Homosexuality in and of itself is 'not' a sin in the Bible..

[chosenone]

"For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any."

You are making something pure into something sinful. its very sad and quite appalling actually, but thats how far some will sink in their desperate efforts to justify their serious sin.

[MeMyself]

memyself.. nope, I'm not a 'victim'... just stating how it is, so 'sigh' away to your heart's content if that makes you feel better.

Well...in case you care...its not how its been here.  Its what you immediately jumped to and starting accusing others of, but there is no truth to it.

PS. I agree that you're not a victim, so cut out trying to make it look like you are being picked on.

[chosenone]

OH here we go, the old 'David and Johnathon had a gay relationship' nonsense. There is a massive difference between a close friendship and a sexual relationship as in a marriage type situation. No one says we cant have close friends of the same sex.

its heartbreaking how far this agenda is willing to sink isn't it, Chosen.    God have mercy on them!

Its all part of the moral decay that is happening. I expect it of non believers, they usually know no better, but we are supposed to be different.

[chosenone]

A good Biblical teaching on marriage.

http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family

Here is part of what it says.

Homosexuality , fourth, marks another falling away from God's creation purposes in that it violates the divine will for marriage to be between one man and one woman. As Genesis 2:24 stipulates, "A man [masculine] shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife [feminine], and the two shall become one flesh." Heterosexuality is the only possible arrangement for marriage, as the Creator has commanded and expects married couples to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28). Since homosexuality involves same-sex intercourse that cannot lead to procreation, it is unnatural and cannot logically entail the possibility of marriage.

[Aaron Lindahl]

chosenone... I notice you immediately replied without even reading what I posted.

By 'all' means, please show where the errors are in the Hebrew translation, or.. admit that you cannot.

[skeeter]

no one is born gay,

I do not agree with that.  There is some evidence that a same-gender attraction can be demonic in origin; and some people are born demonized. So being "born that way" is certainly not out of the question.

By the same token - a baby can also be born with a demon of hatred or murder.  Those would still be considered sinful.

There is another aspect that needs to be covered regarding being born that way or not.

Being born demonized is a certain consideration but what about the seeming "explosion" of gays today.

Stop and consider the general  age group of the bulk of those so called "coming out."

Their parents and and many grandparents were alive and well in the 1960s and after when the hippy movement, free love and free drug use was encourages to all those who would listen.

I remember working at a store in 1984 and a young woman, in her 20s.... I was in my late 30s... refused to believe I had never ever tried a drug of any kind....

And I never have.

But the majority of those have at the least smoked marijuana.

What screwed up effect on their bodies did these people do that may have alterd the fetuses they were carrying, even if they did not use drugs during her pregnancy.

This could be a direct outcome.

(Example: We all know, or those of us to have children coming out at the moment, do,  of the parents of Chastity/Chaz Bono. Did she/he make a lifestyle choice or was the lifestyle of the parents in their youth responsible with their admitted acceptance of illegal substances?

ALSO... Just think of what the government has and is accepting in the way of food modifications and genetic alterations....

That started in the 80s big time as well.... With the tomato and corn genetic alterations to begin with.

This could well be accountable for such changes in someones baby.

I am certain it is accountable for the epidemic we see in  diabetes and many other diseases we see today.

God help us if they start selling cloned meat....

In any even, whatever the reason... by choice or birth... abstinence is the word of the day.

I agree - a lot of what you posted has been on my mind for some time now.  I know that sometime around in the '50s the government spray something around the town I was born/raised in.  My sister and I are both  disabled now. If the gov ever did a study on babies born after that time I'm sure they haven't released it...

The stuff they put in our food - and the rise of fast food are not to our benefit.  How much do people think our bodies can take? I was in HS before we got our first McDs in town.  A few diners around town but not fast food places.

Anyway, there are a lot of things like this (and drugs in our water systems, hormones in meat and milk) that could contribute.  I have yet tho to hear that a scientist has discovered a new gene or a defective one (split, duplicated, whatever) that is the source of homosexuality.

It also makes me wonder about the rise in autism.

btw, I'm also one who has never taken illegal drugs or smoked pot - and yep, I was a teenager in the 60s!

[chosenone]

Read about Pauls teaching on marriage. ALWAYS to a man and a women, a husband and his wife.

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/paul-s-inspired-teachings-marriage

Please show me where there is any teaching for 2 men who are married?Or 2 women?   PLease show me where sex is taught about for anyone other than men and women?

[Aaron Lindahl]

chosenone... again... I notice you immediately replied without even reading what I posted.

