Dogbean's long awaited official stance on gay marriage and homosexuality

[OllieFranz]

I am well aware of the underlying Greek.

If you were aware that RSV is a dynamic translation and knew the underlying Greek, then why did you insist on the phrase "unnatural lust"? Unless it was as a deliberate deception intended to falsely connect this verse to Romans 1:26-27?

Homoeroticism is condemned even if you translate it "literally" as "different flesh."

Except that you have not explained away the fact that the Book of Jubilees, which you were the first to bring up, and which both Jude and Peter used as a reference in their parallel letters, taught that the people of Sodom knew that the visitors were angels, and wanted them, not for themselves, but for their wives. Angels are different flesh from humans.

Neither have you explained why no literature older than 2nd century BC connects Sodom with sexual immorality of any kind, and only sporadically thereafter, until Clement and Augustine.

 

[Brennin]

If you were aware that RSV is a dynamic translation and knew the underlying Greek, then why did you insist on the phrase "unnatural lust"? Unless it was as a deliberate deception intended to falsely connect this verse to Romans 1:26-27?

Please. The NRSV is my translation of choice and that is why I cited it.

 

[Brennin]

Except that you have not explained away the fact that the Book of Jubilees, which you were the first to bring up, and which both Jude and Peter used as a reference in their parallel letters, taught that the people of Sodom knew that the visitors were angels, and wanted them, not for themselves, but for their wives. Angels are different flesh from humans.

Neither have you explained why no literature older than 2nd century BC connects Sodom with sexual immorality of any kind, and only sporadically thereafter, until Clement and Augustine.

Cite the specific language of Jubilees. Also, as I have stated before, lusting specifically after the angels could not be the sin of Sodom since A) God resolved to flatten Sodom before the angels arrived and B) four cities in the plain were destroyed for the same reason and it was not because the inhabitants of each city attempted to rape angelic tourists.

Read that as many times as it takes; I want to be spared further nonsense.

 

[Brennin]

Jubilees

And in this month the Lord executed his judgments on Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Zeboim, and all the region of the Jordan, and He burned them with fire and brimstone, and destroyed them until this day, even as [lo] I have declared unto thee all their works, that they are wicked and sinners exceedingly, and that they defile themselves and commit fornication in their flesh, and work uncleanness on the earth.
And, in like manner, God will execute judgment on the places where they have done according to
the uncleanness of the Sodomites, like unto the judgment of Sodom.

...


And he [Abraham] told them of the judgment of the giants, and the judgment of the Sodomites, how they had been judged on account of their wickedness, and had died on account of their fornication, and uncleanness, and mutual corruption through fornication.

'And guard yourselves from all fornication and uncleanness,
And from all pollution of sin,

Lest ye make our name a curse,
And your whole life a hissing,

And all your sons to be destroyed by the sword,
And ye become accursed like Sodom,
And all your remnant as the sons of Gomorrah.

Two points here:

1. I see nothing about the men of Sodom wanting the angels for their wives.

2. The Nephilim (i.e., "giants" in this book) are distinguished from the Sodomites.

 

[Brennin]

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

And the men of Sedom were depraved in their wealth one with another, and they sinned in their bodies; they sinned with open nakedness, and the shedding of innocent blood, and practised strange worship, and rebelled greatly against the name of the Lord.

Targum Onkelos

And the men of Sedom were wicked in their riches, and guilty in their bodies before the Lord greatly.

 

[Dogbean]

Yet when two people read the Bible, and come up with conflicting interpretations, they can't both be right, huh? So, how do you know which of us, if either of us, are getting the good oil from the HG?

The way I know is by seeing which interpretation makes more sense when compared to the whole of Scripture and the character and attributes of God. And that happens to be mine.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, it is the correct exegesis. Philo, Josephus, the Book of Jubilees and other ancient sources agree that rampant homosexuality was found in Sodom, your laughably absurd claim that it was a 6th century political fabrication notwithstanding.

