Forcing the Chruch to accept homosexuality..

Status
Not open for further replies.

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
99.9% of all human actions, behavior, etc. has no scriptural precedent. Does that mean nothing to you?


Even if this were true we are indeed speaking of the .1%. In that Marriage is a behaivior that indeed has biblical precedent.

Just not Homosexual marriage.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
.

So the fact that their is absolutely No scriptural precedent for this type of union means nothing to you? You are aware that silence in scripture is not the same as a doctrine of permissibility? This is exactly what you are doing. You are in fact representing a biblical permissibility when their isn't a precedent for it. Why is this not a red flag for you?

There is absolutely no Scriptural precedent for eating rainbow trout, either, since they are indigenous to North America, and thus not mentioned in the Bible. But we can see what kinds of fish are and are not abominations, and determine by extension, whether trout are kosher or trefe.

Similarly we can determine whether same-sex marriage is acceptable by extension. A person who is not called to a ministry that requires celibacy, and therefore not gifted with the extra grace to permanently renounce sex that Paul was gifted with is advised to marry rather than burn. If he is not burning for a woman, marrying a woman will not ease his burning. (Now sex is not the only, or even necessarily the best reason to get married, but it is a problem in unmarried persons, and thus the advice.)

Yes, I know the standard answer is to require gays to commit to a life of celibacy whether or not they have Paul's gift, but that does nothing about the burning. And the Bible has many warnings about making unbreakable commitments that you do not have the assurance that you will be able to keep.

Still, the Bible does assure that God will provide a way of escape from all temptations, which would include this one. So what is the way of escape?

This is blatantly untrue. Every example given is about a union between Man and woman. Nowhere in scripture has a same sex marriage ever been modeled or sanctified by God. If it is as you say and gay marriages were common place then why isn't their at least one simple provision that establishes the legitimacy of this union? Do you not think that God could not see or anticipate something like this to divide His church? Why not make one provision if this is in fact in His will?


You may choose to address what every you feel you can debate, but know that without a biblical context in which a homosexual relationship can be sanctified before God. your efforts can easily be identified as a personal belief, and that has little to nothing to do with the expressed will of God.
As I have mentioned to others this, discussion is about Homosexuality, Sin, The Homosexual doctrine of the permissibility of sin, and how that all relates to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Expressed will of God according to scripture.

If you wish to carry on without the bible to regulate your words or actions, then you may be doing so alone. I wish to have a Biblically based "Christian" conversation. Not an I said so conversation dressed in what looks like scripture.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There is absolutely no Scriptural precedent for eating rainbow trout, either, since they are indigenous to North America, and thus not mentioned in the Bible. But we can see what kinds of fish are and are not abominations, and determine by extension, whether trout are kosher or trefe.
Similarly we can determine whether same-sex marriage is acceptable by extension. A person who is not called to a ministry that requires celibacy, and therefore not gifted with the extra grace to permanently renounce sex that Paul was gifted with is advised to marry rather than burn. If he is not burning for a woman, marrying a woman will not ease his burning. (Now sex is not the only, or even necessarily the best reason to get married, but it is a problem in unmarried persons, and thus the advice.)
So you are saying that Homosexuals are indigenous to north America or France or somewhere other than where the bible was actually being written, and the one's writing the scripture left out a homosexual clause, because they knew nothing of Homosexuality, but they knew of the passions that burn with in the relationships that they were indeed familiar with, and if they only knew or were somehow exposed to the homosexual polite that they would have included it in scripture...

Do you not see anything wrong with this logic?

Are you not one of the ones championing the idea that Homosexuality was common place in that time? If this were the case they why is their not any mentioning of such a common place activity like a homosexual marriage? Truthfully if it is as you have said and homo marriages were indeed as acceptable as hetero marriages then why is their not ONE mentioning of it?

If we were indeed talking about something as rare as rainbow trout in that place and in that time I could see your point, but as it is, you and others have represented the homosexual life style along side the hetero life style, and yet their is nothing in scripture to represent same sex marriages to be legitmate...

