You better reread Matthew 5.

I agree, the Bible is very clear . . . homosexual activity for the sake of pagan idol worship is a sin.

I agree, its very clear . . . homosexual activity for the sake of pagan idol worship is a sin.

believer: You still haven't looked up the definition of science yet, have you?

Nope, I cannot "dispute the fact that the Bible is wrong in the creation story."

believer: Clearly he is not "Mickey" - "Mickey" would have tired of your nonsense a long time ago and broke out with the obscenities. RLBaty appears to be a Christian and besides that, their writing styles a wholly different.

believer: How do you know which ones require interpretation and which ones don't? Why is your interpretation any better than the biblical scholars I trust?

believer: Just the other day, you said that the Bible required interpretation - what makes you so sure that your interpretation is better than downtime's?

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 and Numbers 12:1-15 and Samual 11 and 12.

believer: Leverite marriage, polygamy - there you go, I don't know how to be anymore clear than that. Both are approved / ordained by God. As for proof of creationism, you've yet to show any proof of that at all.

believer: My pastor isn't demanding that we kill all the gays either - what's your point? You've yet to show me where the Bible says "one man and one woman" so why would i have to show where any other marriage was ordained (besides the two examples that show He did ordain marriages other than "one man, one woman.")

believer: "God's truth?" You think you know "God's truth" any better than the rest of us or better than the biblical scholars that I trust? Plus, a layman's reading of Acts doesn't suggest that at all. When are you going to acknowledge that God ordains other forms of marriage earlier in the Bible? Polygamy? Leverite marriage? Also, Jesus never says "one man, one woman" - when are you going t...more

believer: "God's truth?" You think you know "God's truth" any better than the rest of us or better than the biblical scholars that I trust?

Plus, a layman's reading of Acts doesn't suggest that at all.

When are you going to acknowledge that God ordains other forms of marriage earlier in the Bible? Polygamy? Leverite marriage? Also, Jesus never says "one man, one woman" - when are you going to show me where it says "one man, one woman?"less

HO: She was a socialist - not a communist. In any case, that meant something entirely different than it does now. Have you ever read the Book of Acts in the Bible? Clearly they advocated socialism.

believer: Go watch A Few Good Men again . . . remember the part about the mess hall and code reds not being in the book? Not everything is in the Bible. And even some of the stuff that is you conveniently ignore (do you have a mortgage on your house / trailer? A car payment perhaps?)

believer: Acts 2:44-45 or how about Exodus 16:16-18? . . . you can save your response, I already know what you're going to say - I am taking them out of conext and those passages are only meant for those specific people - I get it, when you say a particular passage applies to everyone, it does, when I say it, then I'm taking it out of context.

Many educated biblical scholars feel the same way as me - when taken in context, the passage in Romans is about pagan idol worship and it is referring to straight men engaging in those activities against their nature.

Torrent: And your comments have to do with the article how?

believer: Obviously you've never read the OT where God doesn't seem to have a problem with polygamy.

believer: I see, so when Christ speaks, he's talking only in the context of the time but when Paul speaks, he's really speaking to all generations. You are such a hypocrite. And every other passage that suggests people should give up all their money and possessions is taken out of context too or should be looked at in the context of their time?

believer: You might be starting to get it after all . . . right, the scriptures have to be interpreted and Christ was talking to a specific person in a specific context but read the scripture (just like the passage in Romans) it doesn't read that way.