I suggest quitting while you are behind.

Tell you what... you find an example of "sodomite" used to refer to homosexuals pre 500AD and I will happily apologise and retract my previous statements.

I'll wait, but shan't hold my breath...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The way I know is by seeing which interpretation makes more sense when compared to the whole of Scripture and the character and attributes of God. And that happens to be mine.

Really? How do you square illogical bigotry and condemnation of a harmless minority with Christ's commands to love one another, accept everyone regardless, not to judge others, and generally live and let live?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

And the men of Sedom were depraved in their wealth one with another, and they sinned in their bodies; they sinned with open nakedness, and the shedding of innocent blood, and practised strange worship, and rebelled greatly against the name of the Lord.

Targum Onkelos

And the men of Sedom were wicked in their riches, and guilty in their bodies before the Lord greatly.

Still nothing that looks like "rampant homosexuality" anywhere yet?

 

[Dogbean]

Really? How do you square illogical bigotry and condemnation of a harmless minority with Christ's commands to love one another, accept everyone regardless, not to judge others, and generally live and let live?

EP2, the root of our disagreement is in our interpretations of the passages that condemn homosexuality. If you by the grace of God came to the agreement that homosexual acts are sinful, then you would see my viewpoint, you would see that it's a sin, and then you would see that I'm not condemning a minority but merely pointing out your sin so you can clean your life up. But since you refuse to accept that homosexual acts are sin, you perceive my posts as condemning a minority. And remember, it's not me that is speaking but the Word of God. Everything I have said is supported by Scripture, so it is God who condemns. If you have a problem with that, it's not my message, but God's.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

EP2, the root of our disagreement is in our interpretations of the passages that condemn homosexuality. If you by the grace of God came to the agreement that homosexual acts are sinful, then you would see my viewpoint, you would see that it's a sin, and then you would see that I'm not condemning a minority but merely pointing out your sin so you can clean your life up. But since you refuse to accept that homosexual acts are sin, you perceive my posts as condemning a minority. And remember, it's not me that is speaking but the Word of God. Everything I have said is supported by Scripture, so it is God who condemns. If you have a problem with that, it's not my message, but God's.

Thats a right pretty speech your honour... but it bypasses my actual question...

Why would God, who, through Christ, commands us to be loving, accepting, and non judgemental, want to condemn a harmnless minority, and encourage people like you to make life difficult for people like me?

 

[Dogbean]

Thats a right pretty speech your honour... but it bypasses my actual question...

Why would God, who, through Christ, commands us to be loving, accepting, and non judgemental, want to condemn a harmnless minority, and encourage people like you to make life difficult for people like me?

If I'm making your life difficult I apologize. That is not my intent. May I point out that you are entering this forum and choosing to participate, just like myself. At any time you can walk away and never hear my words again. The choice is yours how difficult your life is.

God condemns homosexuality as a sin. A sin no worse than any other sin, because sin is sin. It's not that God is condemning the homosexual community. It is that God condemns sin, of which homosexuality happens to be one, by his decree. So God condemns sinners, and not merely the homosexual community. If you don't like that, I seriously suggest you earnestly seek God in prayer about it; ask him to enlighten you through the Holy Spirit. Go at it with an attitude of pleasing Him, and not seeking ways to justify what you want.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Jase, KCKID, EnemyPartyII.
You have all made the suggestion that Paul isn’t Jesus.
First of all Matthew Mark Luke and John who wrote the gospels are not Jesus either, they wrote what they heard and what was heard by the community. Paul received his gospel from the risen Lord. (Gal 1) But in fact most believe Luke never witnessed Jesus first hand, whereas Paul did. So your argument, which you use frequently is pointless. So essentially we know Jesus did speak against same sex practice, that’s why I quoted Romans 1.

The question for you guys is how do you believe the statements of faith?
We worship one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Isaiah 44:6-8; Exodus 3:15). God is three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who share one essence--the Trinity (John 6:27; John 1:1, 14; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 1:2-3).

Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the incarnate second person of the Holy Trinity, fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14), by the Power of the Holy Spirit was born of a Virgin (Luke 1:35) and existed before all time begotten of God the Father (John 1:2; John 1:18). He was crucified for our sins, died, was buried, resurrected on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) and is seated at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah (John 1:49; Matthew 16:16). His coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament (Acts 3:18-23). He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead (Acts 10:42) and His Kingdom will have no end (2 Peter 1:11).

And the Nicene Creed..
I believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
One God (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Creator of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible; (Colossians 1: 15-16) and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God (Matthew 14: 33; 16: 16)
begotten (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
begotten of the Father before all ages; (John 1: 2)
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5)
of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)
through Whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us and for our salvation (I Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from the heavens ((John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
Crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; I Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 1: 14)
He suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried; (Luke 23: 53; I Corinthians 15: 4)
Rising on the third day according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1; 1 Cor. 15: 4)
And ascending into the heavens, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
He is seated at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
And coming again in glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and dead, (Acts 10: 42; 2 I Timothy 4: 1)
His kingodom shall have no end; (2 Peter 1: 11)
And in the holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord (Acts 5: 3-4)
the Giver of life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father, (John 15: 26)
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets; (I Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5, 13)
In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (I Peter 2: 5, 9)
catholic (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church; (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
I expect the resurrection of the dead; (John 11: 24; I Cor. 15: 12-49)
And the life of the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)
Amen. (Psalm 106:48)

So we know what Jesus said from His apostles teaching.
I can’t really debate with you about what the Bible says if you don’t believe the Bible.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To follow up, Dogbean is correct. A couple of days ago a poster claimed that a Chirstian has to believe the Bible, otherwise the statements of faith which are take from the Bible. The statements of faith are from the Biblical testimony of who Jesus Christ said He is and what He taught. We can indeed take that testimony and interpret it, but we cant do so if some of you refuse to take the testimony in the first place without saying it is already interpreted.
The great commission of Jesus Christ to His disciples is to tell of everything He said, not what Christians think about what He said.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If I'm making your life difficult I apologize. That is not my intent. May I point out that you are entering this forum and choosing to participate, just like myself. At any time you can walk away and never hear my words again. The choice is yours how difficult your life is.

I don't mean that your words in this forum make my life difficult, we are, as you point out, both totally voluntary participants who can walk away at any time. I mean my ACTUAL life, as in my day to day, you know... life. You, by implication, and people like you, are making my real world, actual life difficult, and through no choice of my own, believe me.

God condemns homosexuality as a sin. A sin no worse than any other sin, because sin is sin. It's not that God is condemning the homosexual community. It is that God condemns sin, of which homosexuality happens to be one, by his decree. So God condemns sinners, and not merely the homosexual community. If you don't like that, I seriously suggest you earnestly seek God in prayer about it; ask him to enlighten you through the Holy Spirit. Go at it with an attitude of pleasing Him, and not seeking ways to justify what you want.

Let me try, once again, to explain why I don't believe God condemns homosexuality...STOP! No, don't quote the same old tired Bible verses at me again, and actually listen to what I have to say...

When "God" tells us something is sin, it is because the sin is harmful to non consenting third parties. Every single time, with one exception... homosexuality.

I DON'T believe that God makes up arbitrary rules for us to follow... I believe that sin occurs when we harm others without their consent, whether our actual act is listed as a sin or not, and further, if an act is listed as a sin but DOESN'T harm anyone... then it isn't ACTUALLY a sin.

Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone thus its not a sin.

