BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I begin with hoteroerotism and homoertoism. God has built into us the need for sex that humans might thrive.
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.




Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport, Dio Chrysostom as the ultimate sexual debauchery, and Philo, with reference to Sodom, as one of the vile consequences of wanton luxury and self-centeredness. The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

---

You quoted Gen 1:28- which says "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply;" which clearly shows men and women are to have children for procreation. The Creatr called allof creation good including sex which God called very good. God also in sex for recreation. People who choose not have or unable to have children or too old to bear a child cannot be condemed for simply enjoying as fun and intimate. This latter part is essentil in understaing my position for sex for gays - it is recreatinal, fun and intimate.
Then, you assert this means
You accept that Gen 2 is talking about boundaries for marriage but misunderstand that it is giving the ideal coupling (male and female) and that they become one flesh because they each have something the other lacks. This understanding doesn't make sense with same sex couples. Gay coupling is also becoming one flesh. One flesh is unity of a marriage unit for both gay and straight.

Gen 2:18- And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. True for gays too. They leave father and mother and become one flesh - again one fleash is metopher for unity.

Then, in the New Testament, we see Jesus affirm this coupling in You left out verse 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" The passage is about divorce not marriage
Matt 19:4-5- 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Notice Jesus has the opportunity to expand marriage or disagree with the ideal God set in Genesis. Instead, he affirms it again pointing to the importance of males and females who are different coming together to become one flesh. Again, something same sex relationships can't do.

We also see Jesus specifically mention sexual immorality (fornications in KJV) in Mark 7:21. The word in the Greek is porneia which would include homosexuality and lesbianism. Not it doesn't because you simply made that up. Homosexual and lesbianism is unknown to Paul. They are 20th century concepts. Paul saw homosexual and lesbian "behavior' which he condemend and if read my post you would know I stand shoulder to shoulder in condemning those exploit behaveriors.
Remember Jesus followed the law and would not go against Lev 18:22. Then Jesus followed the law of that one verse Lev 18:22 than he has to follow all the law of Lev. Did he? Did he beliver in killing a son for dishonoring his father and mother. You can't simply take a verse out that context.
If you look in the LXX, it will use the same Greek words Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9. Refresh my memory.

Finally, you have another problem. Even if we grant all your arguments as correct despite what is mentioned above, you still will not able to show anywhere in the bible where homosexual and lesbian relationships are approved of by God. In contrast, we can see plenty of examples where God supports marriage between a man and a woman. I can show you where God approves of marriage that are loving, kind, faithful and all. Prove to me that LGT are not loving, kind, and faithful

---

Thank you for challenging my post with some interesting interpretations of your own. Let me try to expand on what I intend, so it will help clarify my point.

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

We've got legalization of sodomy. We've got legalization of gay marriage. We've got legalization of gay adoption. We've got gay couples ass raping babies to death.

Winning. Or something.

Giant meteor, please.

---

so is Hetero Raw Dawging ok?

---

Of course sex without condoms is ok with your wife.

Surprised you didn't know this

---

tongue and cheek , bro. just poking a little fun ant the queer/satan crowd up in here.

Waco1947 said:

---

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

Are you overseer of a church?

---

context, read the whole post

I clearly mentioned levels of rebuke and the fact the western church has failed to teach and rebuke as described in Matthew

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I begin with hoteroerotism and homoertoism. God has built into us the need for sex that humans might thrive.
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.




Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport, Dio Chrysostom as the ultimate sexual debauchery, and Philo, with reference to Sodom, as one of the vile consequences of wanton luxury and self-centeredness. The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

---

You quoted Gen 1:28- which says "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply;" which clearly shows men and women are to have children for procreation. The Creatr called allof creation good including sex which God called very good. God also in sex for recreation. People who choose not have or unable to have children or too old to bear a child cannot be condemed for simply enjoying as fun and intimate. This latter part is essentil in understaing my position for sex for gays - it is recreatinal, fun and intimate.
Then, you assert this means
You accept that Gen 2 is talking about boundaries for marriage but misunderstand that it is giving the ideal coupling (male and female) and that they become one flesh because they each have something the other lacks. This understanding doesn't make sense with same sex couples. Gay coupling is also becoming one flesh. One flesh is unity of a marriage unit for both gay and straight.