Good try, but again without scripture your efforts here are little more than wishful thinking.

Yes, I know the standard answer is to require gays to commit to a life of celibacy whether or not they have Paul's gift, but that does nothing about the burning. And the Bible has many warnings about making unbreakable commitments that you do not have the assurance that you will be able to keep.

Still, the Bible does assure that God will provide a way of escape from all temptations, which would include this one. So what is the way of escape?
Honestly I can not remember if it was you or another who dragged out this tediously long conversation as to the point or purpose of marriage. In that marriage is not just a context in which Sex is to take place.

In fact most "marriages" in that day were arranged. Of those, few "burned" with mutual passion. I say that to say, getting married for lust is not a good reason to get married. our hetero divorce rate is the proof of that. In the end all lust gives way to reality. What you have left is an opportunity for Real/True love. In that i mean Love (not lust) is a choice, Either you choose to love someone or you do not.

We are all the same in that we want what/who we want, but in the end Life is about so much more than who we get to sleep with.
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
Even if this were true we are indeed speaking of the .1%. In that Marriage is a behaivior that indeed has biblical precedent.

Just not Homosexual marriage.
The Biblical precedent for marriage is polygamy. It is the most common version taught, and the one that God endorsed most often.
 
Upvote 0

vl32

Active Member
Aug 26, 2010
28
1
✟15,161.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Reparative therapy has been proven to be extremely psychologically damaging. In fact, several founders of ex-gay organizations have publically apologized for the damage their organizations have caused. The American Psychological Association strongly warns against them.

And regardless of what you may believe, the APA has also stated that sexual orientation by and large does not change. At least in the sense you're trying to think of it. Homosexuality is not a disease, and therefore cannot be cured (it's also insulting to claim it is a disease). Do some homosexuals end up having families? Yes, but I can guarantee you it's due to 1 of 2 reasons - 1) They are suppressing their feelings to fit in with society or 2) They shifted to the bisexual spectrum and are only catering to their opposite-sex attractions.

There is no documented evidence that anyone has ever gone from a Kinsey scale 6 to a 0. It doesn't happen. Orientation does have some fluidity, so some gays can eventually feel bisexual attractions, however, there is no guarantee that will happen nor is there a "cure" to make it happen.

I never said the word "disease". Sorry if you misunderstood that. I was actually trying to compare the day to day struggle some gays must feel or have felt with that of the day to day struggle of alcoholics.

Also, how do you work this quote thing to make multi-quotes?
 
Upvote 0

Christos Anesti

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2009
3,487
333
Michigan
✟20,114.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The Church hasn't traditionally spoken to the issue of "sexual orientation". It has taught that people should refrain from having sex with the same sex and that sexual relations are appropriate in marriage which is between people of the opposite sex. There is no sin in feeling attractions to people of the same sex though. A person doesn't generally will to have a certain sexual attraction. These drives are usually beyond direct conscious control being partially the results of upbringing, environment, and genetics. Its part of the human condition to be troubled by thoughts and temptations. It's how we respond to them that is important. I know I'm not that great at responding properly to a lot of mine though unfortunately so I'm not pointing my finger here just stating the facts. It's always easy for a person like me who doesn't suffer from temptations regarding sex with the same sex to come in and say "it's wrong" and it's a whole lot more difficult for a person who actually has to deal with the issue first hand to come to that conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

drich0150

Regular Member
Mar 16, 2008
6,407
437
Florida
✟44,834.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The Biblical precedent for marriage is polygamy. It is the most common version taught, and the one that God endorsed most often.

