PartyBear said:

---

Is Baylor serious about achieving Tier 1?

---

PartyBear said:

---

Is Baylor serious about achieving Tier 1?

---

Not at the cost of our values

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Only a matter of time....look at our university leadership....they'll cave to secular society. When it does happen, adios. Except for the diploma on my office wall, my family is done with Baylor because recognizing this group is anathema to our Christian Mission.

---

You had gay classmates at Baylor.

---

I know, but they didn't organize into a victim group that claims their deviant behavior is normal.

---

Is simply being gay a behavior or within your limited understanding do you believe it to be an immutable characteristic?

---

with regard to your "immutable characteristic "; I know three people who were married to members of the opposite sex. Two of them became grandparents and then, later in life came out as homosexual. I'm sure for each of them, they struggled with temptation for years before yielding to it.

Is it ever okay to yield to the temptation of sin?

---

I would compare your acquaintances to somebody who is naturally left handed (by orientation) but writes with the right hand because social custom requires it. And while the Church would never admit it, there are many within it who see sexuality on a continuum. There are exclusively straight and gay people on either end of the continuum and there are those who fall at different places along the continuum. I don't think it's as simple as we've been made to believe.

With regard to yielding to sin; if being black was a sin, try as I might, I would encounter difficulty not being the black person God made me to be. And so it is with other immutable human traits.

---

Very eloquent, cinque. And, while all of that sounds great, it is not scriptural. If my choices for my eternal soul are to trust cinque or a cinque-like church versus trusting what scripture says, I will choose scripture.

---

See that's the problem. I'm as versed on Scripture as you are and I know that none of the relevant pericopae touching the subject of homosexuality address the issue of love, mutuality and consent. Since that it true, I find it prudent to trust the God of the Bible on issues such as this one.

---

It doesn't address homosexuality related to love, mutuality, and consent because it's a sinful behavior. If you prudently trust in the God of the Bible, you'd know that.

---

Since the Bible is silent on these as it relates to homosexuality, How did you determine that love consent and mutuality are sinful?

---

The Bible says that sexy outside of marriage is a sin. Biblical marriage is between a man and a woman. It's very clear. You, just don't like it.

---

Not only do I like it, I love it. I'm just trying to get an understanding from the real Christians as to how same gender loving Christians should live since the Bible is silent on deep, abiding love, consent and mutualality

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

IYou Only a matter of time....look at our university leadership....they'll cave to secular society. When it does happen, adios. Except for the diploma on my office wall, my family is done with Baylor because recognizing this group is anathema to our Christian Mission.

---

You had gay classmates at Baylor.

---

I know, but they didn't organize into a victim group that claims their deviant behavior is normal.

---

Is simply being gay a behavior or within your limited understanding do you believe it to be an immutable characteristic?

---

with regard to your "immutable characteristic "; I know three people who were married to members of the opposite sex. Two of them became grandparents and then, later in life came out as homosexual. I'm sure for each of them, they struggled with temptation for years before yielding to it.

Is it ever okay to yield to the temptation of sin?

---

I would compare your acquaintances to somebody who is naturally left handed (by orientation) but writes with the right hand because social custom requires it. And while the Church would never admit it, there are many within it who see sexuality on a continuum. There are exclusively straight and gay people on either end of the continuum and there are those who fall at different places along the continuum. I don't think it's as simple as we've been made to believe.

With regard to yielding to sin; if being black was a sin, try as I might, I would encounter difficulty not being the black person God made me to be. And so it is with other immutable human traits.

---

Very eloquent, cinque. And, while all of that sounds great, it is not scriptural. If my choices for my eternal soul are to trust cinque or a cinque-like church versus trusting what scripture says, I will choose scripture.

---

See that's the problem. I'm as versed on Scripture as you are and I know that none of the relevant pericopae touching the subject of homosexuality address the issue of love, mutuality and consent. Since that it true, I find it prudent to trust the God of the Bible on issues such as this one.

---

It doesn't address homosexuality related to love, mutuality, and consent because it's a sinful behavior. If you prudently trust in the God of the Bible, you'd know that.

---

Since the Bible is silent on these as it relates to homosexuality, How did you determine that love consent and mutuality are sinful?

---

Not even close. Take your Mulligan

---

Really? That's your answer?