Gen 2:18- And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. True for gays too. They leave father and mother and become one flesh - again one fleash is metopher for unity.

Then, in the New Testament, we see Jesus affirm this coupling in You left out verse 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" The passage is about divorce not marriage
Matt 19:4-5- 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Notice Jesus has the opportunity to expand marriage or disagree with the ideal God set in Genesis. Instead, he affirms it again pointing to the importance of males and females who are different coming together to become one flesh. Again, something same sex relationships can't do.

We also see Jesus specifically mention sexual immorality (fornications in KJV) in Mark 7:21. The word in the Greek is porneia which would include homosexuality and lesbianism. Not it doesn't because you simply made that up. Homosexual and lesbianism is unknown to Paul. They are 20th century concepts. Paul saw homosexual and lesbian "behavior' which he condemend and if read my post you would know I stand shoulder to shoulder in condemning those exploit behaveriors.
Remember Jesus followed the law and would not go against Lev 18:22. Then Jesus followed the law of that one verse Lev 18:22 than he has to follow all the law of Lev. Did he? Did he beliver in killing a son for dishonoring his father and mother. You can't simply take a verse out that context.
If you look in the LXX, it will use the same Greek words Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9. Refresh my memory.

Finally, you have another problem. Even if we grant all your arguments as correct despite what is mentioned above, you still will not able to show anywhere in the bible where homosexual and lesbian relationships are approved of by God. In contrast, we can see plenty of examples where God supports marriage between a man and a woman. I can show you where God approves of marriage that are loving, kind, faithful and all. Prove to me that LGT are not loving, kind, and faithful

---

Thank you for challenging my post with some interesting interpretations of your own. Let me try to expand on what I intend, so it will help clarify my point.

---

Matthew 15.

End of story.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

Are you overseer of a church?

---

context, read the whole post

I clearly mentioned levels of rebuke and the fact the western church has failed to teach and rebuke as described in Matthew

---

What you gave me was a list of verses without citing the full passages or explaining why they fit your argument.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I begin with hoteroerotism and homoertoism. God has built into us the need for sex that humans might thrive.
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.




Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport, Dio Chrysostom as the ultimate sexual debauchery, and Philo, with reference to Sodom, as one of the vile consequences of wanton luxury and self-centeredness. The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

---

You quoted Gen 1:28- which says "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply;" which clearly shows men and women are to have children for procreation. The Creatr called allof creation good including sex which God called very good. God also in sex for recreation. People who choose not have or unable to have children or too old to bear a child cannot be condemed for simply enjoying as fun and intimate. This latter part is essentil in understaing my position for sex for gays - it is recreatinal, fun and intimate.
Then, you assert this means
You accept that Gen 2 is talking about boundaries for marriage but misunderstand that it is giving the ideal coupling (male and female) and that they become one flesh because they each have something the other lacks. This understanding doesn't make sense with same sex couples. Gay coupling is also becoming one flesh. One flesh is unity of a marriage unit for both gay and straight.

Gen 2:18- And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. True for gays too. They leave father and mother and become one flesh - again one fleash is metopher for unity.

Then, in the New Testament, we see Jesus affirm this coupling in You left out verse 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" The passage is about divorce not marriage
Matt 19:4-5- 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Notice Jesus has the opportunity to expand marriage or disagree with the ideal God set in Genesis. Instead, he affirms it again pointing to the importance of males and females who are different coming together to become one flesh. Again, something same sex relationships can't do.

