As always Zeph. I can count on you to be the TEACHER of this Board even when I believe your are wrong, and I believe you are in the class of the Sophists of Greece. Those boys could make evil look good and good look evil just as today, the new Sophists are great at spinning to make the Dems look good, and GOP as mean, narrow minded, and haters of women.

I would like to see you hired by both political parties to be the Minister of spin for the Republicans, and the chief CZAR for the Dems.

No mistake how Paul teaches about homosexual/lesbian lifetsyles in Romans chapter 1 verses 18 to 32, the authority of Scripture is correct, no mistranslation, and over the centuries, Paul's arguement stands condemning the alternative lifestyes.

You do have a choice, however, consequences are evident no matter what choice you make, thus being born with the alternative lifestyle is incorrect, if one is born homosexul/lesbian you do not have control of your choices, correct??

Actually, for the same reasons that bans on interracial marriage can not be justified, despite interracial marriage certainly being a choice, or at least more of a choice than homosexuality is, the choice or non-choiceness of attraction has zero effect on whether homosexual marriage should be legal.

Koreman, while I agree that homeosexuality is against God's standards so are a lot of things that are much more common place such as coveting and lying. Remember any sin can keep you from God since He cannot abide sin in His presence. Romans 3:23 reminds us that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory, thus all deserve h'ell. However, when we are baptized we are declared righteous because of Jesus's faith and this Baptism is not a one time act, but keeps forgiving our sins throughout our lives. The Greek word for Baptism is the Perfect Aorist Indicative which means something occurred in the past but continues to function today.

Koreman, I hope you are not like the foolish Galatians in Galatians 3:10 who cling to the Law for salvation. The Law is a curse, a curse that Jesus freed us from. There are only 3 proper purposes of the Law. 1) To keep order in the world 2) to show us a need for Jesus 3) As a guideline for Godly living, however, when we cannot live a Godly life because "none are righteous no not one" Romans 3:10 the 3rd use drives us back to 2nd use and into the arms of Jesus.

Also, I am a little concerned that you "have faith in the Bible" the Bible does give us all we need for salvation but is not itself an item of faith. That would be Biblioidolatry and a sin. Your faith should be in Christ the risen Lord.

In short, it should be our ardent prayer that none suffer H'ell, including homeosexuals and that the Holy Spirit will convict them and they will turn from their ways. Just as we should pray that those who covet, Lie, steal etc. should also be convicted, be called to Christ, and saved from eternal damnation

Wilmington, frankly when sophistry gains control of the intellectual thought of a society or empire, that society or empire is about to fall.

Billy, would you save this thread because it is about to go bye bye. Thanks-Hoss

On a related note to your points about law, there have been some who have argued that Jesus's teachings are indicative of an adherence to a type of virtue ethics on that very point. I think there is a lot to be said in favor of that view.

As far as the word's original meaning is concerned, sophism is the basis of democracy.

You have no more control in being Heterosexual then someone who is homsexual. Try to be a Homsexual. It doesn't work!

While I agree that Jesus does preach virtue ethics He was preaching inner virtue so that people may avoid H'ell and eternal separation from God. Thus, I would say, philosophically Jesus falls into the consequential segment of philosophy. Jesus taught in an "if/than" format which is exactly how His Father, Yahweh formed His covenants with Israel. For example IF you eat of My Flesh and drink of my blood THAN you will have eternal life. If you believe in me, THAN you will have eternal life. So, while Jesus taught virtue ethics in regards to behavior, it was towards a consequentialist ends.

By the way, it is the Virtue ethics side of Jesus teaching that others find so attractive. Gandhi loved Jesus' teaching, so do Sikhs, Buddhists, Baha'i, Jains etc They just did/do not accept that consequentialist roots of His virtue ethics. Frankly, I don't think any sane person would deny the validity and beauty OF the Sermon on the Mount/Plain ethos espoused by Jesus.

I'm disappointed in how Obama's education policy is just as bad as the GOP's education policy. Actually, his is a bit better, but it's still way off course. Arne Duncan is a to0l.

<< Frankly, I don't think any sane person would deny the validity and beauty OF the Sermon on the Mount/Plain ethos espoused by Jesus.>>

I don't see the "Christian Coalition" and those other guys following the rules of Jesus at all. Can you show me some things that those guys have in common with Jesus' teachings? I also don't see how Santorum gets to claim that he's a Christian with his wacky beliefs and hatefulness.

They give to the poor.

JC, If you would like to hear the normal Christian perspective I would suggest you listen to K-Brit 740 Am it is conservative talk radio, but not combative, rude with differing viewpoints allowed to make their points. All in all a good station to listen to if you want to hear the Christian viewpoint of things.

Hossie, I am a Christian. Glad to know you see the difference between true Christians and wannabes. However, the Christian viewpoint is not necessarily conservative--conservatives don't own the religion.

Yeah, but a person giving to the poor doesn't help enough poor people!