Mat,

Isn't that cool the way it works? You are on a trek to find something
specific, and Boom! Out jumps something that is more important or valuable
at the moment. You'll find no support of homosexuality in the Bible because
God adamantly opposes it. There are many scriptures saying it is
perversion, but because it doesn't specifically say... "Hello people. This
is God talking. Man with man and woman with woman is not good. Don't do it.
I don't like it. It is sin!", instead of it saying that he gave them over
to lusts of their own flesh doing ungodly acts as man with man and woman
with woman, they just don't wish to see it. Anyway.  Wishing I was in Texas
with a high of minus 4 expected today. And I'm just now ducking in for a
quick warm up while my wife does a quick baby sit job, and then we're off
to do the route for today. Brrrrrrrr.

Brad


At 07:17 AM 1/29/2004 -0600, Matt wrote:
>Hah, it's funny how the bible works for me sometimes.
>Sometimes I won't be looking for a bible reference to something I have seen
>in life and it will just jump out at me when I am reading.
>Still, other times I will be searching for some biblical reference someone
>is implying and it just isn't their.
>For some reason I got it in my head that the homosexuals got the rainbow
>symbol from the bible and that they were trying to twist some scripture to
>fit their cause.
>Not such a far fetched idea.
>So, I read the account of how god gave the rainbow as his covenant not to
>bring such destruction on man kind again.
>I hope I am getting that right at least.
>I think the idea is that evil will someday destroy the world, and that god
>will be their for the good kiddies car pool pick up, and not that god is
>going to destroy the world himself like the old echascetch reference I have
>made in the past.
>Anyway, I couldn't find anything which might be used to back up god's
>support of homosexuality.
>Just sharing some of my oddball thoughts and searches.
>You can't always count on the fact that people are trying to make a biblical
>link I guess.
>
>Matt
>
>Parents should not need their children,
>they should love there children.
>Children need their parents.