We also see Jesus specifically mention sexual immorality (fornications in KJV) in Mark 7:21. The word in the Greek is porneia which would include homosexuality and lesbianism. Not it doesn't because you simply made that up. Homosexual and lesbianism is unknown to Paul. They are 20th century concepts. Paul saw homosexual and lesbian "behavior' which he condemend and if read my post you would know I stand shoulder to shoulder in condemning those exploit behaveriors.
Remember Jesus followed the law and would not go against Lev 18:22. Then Jesus followed the law of that one verse Lev 18:22 than he has to follow all the law of Lev. Did he? Did he beliver in killing a son for dishonoring his father and mother. You can't simply take a verse out that context.
If you look in the LXX, it will use the same Greek words Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9. Refresh my memory.

Finally, you have another problem. Even if we grant all your arguments as correct despite what is mentioned above, you still will not able to show anywhere in the bible where homosexual and lesbian relationships are approved of by God. In contrast, we can see plenty of examples where God supports marriage between a man and a woman. I can show you where God approves of marriage that are loving, kind, faithful and all. Prove to me that LGT are not loving, kind, and faithful

---

Thank you for challenging my post with some interesting interpretations of your own. Let me try to expand on what I intend, so it will help clarify my point.

---

Matthew 15.

End of story. An assertion without proof in the scripture. You just cited it.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

Are you overseer of a church?

---

context, read the whole post

I clearly mentioned levels of rebuke and the fact the western church has failed to teach and rebuke as described in Matthew

---

What you gave me was a list of verses without citing the full passages or explaining why they fit your argument.

---

I apologize, I assumed you would have knowledge of the text and how they would be linked together.

My fault. I will do better. Do I still need to expound?

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I begin with hoteroerotism and homoertoism. God has built into us the need for sex that humans might thrive.
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.




Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport, Dio Chrysostom as the ultimate sexual debauchery, and Philo, with reference to Sodom, as one of the vile consequences of wanton luxury and self-centeredness. The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

---

You quoted Gen 1:28- which says "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply;" which clearly shows men and women are to have children for procreation. The Creatr called allof creation good including sex which God called very good. God also in sex for recreation. People who choose not have or unable to have children or too old to bear a child cannot be condemed for simply enjoying as fun and intimate. This latter part is essentil in understaing my position for sex for gays - it is recreatinal, fun and intimate.
Then, you assert this means
You accept that Gen 2 is talking about boundaries for marriage but misunderstand that it is giving the ideal coupling (male and female) and that they become one flesh because they each have something the other lacks. This understanding doesn't make sense with same sex couples. Gay coupling is also becoming one flesh. One flesh is unity of a marriage unit for both gay and straight.

Gen 2:18- And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. True for gays too. They leave father and mother and become one flesh - again one fleash is metopher for unity.

Then, in the New Testament, we see Jesus affirm this coupling in You left out verse 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" The passage is about divorce not marriage
Matt 19:4-5- 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Notice Jesus has the opportunity to expand marriage or disagree with the ideal God set in Genesis. Instead, he affirms it again pointing to the importance of males and females who are different coming together to become one flesh. Again, something same sex relationships can't do.

We also see Jesus specifically mention sexual immorality (fornications in KJV) in Mark 7:21. The word in the Greek is porneia which would include homosexuality and lesbianism. Not it doesn't because you simply made that up. Homosexual and lesbianism is unknown to Paul. They are 20th century concepts. Paul saw homosexual and lesbian "behavior' which he condemend and if read my post you would know I stand shoulder to shoulder in condemning those exploit behaveriors.
Remember Jesus followed the law and would not go against Lev 18:22. Then Jesus followed the law of that one verse Lev 18:22 than he has to follow all the law of Lev. Did he? Did he beliver in killing a son for dishonoring his father and mother. You can't simply take a verse out that context.
If you look in the LXX, it will use the same Greek words Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9. Refresh my memory.