This must discourage you even further, because even with this terrible, terrible socially unacceptable form of marriage, ans yet their still is not a mentioning of marriage that sanctifies a same sex union.:confused:

Why do you think God was willing to sanctify Polygamy and not homosexuality if both were indeed going on in that time? Why would He sanctify such a terrible affront to popular modern human values, and yet leave the well intentioned gay couples to fend for themselves?? Unless you have somehow misrepresented scripture in that homosexuality was indeed considered to be a sin, and that even something looked down upon in todays world as polygamy is still fits the model of marriage better than a same sex couple ever could.
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Site Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,119
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟902,160.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Polycarp1,


Any church that doesn’t find homosexuality a sin is arguably not a church, as the Bible condemns it without question, and the church is the body of believers.

Anyone who supports ‘gay marriage’ or homosexuality has not yet accepted Jesus Christ as the way the truth and the life or the grace of God.

Amen! This is exactly what this boils down to if one uses God and the Holy Bible as the Authority. It isn't a matter of personal opinion, debate, or interpretation of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are so bold and blunt that anyone can understand them. God Decides - not men.

This discussion really involves some who wish to wallow in sin and have God approve of it. This isn't going to happen - regardless of the opinions of men. I agree that any church that approves of or promotes wallowing in sin is NOT a church. We don't do the lost any favor by lying to them.

 
Upvote 0

vl32

Active Member
Aug 26, 2010
28
1
✟15,161.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
It's hard to make a claim about orientation with a teenager. Sexuality is still developing, which makes it rather pointless to label him at a young age.

I think the problem is, kids wouldn't feel like they would have to change to appease the church, if the church stopped bullying gays into believing they are evil and have a disease. Science has quite strongly shown that sexual orientation is largely determined at birth. Even if not 100%, there is a component of sexual orientation that one has no control over. I've not met a single heterosexual person that has claimed they chose to be straight. They just found when they were kids that the opposite-sex is "cute" or "pretty".

The LGBT community, particularly among teens and young adults, has the highest suicide rate of any other group. I don't think the "church" is helping the situation.

I think post modernism has hurt and confused heterosexuals just as much; with some putting off marriage until their 30's or even older for some men as heterosexual men can put off having children much later than women can.

My point is heterosexuals in this post-modern world suffer a lot of hurt and disappointment finding a compatible spiritual relationship these days as most dating heteros find out most just want sex, one night stands on a Saturday night and go to church on Sunday morning. Trying to fit into this post-modernistic world and Christianity is not easy for heteros either, but at least I'm sure we'd agree on thank God for Jesus!

I may go on to join some of the women's groups, so it was nice meeting you.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Olliefranz,
There is absolutely no Scriptural precedent for eating rainbow trout,
No, you have lost the plot. There is no scriptural support for same sex relations so there is no doubt that the scriptural exclusions and condemnations stand uncontested. All the pro-gay argument does is challenge the truth of the Bible with disbelief.


Still, the Bible does assure that God will provide a way of escape from all temptations, which would include this one. So what is the way of escape?
Why keep asking, Jesus Christ tells you. John 8, if you hold onto His teaching you will know the truth and the truth wll set you free.
At the moment you are looking for God to accept your views. If the Son sets you free you will be free indeed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We Christians have a code of conduct which we are to accept:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

We Christians are to shun the acts of the sinful nature, listed in the second paragraph. Whether others around us feel those emotions and/or perform those acts is between them and God, not them and us. But we ourselves are not to see those emotions as acceptable emotions, nor are we to see those acts as acceptable acts.

But we are to accept the fruit of the Spirit, listed in the third paragraph, as the very core of our being as Christians. Our thoughts, our words and our deeds are to reflect the fruit which the Holy Spirit has seen fit to give us. Our actions, and our reactions, are to have these fruits as their root. What we ourselves think, say and do is to have them as their parameters, beyond which we are not to pass. We are to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, rather than attempt to dictate terms to him.

Compassion is not synonymous with sentimentalism, nor is forgiveness synonymous with condonement. Even though we recognize that we all have flaws, we are not to elevate those flaws to the status of justified behavior. Instead, we are to accept that they are signs of the sinful nature, and deal with them as such.
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
I disagree with what is being stated in the OP because I don't think that most "liberally minded people" are trying to get either "God" or "The Whole of Christianity" or both to "accept Homosexuality."