---

Consensually and mutually giving in to lust is sinful, for example, so I'm not sure what your point about the Bible's "silence" as to those qualifiers has to do with the price of tea in China. They are your qualifiers, not the Bible's. It needn't speak to them because it offers no such qualifier or justification.

---

Stop trying to change my words to fit your narrative. I said nothing about lust. Why did you?

---

Stop being intentionally obtuse in an effort to avoid the point. Lust is an example of another sin which can be "consensually and mutually" committed (much like your assertion regarding homosexuality). You tried to claim that the Bible's silence as to those qualifiers somehow implies permission for the sin when they exist. It doesn't work for lust and it doesn't work for homosexual behavior.

Essentially, you created qualifiers which purportedly make the sin ok (in your mind, apparently), then pointed out that the Bible doesn't speak to your made-up qualifiers specifically, and then concluded that the Bible must therefore be ok with the sin in the context of your created qualifiers. Even you aren't disingenuous enough to think that's a valid position.

---

i don't think I've drawn conclusions in any of my posts. I've simply asked questions that you can't or won't answer. I understand why.

fadskier said:

---

Still can't see where these Baylor students who are gay are being denied any rights.

---

That's just the Issue: this is not about civil rights.
It is about the essence of Scripture and its influence on Baylor University.

If the cultural movement to reject as flawed the historical understanding of Scripture's lessons on sinful sexuality of humans, then Baylor will be fundamentally changed. Same for the Christian church, which gives every indication it has lost its conviction that what is "sinful", bad or evil in the world has come from human rebellion and disobedience. "Missing the mark" is beginning to resemble a poor description of mankind's vileness and disrespect for all things eternal, including what we historically called God's written word. And the graceful Jesus is little more than leverage to gain whatever an individual desires, as well as redefine God's justice and righteousness.

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

IYou Only a matter of time....look at our university leadership....they'll cave to secular society. When it does happen, adios. Except for the diploma on my office wall, my family is done with Baylor because recognizing this group is anathema to our Christian Mission.

---

You had gay classmates at Baylor.

---

I know, but they didn't organize into a victim group that claims their deviant behavior is normal.

---

Is simply being gay a behavior or within your limited understanding do you believe it to be an immutable characteristic?

---

with regard to your "immutable characteristic "; I know three people who were married to members of the opposite sex. Two of them became grandparents and then, later in life came out as homosexual. I'm sure for each of them, they struggled with temptation for years before yielding to it.

Is it ever okay to yield to the temptation of sin?

---

I would compare your acquaintances to somebody who is naturally left handed (by orientation) but writes with the right hand because social custom requires it. And while the Church would never admit it, there are many within it who see sexuality on a continuum. There are exclusively straight and gay people on either end of the continuum and there are those who fall at different places along the continuum. I don't think it's as simple as we've been made to believe.

With regard to yielding to sin; if being black was a sin, try as I might, I would encounter difficulty not being the black person God made me to be. And so it is with other immutable human traits.

---

Very eloquent, cinque. And, while all of that sounds great, it is not scriptural. If my choices for my eternal soul are to trust cinque or a cinque-like church versus trusting what scripture says, I will choose scripture.

---

See that's the problem. I'm as versed on Scripture as you are and I know that none of the relevant pericopae touching the subject of homosexuality address the issue of love, mutuality and consent. Since that it true, I find it prudent to trust the God of the Bible on issues such as this one.

---

It doesn't address homosexuality related to love, mutuality, and consent because it's a sinful behavior. If you prudently trust in the God of the Bible, you'd know that.

---

Since the Bible is silent on these as it relates to homosexuality, How did you determine that love consent and mutuality are sinful?

---

Not even close. Take your Mulligan

---

Really? That's your answer?

---

Consensually and mutually giving in to lust is sinful, for example, so I'm not sure what your point about the Bible's "silence" as to those qualifiers has to do with the price of tea in China. They are your qualifiers, not the Bible's. It needn't speak to them because it offers no such qualifier or justification.

---

Stop trying to change my words to fit your narrative. I said nothing about lust. Why did you?

---

Stop being intentionally obtuse in an effort to avoid the point. Lust is an example of another sin which can be "consensually and mutually" committed (much like your assertion regarding homosexuality). You tried to claim that the Bible's silence as to those qualifiers somehow implies permission for the sin when they exist. It doesn't work for lust and it doesn't work for homosexual behavior.

