Re: Sodomite: One who practises Sodomy [ was Good Try, Ruth

"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" 
<1stCenturyApostolic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:F6u_j.6871$x55.4084@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "- .. -- Tim .-." <timreason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:4eidnQ_NyMNzwqfVRVnyjAA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" 
>> <1stCenturyApostolic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:U5m_j.6538$x55.2721@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Robert Marshall" <spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message

>>> news:m1k5hia7d0.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Sun, 25 May 2008, 1stCenturyApostolic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "- .. -- Tim .-." <timreason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've opted to let you express your views without further comment,
>>>>>> Jeff.  That should not be seen as capitulation on my part, since
>>>>>> most readers on these groups already know what our views are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you just clarify the following then?
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do believe homo***ual fornication (anal intercourse: buggery) is
>>>>> sinful' don't you?
>>>
>>>> Nice to see you so focussed on one act Jeff.
>>>
>>> Ahhh! I see that has *again* roused you from your chair.
>>>
>>>> Do you also believe that
>>>> hetero***ual anal intercourse is inherently sinful?
>>>
>>> If I did, Robert, I would show the passage from the Scripture
forbidding 
>>> it.
>>> Maybe you can furnish such a passage....I can only find what God has 
>>> personally stated...."13 If a man lie with mankind, as with womankind,

>>> both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to 
>>> death; their blood shall be upon them."
>>>
>>>>- far more
>>>> hetero***uals practice it
>>>
>>> Do they, I wouldn't know, but for a man and his wife, I can find
nothing 
>>> in NT Scripture forbidding anything they wish to do ***ually with each

>>> other.
>>>
>>>>than (male) homo***uals because there's so
>>>> many more of the first!
>>>
>>> Even so.......sinful 'fornicating' Sodomite buggers will be severely 
>>> dealt with by Almighty God.
>>> "7 And don't forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their 
>>> neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of
men 
>>> for other men. Those cities were destroyed by fire and continue to be
a 
>>> warning to us that there is a hell in which sinners are punished." 
Jude 
>>> 1:7 (TLB)
>>>
>>> So do be warned.
>>> If you are wise enough to catch the drift.
>>>
>>> Jeff...
>>> "3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye
should 
>>> abstain from fornication."
>>> 1 Thess 4:2-3 (Darby)
>>>
>>
>> Well, I would have thought that one bum is much like another bum. 
['Bum' 
>> = UK equivalent of 'Butt']
>> Certainly many places that have or had "Anti-sodomy" laws included 
>> hetero***ual buggery as well as homo***ual buggery, and some include(d)

>> all forms of penetrative oral ***, as well.  To claim that bum-*** is 
>> holy and pure just as long as the receptive bum is female, is a bit 
>> strange. In the UK for a long time anal *** even between man and wife
was 
>> illegal.
>
> Maybe so, but Christians are governed by NT teaching which has no such 
> restrictions on the ***ual intimacy between a man and his wife.
>
> As for your unscriptural liberal attitude that if  homo***ual relations 
> "fornication" are taking place between 'christians' is solely their 
> business.....what do you say to Paul's warning to such people?
>
> "3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, [ Strong's 1) 
> Consecration, Purification ] that ye should
> abstain from fornication."
> 1 Thess 4:2-3 (Darby)
>
> Should you not be agreeing with him, and encouraging all your homo***ual

> friends and colleagues to observe  such a dire warning?

I am not advocating any change from Traditional teaching on this, Jeff. 
As 
I pointed out, anyone who *does* excercise right-of-conscience, does so 
taking culpability upon *themselves* before God, so it is a very serious 
matter.  But I do respect their right to take such a risk, if they so
wish, 
as long as it is *private* then it remains between themselves and God. 
The 
duty of the Church and of Christian leaders is to pass on teaching 'as 
received'.  However, dissent from that teaching over some issues, in 
conscience, is a right accepted by most, even to a certain extent among
the 
historical Church groups.

Their right to choose to let God alone be the judge is something I would 
defend.  Whether they are wise to take that option is another question,
but 
I accept their freedom to take such a risk.

Tim.

>
> Jeff...
> "17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved
son,
> and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my
ways
> which be in Christ, as *I teach every where* in every church."
>  1 Cor 4:17
>
>
>
>