A re-examination of nothing (2)

[EnemyPartyII]

That's unfortunate that you see it that way. I keep coming back to reading passages in context and OT passages in light of NT understanding. So, while the Levitical law was literal for those under it, we are not, therefore it is not literally applicable to us.

Jesus gave us 'Love the Lord your God with all your being' and 'Love on another.' To comply with the first we need to embrace His characteristics, chief among those is 'be holy as I am holy.' That excludes sin. Now, if something was detailed as a sin under the law, it is still a sin. Our accountability for that sin is now to Jesus and not to the earthly preisthood.

That's the kind of contextual basis I refer to for the understanding of scripture. Passages cannot be read in isolation, that is where confusion comes from.

If the Levitical law is no longer applicable to us... quit condemning homosexuals.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Read for comprehension please.

Thats not saying the Big Bang was creation from nothing, as you initially claimed, rather, this is talking about Hawking energy, sometimes also known as "vacuum energy", and the theory that this is responsible for driving the Hubble constant.

But please, feel free to keep digging.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If David was homosexual, the sin would have been attributed to him, and he would have had to pay for it with his life, and never been made king of Israel! For goodness sakes! God chose him because he was an exceptional man, and a man after God's own heart. He repented of his sin, and was an upright man in all his ways. Homosexuality was not one of his problems!

Wrong. David was a homosexual, and the fact that he was made King of Israel despite this proves its not a sin.

 

[BreadAlone]

A. Jonathon and David.

We've been over this. Haha is all I have to say. Any respectable historian would tell you how such a relationship just did not exist in Isreali society.

B. Is it your contention that anything the Bible doesn't mention, or hold in high regard, is somehow condemned?What do I win if I show you an encyclopaedia source that says otherwise?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

I'm afraid I don't get how exactly this article prooves anything?

Anyways..homosexuality is explicitly condemned in both the Old and New Testament eras.

But never, you'll note, condemned for their polygamy.

Have you ever read the Psalms? They don't seem like the writings of a perfect man..moreso of one caught in sin.

So again, I'll point out that the Bible never defines marriage as ONLY being between one man and one woman.Check the context of the passage your citing? Whats the reason *smiles sweetly* are they defining marriage there? um, no... no they aren't.

Like I said..you don't have to condone homosexual marriage when homosexuality is explicitly condemned. See Leviticus (for Old Testament Era) and Romans (for New Testament Era) regarding more details.

I'm big on civil discussion. Sadly, some of our fellow Christians aren't

(I'm sorry if you've been over most of this in the 10 or so pages I missed..that's what I get for having to be at school..)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We've been over this. Haha is all I have to say. Any respectable historian would tell you how such a relationship just did not exist in Isreali society.

You seem remarkably quick to discard contrary points of view without giving them due consideration.

I'm afraid I don't get how exactly this article prooves anything?

You said, to the effect that, "homosexual marriage wasn't even a concept then"... the cited article proves otherwise.

Anyways..homosexuality is explicitly condemned in both the Old and New Testament eras.

No its not. Homosexual rape and homosexual temple prostitution are condemned explicitly in the Old and New testaments, but homosexual relationships are not.

Have you ever read the Psalms? They don't seem like the writings of a perfect man..moreso of one caught in sin.

Good.

So... where does the Bible condemn polygamy?

Like I said..you don't have to condone homosexual marriage when homosexuality is explicitly condemned. See Leviticus (for Old Testament Era) and Romans (for New Testament Era) regarding more details.

See above. The Bible doesn't say what you've been told it says.

(I'm sorry if you've been over most of this in the 10 or so pages I missed..that's what I get for having to be at school..)

No worries, I spend 6 hours a day infront of a computer at work, this fills in my time between scans and analysis

 

[BreadAlone]

You seem remarkably quick to discard contrary points of view without giving them due consideration.

Ask any respectable UNBIASED historian..they'll disagree with your assertion till the cows come home..

You said, to the effect that, "homosexual marriage wasn't even a concept then"... the cited article proves otherwise.

Your article proved the SECULAR world had, in some cericumstance, a concept of homosexual marriage (and actually the first one wasn't till after Christ's earthly ministry.) There's no record of homosexual marriage BC..and even if there were, there was none in ISREAL..

No its not. Homosexual rape and homosexual temple prostitution are condemned explicitly in the Old and New testaments, but homosexual relationships are not.Good.

Wrong. The Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination.

And as for the NT:


Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

So... where does the Bible condemn polygamy?

From this article:

The clearest evidence that monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.
Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Eph. 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy — Jesus will not have multiple brides.
The 10th Commandment ‘… You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife [singular] …’ (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Tim. 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: ‘each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.’ Paul goes on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.

````

The article also says to note the godly examples (such as Isaac and Rebekah) and to note that the polygamists (David and Solomon) didn't reap good benefits from those decisions.

The article has more good stuff too.

The Bible doesn't say what you've been told it says.No worries,

Or maybe the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say?

If the Bible truely didn't condemn homosexuality, I wouldn't press the issue.

I spend 6 hours a day infront of a computer at work, this fills in my time between scans and analysis

 

[Brennin]

Thats not saying the Big Bang was creation from nothing, as you initially claimed, rather, this is talking about Hawking energy, sometimes also known as "vacuum energy", and the theory that this is responsible for driving the Hubble constant.

But please, feel free to keep digging.

You do not know what you are talking about; that much is obvious. Again, "literally nothing" means just that.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ask any respectable UNBIASED historian..they'll disagree with your assertion till the cows come home..

Is your definition of "unbiased" anyone who already agrees with you?

Your article proved the SECULAR world had, in some cericumstance, a concept of homosexual marriage (and actually the first one wasn't till after Christ's earthly ministry.) There's no record of homosexual marriage BC..and even if there were, there was none in ISREAL..

Need a hand shifting those goal posts?

Wrong. The Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination.

And as for the NT:


Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Your interpretations are incorrectt. They don't mean what you've been told they mean. Tranlation of the original texts does not say this.

The clearest evidence that monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.
Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Eph. 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy — Jesus will not have multiple brides.
The 10th Commandment ‘… You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife [singular] …’ (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Tim. 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: ‘each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.’ Paul goes on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.

If Jesus isn't going to have multiple brides, then all us brides of Christ wanna bes are in trouble, huh?

Again, your cited passages are normative, not proscriptive.

Or maybe the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say?

If the Bible truely didn't condemn homosexuality, I wouldn't press the issue.

Can you suggest an impartial way to objectively determine who'd translation is more accurate?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dude... they're talking about universal expansion constants and energy densities... not Ex Nihilo creation as part of the Point Singularity, you are totally barking up the wrong tree.

If you can't even be bothered to read the sources you cite, this seems kinda silly.

 

[BreadAlone]

Is your definition of "unbiased" anyone who already agrees with you?

No..someone who neither agrees with me nor you.

Need a hand shifting those goal posts?

Your interpretations are incorrectt. They don't mean what you've been told they mean. Tranlation of the original texts does not say this.

Where is your proof of this? Even your liberal buddies admit it's hard to manipulate this verse to the homosexual agenda.

If Jesus isn't going to have multiple brides, then all us brides of Christ wanna bes are in trouble, huh?

The Church is the bride of Christ. There is only one true church.

Again, your cited passages are normative, not proscriptive.Can you suggest an impartial way to objectively determine who'd translation is more accurate?

Ask the opinion of non-Christian, unbiased translators and historians. See who they agree with. (Here's a hint..it's not your interpretation. )

 

[Brennin]

Dude... they're talking about universal expansion constants and energy densities... not Ex Nihilo creation as part of the Point Singularity, you are totally barking up the wrong tree.

If you can't even be bothered to read the sources you cite, this seems kinda silly.

Your inability to accept the language physicists employ is noted. Cosmic inflation is consistent with creatio ex nihilo. The violation of energy conservation is consistent with creatio ex nihilo. That is why physicists use the phrase "out of (literally) nothing."

 

[ChaliceThunder]

We've been over this. Haha is all I have to say. Any respectable historian would tell you how such a relationship just did not exist in Isreali society.

Dear and charitable friend ~
If it did not exist, then we can safely assume that the scriptures were indeed NOT talking about gay relationships, may we not?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Where is your proof of this? Even your liberal buddies admit it's hard to manipulate this verse to the homosexual agenda.

liberal buddies?

Well aany way, here's support for my claim. http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html

The Church is the bride of Christ. There is only one true church.

Of the 38,000 Christian denominations, who's nailed it perfectly?

Ask the opinion of non-Christian, unbiased translators and historians. See who they agree with. (Here's a hint..it's not your interpretation. )

Really? can you back up YOUR claim?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That isn't what you initially said... you said the Big Bang was an example of Ex nihilo creation, and cited those 4 articles as evidence of your claim.

They have nothing to do with the Big Bang point singularity.

Now, if you want to claim that these articles are claiming ex-nihilo creation occuring today, thats fine... of course, that has little similarity to Genesis, (which was the whole point of the discussion) now does it?

 

[Brennin]

That isn't what you initially said... you said the Big Bang was an example of Ex nihilo creation, and cited those 4 articles as evidence of your claim.

They have nothing to do with the Big Bang point singularity.

Now, if you want to claim that these articles are claiming ex-nihilo creation occuring today, thats fine... of course, that has little similarity to Genesis, (which was the whole point of the discussion) now does it?

I still claim the Big Bang is consistent with creatio ex nihilo. I don't know what thread you are reading.

 

[davedjy]

Yep! It is from active and filthy imaginations. My hero, David, a servant of God, debased! I can hardly stand it!

A relationship with another human being that happens to be the same gender is not "debased" in the least. Your hero, "David, a servant of God" did debased things things like committing adultery, and having Basheba's husband killed (Uriah), so he could take her as his wife.


2 Samuel 12:8-10;

I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I still claim the Big Bang is consistent with creatio ex nihilo. I don't know what thread you are reading.

Well you can claim that all you like, but no physicist or cosmologist agrees with you.

No one claims the Big Bang is an example of ex nihilo creation, which is what your initial claim was.

 

[BreadAlone]

liberal buddies?

Sorry, I meant that it's one of the hardest passages to manipulate.

Of the 38,000 Christian denominations, who's nailed it perfectly?

Umm..NO one..the one true church consists of those who have saving faith in Christ Jesus the Lord.

Really? can you back up YOUR claim?

Since you like good 'ol wikipedia so much (so do I), let's go there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

Make sure to scroll down to the Romans section. The only people who agree with your interpretation are a small minority with the liberal, homosexual agenda.

 

[Floatingaxe]

A relationship with another human being that happens to be the same gender is not "debased" in the least. Your hero, "David, a servant of God" did debased things things like committing adultery, and having Basheba's husband killed (Uriah), so he could take her as his wife.

For which he sorely grieved his sin, repented and turned from his wickedness---just as we all need to do. And God said there was no grwater king in Israel, because his heart was turned toward the Lord. Greatness comes from a soft heart toward God, a readiness to repent and submit completely to all His ways.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

For which he sorely grieved his sin, repented and turned from his wickedness---just as we all need to do. And God said there was no grwater king in Israel, because his heart was turned toward the Lord. Greatness comes from a soft heart toward God, a readiness to repent and submit to all His ways.

The fact that he didn't repent of his homosexuality proves that wasn't a sin... or at the very least, he didn't consider it a sin.