Essentially, you created qualifiers which purportedly make the sin ok (in your mind, apparently), then pointed out that the Bible doesn't speak to your made-up qualifiers specifically, and then concluded that the Bible must therefore be ok with the sin in the context of your created qualifiers. Even you aren't disingenuous enough to think that's a valid position.

---

i don't think I've drawn conclusions in any of my posts. I've simply asked questions that you can't or won't answer. I understand why.

---

I pointed out your false premise. Name any question you think hasn't been answered (by me or anyone else). I'm your huckleberry.

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

IYou Only a matter of time....look at our university leadership....they'll cave to secular society. When it does happen, adios. Except for the diploma on my office wall, my family is done with Baylor because recognizing this group is anathema to our Christian Mission.

---

You had gay classmates at Baylor.

---

I know, but they didn't organize into a victim group that claims their deviant behavior is normal.

---

Is simply being gay a behavior or within your limited understanding do you believe it to be an immutable characteristic?

---

with regard to your "immutable characteristic "; I know three people who were married to members of the opposite sex. Two of them became grandparents and then, later in life came out as homosexual. I'm sure for each of them, they struggled with temptation for years before yielding to it.

Is it ever okay to yield to the temptation of sin?

---

I would compare your acquaintances to somebody who is naturally left handed (by orientation) but writes with the right hand because social custom requires it. And while the Church would never admit it, there are many within it who see sexuality on a continuum. There are exclusively straight and gay people on either end of the continuum and there are those who fall at different places along the continuum. I don't think it's as simple as we've been made to believe.

With regard to yielding to sin; if being black was a sin, try as I might, I would encounter difficulty not being the black person God made me to be. And so it is with other immutable human traits.

---

Very eloquent, cinque. And, while all of that sounds great, it is not scriptural. If my choices for my eternal soul are to trust cinque or a cinque-like church versus trusting what scripture says, I will choose scripture.

---

See that's the problem. I'm as versed on Scripture as you are and I know that none of the relevant pericopae touching the subject of homosexuality address the issue of love, mutuality and consent. Since that it true, I find it prudent to trust the God of the Bible on issues such as this one.

---

It doesn't address homosexuality related to love, mutuality, and consent because it's a sinful behavior. If you prudently trust in the God of the Bible, you'd know that.

---

Since the Bible is silent on these as it relates to homosexuality, How did you determine that love consent and mutuality are sinful?

---

Not even close. Take your Mulligan

---

Really? That's your answer?

---

Consensually and mutually giving in to lust is sinful, for example, so I'm not sure what your point about the Bible's "silence" as to those qualifiers has to do with the price of tea in China. They are your qualifiers, not the Bible's. It needn't speak to them because it offers no such qualifier or justification.

---

Stop trying to change my words to fit your narrative. I said nothing about lust. Why did you?

---

Stop being intentionally obtuse in an effort to avoid the point. Lust is an example of another sin which can be "consensually and mutually" committed (much like your assertion regarding homosexuality). You tried to claim that the Bible's silence as to those qualifiers somehow implies permission for the sin when they exist. It doesn't work for lust and it doesn't work for homosexual behavior.

Essentially, you created qualifiers which purportedly make the sin ok (in your mind, apparently), then pointed out that the Bible doesn't speak to your made-up qualifiers specifically, and then concluded that the Bible must therefore be ok with the sin in the context of your created qualifiers. Even you aren't disingenuous enough to think that's a valid position.

---

i don't think I've drawn conclusions in any of my posts. I've simply asked questions that you can't or won't answer. I understand why.

---

I pointed out your false premise. Name any question you think hasn't been answered (by me or anyone else). I'm your huckleberry.

---

How is my premise false? My questions are the kind young people ask all the time and sadly encounter people like you who tell them their questions are wrong, and then begin hurling Scripture at them unrelated to the concerns they have.

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

quash said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

IYou Only a matter of time....look at our university leadership....they'll cave to secular society. When it does happen, adios. Except for the diploma on my office wall, my family is done with Baylor because recognizing this group is anathema to our Christian Mission.

---

You had gay classmates at Baylor.

---

I know, but they didn't organize into a victim group that claims their deviant behavior is normal.

---

Is simply being gay a behavior or within your limited understanding do you believe it to be an immutable characteristic?