Now why, I hear you ask, was it ever written down as a sin? Well, lets look at that, where is homosexuality possibly condemned? Leviticus. Same book that condemns eating shellfish and pork, and has unusually strict rules about dealing with mouldy curtains. Now think about the context in which it was written, in a pre-refrigeration, semi nomadic desert culture, not eating pork is a SURVIVAL ISSUE, because its easy to catch a harmful disease from inadequately cured pork. Homosexuality to, can be seen as a survivla issue, because be fruitful and multiply isn't a nice blessing, its a survival imperative. But we don't live in that sort of society any more, and for the same reason that its now OK to eat pork (its not going to harm anyone) its also OK to allow homosexuals into a society (i.e. they are not a threat to that society's ongoing existance)

Make sense?

Unless you can explain to me specifically why God would have a problem with homosexuality, I don't buy that its a sin. And no, "The Bible SEZ!" does not constitute a reason why God would have a problem with it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Dogbean,
Sorry about interrupting your response and the post addressed to you but all this has been explained to EnemypartyII many times before. Its just one big circular error.

The same old Bible verses are the same old Bible verses which condemn homosexual practice, I cant see why there is a problem with them being the same old Bible verses.

When "God" tells us something is sin, it is because the sin is harmful to non consenting third parties. Every single time, with one exception... homosexuality.

EnemyPartyII has been shown 1 Corinthians 6
“18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”
Not only does EnemyPartyII not believe the same old Biblcal verses which condemn same sex practice, she does seem to believe the ones that tell us sexual sins are a violation of ones own body. EnemyPartyII has her own ideas about what is harmful contrary to God’s.

Now why, I hear you ask, was it ever written down as a sin?

EnemyPartyII is hearing voices, we don’t ask such things.

Well, lets look at that, where is homosexuality possibly condemned? Leviticus. Same book that condemns eating shellfish and pork, and has unusually strict rules about dealing with mouldy curtains.

Leviticus 18 ..a man must not lie with another man as with a woman can only be condemning homosexuality, it cant be condemning heterosexuality. Reference to eating shellfish is back to not understanding the law and the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, or that Lev 19 says love ones neighbour as oneself which is in the same book.

Unless you can explain to me specifically why God would have a problem with homosexuality, I don't buy that its a sin. And no, "The Bible SEZ!" does not constitute a reason why God would have a problem with it.

If EnemyPartyII knew the Bible is the word of God she could go straight to believing the Bible to find out what God has explained, as she doesn’t she asks us and then rejects the word of God we post.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

EnemyPartyII is hearing voices, we don’t ask such things.

Critical thinking rational people who don't swallow lines from authority without question ask such things. Maybe you should try it?

 

[OllieFranz]

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

And the men of Sedom were depraved in their wealth one with another, and they sinned in their bodies; they sinned with open nakedness, and the shedding of innocent blood, and practised strange worship, and rebelled greatly against the name of the Lord.

Targum Onkelos

And the men of Sedom were wicked in their riches, and guilty in their bodies before the Lord greatly.

First, neither of these proclaims that sexual immorality held a special place among the sins of the men of Sodom.

Second, neither identifies the sexual immorality as homosexuality. In fact the Targum Onkelos does not even specify that the guilt "in their bodies" is the result of sexual sin .

Third, you still have not produced any writing associating Sodom with sexual immorality that is older than the 2nd century BC.

 

[Brennin]

First, neither of these proclaims that sexual immorality held a special place among the sins of the men of Sodom.

Second, neither identifies the sexual immorality as homosexuality. In fact the Targum Onkelos does not even specify that the guilt "in their bodies" is the result of sexual sin .

Third, you still have not produced any writing associating Sodom with sexual immorality that is older than the 2nd century BC.

Your apparent inability to perceive the obvious is not my problem. Also, you have not produced any writing before the 6th century associating Sodom with inhospitality. Abraham is usually dated to 2000 BCE. The 6th century before Christ is long after 2000 BCE.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Your apparent inability to perceive the obvious is not my problem. Also, you have not produced any writing before the 6th century associating Sodom with inhospitality. Abraham is usually dated to 2000 BCE. The 6th century before Christ is long after 2000 BCE.

Have you come up with an example pre 500 AD of "Sodomite" being used as a term to refer to homosexuals?