From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 17/05/2026 23:11, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 16/05/2026 16:25, John wrote:

Would you like to point to more than one biblical writer who said
homosexuals should be put to death if they engage in homosexual sex.

So you now admit that what I said was true but you are shifting the goal posts and demanding more than one author.

You said they, so I assumed you meant more than one. My bad, I hadn't realised Moses was non-binary, so didn't sue he/him pronouns.

God allowed it in the OT, but ruled it out in the NT, which do you
believe Christians should obey?

Both. Even in the Old Testament God said, "I hate divorce". And I firmly believe that Christians should never divorce, but like St Paul, if a non-Christian desires divorce, I do not put the Christian under bondage.
Let him (or her) depart.

That's where one isn't a Christian, and I think the text is ambiguous as
to whether it's seperation or actual divorce, but if it is, then it
would be for the non Christian to initiate divorce, not the Christian.
(see below)

You may not like homosexuality, you may not like transgenderism, but
as long as the person involved isn't a child, they are doing no harm
to others.

Certainly, I have no objection to whatever non-Christians[1] get up to.
They are going to hell anyway, so might as well go for a sheep as a lamb.

However if they affect me, then I do object. In my younger days I have
been propositioned by homosexuals. Some years ago my wife encountered a
man in the women's toilets. So I am not sure how you can say that they
do no harm to others.

Be thankful you're not a woman, they get hit on all the time by lustful
men. You've done better than me though, I only recall one experience
where a man propositioned me, and I told him not to be a dickhead, and
thought no more of it. It hasn't made me scared of homosexuals.

A biological female relative of one of my best mates has become
transgender. If said person grows a beard should they use a mans toilet
or a womans? I suspect your wife would have been equally shocked. But
do tell us more, did said person accost your wife or wer they there
simply to use the facilities. Had they gone tp the mans toilet, they
would be probably more in danger.

You were allowed to refuse on religious grounds.

Certainly, but there was no law that your employer had to keep giving
you shifts if you refused to work on Sunday.

Now you're being silly, or have you not heard of employment contracts?
The employer would still have had to pay them their contracted hours.

In that case none of the Jewish laws apply to Christians, so Paul's
teaching on divorce (no exceptions) should definitely apply.

I refer you to the 39 Articles. And Paul does allow exceptions. You
really ought to read the Bible sometime. You might be surprised at what
you discover.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16. I would argue this means seperation, not
divorce. If it does, it seems a tad unfair that the wife can initiate
divorce and not the husband. Who knew womens lib was a thing back then!!

Note 1: By "non-Christians" I mean anyone who is not a believer in God.
I am not rejecting the idea that Muslims or Hindus or whatever can be
saved.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 18/05/2026 12:13, John wrote:

You said they, so I assumed you meant more than one.

You could, if you wish, add in St Paul, who not only condemned
homosexuals but stated that they were being judged by God.

That's where one isn't a Christian, and I think the text is ambiguous as
to whether it's seperation or actual divorce, but if it is, then it
would be for the non Christian to initiate divorce, not the Christian.
(see below)

I agree with your final comment.

Be thankful you're not a woman, they get hit on all the time by lustful
men.

Indeed.

It hasn't made me scared of homosexuals.

Nor me. But neither has it predisposed me in their favour.

A biological female relative of one of my best mates has become transgender.-a If said person grows a beard should they use a mans toilet
or a womans?

I think a man would feel less threatened by a woman pretending to be a
man than vice versa.

Now you're being silly, or have you not heard of employment contracts?
The employer would still have had to pay them their contracted hours.

And you haven't heard of zero hours contracts?

1 Corinthians 7:10-16.-a I would argue this means seperation, not
divorce. If it does, it seems a tad unfair that the wife can initiate divorce and not the husband. Who knew womens lib was a thing back then!!

Why you think that, when the text explicitly mentions "put away" - a
single word in Greek that is a synonym for divorce, you will have to
explain.

Roman women - and to a lesser extent Greek women - were not the doormats
you suppose. A long way from "women's lib", but upper class women could initiate divorce.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 19/05/2026 06:51, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 18/05/2026 12:13, John wrote:

You said they, so I assumed you meant more than one.

You could, if you wish, add in St Paul, who not only condemned
homosexuals but stated that they were being judged by God.

I'll answer that in a new thread, because I think it raises an
interesting angle of something I'd like to explore.

It hasn't made me scared of homosexuals.

Nor me. But neither has it predisposed me in their favour.

Not sure how many times you've been hit on, but that's like saying you
hate all muslims because 5 did harm towards you. Blow me, (probably a
bad turn of phrase) if women took the same attitude there would be no
more dating.

Now you're being silly, or have you not heard of employment contracts?
The employer would still have had to pay them their contracted hours.

And you haven't heard of zero hours contracts?

I was waiting for that lol. How many zero hour contracts were there
back in 1985? Certainly in the retail field I would say virtually none.
How on earth has your sect survived all these years because Saturday
would be a must in the retail field.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16.-a I would argue this means seperation, not
divorce. If it does, it seems a tad unfair that the wife can initiate
divorce and not the husband. Who knew womens lib was a thing back then!!

Why you think that, when the text explicitly mentions "put away" - a
single word in Greek that is a synonym for divorce, you will have to explain.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

Roman women - and to a lesser extent Greek women - were not the doormats
you suppose. A long way from "women's lib", but upper class women could initiate divorce.

Ah, so Paul was allowing the traditions they already followed. I was
thinking about this yesterday but Paul was a devout Jew, and divorce was permissable for the Jews pre Jesus. I find it strange that Paul did a
360 degree turn on this, and if women could divorce, why not men?



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 19/05/2026 13:02, John wrote:

Not sure how many times you've been hit on, but that's like saying you
hate all muslims because 5 did harm towards you.-a Blow me, (probably a
bad turn of phrase) if women took the same attitude there would be no
more dating.

I think that some women are indeed abandoning dating! But at least
male/female interaction is natural.

I was waiting for that lol.-a How many zero hour contracts were there
back in 1985? Certainly in the retail field I would say virtually none.
How on earth has your sect survived all these years because Saturday
would be a must in the retail field.

It has always been a problem, and understanding bosses were rare but
highly valued.

Ah, so Paul was allowing the traditions they already followed. I was thinking about this yesterday but Paul was a devout Jew, and divorce was permissable for the Jews pre Jesus. I find it strange that Paul did a
360 degree turn on this, and if women could divorce, why not men?

I see no reason to suppose that Paul did not allow men to divorce. He mentioned women, perhaps, because everyone accepted that men could
divorce and it was new and radical to allow women to initiate divorce?

God bless,
KendalL K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2