You lie and spread misinformation about what the bible does in fact say, based on your own biased homosexual embracing mentality.I pity you, when you draw your last breathe and your standing before God at the Great White Throne of Judgment.Maybe then you can try explaining that God doesn’t judge.

People like you is why there is religion, and so many, because man always has to put their own tainted version of what they think the bible says to conform to their own ideals or indiscretions.

And every single person you lead away from the truth with your lies, well you would be held personally accountable for that on your day of judgment.

“I’d respond to that but, I will hold that thought cause the rest definitely needs clearing up”

Since you asked about the shellfish point, here’s my frame of reference. The language in Leviticus that is used to talk about homosexuality is the same as that used to discuss shellfish (it is called “an abomination”). So if you hold up Leviticus against homosexuality, it’s fair play to ask you about shellfish which is similarly prohibited.

“True, but it isn’t just called an abomination, its called a detestable act, and indecent acts.Not to mention,(Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman,both of them have committed a detestable act.)That is pretty black and white statement.”

But, you ask, what about Acts 10, and Peter’s vision of the table set with shellfish and other unclean creatures. The voice of the Lord tells him to eat, Peter protests, and the Lord replies, “Don’t call anything impure that I have made clean.”

What does Peter do? Does he go out and eat a bunch of shellfish? No, he goes to the house of the hated Romans and tells them that, while his law prohibits him, the Lord has told him he should not call any man impure or unclean. Does this sound familiar? The point of the passage in Acts is that God asks us to accept all people, even those that in Levitical times were called unclean or abominate.

“Again, with the same worldly blather.Any man can show love and charity, but by telling him because the Bible makes it clear this isn’t something kosher that he should just accept, but it isn’t acceptance it is a compromise of my morals and my values.One which won’t be compromised by anyone or anything as long as I have anything to say about it.”

With respect to Romans, if you read that passage and then read Romans 2:1, it’s hard to escape the interpretation that God is asking us not to be judgmental, especially in light of Romans 12:17-21 and Romans 14.

“Same as above chief, just not clicking with you is it? I am not being at all judgmental, I have only expressed word for word exactly what scripture says about it.Then you will use some other verse to deflect mine.God loves all his children, but something you gotta remember that doesn’t mean he is gonna love the sin.”

Since you asked about the shellfish point, here’s my frame of reference. The language in Leviticus that is used to talk about homosexuality is the same as that used to discuss shellfish (it is called “an abomination”). So if you hold up Leviticus against homosexuality, it’s fair play to ask you about shellfish which is similarly prohibited.

But, you ask, what about Acts 10, and Peter’s vision of the table set with shellfish and other unclean creatures. The voice of the Lord tells him to eat, Peter protests, and the Lord replies, “Don’t call anything impure that I have made clean.”

What does Peter do? Does he go out and eat a bunch of shellfish? No, he goes to the house of the hated Romans and tells them that, while his law prohibits him, the Lord has told him he should not call any man impure or unclean. Does this sound familiar? The point of the passage in Acts is that God asks us to accept all people, even those that in Levitical times were called unclean or abominators.

With respect to Romans, if you read that passage and then read Romans 2:1, it’s hard to escape the interpretation that God is asking us not to be judgmental, especially in light of Romans 12:17-21 and Romans 14.

Art,

See but that is the thing, I am not gonna waste my breath on some man who in one breathe tried to use God’s word to back up his ideal, and in another breathe use it against a Christian.

That is why the whole shellfish bit was amusing, it means nothing to me, and frankly in all likelihood was directed toward the Jews.Even if it didn’t I still don’t care.

“”Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,… 1 Peter 3:15.”"

This verse is interesting, but the choice of words in it tells me it has nothing to do with what I have said here.Primarily because of the word “hope” Hope has absolutely nothing to do with why I believe what I believe, Faith would be more appropriate.

As for “gentleness and respect” well, your not gonna find me gently or respectfully telling Tim my point of view when he is spreading lies about what the Bible does in fact say.

I gave three very obvious verses, if you don’t get it, then it is rejection plain and simple.God doesn’t sugarcoat it, so neither will I.

I think God would want you to always “argue His point.” But the manner in which you argue is as important as the argument itself.

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,…” 1 Peter 3:15 .

And just fyi, you might like to read Jesus’ words in Mark 7:14-19. It’s a short answer as to why shellfish is no longer an abomination.

I was looking back over some of your earlier posts, especially the ones where you cite a number of scriptures. I get the general idea of most of them. However, one puzzles me. You quote Matthew 7:6 :
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” In the context of this discussion, I’m not sure what Tim should learn from this verse. What lesson/message are you trying to convey by using this particular verse?

“There comes a point, when it’s clear the discussion has becomes not worthy of God.I highly doubt he wants me to argue His point.”

I was looking back over some of your earlier posts, especially the ones where you cite a number of scriptures. I get the general idea of most of them. However, one puzzles me. You quote Matthew 7:6 :
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” In the context of this discussion, I’m not sure what Tim should learn from this verse. What lesson/message are you trying to convey by using this particular verse?

Yes, I think you’re right: we are making two different points. Your point was getting obscured for me precisely because I was looking at a different aspect than you were. Thank you for the clarification.

Let’s accept that the legalization of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with what transpired. What, in your opinion, DID have something to do with what happened?