Finally, you have another problem. Even if we grant all your arguments as correct despite what is mentioned above, you still will not able to show anywhere in the bible where homosexual and lesbian relationships are approved of by God. In contrast, we can see plenty of examples where God supports marriage between a man and a woman. I can show you where God approves of marriage that are loving, kind, faithful and all. Prove to me that LGT are not loving, kind, and faithful

---

Thank you for challenging my post with some interesting interpretations of your own. Let me try to expand on what I intend, so it will help clarify my point.

---

Matthew 15.

End of story. An assertion without proof in the scripture. You just cited it.

---

---

47, you are missing from this thread.

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/159544/1#discussion

YOUR perspective is welcome. No cut and paste required.

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I begin with hoteroerotism and homoertoism. God has built into us the need for sex that humans might thrive.
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.




Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. Seneca portrayed it as a rich man's sport, Dio Chrysostom as the ultimate sexual debauchery, and Philo, with reference to Sodom, as one of the vile consequences of wanton luxury and self-centeredness. The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

---

You quoted Gen 1:28- which says "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply;" which clearly shows men and women are to have children for procreation. The Creatr called allof creation good including sex which God called very good. God also in sex for recreation. People who choose not have or unable to have children or too old to bear a child cannot be condemed for simply enjoying as fun and intimate. This latter part is essentil in understaing my position for sex for gays - it is recreatinal, fun and intimate.
Then, you assert this means
You accept that Gen 2 is talking about boundaries for marriage but misunderstand that it is giving the ideal coupling (male and female) and that they become one flesh because they each have something the other lacks. This understanding doesn't make sense with same sex couples. Gay coupling is also becoming one flesh. One flesh is unity of a marriage unit for both gay and straight.

Gen 2:18- And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:24- Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. True for gays too. They leave father and mother and become one flesh - again one fleash is metopher for unity.

Then, in the New Testament, we see Jesus affirm this coupling in You left out verse 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" The passage is about divorce not marriage
Matt 19:4-5- 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Notice Jesus has the opportunity to expand marriage or disagree with the ideal God set in Genesis. Instead, he affirms it again pointing to the importance of males and females who are different coming together to become one flesh. Again, something same sex relationships can't do.

We also see Jesus specifically mention sexual immorality (fornications in KJV) in Mark 7:21. The word in the Greek is porneia which would include homosexuality and lesbianism. Not it doesn't because you simply made that up. Homosexual and lesbianism is unknown to Paul. They are 20th century concepts. Paul saw homosexual and lesbian "behavior' which he condemend and if read my post you would know I stand shoulder to shoulder in condemning those exploit behaveriors.
Remember Jesus followed the law and would not go against Lev 18:22. Then Jesus followed the law of that one verse Lev 18:22 than he has to follow all the law of Lev. Did he? Did he beliver in killing a son for dishonoring his father and mother. You can't simply take a verse out that context.
If you look in the LXX, it will use the same Greek words Paul uses in 1 Cor 6:9. Refresh my memory.

Finally, you have another problem. Even if we grant all your arguments as correct despite what is mentioned above, you still will not able to show anywhere in the bible where homosexual and lesbian relationships are approved of by God. In contrast, we can see plenty of examples where God supports marriage between a man and a woman. I can show you where God approves of marriage that are loving, kind, faithful and all. Prove to me that LGT are not loving, kind, and faithful

---

Thank you for challenging my post with some interesting interpretations of your own. Let me try to expand on what I intend, so it will help clarify my point.

---

Matthew 15.

End of story. An assertion without proof in the scripture. You just cited it.

---

---

Jesus. Matthew 15. End of story.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ ****This Pauline assertion is right on target.

---

They were still slaves. God's people yearn to be free -- see Exodus

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

Paul was against slavery (letter to Philemon), but lived in a time of slavery. Paul was telling those who were slaves how to act. The early church had no way to free them all. So would you tell all slaves to kill their masters? How would you tell them to act?

