So, recruit me

[SallyNow]

To EnemyPartyII
Sorry my friend but I am unable to communicate with you

It seems that EnemyPartyII has been willing to read your posts and respond to them with intelligent, thoughtful responses.

How can it not be? Jesus quotes plenty of it, He spoke the words of the Father.
Do you believe God has spoken to humans at all? If so where, when and how?

Do you believe the mustard tree is the smallest seed that grows into the biggest tree?

Jesus was the Son of God, spoke the words of the Father and quoted plenty of OT scripture so how can some of the Bible, the words of God recorded in the Bible, not be the words of God?

Because inspired humans wrote the OT down over centurie and many of the events were first transmitted through oral storytelling before being written down.

Also, there's that whole thing about Jesus fulfilling the Old Testement.

But your views are not Christian in my opinion as Christians believe the Bible is the word of God.

That's a Bible worshipper.

A Christian is someone who believes that He died for our sins and was resurrected.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

I'm not questioning any of the words of Jesus, I'm questioning the ancient tribal oral history giberish.

The Bible says Jesus who is the Son of God, said He spoke the words of God, the Bible contains the word of God so you were wrong to say it isn’t. You can say that some of the Bible is the inspired word of God.

of course they are, if I told you I bought a dog this morning it was for this reason I went to the pet shop you wouldn’t suggest I could have gone to the pet shop to buy a cat. I could have but that’s not the reason I did. Similarly God could have created man for man but He didn’t He created woman for man.

If you were describing going to the petshop to buy a dog, that doesn't mean going to the pet shop to buy a cat is wrong,

Nothing to do with it. The reason I went to the pet shop was to but a cat, the reason God created woman was for man. I did not go to the pet shop to buy a cat, God did not create man for man.

That’s my call not yours, I present the Bible passages that I believe exclude and condemn homosexual practice and you quote the ones you believe countenance it.

can you see how why I think a verse about divorce is out of place in a discussion about homosexuality?

Can you see that if God’s purpose in crating woman for man to be united means that His purpose for man was to be with women not man?

[citation needed] (in other words, no, the sermon on the mount says no such thing)

First show me where it countenances same sex unions and practice and then I will show you where it condemns them.

What a silly response to a crux question.

I thought the question was silly, the response is true, God is God.

Judge not lest ye be judged? Let him with no sin cast the first stone? do not point out the mote in thy brothers eye, lest you miss the beam in thine own?

That says don’t judge them not don’t tell them what is sin. Under your idea all the NT disciples went round judging everyone including Jesus. The judge passes the sentence according to what is right and wrong.

It doesn't matter what a paedophile does,

??? What?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Sallynow,

It seems that EnemyPartyII has been willing to read your posts and respond to them with intelligent, thoughtful responses.

To me and others however it seems not. In seems EnemyPartyII is rarely able to address exactly the crux of the points I make or address exactly what the Bible texts say. EnemyPartyII and some others who are supportive of homosexuality have spent a good deal of forum space saying why they don’t accept the Biblical texts. This is fundamentally therefore about what two different types of Christianity believe. My contention is many of those who think the same as EnemyPartyII’s have views which are not Christian at all. I am not the only one to have said so either.

Do you believe the mustard tree is the smallest seed that grows into the biggest tree?

Well you answer my question and I’ll answer yours.

Because inspired humans wrote the OT down over centurie and many of the events were first transmitted through oral storytelling before being written down.

But not where Jesus says He fulfils the law and prophets, not an iota will be abolished and ‘have you not read’ So it would be correct to claim the Bible is the word of God inspired or direct, but it would not be correct to say it wasn’t.

That's a Bible worshipper.

But I don’t worship the Bible, I worship the God whose testimony and word is recorded in the Bible.

A Christian is someone who believes that He died for our sins and was resurrected.

which is recorded in the Bible.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Can you see that if God’s purpose in crating woman for man to be united means that His purpose for man was to be with women not man?

Then why did he create some people to be homosexuals?

First show me where it countenances same sex unions and practice and then I will show you where it condemns them.