I do think that many "liberally minded people" are fighting for equal rights for homosexuals, including the right to enter into a civil union or civil marriage. I don't know of any among my homosexual friends who are trying to force the church to solemnize a homosexual marriage. I have seen a few such individuals in the national media, but I don't think that they represent the majority of homosexuals or even a significant minority.
## And many of those fighting "for equal rights for homosexuals" do so not because they are anti-Christian, but because they are Christians who are trying to make the values of the Kingdom of God are reality in the world. Those values include righteousness & peace & the promotion of righteousness. Sad to say, there is an element in the witness of Christians that is not righteous, that is opposed to the values of the Kingdom, & one way it comes out is in the preasching of hate against homosexuals.

The Churches ought to be the first place after the home in which gay Christians can find sympathy, support, & recognition that they are children of God regardless of whether they are straight or not. What is so sad, & shameful, is that too often that is exactly what does not happen. It is painful enough for homosexuals to come to terms with their homosexuality - for Christians who come to recognise that they are homosexual by orientation, the discovery can be devastating. And then the Churches add to the pain, when they should be helping people to live through it. :sad: This weighs down those who are already heavy-laden with a further burden; no wonder many leave the Churches & the Christ they speak for, or commit suicide.

Part of the problem IMHO is that gays, including gay Christians, are not seen as individual human beings: they are seen, instead, as case studies - as "sinners", as members of an anonymous group who "measure up" to the description of something found in the Bible that just happens to be condemned. But man is not made for the Bible - the Bible is made for man. Being made by God, & loved by God, takes precedence over everything mere man can be or do - it takes precedence over being gay, & over being condemned for it.

People come to Christ "just as [they are]" - including those who are gay. God foreknew every single person who would either be gay & then, while still being gay, would be converted to Christ; & every single person who, while being Christian, would find he or she was gay. So how can the Churches cast out those whom God does not ? Or don't they believe in salvation by grace alone ? In Romans 8, St. Paul makes no exception for anything - "I am persuaded that nothing can keep us from the love of God in Christ Jesus". So how can being gay do that, even *if* it is a sin ?

Just MO


 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
Archivist,
Well I know people who are in a civil partnership who do not want to force the church to recognise it as marriage, and in that respect I am delighted for them and their civil partnership, as they don’t know Jesus I fail to see what difference it makes. However the government and pro-gay lobbies are determined to force the church to accept same sex unions as marriage
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-to-vote-on-full-marriage-rights-for-gay-couples-2046695.html

So lets not pretend.
## Accept as

  • something to which gays have a civil right, regardless of the POV of the Churches in their teaching on man in society;
or as

  • something which must be given recognition in the worship of the Churches ?
Society has marriage laws - religious bodies have their own marriage laws, which are recognised by the state, though the state does not concern itself with them.

There's a difference between:

  • 1. requiring Catholics to recognise gay unions as good in the law of the land,
&

  • 2. requiring the CC to change its doctrine & practice so that gay Catholics can have their unions recognised by the Church.
The first may be objectionable, but so are many practices & institutions recognised as legal. The second OTOH would violate the rights of conscience, as the CC's doctrine & practice on the matter, however repulsive to many (& many people do find it repulsive) is something it judges that it cannot in conscience change to allow gay Catholics to have their unions blessed & approved by the Church.

Which of these are people working to have accepted ? Both ?
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
## And many of those fighting "for equal rights for homosexuals" do so not because they are anti-Christian, but because they are Christians who are trying to make the values of the Kingdom of God are reality in the world. Those values include righteousness & peace & the promotion of righteousness. Sad to say, there is an element in the witness of Christians that is not righteous, that is opposed to the values of the Kingdom, & one way it comes out is in the preasching of hate against homosexuals.