Your comment is not about what Paul said, it is about you wanting to refute Paul's teaching by misrepresenting what he is doing.What did I misreprent it about Paul?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ We owe Paul a great debt of gratitude "Galatians 3:28
New International Version
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV][/url]

---

Waco1947 said:

---

I begin with hotererotism and homoertoism. God has built into us the need for sex that humans might thrive.
Genesis 1:27 So God created humans in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female, he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..." God gave us our sexuality that we might enjoy it as recreation and not simply procreation. In other words, God gave us the 'want to have sex' or our eroticism
However, in Genesis 2 God gave us boundaries for our eroticism, that is, a marriage - covenanted, loving, faithful relationship.
Erotocism and and boundaries are the first concepts. Eroticism outside of these boundaries is not God's way.
Now, what Romans says and how we interpret it is what I challenge.
Romans 1: 18- 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[e] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[f] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to an unfit mind and to do things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of injustice, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[g] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.




Homoerotic conduct was also commonly assumed to involve, necessarily, one person's exploitation of another. Plutarch's Daphnaeus admitted that even if the passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another even where there is consent, how much more where there is none. One thinks of the Sodomites' attempted rape of Lot's visitors, of the sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative as that it was driven by

In Paul's day, the critics of homoerotic activity invariably associated it with insatiable lust and avarice. . The old Platonic ideal of the pure, disinterested love between a man and a boy had come to ruin on the hard realities of Roman decadence. One of the speakers in Plutarch's dialogue could acknowledge the possibility of genuine homosexual love, but even he saw a need to repeat Plato's warning about homoerotic seduction,
passive male has consented to homoerotic intercourse, by taking on the "weakness" and "effeminacy" of a woman, his shame is greater than a woman's because he has surrendered his manliness. From this point of view, if there is exploitation of one person by another, even where there is consent, how much more where there is none.. Sexual favors a master could demand of his slaves, and of a pederast's sexual abuse of a pubescent boy. To ethical teachers in the Greco-Roman world, it would have seemed just as obvious that homoerotic conduct was inherently exploitative.

---

What I didn't make clear is that homoerotic and heteroerotic behavior is part and parcel of my argument.

• Paul is primarily condemning excess, lust, and domination, not loving, mutual relationships.
• He likely had no concept of lifelong, covenantal same-sex partnerships as understood today.
• Therefore, applying his words directly to modern same-sex marriage may be historically hugely questionable.

Where your argument becomes strongest is when you frame it this way:

Quote:

---

Paul is addressing the forms of sexuality available and visible in his context, many of which were entangled with exploitation, idolatry, and excessnot necessarily the kind of mutual, committed relationships people are discussing today.

---

But if you go further and say Paul was not describing eroticism in marriage at all, whether homosexual or heterosexual, that's harder to sustain textually because in the Romans passage he speaks only of heterosexual behavior.
So, for me, the real debate isn't whether exploitation is wrong (Paul and modern readers agree on that). It's whether:

• Paul's categories include all same-sex erotic behavior, or
• whether they are limited to specific exploitative or excessive forms in his cultural setting.

That's where interpretationnot just historydoes the heavy lifting. I believe Rome was a sexual hot spot for Paul and was appalled at what he saw --- as are all Christians.

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ We owe Paul a great debt of gratitude "Galatians 3:28
New International Version
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV][/url]

---

---

we dont owe Paul anything, Paul would tell you this himself.

In the eyes of Christ, all who are given to Him by the Father are equal. 3:28 doesnt remove the the distinctions, it denotes the equality of them in Christ.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ We owe Paul a great debt of gratitude "Galatians 3:28
New International Version
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV][/url]

---

---

we dont owe Paul anything, Paul would tell you this himself.

In the eyes of Christ, all who are given to Him by the Father are equal. 3:28 doesnt remove the the distinctions, it denotes the equality of them in Christ.

---

Just admit you dismiss anything in Paul wrote that you don't like.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ We owe Paul a great debt of gratitude "Galatians 3:28
New International Version
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV][/url]

---

---

we dont owe Paul anything, Paul would tell you this himself.