By 'all' means, please show where the errors are in the Hebrew translation I provided, or.. admit that you cannot.

[skeeter]

Skeeter, 'I' didn't call anyone hateful, another person on here said that to me... please don't make things up.

That said, it is people like you who are getting all bent out of shape because I don't agree with you, not me.

I've already stated repeatedly that I don't care if everyone here disagrees with me.  It's no skin off my back.

I'm not going on other people's posts and attacking them, or trying to forcibly change their minds.

It is 'you' and people like you who are coming onto my post, and who cannot seem to handle that I neither require your agreement, nor care whether you agree with me.

No one's 'forcing' you to read my post, are they?  If you don't like it, go and create your 'own' post saying how 'bad' you think Aaron Lindahl is.

if it wasn't 'skin off your back',  you'd quit posting about it.

you CAN'T go on 'other people's posts'.  you can quote their post tho...
do you know how a forum like this works?

You posted a new THREAD with a topic.  Many people can then POST on your THREAD in reply to your original thread post/topic.

IF you don't like people posting replies on your THREAD, then you shouldn't have posted one.  That's what happens...that's how it works...  no one is required to agree with your OP.

Why?  Do you think you are bad?

you don't require others to agree with you?.... Is that why you told one poster to stop posting on  here?  Your 'logic'  on this  is another  zigzag.

From your posts here, you 'sound' like a very young person.

[Aaron Lindahl]

Skeeter, I'm almost 45, and I'm not the one going on to other people's 'threads' and freaking out because they don't agree with me.  You and I simply disagree on this subject. As I said, I'm completely fine with you or everyone here not agreeing with me.  Give it a rest.

[MeMyself]

I'm not the one going on to other people's posts and freaking out because they don't agree with me.

Who do you see that IS doing that?

I wonder if you are confused about how this works.

YOU came here and posted your thoughts on this issue on a public Christian forum.  One that is designed for back and forth communication.  You seem bothered that your thoughts are being challenged and trying to make it sound like you are being stalked and harassed.  That is not the case.

You came, you posted, people responded, you cried foul. 

[Aaron Lindahl]

It's readily apparent.  If you can't see, that's not my problem. I've already said, I could care less whether you agree or not. God bless.

[MeMyself]

It's readily apparent.  If you can't see, that's not my problem. God bless.

This reply reminds me of highschool...

Anyway, I edited my other post, so I'm not sure if you saw it.  Here is what I added:

I wonder if you are confused about how this works.

YOU came here and posted your thoughts on this issue on a public Christian forum.  One that is designed for back and forth communication.  You seem bothered that your thoughts are being challenged and trying to make it sound like you are being stalked and harassed.  That is not the case.

You came, you posted, people responded, you cried foul.

[Aaron Lindahl]

Fascinating.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

By 'all' means, please show where the errors are in the Hebrew translation I provided, or.. admit that you cannot.

There's not really anything wrong with your translation.  Those are just Strong's entries, anyway. 

It's just your commentary on it that's appallingly bad.

The 2 books of Samuel are, by any honest analysis, pieces of political propaganda authored during David's reign, and primarily for the purpose of legitimizing his monarchy.

Realizing the political motivations behind the book, is it very surprising that it:

(a) Goes on and on about how good-looking David is?
(b) Paints the former crown-prince as an effeminate, milquetoasty character who follows David around like a lovesick puppy?
(c) Portrays a series of covenants between David and the former prince, legitimizing David's claim on the throne as his covenant partner.

This is not a love story.  It's a campaign pamphlet.

Jarrod

[Aaron Lindahl]

"Paints the former crown-prince as an effeminate, milquetoasty character.."

Hmm... please 'do' tell where it does that!!! I'm all ears.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

"Paints the former crown-prince as an effeminate, milquetoasty character.."

Hmm... please 'do' tell where it does that!!! I'm all ears.

You're the one who already pointed it out.  Like I said, you're not translating wrong... just drawing the wrong conclusion from the translation.

Saul's insult is basically calling him a "mama's boy" or "pussy."

Jarrod

[Aaron Lindahl]

So you admit it was Saul, and not 'I' who did that, correct?  It was only Saul, and not the story itself who portrayed him as such.

That said, for those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the very first time, has one making a declaration of being in love with the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

So, by your reasoning, please provide all the examples of similar 'heterosexual' friendships.

[skeeter]

Skeeter, I'm almost 45, and I'm not the one going on to other people's 'threads' and freaking out because they don't agree with me.  You and I simply disagree on this subject. As I said, I'm completely fine with you or everyone here not agreeing with me.  Give it a rest.