The Churches ought to be the first place after the home in which gay Christians can find sympathy, support, & recognition that they are children of God regardless of whether they are straight or not. What is so sad, & shameful, is that too often that is exactly what does not happen. It is painful enough for homosexuals to come to terms with their homosexuality - for Christians who come to recognise that they are homosexual by orientation, the discovery can be devastating. And then the Churches add to the pain, when they should be helping people to live through it. :sad: This weighs down those who are already heavy-laden with a further burden; no wonder many leave the Churches & the Christ they speak for, or commit suicide.

Part of the problem IMHO is that gays, including gay Christians, are not seen as individual human beings: they are seen, instead, as case studies - as "sinners", as members of an anonymous group who "measure up" to the description of something found in the Bible that just happens to be condemned. But man is not made for the Bible - the Bible is made for man. Being made by God, & loved by God, takes precedence over everything mere man can be or do - it takes precedence over being gay, & over being condemned for it.

People come to Christ "just as [they are]" - including those who are gay. God foreknew every single person who would either be gay & then, while still being gay, would be converted to Christ; & every single person who, while being Christian, would find he or she was gay. So how can the Churches cast out those whom God does not ? Or don't they believe in salvation by grace alone ? In Romans 8, St. Paul makes no exception for anything - "I am persuaded that nothing can keep us from the love of God in Christ Jesus". So how can being gay do that, even *if* it is a sin ?

Just MO



This post deserves to be read and re-read by every Christian engaged in the debate, on either side. Every one of you knows his or her own secret sin, how hard it was to deal with on your own, how freeing it was to be in Christ and have that burden lifted. And to know the welcoming love of Jesus and of those who follow Him.

Now, even supposing that the anti-gays are right about homosexuality as chosen sexual sin -- and best evidence says they are not -- you have barred the door to the churches to anyone who admits to being gay. You have decided to judge their sins on your opinion of what certain passages of Scripture mean -- admittedly a likely reason from their plain text taken in isolation and not in context, but still your interpretation. You have in general refused to differentiate between orientation and act. You have played semantic games with other people's legal rights and more, with their immortal souls.

Do not think for a minute that a merciful but just God will find you guiltless. He warned as much, in the parables. If you choose to excuse yourselves, not to listen and repent, you have only yourselves to blame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightHorseman
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
To my well meaning brothers,

The reason why there is so much room for debate and argument in most of your positions of Homosexuality is because you are trying to preach from a position of authority and personally back righteousness. All of which is deeply founded in a denominationally specific take on scripture. These arguments do not work,
they only spawn rebuttals. Because they have been studied and broken down many times over. They will not work because there has been enough doubt built into the rebuttals to side track the debate. They don't need to win the argument, they only need to bog it down. so I ask why not try something else? Why not instead of addressing Homosexuality as a segregated sin, address it as any other sin. Is it not good enough that unrepentant homosexuality will receive the same hell as if we treated it as any other sin?

Instead of holding to the pride and righteousness that accompanies one when he calls another to a public repentance, why not simple and humbly show the sin for what it is. Do not elevate yourself or your sins above your potential homosexual brothers. Remove the idea that you are in the right, and are going to show those, in the wrong how to become right. There is no Right and Wrong. There is only wrong, and redeemed wrong doers. No one is good or right, only forgiven. Being forgiven is not the same as have never chosen to be outside the will of God. Forgiven is having the times you have indeed Chosen to be outside of God's will wiped clean. Acknowledging this Give Glory to God and his grace, rather than it being a testament to one's own self righteousness. Those outside of the church see this and label it hypocrisy. They do not know the gift and glory of salvation through redemption because we tend to only represent our own versions of righteousness. This righteousness can been seen through a mile away. This is what fuels the need less controversies. It is not spite for God. It is spite for what has been labeled Christian Hypocrisy.

If we approach those who do not yet seek forgiveness as a fellow seeker, rather than aperson who commands authority over another, less can be said in the way of argument. As it is there are those here who only wish to argue, and have devoted themselves, to all of the verses and arguments that people of church bring to speak against what they hold dear.