In the eyes of Christ, all who are given to Him by the Father are equal. 3:28 doesnt remove the the distinctions, it denotes the equality of them in Christ.

---

Just admit you dismiss anything in Paul wrote that you don't like.

---

if this is directed at me, please expand

Yall would be shocked at how money is controlling non denoms and big evangelical churches.

Gavin Ortlund is woke and gay affirming.

Anytime you see an evangelical on a moral high horse accusing opponents of being “extremists” and using DNC/SPLC talking points, they are fake and gay pic.twitter.com/2yipvmhwWM

— Jay Dyer (@JayDyer) May 4, 2026

4th and Inches said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ We owe Paul a great debt of gratitude "Galatians 3:28
New International Version
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV][/url]

---

---

we dont owe Paul anything, Paul would tell you this himself.

In the eyes of Christ, all who are given to Him by the Father are equal. 3:28 doesnt remove the the distinctions, it denotes the equality of them in Christ.

---

Just admit you dismiss anything in Paul wrote that you don't like.

---

if this is directed at me, please expand

---

47 regularly dismisses what Paul wrote when it doesn't work for him. It is sad, really.

Clearly, any rational thinking person can understand there is not justification for God approved homo relationships.

In Ephesians, Paul discusses how husbands and wives should treat each other. He discusses how children and parents should treat each other. He discusses how slaves and masters should treat each other.

In Colossians, Pauls does the same.

In 1 Timothy, Paul does the same.

In Titus, Paul does the same.

In Philemon, Paul discusses slaves and masters.

In 1 Peter, Peter discusses how husbands and wives should treat each other. He discusses how slaves and masters should treat each other.

In the gospels, Jesus discusses marriage between a man and a woman.

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus/Paul/Peter discuss how gay men or lesbians should treat each other in a godly way. Because there is no way to be godly in that context. If there were, Jesus, Paul and Peter would discuss it.

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ We owe Paul a great debt of gratitude "Galatians 3:28
New International Version
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV][/url]

---

---

we dont owe Paul anything, Paul would tell you this himself. Yeah I owe him my life in Christ

In the eyes of Christ, all who are given to Him by the Father are equal. 3:28 doesnt remove the the distinctions, it denotes the equality of them in Christ.

---

hodedofome said:

---

Clearly, any rational thinking person can understand there is not justification for God approved homo relationships. Paul was omdenming homoerotism that turned into filth orgies. Paul clearly condemns this kind of homo erotism as we oould with heteroerotism. Re-read my post. Clearly you have not. Point out for me where you think I am in error. You assume alot but do not deal with my argument.

I

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

If in reading the Bible you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, harming, or hurting, especially when it makes you feel better about yourself, you are absolutely wrong."
Fred B. Craddock

---

rebuke which means "to reprimand and convict by exposing (sometimes publicly) a wrong." is reserved for fellow Christians.

Proverbs 27 5-6 says, "Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses."

Paul instructs Titus, as an overseer of the church, to "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" Titus 2:15

There are levels of rebuke beginning with quiet word between two people and ending with as Jesus says, "But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector"

Again, all of this is for those who claim to be a Christian who is sinning. People who want to claim His name while defiling His reputation must be rebuked, not overlooked or excused.

Some churches or pastors have been overly eager to rebuke others or have used Scripture to humiliate and ostracize those who disagreed with them. Such judgmental behavior has led some church leaders to forego the application of the Matthew 18 standards entirely.

The modern western church is very lax in teaching bible reading so most dont know this passage and how to apply it and to whom they should apply it

---

Titus 2 9 Urge slaves to be submissive to their masters in everything, to be pleasing, not talking back, 10 not stealing, but showing complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the teaching of God our Savior.
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

You yanked out a verse and declared it right, but are we to urge slaves to be submissive and if they exhort and reprove them?

