man and one woman, had automatically spoke against Homosexuality. Really? That's the best argument to be made? I think that is very, very weak sauce. Yeshuah was so blazingly clear and detailed on so many things. Why not on this topic?

Anyone done the statistics yet on how many verses in the New Testament deal specifically with homosexual acts at all?

Hint: there are 7,956 verses in the NT.

In my opinion how a person "acts" defines the person. People who steal all the time are habitual thieves. People who often lie are liars. So ... people who commit homosexual acts are homosexuals. That means that if God speaks out against a particular act even once then He's speaking out against the mindset that leads to the act.

I was reading a portion of the New Testament this morning and came across this:

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

The city of Sodom has become the root word for "sodomy." But an in-depth study of Sodom and Gomorrah will reveal that they were cities of unbridled sexual license and debauchery (including rampant homosexuality). Some of the men of that region sought the angels that Lot sought to protect by offering his daughters instead. There's lots more to the story but I have to get ready for work.

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

So is coveting your neighbor's wife a state of being, i.e. thought, or an act?

 

[thebrucebeat]

In my opinion how a person "acts" defines the person. People who steal all the time are habitual thieves. People who often lie are liars. So ... people who commit homosexual acts are homosexuals. That means that if God speaks out against a particular act even once then He's speaking out against the mindset that leads to the act.

I was reading a portion of the New Testament this morning and came across this:

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

The city of Sodom has become the root word for "sodomy." But an in-depth study of Sodom and Gomorrah will reveal that they were cities of unbridled sexual license and debauchery (including rampant homosexuality). Some of the men of that region sought the angels that Lot sought to protect by offering his daughters instead. There's lots more to the story but I have to get ready for work.

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

So is coveting your neighbor's wife a state of being, i.e. thought, or an act?

According to Jesus, the distinction is theologically irrelevant. He says that murder and anger are exactly the same sin.
You might consider that in your responses to me and others.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Chuck, how far would you take this?....

Bringing together various faith backgrounds is very tolerant and progressive, but theologically untenable.

is it theologically untenable to bring together Catholics and Baptists?.....or just Buddhists and Christians?.....

This is a technical question and I hope not a "Gotcha" question because there are many ways at looking at this.

not a gotcha.....I'm a member of a protestant denomination that separated from another a hundred years ago because the mother church let the Presbyterians partake of communion with them.....today it is nearly impossible to distinguish between my denomination, the mother church or the Presbyterians....in fact, my parent's small congregation has a pastor who graduated from a Presbyterian seminary.....

yet, any mention of reuniting the congregations is shut down on the basis of maintaining theological integrity....

apart from being more politically divergent, do the Red Letter Christians really have untenable doctrines?.....perhaps this needs its own thread.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

So, I went to the Tanakh and found exactly two, and no more than two, verses that deal very directly with homosexual acts, not necessarily with Homosexuality itself.

yet, what did those two verses say about homosexual acts?.......it said they were an abomination, using the same word applied to incest, bestiality, idol worship and human sacrifice.....

do you believe God changed his mind about all five or just about homosexual acts?.....

 

[DriftingSand]

If you all don't mind casting another look at the OP, some things to consider.

The OP mentions that Homosexuality has been mentioned on a number of threads in USMB, and invariably, religion is justified for the condemnation of Homosexuality.

So, I went to the Tanakh and found exactly two, and no more than two, verses that deal very directly with homosexual acts, not necessarily with Homosexuality itself. That's two verses, out of 5,888 verses in the Torah alone and out of around 27,250 in the entire Tanakh, depending on how you count some verses.

That is just 0.03% of the Torah (Pentateuch, 5 books of "Moses") and a microscopic 0.007% of the entire Tanakh that concerns itself with homosexual acts.

That's it.

In the Christian New Testament, I pointed out that Yeshua himself never addressed Homosexuality or any homosexual acts in specific at all.

Now, I saw some very evasive arguments that Yeshuah, by clearly outlining marriage as between one man and one woman, had automatically spoke against Homosexuality. Really? That's the best argument to be made? I think that is very, very weak sauce. Yeshuah was so blazingly clear and detailed on so many things. Why not on this topic?

Anyone done the statistics yet on how many verses in the New Testament deal specifically with homosexual acts at all?

Hint: there are 7,956 verses in the NT.

In my opinion how a person "acts" defines the person. People who steal all the time are habitual thieves. People who often lie are liars. So ... people who commit homosexual acts are homosexuals. That means that if God speaks out against a particular act even once then He's speaking out against the mindset that leads to the act.

I was reading a portion of the New Testament this morning and came across this:

Jude 1:7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

The city of Sodom has become the root word for "sodomy." But an in-depth study of Sodom and Gomorrah will reveal that they were cities of unbridled sexual license and debauchery (including rampant homosexuality). Some of the men of that region sought the angels that Lot sought to protect by offering his daughters instead. There's lots more to the story but I have to get ready for work.

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

As a Christian I have to accept what the entire Bible says. Christ took "the law" a step further by stating that if we even look at a woman with lust in our heart that we've committed the sin of adultery. He said that if we hate our brother without a cause that we're guilty of murder. Therefore, the state of being or state of mind has everything to do with the act.

Matthew 5:27-28, "27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Matthew 5:22, "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

 

[Newby]

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

So is coveting your neighbor's wife a state of being, i.e. thought, or an act?