---

with regard to your "immutable characteristic "; I know three people who were married to members of the opposite sex. Two of them became grandparents and then, later in life came out as homosexual. I'm sure for each of them, they struggled with temptation for years before yielding to it.

Is it ever okay to yield to the temptation of sin?

---

I would compare your acquaintances to somebody who is naturally left handed (by orientation) but writes with the right hand because social custom requires it. And while the Church would never admit it, there are many within it who see sexuality on a continuum. There are exclusively straight and gay people on either end of the continuum and there are those who fall at different places along the continuum. I don't think it's as simple as we've been made to believe.

With regard to yielding to sin; if being black was a sin, try as I might, I would encounter difficulty not being the black person God made me to be. And so it is with other immutable human traits.

---

Very eloquent, cinque. And, while all of that sounds great, it is not scriptural. If my choices for my eternal soul are to trust cinque or a cinque-like church versus trusting what scripture says, I will choose scripture.

---

See that's the problem. I'm as versed on Scripture as you are and I know that none of the relevant pericopae touching the subject of homosexuality address the issue of love, mutuality and consent. Since that it true, I find it prudent to trust the God of the Bible on issues such as this one.

---

It doesn't address homosexuality related to love, mutuality, and consent because it's a sinful behavior. If you prudently trust in the God of the Bible, you'd know that.

---

Since the Bible is silent on these as it relates to homosexuality, How did you determine that love consent and mutuality are sinful?

---

Not even close. Take your Mulligan

---

Really? That's your answer?

---

Consensually and mutually giving in to lust is sinful, for example, so I'm not sure what your point about the Bible's "silence" as to those qualifiers has to do with the price of tea in China. They are your qualifiers, not the Bible's. It needn't speak to them because it offers no such qualifier or justification.

---

Stop trying to change my words to fit your narrative. I said nothing about lust. Why did you?

---

Stop being intentionally obtuse in an effort to avoid the point. Lust is an example of another sin which can be "consensually and mutually" committed (much like your assertion regarding homosexuality). You tried to claim that the Bible's silence as to those qualifiers somehow implies permission for the sin when they exist. It doesn't work for lust and it doesn't work for homosexual behavior.

Essentially, you created qualifiers which purportedly make the sin ok (in your mind, apparently), then pointed out that the Bible doesn't speak to your made-up qualifiers specifically, and then concluded that the Bible must therefore be ok with the sin in the context of your created qualifiers. Even you aren't disingenuous enough to think that's a valid position.

---

i don't think I've drawn conclusions in any of my posts. I've simply asked questions that you can't or won't answer. I understand why.

---

I pointed out your false premise. Name any question you think hasn't been answered (by me or anyone else). I'm your huckleberry.

---

How is my premise false? My questions are the kind young people ask all the time and sadly encounter people like you who tell them their questions are wrong, and then begin hurling Scripture at them unrelated to the concerns they have.

---

I already told you. Your "the Bible is silent on my made up qualifiers" shtick is nothing but a weak misdirect.

Now, you claim to have questions that have supposedly gone unanswered. What are those again? I'm ready.

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

D. C. Bear said:

---

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You sound like Joel Osteen trying to justify greed.

---

Why don't you real ones like questions?

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

I guess they don't even have to love each other or have consent or mutuality or commitment because the Bible doesn't say anything about that either.

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Why do you feel the need to add to it? Saying that the Bible is silent as to certain scenarios attached to sin and therefore those scenarios could be deemed not sinful . . . is nebulous at best and nefarious at worst. Do you do the same thing with other sins? The Bible doesn't say anything about "deeply abiding love" with a mistress that "transcends what could be experienced with your wife" either. Does that mean adultery is ok if it includes that qualifier? Of course not.

To answer your specific question, the answer is "They should live in accordance with what the Bible is NOT silent on." Namely, they should not act on their sinful proclivities (in this case homosexual desires) just like the rest of us shouldn't act on ours. You claiming that "their love could transcend that of what they could feel for a woman" is completely irrelevant. Transcendental feelings aren't what Godly commands are made of. One could use the whole "but but but I feel strongly a certain way" to justify virtually every sin listed in the Bible. In fact, Satan uses that all the time to lead people into sinful choices.