---

i promise to do better in my explanations if you promise to stop placing pre civil war ideals on slavery when reading the bible

Archaeological findings-including inscriptions found in ancient Roman sites-suggest a complex range of experiences among slaves. Some had relative autonomy and could eventually buy their freedom; others endured great hardship. This complexity greatly differs from modern connotations of slavery. Understanding this cultural landscape helps to clarify Paul's audience and purpose.

Paul advised believers, including slaves, to exhibit Christlike character regardless of their social station.

Paul pleads with the slave owner Philemon to receive his returning slave, Onesimus, "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother"

Paul was equalizing social hierarchy under Christ We owe Paul a great debt of gratitude "Galatians 3:28
New International Version
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&version=NIV][/url]

---

---

we dont owe Paul anything, Paul would tell you this himself. Yeah I owe him my life in Christ

In the eyes of Christ, all who are given to Him by the Father are equal. 3:28 doesnt remove the the distinctions, it denotes the equality of them in Christ.

---

---

You owe your life in Christ to God the Father, who has given you salvation and new life through Jesus Christ. This debt is not something you can repay fully, but it calls for a life lived in obedience and gratitude to Him and Him alone.

You can thank God for Paul but you shouldnt thank Paul for anything related to your salvation. All the glory and honor to Him and Him alone

"And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Colossians 3:17

"I thank my God every time I remember you." Philippians 1:3

Waco1947 said:

---

hodedofome said:

---

Clearly, any rational thinking person can understand there is not justification for God approved homo relationships. Paul was omdenming homoerotism that turned into filth orgies. Paul clearly condemns this kind of homo erotism as we oould with heteroerotism. Re-read my post. Clearly you have not. Point out for me where you think I am in error. You assume alot but do not deal with my argument.

I

---

---

When a thread starts from a false premise (that Paul is arguing something), it only goes downhill from there. Witness this one.

Paul is faithfully writing the word he's receiving from the Holy Spirit, not arguing anything.

You owe your life in Christ to God the Father, who has given you salvation and new life through Jesus Christ. This debt is not something you can repay fully, but it calls for a life lived in obedience and gratitude to Him and Him alone. I agree with you.

You can thank God for Paul, but you shouldn't thank Paul for anything related to your salvation. All the glory and honor to Him and Him alone. Wrong I heard Paul and I am indebted for his word.
"And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all have obeyed the good news,[g] for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ."
I heard Paul and gave my life to Christ for salvation and for my call to ministry.
I am not sure why you are challenging my faith journey that is rooted in the gospels and Romans

"And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Colossians 3:17

"I thank my God every time I remember you." Philippians 1:3

canoso said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

hodedofome said:

---

Clearly, any rational thinking person can understand there is not justification for God approved homo relationships. Paul was omdenming homoerotism that turned into filth orgies. Paul clearly condemns this kind of homo erotism as we oould with heteroerotism. Re-read my post. Clearly you have not. Point out for me where you think I am in error. You assume alot but do not deal with my argument.

I

---

---

When a thread starts from a false premise (that Paul is arguing something), it only goes downhill from there. Witness this one.

Paul is faithfully writing the word he's receiving from the Holy Spirit, not arguing anything.

---

Who said, "Paul is arguing." Paul is declaring that excessive sexual indulgence is ruining people's lives. It is an issue of powwer padernasy ans slaves. Tlaves and children were sexually abused by homoerotism and heteroerotism.

Why can't you see that in Romans 1:25-27?

Waco1947 said:

---

You owe your life in Christ to God the Father, who has given you salvation and new life through Jesus Christ. This debt is not something you can repay fully, but it calls for a life lived in obedience and gratitude to Him and Him alone. I agree with you.

You can thank God for Paul, but you shouldn't thank Paul for anything related to your salvation. All the glory and honor to Him and Him alone. Wrong I heard Paul and I am indebted for his word.
"And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all have obeyed the good news,[g] for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ."
I heard Paul and gave my life to Christ for salvation and for my call to ministry.
I am not sure why you are challenging my faith journey that is rooted in the gospels and Romans

"And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Colossians 3:17

"I thank my God every time I remember you." Philippians 1:3

---

Why do you think I am challenging anything? I am not..