So let go of the need to segregate this sin or hold it over people as if it were a greater sin than the gossip or lies we are all guilty of. Simply establish the sinful nature of this act by directly quoting scripture. or if they refuse to accept what the bible openly says, then break homosexuality down to it's base components. (Sex outside of an unsantified marriage.) Make it a simple sin, that one needs to find repentance for. Show them that you sin and you need repentance too.

This will quickly separate those who argue just to argue, and those who seek God's truth. Shake the dust from your feet and leave those who look to justify their actions. rather, look to those who want to find forgiveness and show them the way.

The Sin of Homosexuality, like the arguments against it, is first about Pride. If you wish to leave a legacy of endless debate, and foolish controversy, then pick up your pride and your bible and just see how God honors your efforts. If you can first humble yourselves to God and ask the Spirit to teach you as He has taught others to speak to those who are in this sin, not to win debates, but to win over lost souls (Like you were) I promise you will see a different result in how God responds to your efforts.
## While not agreeing with everything you've said, I want to say "Thank-you" for a very gracious post. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
Jase,
Look, if serveral passages can come to mean the opposite of what they say by 'interpretation' the nothing anything in the Bible or anything anyone writes would necessarily mean what it says. This 'intepretation' tactic is nonsense.
## So when it "rains cats and dogs", how do you avoid being knocked out by all those cats and dogs raining down from the clouds :)?

Isaiah 55:12

  • "For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."
1 Chronicles 16:33

  • Then the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the LORD; For He is coming to judge the earth.

Isaiah 44:23

  • Shout for joy, O heavens, for the LORD has done it! Shout joyfully, you lower parts of the earth; Break forth into a shout of joy, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it; For the LORD has redeemed Jacob And in Israel He shows forth His glory.
Isaiah 49:13

  • Shout for joy, O heavens! And rejoice, O earth! Break forth into joyful shouting, O mountains! For the LORD has comforted His people And will have compassion on His afflicted.
Isaiah 51:11

  • So the ransomed of the LORD will return And come with joyful shouting to Zion, And everlasting joy will be on their heads. They will obtain gladness and joy, And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

What the dictionary definition of words in verses means, is not necessarily the same as their meaning in their context.

And, the dictionary meaning of the word "dog" is no guide whatever as to how that word is being used: "Raining cats and dogs" is a vivid way of saying "it's raining very heavily" - it's not a statement about the ability of those animals to fall down from the sky. The word "dog" does not change meaning - the change is in the function that the word performs, when used in that phrase.

This is not a way of dodging the meaning of the texts - it's an attempt to avoid that very thing.

The "interpretation tactic" is a recognition that words & language operate in very various ways. For instance, the phrase:

  • John is a liar
could occur in a short story, a religious pamphlet, a biography, a complaint about a child, or a hundred other contexts. The identity of the words in all cases would not guarantee that the phrase would have the same sense in all cases; that would depend on the intentions of the various speakers, & on the type of literature in which the words appeared.

Identity of linguistic form is no guide to whether or not a statement is an assertion of fact: "Hobbits live in hobbit-holes" states what in its own context is a fact. So does "The Grinch stole Christmas"; & so does "This thread is getting longer & longer". Only the last is true of the "Real World".

When did WW2 begin ? That depends:

  • September 1 1939 - for Poland
  • September 3 1939 - for the UK
  • December 1941 - for the USA
The answer depends on which country is being asked about. All three are correct, because each of the three countries began to be involved on a different date. A writer who in 5,000 AD who should condemn two of the answers as wrong, will be wrong; & might do so because the facts of the matter are lost by then. Enquiring into the meaning of the Bible is in something of the same condition.