All that said, I don't pretend that this particular sinful proclivity is an easy one to overcome. I have two close friends (one of whom is an occasional participant on this site) who do so, and I can say I am prouder of them than I am of any other friend who overcomes sin in their lives. It is a difficult, and often lonely, road to walk. I have great compassion and admiration for people who walk in faith regarding this subject.

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Doesn't have to, as I've explained to you before, because the act itself is sinful.

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

The Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Why do you feel the need to add to it? Saying that the Bible is silent as to certain scenarios attached to sin and therefore those scenarios could be deemed not sinful . . . is nebulous at best and nefarious at worst. Do you do the same thing with other sins? The Bible doesn't say anything about "deeply abiding love" with a mistress that "transcends what could be experienced with your wife" either. Does that mean adultery is ok if it includes that qualifier? Of course not.

To answer your specific question, the answer is "They should live in accordance with what the Bible is NOT silent on." Namely, they should not act on their sinful proclivities (in this case homosexual desires) just like the rest of us shouldn't act on ours. You claiming that "their love could transcend that of what they could feel for a woman" is completely irrelevant. Transcendental feelings aren't what Godly commands are made of. One could use the whole "but but but I feel strongly a certain way" to justify virtually every sin listed in the Bible. In fact, Satan uses that all the time to lead people into sinful choices.

All that said, I don't pretend that this particular sinful proclivity is an easy one to overcome. I have two close friends (one of whom is an occasional participant on this site) who do so, and I can say I am prouder of them than I am of any other friend who overcomes sin in their lives. It is a difficult, and often lonely, road to walk. I have great compassion and admiration for people who walk in faith regarding this subject.

---

How can you call it sin if the only same gender loving reference of deep abiding love in Scripture is a positive one?

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

The Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Why do you feel the need to add to it? Saying that the Bible is silent as to certain scenarios attached to sin and therefore those scenarios could be deemed not sinful . . . is nebulous at best and nefarious at worst. Do you do the same thing with other sins? The Bible doesn't say anything about "deeply abiding love" with a mistress that "transcends what could be experienced with your wife" either. Does that mean adultery is ok if it includes that qualifier? Of course not.

To answer your specific question, the answer is "They should live in accordance with what the Bible is NOT silent on." Namely, they should not act on their sinful proclivities (in this case homosexual desires) just like the rest of us shouldn't act on ours. You claiming that "their love could transcend that of what they could feel for a woman" is completely irrelevant. Transcendental feelings aren't what Godly commands are made of. One could use the whole "but but but I feel strongly a certain way" to justify virtually every sin listed in the Bible. In fact, Satan uses that all the time to lead people into sinful choices.

All that said, I don't pretend that this particular sinful proclivity is an easy one to overcome. I have two close friends (one of whom is an occasional participant on this site) who do so, and I can say I am prouder of them than I am of any other friend who overcomes sin in their lives. It is a difficult, and often lonely, road to walk. I have great compassion and admiration for people who walk in faith regarding this subject.

---

How can you call it sin if the only same gender loving reference of deep abiding love in Scripture is a positive one?

---

As I tell my children, asked and answered.

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

The Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Why do you feel the need to add to it? Saying that the Bible is silent as to certain scenarios attached to sin and therefore those scenarios could be deemed not sinful . . . is nebulous at best and nefarious at worst. Do you do the same thing with other sins? The Bible doesn't say anything about "deeply abiding love" with a mistress that "transcends what could be experienced with your wife" either. Does that mean adultery is ok if it includes that qualifier? Of course not.

To answer your specific question, the answer is "They should live in accordance with what the Bible is NOT silent on." Namely, they should not act on their sinful proclivities (in this case homosexual desires) just like the rest of us shouldn't act on ours. You claiming that "their love could transcend that of what they could feel for a woman" is completely irrelevant. Transcendental feelings aren't what Godly commands are made of. One could use the whole "but but but I feel strongly a certain way" to justify virtually every sin listed in the Bible. In fact, Satan uses that all the time to lead people into sinful choices.

All that said, I don't pretend that this particular sinful proclivity is an easy one to overcome. I have two close friends (one of whom is an occasional participant on this site) who do so, and I can say I am prouder of them than I am of any other friend who overcomes sin in their lives. It is a difficult, and often lonely, road to walk. I have great compassion and admiration for people who walk in faith regarding this subject.

---

How can you call it sin if the only same gender loving reference of deep abiding love in Scripture is a positive one?