45 IS rather young yet... the age of my younger 2 kids.   And no one here is 'freaking out' because they don't agree with you.  Maybe you hang out with much younger people  and jump on the 'freaking out' bandwagon?

what should I 'give a rest' to?  disagreeing with you? I should agree with you instead of the Lord?  not gonna happen.  God's word is very plain.

btw, you haven't answered chosenone's questions.

[Aaron Lindahl]

No... chosenone is the one who hasn't answered mine.  I suggest you read the posts more closely so you don't keep making false statements about who said what.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

So you admit it was Saul, and not 'I' who did that, correct?

No problems admitting that.  Samuel says what it says, which is that David is...

Young
Handsome
From the Right Family
An Accomplished Soldier
Who Can even Kill Giants
Even Without a Sword or any Armor
Of Course He's Also a Brilliant General
Who Studied War Abroad In a More Powerful Civilization
And Has Key Alliances with Foreign Kings Already
And All the Soldiers Love Him,
And Even the Crown Prince is his #1 Fan
Even though that Guy is such a Panty-waste
But that's why He made David his covenant partner
Which Oh-by-the-way Gives Dave a Claim on the Throne
Why Look He Even Married the Daughter of the Former King
And Kicked Pharoah's Butt in Battle
But He Stays Humble
And Didn't Depose the Former King by Killing Him
Though He Totally Coulda if He wanted To
He's Down with the Prophets
Even God Endorses Him as King

Also, It's a Low-Down-Dirty-Shame that All Saul's Descendant's Got Killed Off
Dave Totally Didn't Do That
It was Some Misguided "Friends"
But Dave dealt with them
And He Even Found One of Saul's Descendants and was Kind to Him
Even though that guy is Crippled
And you Totally Wouldn't Want Him as King

[Aaron Lindahl]

Wycliffes... you get a gold star for creativity!!  Love it.

Here's another Biblical same-sex love story for ya':

In the entire Bible, there are only two books named after women. One is Esther, which tells the story of a Jewish woman who becomes Queen of Persia and saves her people from destruction by "coming out" as Jewish to her husband, the king. The other is Ruth, which tells the story of two women who love and support one another through difficult times. Both books contain powerful messages for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, but it is the story of Ruth that addresses the question I raised before: Can two people of the same sex live in committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?

At the beginning of the book of Ruth, we're introduced to Naomi and her husband Elimelech. They are from Bethlehem, where a terrible famine has made it impossible to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab, a foreign land where they believe they'll be able to survive. Unfortunately, Elimelech dies shortly after arriving in Moab. Several years pass, and Naomi's sons marry Ruth and Orpah, two women from the surrounding country. But before they can have children, the sons also die. Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah are left alone with no husbands and no sons.

Note: For examples, see the stories of widows who came to Elijah and Elisha for help (1 Kings 17:10-24 and 2 Kings 4:1-37), and the story of the woman from Tekoa who confronted David (2 Samuel 14:4-12). Also, in Genesis 38, Judah tells his daughter-in-law Tamar to return to her father's house, because her husband has died, illustrating the two possibilities available to a woman.

To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father's household or a wife in their husband's household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (See note 1.) The constant biblical command to "look after widows and orphans" stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father's family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can't offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she'll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

You probably remember the story of Adam and Eve, as recorded in Genesis 2. After God creates Adam, he is terribly lonely. None of the animals God has created -- magnificent as they are -- can meet Adam's deep need for companionship. So God puts Adam into a deep sleep, takes a rib from his side, and creates Eve. When Eve is presented to Adam, he exclaims, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh . . . !" Finally, Adam had a human companion.

The next verse in the text then draws an important theological conclusion from Adam's experience. It says that, for this reason (i.e., the need for companionship), a man should leave his father and mother when he grows up and "cling" ("dabaq") to his wife. (Genesis 2:24) And, of course, for the vast majority of human beings, that is God's will for them -- for a man and woman to leave their parents' home and form a relationship with each other that is so close, so intimate, that they can be described as "clinging" to one another.

But what about people who aren't heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God's blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?

The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth's feelings are celebrated.

In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" (Ruth 1:16-17)

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, "Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried," she wasn't talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn't do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

After this speech, spoken in the first chapter, the story moves on to tell of Ruth and Naomi's life together. The focus is on the quality of their relationship. The biblical storyteller chronicles how Ruth cared for Naomi by taking the only job available to a husbandless woman, gleaning. When the author tells of Ruth's eventual marriage to a much older man, the marriage is portrayed as one of convenience, contrived to help Ruth and Naomi survive the harsh conditions of widowhood. No mention is made of Ruth's love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi." (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth "who loves you, is more to you than seven sons." (Ruth 4:15) Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship. If we set aside our preconceptions of what is possible in the Bible, the book of Ruth reads like the story of two women in love.