According to Jesus, the distinction is theologically irrelevant. He says that murder and anger are exactly the same sin.
You might consider that in your responses to me and others.

You do have quite an ego on you, don't you? Perhaps that's why the pastor thing didn't work out for you? I'm anything but angry with you, I do find you amusing to play with tho.

 

[Chuckt]

Chuck, how far would you take this?....


is it theologically untenable to bring together Catholics and Baptists?.....or just Buddhists and Christians?.....

This is a technical question and I hope not a "Gotcha" question because there are many ways at looking at this.

not a gotcha.....I'm a member of a protestant denomination that separated from another a hundred years ago because the mother church let the Presbyterians partake of communion with them.....today it is nearly impossible to distinguish between my denomination, the mother church or the Presbyterians....in fact, my parent's small congregation has a pastor who graduated from a Presbyterian seminary.....

yet, any mention of reuniting the congregations is shut down on the basis of maintaining theological integrity....

apart from being more politically divergent, do the Red Letter Christians really have untenable doctrines?.....perhaps this needs its own thread.....

There are several streams of the Emergent Church. Some scholars like D.A. Carson seem to suggest that this is what we will have so we might as well be conversant. The Emergent Church and I are not friends.

 

[Newby]

By rude and coarse I was referring to the swearing and name calling and playground stuff. I don't do that. Glad to see you give that a pass.
I think the avatar is hilarious. You don't see the irony?
Oh well.

No, you're MO is to belittle, denigrate, insult, etc.. Just like you did with me initiating the comments about my avatar and trying your damdest to imply it somehow went against my Christian faith. 'Use their own morals and beliefs against them' - who said that? Tear down, destroy, or at least attemt to, that's what you do because that's the only defense you have unfortunately. You don't have the knowledge, the integrity, or honesty to act honorably you're incapable of it. You try to anger so you can point your finger at the behavior you've coerced with that anger. Lowlife scum, that's my opinion of you, I have nothing but pity for you and others like you.

Like I said, the name calling and that sort of thing, it marginalizes your posts as the work of an infantile mind.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Why don't you reflect the traits of the man indwelt by the Holy Spirit, according to Paul in Galatians? Why do you not at least aspire to them? Why has scripture become a punch line for you?
Have you turned your back on the Holy Spirit, or has He turned His to you?

Blah, blah, blah... you really do need to work on getting some new material, this is really getting kind of old and boring.

 

[Newby]

First, thanks for responding.

Second, I don't share your view vis-a-vis "acts" and "state of being", and neither does the law. Because I don't believe in legislating people's thoughts. Also, the term Homosexuallity did not even exist back then, it was coined in the middle of the 19th century. But surely people were aware of the state of being.

Third, thank you for offereing Jude as an example. Again, a verse that does not explicitly describe homsexual acts. And part of what you wrote just undid your argument. If this is about homosexual acts, why would Lot try to offer up his daughters to those hordes? Why would a Homosexual want to sleep with one of his daughters in order to be assuaged?

It it likely that Homosexuality and homosexual acts were part of the equation with the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah - but they would be in any city or town because Homsexuals have always been among us.

And just to note, Jude is not quoting Jeshuah.

But thank you for contributing the verse. Interesting stuff.

So is coveting your neighbor's wife a state of being, i.e. thought, or an act?

According to Jesus, the distinction is theologically irrelevant. He says that murder and anger are exactly the same sin.You might consider that in your responses to me and others.

Tell that to your buddy, he's the one that's stating differently... in case you missed that..

 

[thebrucebeat]

So is coveting your neighbor's wife a state of being, i.e. thought, or an act?

According to Jesus, the distinction is theologically irrelevant. He says that murder and anger are exactly the same sin.You might consider that in your responses to me and others.

Tell that to your buddy, he's the one that's stating differently... in case you missed that..

I understand that.
Hopefully you will embrace Jesus's point. So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.

 

[Newby]

According to Jesus, the distinction is theologically irrelevant. He says that murder and anger are exactly the same sin.You might consider that in your responses to me and others.

Tell that to your buddy, he's the one that's stating differently... in case you missed that..

I understand that.
Hopefully you will embrace Jesus's point. So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.

Why would you care what I embrace?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Tell that to your buddy, he's the one that's stating differently... in case you missed that..

I understand that.
Hopefully you will embrace Jesus's point. So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.

Why would you care what I embrace?

No argument again.
I understand.

 

[Newby]

I understand that.
Hopefully you will embrace Jesus's point. So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.

Why would you care what I embrace?

No argument again.
I understand.

You imagined that you posted something that could be 'argued'?

Let's review your post:

'I understand that.'
Good for you! What's to argue there?

'Hopefully you embrace Jesus's point.'
Nice of you to worry about what I embrace or don't embrace, but again I see nothing to 'argue' there.

'So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.'

Your opinion of what you think you've heard so far, punchlines, there's something to argue against there?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why would you care what I embrace?

No argument again.
I understand.

You imagined that you posted something that could be 'argued'?

Let's review your post:

'I understand that.'
Good for you! What's to argue there?

'Hopefully you embrace Jesus's point.'
Nice of you to worry about what I embrace or don't embrace, but again I see nothing to 'argue' there.

'So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.'

Your opinion of what you think you've heard so far, punchlines, there's something to argue against there?

I have to agree.
There is no argument.
None whatsoever.