---

What sexual relationship are you referring to?

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

The Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Why do you feel the need to add to it? Saying that the Bible is silent as to certain scenarios attached to sin and therefore those scenarios could be deemed not sinful . . . is nebulous at best and nefarious at worst. Do you do the same thing with other sins? The Bible doesn't say anything about "deeply abiding love" with a mistress that "transcends what could be experienced with your wife" either. Does that mean adultery is ok if it includes that qualifier? Of course not.

To answer your specific question, the answer is "They should live in accordance with what the Bible is NOT silent on." Namely, they should not act on their sinful proclivities (in this case homosexual desires) just like the rest of us shouldn't act on ours. You claiming that "their love could transcend that of what they could feel for a woman" is completely irrelevant. Transcendental feelings aren't what Godly commands are made of. One could use the whole "but but but I feel strongly a certain way" to justify virtually every sin listed in the Bible. In fact, Satan uses that all the time to lead people into sinful choices.

All that said, I don't pretend that this particular sinful proclivity is an easy one to overcome. I have two close friends (one of whom is an occasional participant on this site) who do so, and I can say I am prouder of them than I am of any other friend who overcomes sin in their lives. It is a difficult, and often lonely, road to walk. I have great compassion and admiration for people who walk in faith regarding this subject.

---

How can you call it sin if the only same gender loving reference of deep abiding love in Scripture is a positive one?

---

As I tell my children, asked and answered.

---

Probably the reason the young people love the song, "You Can't Tell Me Nothing"

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

The Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Why do you feel the need to add to it? Saying that the Bible is silent as to certain scenarios attached to sin and therefore those scenarios could be deemed not sinful . . . is nebulous at best and nefarious at worst. Do you do the same thing with other sins? The Bible doesn't say anything about "deeply abiding love" with a mistress that "transcends what could be experienced with your wife" either. Does that mean adultery is ok if it includes that qualifier? Of course not.

To answer your specific question, the answer is "They should live in accordance with what the Bible is NOT silent on." Namely, they should not act on their sinful proclivities (in this case homosexual desires) just like the rest of us shouldn't act on ours. You claiming that "their love could transcend that of what they could feel for a woman" is completely irrelevant. Transcendental feelings aren't what Godly commands are made of. One could use the whole "but but but I feel strongly a certain way" to justify virtually every sin listed in the Bible. In fact, Satan uses that all the time to lead people into sinful choices.

All that said, I don't pretend that this particular sinful proclivity is an easy one to overcome. I have two close friends (one of whom is an occasional participant on this site) who do so, and I can say I am prouder of them than I am of any other friend who overcomes sin in their lives. It is a difficult, and often lonely, road to walk. I have great compassion and admiration for people who walk in faith regarding this subject.

---

How can you call it sin if the only same gender loving reference of deep abiding love in Scripture is a positive one?

---

As I tell my children, asked and answered.

---

Probably the reason the young people love the song, "You Can't Tell Me Nothing"

---

Nothing like being directed in the correct way yet still being obstinate, right?

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

cinque said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

cinque said:

---

The Even if the Bible is good for teaching, correction, etc., it does not address every situation known to the human condition. What does it teach on in vitro fertilization? Does it speak to that issue? Because it doesn't does that make the concern or question a false premise? Can a couple discern the will of God without the specific biblical teaching?

---

You tried to deflect by chastising me for using lust as an example and you jump to in vitro fertilization? You trying to set a world record for disingenuousness or something?

Also, you just proved my point with this post (accidentally I'm sure). But I'm not interested in pointing out your logic flaws, I'm here to answer your questions that you said hadn't been answered. What are they?

---

Again, how should same gender loving men live when the Bible is silent on same gender loving consent, and mutuality, and since it is possible for their love to transcend that of what they could feel for a woman?

---

It's not silent. Romans 1:24-32 describes the sinful behavior.

---

It describes "dishonorable passions" and "shameless acts." Does it say anything about deeply abiding love that transcends what could be experienced with a woman?

---

Why do you feel the need to add to it? Saying that the Bible is silent as to certain scenarios attached to sin and therefore those scenarios could be deemed not sinful . . . is nebulous at best and nefarious at worst. Do you do the same thing with other sins? The Bible doesn't say anything about "deeply abiding love" with a mistress that "transcends what could be experienced with your wife" either. Does that mean adultery is ok if it includes that qualifier? Of course not.