Instinctively, and perhaps unwittingly, Christians throughout the centuries have acknowledged the validity of this interpretation. The vow Ruth makes to Naomi (quoted above) has been read at Christian weddings for centuries because it so perfectly captures the essence of the love that should exist between spouses. It seems more than a little inconsistent to use these words to define and celebrate spousal love, but then adamantly insist that those who originally spoke the words did not love each other like spouses.

[MeMyself]

Wycliffes... you get a gold star for creativity!!  Love it.

Here's another Biblical same-sex love story for ya':

At the beginning of the book of Ruth, we're introduced to Naomi and her husband Elimelech. They are from Bethlehem, where a terrible famine has made it impossible to find food. So, they take their two sons and move to Moab, a foreign land where they believe they'll be able to survive. Unfortunately, Elimelech dies shortly after arriving in Moab. Several years pass, and Naomi's sons marry Ruth and Orpah, two women from the surrounding country. But before they can have children, the sons also die. Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah are left alone with no husbands and no sons.

To understand the full impact of what happened, we need to put ourselves in the mindset of the time. When this story was written, women had only two acceptable places in society: They could be a daughter in their father's household or a wife in their husband's household. A woman without a man had no social standing. There are several stories in the Old Testament about widows who almost starved to death, because they had no man to take care of them. (The constant biblical command to "look after widows and orphans" stems from the understanding that widows were among the most vulnerable people in society.) For examples, see the stories of widows who came to Elijah and Elisha for help (1 Kings 17:10-24 and 2 Kings 4:1-37), and the story of the woman from Tekoa who confronted David (2 Samuel 14:4-12). Also, in Genesis 38, Judah tells his daughter-in-law Tamar to return to her father's house, because her husband has died, illustrating the two possibilities available to a woman.

This context makes the next scene almost unbelievable. Naomi, grieving and recognizing her fate as a widow, decides to return to Bethlehem where her father's family is, and where she hopes to find food. She counsels her daughters-in-law to do the same — to return to their own families. She knows she can't offer them any support as a woman, and she fears she'll only be a burden. Orpah, sensibly, returns home.

But Ruth cannot bear to do so. Her feelings run too deep. The Hebrew word used in Ruth 1:14 to describe those feelings is quite telling. The text says, "Ruth clung to [Naomi]." The Hebrew word for "clung" is "dabaq." This is precisely the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt toward Eve.

In Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth's feelings are celebrated.

In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

"Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!" (Ruth 1:16-17)

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, "Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried," she wasn't talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn't do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.

After this speech, spoken in the first chapter, the story moves on to tell of Ruth and Naomi's life together. The focus is on the quality of their relationship. The biblical storyteller chronicles how Ruth cared for Naomi by taking the only job available to a husbandless woman, gleaning. When the author tells of Ruth's eventual marriage to a much older man, the marriage is portrayed as one of convenience, contrived to help Ruth and Naomi survive the harsh conditions of widowhood. No mention is made of Ruth's love for her husband. And, when Ruth finally bears a son from her marriage, the text focuses on Naomi and her reaction to the great news, not on the father. In fact, the women of the village (and the author) ignore the father entirely, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi." (Ruth 4:17) They remind her that Ruth "who loves you, is more to you than seven sons." (Ruth 4:15) Everyone seems to understand that, for Ruth and Naomi, their most important relationship is the one they share.

Here then is the story the Bible tells: Ruth felt toward Naomi as Adam felt toward Eve; she gave up everything so she could be with Naomi; she put her own life at risk, so she could spend it caring for Naomi; and, even after she married a man, her most important relationship remained the one she shared with Naomi. These actions and emotions are difficult, almost impossible, to explain as mere friendship; the book of Ruth is obviously a story of two women very much in love.

Oh.my.gosh.



Father, forgive them. 

This is truly heartbreaking! Utterly and totally so...

Aaron, please, I am begging you stop this scripture twisting.

[Aaron Lindahl]

Memyself... you don't need to 'beg'.. if you cannot stand the truth, then stop torturing yourself and simply stop coming onto, and commenting on, my 'thread'.  There are 'loads' of other threads on here where you can safely reassure yourself amongst others of your type that what you believe is correct on this issue.