In 2 Corinthians 4:15, Paul writes, "All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is extending to more and more people may overflow in thanksgiving, to the glory of God"

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You owe your life in Christ to God the Father, who has given you salvation and new life through Jesus Christ. This debt is not something you can repay fully, but it calls for a life lived in obedience and gratitude to Him and Him alone. I agree with you.

You can thank God for Paul, but you shouldn't thank Paul for anything related to your salvation. All the glory and honor to Him and Him alone. Wrong I heard Paul and I am indebted for his word.
"And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all have obeyed the good news,[g] for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ."
I heard Paul and gave my life to Christ for salvation and for my call to ministry.
I am not sure why you are challenging my faith journey that is rooted in the gospels and Romans

"And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Colossians 3:17

"I thank my God every time I remember you." Philippians 1:3

---

Why do you think I am challenging anything? I am not..

In 2 Corinthians 4:15, Paul writes, "All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is extending to more and more people may overflow in thanksgiving, to the glory of God"

You said "You can thank God for Paul, but you s"houldn't thank Paul for anything related to your salvation. All the glory and honor to Him and Him alone"
I said,
Wrong I heard Paul and I am indebted for his word.
"And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all have obeyed the good news,[g] for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ."
I heard Paul and gave my life to Christ for salvation and for my call to ministry.
I am not sure why you are challenging my faith journey that is rooted in the gospels and Romans

---

Waco1947 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You owe your life in Christ to God the Father, who has given you salvation and new life through Jesus Christ. This debt is not something you can repay fully, but it calls for a life lived in obedience and gratitude to Him and Him alone. I agree with you.

You can thank God for Paul, but you shouldn't thank Paul for anything related to your salvation. All the glory and honor to Him and Him alone. Wrong I heard Paul and I am indebted for his word.
"And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all have obeyed the good news,[g] for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ."
I heard Paul and gave my life to Christ for salvation and for my call to ministry.
I am not sure why you are challenging my faith journey that is rooted in the gospels and Romans

"And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Colossians 3:17

"I thank my God every time I remember you." Philippians 1:3

---

Why do you think I am challenging anything? I am not..

In 2 Corinthians 4:15, Paul writes, "All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is extending to more and more people may overflow in thanksgiving, to the glory of God"

You said "You can thank God for Paul, but you s"houldn't thank Paul for anything related to your salvation. All the glory and honor to Him and Him alone"
I said,
Wrong I heard Paul and I am indebted for his word.
"And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 15 And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 16 But not all have obeyed the good news,[g] for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ."
I heard Paul and gave my life to Christ for salvation and for my call to ministry.
I am not sure why you are challenging my faith journey that is rooted in the gospels and Romans

---

---

1 CORINTHIANS 2:13
"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words."

ROMANS 8:26-27
"In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God's people in accordance with the will of God."

ACTS 5:32
"We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

Paul didn't think of faith as natural to fallen humanity but rather as an indication of the supernatural activity of God's Spirit within men and women's lives. When we find ourselves embracing faith and think back down the road that led us there, we will ultimately think it back to God. No matter who may have been instrumental in leading us to the truth of the Gospel, we understand that it is God alone who ultimately draws us to Himself.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Yall would be shocked at how money is controlling non denoms and big evangelical churches.

Gavin Ortlund is woke and gay affirming.

Anytime you see an evangelical on a moral high horse accusing opponents of being “extremists” and using DNC/SPLC talking points, they are fake and gay pic.twitter.com/2yipvmhwWM

— Jay Dyer (@JayDyer) May 4, 2026

---

This is someone committing yet another category error with "evangelicals" that you committed with "protestants."

https://instagr.am/p/DYhzlLSx1i5