To answer your specific question, the answer is "They should live in accordance with what the Bible is NOT silent on." Namely, they should not act on their sinful proclivities (in this case homosexual desires) just like the rest of us shouldn't act on ours. You claiming that "their love could transcend that of what they could feel for a woman" is completely irrelevant. Transcendental feelings aren't what Godly commands are made of. One could use the whole "but but but I feel strongly a certain way" to justify virtually every sin listed in the Bible. In fact, Satan uses that all the time to lead people into sinful choices.

All that said, I don't pretend that this particular sinful proclivity is an easy one to overcome. I have two close friends (one of whom is an occasional participant on this site) who do so, and I can say I am prouder of them than I am of any other friend who overcomes sin in their lives. It is a difficult, and often lonely, road to walk. I have great compassion and admiration for people who walk in faith regarding this subject.

---

How can you call it sin if the only same gender loving reference of deep abiding love in Scripture is a positive one?

---

What sexual relationship are you referring to?

---

The one in Scripture that details the depth of one man's love for his friend who died: "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of a women"
One wonders what point the bereaved man was trying to make when he intentionally sought to distinguish the love he felt from for his friend from that usually shared between friends. He compared it to something deeper that is typically experienced between a man and a woman.
How should same gender loving Christians understand this particular pericope?

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Baylor doesn't have a divorce recognition group or a sex outside of marriage group, why would it recognize an LGBTQ group?

For clarity, the note does not say anything about recognizing anyone. It says that the Board was advised on how to provide a loving environment to people who probably need it the most.

There are gay people at Baylor, probably engaging in sinful acts....like everyone else at Baylor and anywhere else. If every sinner was thrown out of Baylor, we'd have no one left.

---

Divorce and adultery are false equivalences. LGBT people are not sinning. It is you who sins in condemnation

---

I would direct you to scripture but that doesn't appear to mean anything to you.

---

Only if you believe LGBTQ is a sin. ANd Homosexuality as sin is open to our interpretation.
Romans 1: 26 doesn't say a word a word about homosexuality or homosexuals.
Who taught you homosexuality was a sin?

No one taught me homosexuality is a sin. Scripture teaches that sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman is a sin. A person can be homosexual and celibate and not be sinning.

Edmond Bear said:

---

No one taught me homosexuality is a sin. Scripture teaches that sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman is a sin. A person can be homosexual and celibate and not be sinning.

---

So scripture taught you? Exactly where in the Bible did you learn? Is it not open to interpretation? Especially since the word "homosexuality" did come into being until late 19th century.
Admittedly homosexual behavior is described, but what the context of that behavior?

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

No one taught me homosexuality is a sin. Scripture teaches that sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman is a sin. A person can be homosexual and celibate and not be sinning.

---

So scripture taught you? Exactly where in the Bible did you learn? Is it not open to interpretation? Especially since the word "homosexuality" did come into being until late 19th century.
Admittedly homosexual behavior is described, but what the context of that behavior?

---

What does homosexuality have to do with it? I said sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Baylor doesn't have a divorce recognition group or a sex outside of marriage group, why would it recognize an LGBTQ group?

For clarity, the note does not say anything about recognizing anyone. It says that the Board was advised on how to provide a loving environment to people who probably need it the most.

There are gay people at Baylor, probably engaging in sinful acts....like everyone else at Baylor and anywhere else. If every sinner was thrown out of Baylor, we'd have no one left.

---

Divorce and adultery are false equivalences. LGBT people are not sinning. It is you who sins in condemnation

---

I would direct you to scripture but that doesn't appear to mean anything to you.

---

Only if you believe LGBTQ is a sin. ANd Homosexuality as sin is open to our interpretation.
Romans 1: 26 doesn't say a word a word about homosexuality or homosexuals.
Who taught you homosexuality was a sin?

---

Many folks have quoted you chapter and verse many times.

You simply ignore them and repeat the same bull**** .

I'm ready for Waco to say "Wrong!" then provide no logical reason and then repeat his original incorrect assertion.

Internet porn is not mentioned in the Bible. Is it a sin 47?

How much arrogance does it take for a person to claim they know better than scripture; "22. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination"
I don't see an If,Then,Else statement. It seems pretty cut and dry.