How Do You Respond ?

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Well unless someone explains the grammar of Romans 1:26

I do not really have anything more to say about the topic.

If anyone can show me a clear conclusion of directly forbidden, or not directly forbidden.

They can send me an email or post it.

What the Bible says is never inappropriate, unless God is okay with being inappropriate.

Anyway what God says is certainly right, unless God is wrong, but he is much more powerful than me so
there is no point in arguing because he controls the eternal destiny of souls.

I am frankly not interested in peoples opinions unless they can give evidence what the translation means.

Oh and personally I do not skip Romans 1:26 when I read the Bible even if some people would like me to,
so why should we skip finding out what it actually means?

 

[Anonymous]

"Anyway what God says is certainly right, unless God is wrong"-You're killin me Discussing!

Anyway, I think Romans 1:26 refers to women not having babies or wanting to use their life in another way than the natural, normal, expected way of women (bringing forth and/or nurturing children and family)- someone can say this better than I can, yes?

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

"Anyway what God says is certainly right, unless God is wrong"-You're killin me Discussing!

Anyway, I think Romans 1:26 refers to women not having babies or wanting to use their life in another way than the natural, normal, expected way of women (bringing forth and/or nurturing children and family)- someone can say this better than I can, yes?

Look at more context of what I was saying

"Anyway what God says is certainly right, unless God is wrong, but he is much more powerful than me so
there is no point in arguing because he controls the eternal destiny of souls.

Perhaps I should explain better. Sorry I do not mean to be argumentative I just do not want to be misunderstood because I was not specific enough in what I meant.

If God's morals standard is wrong based on some other moral standard.....

It does not matter because God judges us based on his morals, not our morals or some other moral standard.

So even if God's morals were wrong, it is irrelevant because he would still decide if you go in the lake of fire based on his standards not ours.

There is nothing you can do to stop him from judging the way he wants to he is just to powerful.


A lot of people look at Judaism, Christianity, or Islam based on does this religion agree with their personal moral standard.

They judge God as evil. But you can not do that without first defining what evil is.

Practically evil must be defined by God.

Although we could make up our own standard of evil and judge God, we would not have the power to do anything to God. So quite frankly our standard is irrelevant.

So you must figure out which religion has the correct God and then make your moral beliefs based on what the correct God said.

You can not logically make up your moral beliefs, and then choose the god that best fits your belief as is so popular today.

Now I believe there is weighty historical evidence that many of the books popularly called "the old and new testament" which "Christians" used were written by God.

Because God predicted what would happened before it happened and had it written down in a book. In my opinion the "Christian" scriptures can be nothing but supernatural in origin,

In my opinion the best argument that I know of a skeptic could use against them is that they were demonically inspired. I do not believe that but that is the best argument against Christian Scripture I know of, because it would allow for a supernatural origin. You see I spend a lot of time thinking about how to prove my own scriptures wrong, it helps strengthen my faith, because the arguments I came up with are better than the skeptics I have heard. Yet I have still not disproven my own religion yet.

Well on a side note I will try not to post anything until next Friday so I can actually work on my schoolwork.

 

[PolyPride]

I am concerned that sometime in my life while defending polygyny, there will be a "Bible scholar" that will argue that lesbian relations between women are never specifically condemned in the Bible, just as polygyny is never condemned, and then through guilt by association the "Bible scholar" will declare that polygyny is just as sinful as lesbianism.

I really don't know how to respond to that. I don't want to go down the "God intended a man for a woman" road because I'm afraid it would quickly be turned against me as "God intended ONE man for ONE woman". I would be grateful for any suggestions.

What Mark C mentions on page 2, the 2nd to last post is more likely my position. The only thing I can add here and sorry if it's already been mentioned, is that Romans 1 not only talks about physical acts but also "lust", particularly "shameful lusts" - the KJV mentions "vile". Two questions come to mind:

Is Romans 1:26 referring to women lusting after other woman and that being shameful?

If that's the case, is it reasonable for two women or anyone to have sex without lust involved , especially if they engage in it on a frequent basis?

 

[sweetlissa]

I still think that sex is only for marriage and since women can't be married to each other, sexual activity between them is not allowed. I thought we all agreed that the women are not married to each other. So how can sexual activity between any unmarried people (same sex, different sex, it doesn't matter) be acceptable to God?

SweetLissa

 

[nathan]

Thread closed.