People differ about the meaning of the Bible, including the "clobber passages", not because they are (OTOH) bigots, or are (OTO) God-hating beasts, but because there are serious & honest reasons - not excuses, but reasons - to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AngelusSax
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
KCKID,
Let me be frank. The Bible passages quoted as in post #237, are quoted. They are quoted to show what the Bible says. If they dont mean what they say who could tell anything about what the Bible says!!!
Not accepting they mean what they say in context is disbelief. In context there is no question that these passages condemn same sex relations, there are dozens which countenance man/woman marriage only.
I dont see the point in continuing your argument when all the majority of Christians will do is rightly reject it as continued and determined disbelief.
## FWIW, this:

Jude 1:6-10 KJV And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

probably refers to a passage in 1 Enoch. The fallen angels sinned, not by same sex acts, but by lusting after the "daughters of men" (among other things - Gen. 6:1-4 is at the bottom of the story). Verse 6 is a very good description of how they are presented at one point.

It would be natural enough for someone writing about "angelic" lust for women, to write about an attempted act against "angels" by men, though this would not mean the two sins had to be the same kind of sin.
 
Upvote 0

Hairy Tic

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2005
1,574
71
✟2,144.00
Faith
Catholic
Actually, I can probably find you one without much effort. But then, I live about 20 miles from a major Southern Baptist Convention seminary (inerrantist/literalist/YEC)

:)
## But...do they accept the Divine inspiration of the KJV, as God's preserved Word (as per Psalm 12:1,2) & the only true Bible version :):):) ?
 
Upvote 0

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2004
8,430
426
Atlanta, GA.
✟12,748.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The Biblical precedent for marriage is polygamy. It is the most common version taught, and the one that God endorsed most often.

It is not. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.

The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one.

God never condoned polygamy but like divorce He allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience.

Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

onemorequestion

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2010
1,463
44
✟1,978.00
Faith
Non-Denom
This post deserves to be read and re-read by every Christian engaged in the debate, on either side.

I have. And it does not justify gay life to be celebrated in the Church in any way. All it does it try to sell it via emotionalism and the excusing away of sin.

Every one of you knows his or her own secret sin, how hard it was to deal with on your own, how freeing it was to be in Christ and have that burden lifted.

Hmm, homosexuality seems a very declared sin Polycarp1. In fact, paraded about as it were.


And to know the welcoming love of Jesus and of those who follow Him
.

That can only come from Christians holding to the truth, not discarding it for a watered down version of the Gospel.

Now, even supposing that the anti-gays are right about homosexuality as chosen sexual sin -- and best evidence says they are not -- you have barred the door to the churches to anyone who admits to being gay.

It has been conclusively proven that the "anti-gay" side has laid out their facts against supporting gay rights perfectly. The "pro-gay" encourging of sin side, has been shown vapid every time it is dismantled by the orthodox view on Christian holiness. There is no evidence that homosexuality is to be celebrated in any Christian way.

No one is barring anyone from the doors of Churches anywhere on earth. No more than they are people that carry pron mags into a Church.

You have decided to judge their sins on your opinion of what certain passages of Scripture mean -- admittedly a likely reason from their plain text taken in isolation and not in context, but still your interpretation.

Liberalism is just an opinion based strictly on a liberal worldview. In fact, it simply warps scripture to fit secular humanism and progressive political views in every case the pro-gay side is trumpeted.

You have in general refused to differentiate between orientation and act.

Not a good accusation against the brthren Polycarp1. A very unsound accusation. If we encourage homosexuality on any level, as you can see . . . the behavior is then made a decent act and equalted to Christian holiness. Contending for the faith against the pro-gay forces aligned to attack the Church without cease, in so many disguises, is something every Christian should do.

You have played semantic games with other people's legal rights and more, with their immortal souls.

You should be banned for making such a horrifying charge. LGBT culture and activism is squarely non Christians and in some cases directly anti-Christian.

Do not think for a minute that a merciful but just God will find you guiltless.

Who are you to speak for God?

He warned as much, in the parables. If you choose to excuse yourselves, not to listen and repent, you have only yourselves to blame.

Prove just one place in the Bible that declares gay sex and homosexuality is to be celebarted in the Church????

Your false charges against good and decent Christians, are so inappropriate as to be starggering that they are allowed to exist on this website.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.