[MeMyself]

You don't need to 'beg'.. if you cannot stand the truth, then stop torturing yourself and simply stop coming onto, and commenting on, my 'thread'.  There are 'loads' of other threads on here where you can safely reassure yourself amongst others of your type that what you believe is correct on this issue.

What you've posted is NOT truth.

And, I am sincerely concerned for you over how far the agenda has taken you away from Truth.

Also, there is no need to be so rude, Aaron. You have spent the day saying how unloving others are to YOU, but you don't seem to hold yourself to the same loving standards.

[Aaron Lindahl]

Then... (surprise!) We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[MeMyself]

Then... (surprise!) We'll just have to agree to disagree.

If the thread was done or locked here, fine, but you keep posting false "new" looks at scripture.  As much as you are bothered by my interjecting, I am by the "new" truth you have and are trying to share as if it is biblically accurate and I will speak up!

[Aaron Lindahl]

No... not false.  True.

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??  If you feel my analogy is false, then stop posting little quips filled with emoticon 'sighs' and 'rolling of eyes' or 'throwing my hands up over my head while rolling eyes'... and actually 'address' in 'detail' how what I have posted is wrong... or... admit that you're utterly unable to do so.

[MeMyself]

No... not false.  True.

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??

What don't YOU understand about it?  Why does it mean to YOU that *I* must be silenced, while you get to keep spouting your new "truths"?

Agreeing to disagree doesn't mean, "there there dear, just hush your little mouth now and let me do all the talking.".

and, no. Your spin is NOT truth!

[Aaron Lindahl]

I know this must be difficult for you to wrap your head around, so let me say this again:

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??  There's nothing about 'silencing' you. If you feel my analogy is false, then stop posting dramatic little quips filled with emoticon 'sighs' and 'rolling of eyes' or 'throwing your hands up over your head while rolling your eyes'... and finally start to actually 'address' in 'detail' how what I have posted is wrong... or... admit that you're utterly unable to do so.  By all means... if you are able to engage in an adult conversation or debate, backed up by 'facts'.. then go back to my post on Ruth and Naomi, and point out all the places where I have said a falsehood or where it is wrong..  I'm all ears.

[MeMyself]

I know this must be difficult for you to wrap your head around, so let me say this again:

What don't you understand about: "We'll just have to agree to disagree" on many things??  If you feel my analogy is false, then stop posting little quips filled with emoticon 'sighs' and 'rolling of eyes' or 'throwing my hands up over my head while rolling eyes'... and actually 'address' in 'detail' how what I have posted is wrong... or... admit that you're utterly unable to do so.  By all means... if you are able to engage in an adult conversation or debate, then go back to my post on Ruth and Naomi, and point out all the places where I have said a falsehood or where it is wrong..  I'm all ears.

Father, right now, I have allowed myself to be provoked to anger. Forgive me.
I lift up Aaron to You and ask that he find the peace he is searching for in You.  I pray that he find the complete truth he seeks that can only be found in You.  I pray that You will protect Your little ones against the lies of "new truth" and that your children will be equipped with discernment and wisdom.  I pray that none will be lost that are confused, that they won't be swayed by doctrines that tickle their ears, but lead to a life devoid of being pleasing to You.
Thank You for Your love and care and for this season that we remember Christ has come not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved.
In Jesus name amen.

Aaron, I forgive you for your repeated rude comments, your impatience and your unkindness to those that disagree with you.

[Aaron Lindahl]

Memyself, thank you, and I also forgive you for your repeated rude comments, your impatience and your unkindness to those that disagree with you. In Jesus' name, Amen.

[fish153]

What a complete twisting and altering of a touching friendship between David and Jonathan. Their relationship is a type
of the relationship the Christian has with the Lord Jesus. He is "a friend that sticketh closer than a brother". To take
the story of that deep love for one another in true friendship, and turn it into a homosexual relationship between Jonathan
and David is pathetic and sickening.  It is greatly dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the memory of David, a man
after God's own heart.

I am glad this thread has been moved to "non-traditional theology". You're lucky it hasn't been discarded in trash bin. I will
pray for you Aaron---but if you really believe this garbage, you need to do some serious soul-searching.

[Aaron Lindahl]

I'll pray for you as well, fish. Thank you.

[MeMyself]

We have one word for love.  The bible speaks of three different kids: Agape - unconditional godly love, Philia – friendship,  and Eros - which is passionate/sexual love.

What a shame to see all three kinds reduced to sexual love.

It minimizes and distorts the good news of scripture, and puts FAR to high a priority on sexuality.