I've told you repeatedly hiow I believe the Sermon on the Mount countenances same sex unions, its the whole "do unto others" bit. So, where does the Sermon on the Mount condemn same sex unions?.

And further, I'll say it again... Jesus loves paedophiles, no matter what. Hitler too, just to get the obvious Godwin out of the way.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

My contention is many of those who think the same as EnemyPartyII’s have views which are not Christian at all. I am not the only one to have said so either.

And I believe blind adherence to the letter of the Bible, rather than trying to seek out the deeper message, which sometimes runs contrary to the first impression one gets from Biblical passages, is Phariseeism, and is the antithesis of Christianity.

My side: love, acceptance, forgiveness and inclusiveness for all
Biblical literalist side: hate, ostracism, condemnation and exclusion for anyone who doesn't instantly agree

WWJD?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Then why did he create some people to be homosexuals?

There is no evidence He did, sure you feel He did but the Biblical evidence shows you are deceived as all the instances of homosexual practice are condemned.

I've told you repeatedly hiow I believe the Sermon on the Mount countenances same sex unions, its the whole "do unto others" bit.

Sorry but that makes no sense to me whatsoever. If two people both wanted sex outside marriage they would be happy to do unto the other what they would like done to them. Seems a lot of people could justify all kinds of things with such thinking. Yet if we follow Jesus Christ’s teaching we don’t ignore certain things He teaches so we can do what we feel is right. We are to love God first and we can see God doesnt think that is right. If we follow Jesus Christ's teaching we wouldnt want to do unto others same sex unions.

And I believe blind adherence to the letter of the Bible, rather than trying to seek out the deeper message, which sometimes runs contrary to the first impression one gets from Biblical passages, is Phariseeism, and is the antithesis of Christianity.

So do I, that’s why I recognise same-sex unions cant possibly be God’s purpose because they are never countenanced in the Bible, only condemned and man/woman unions are God’s purposes. Your thinking is like the Pharisees not believing what Jesus taught.
In fact when it comes to hate those who do such things are called God haters. .. Romans 1:30

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There is no evidence He did, sure you feel He did but the Biblical evidence shows you are deceived as all the instances of homosexual practice are condemned.

The existance of homosexuals is evidence he created us. Or are you going to claim homosexuals don't exist?

Sorry but that makes no sense to me whatsoever. If two people both wanted sex outside marriage they would be happy to do unto the other what they would like done to them. Seems a lot of people could justify all kinds of things with such thinking.

If a married couple are happy for their spouses to have sex with other people, then its cool. Like I say, if it doesn't cause anyone harm, its not a sin.

Golden rule identifies sin universaly. Go on, any single action of humans, the Golden rule can be applied to determine morality.

If we follow Jesus Christ's teaching we wouldnt want to do unto others same sex unions.

Why not? What did Jesus ever say that makes you think he is anti-homosexuality?

Your thinking is like the Pharisees not believing what Jesus taught.

I'm thinking like the Pharisees and you're the one demanding blind adherance to the letter of the law? Doublethink for the win!

 

[Andreusz]

The existance of homosexuals is evidence he created us. Or are you going to claim homosexuals don't exist?

I think the constant refrain of 'homosexuality is a choice' is effectively a statement that we don't exist. If there are people who naturally have a preference for their own sex, then it would be more difficult to argue that the Bible is justified in calling homosexual sex-acts sinful. So extreme fundamentalists have try to convince themselves that we don't really feel the feelings we do ... we don't exist!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I think the constant refrain of 'homosexuality is a choice' is effectively a statement that we don't exist. If there are people who naturally have a preference for their own sex, then it would be more difficult to argue that the Bible is justified in calling homosexual sex-acts sinful. So extreme fundamentalists have try to convince themselves that we don't really feel the feelings we do ... we don't exist!

Its a bizare claim allright

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think the constant refrain of 'homosexuality is a choice' is effectively a statement that we don't exist. If there are people who naturally have a preference for their own sex, then it would be more difficult to argue that the Bible is justified in calling homosexual sex-acts sinful. So extreme fundamentalists have try to convince themselves that we don't really feel the feelings we do ... we don't exist!

Wasn't there an Iranian Prime Minister who tried to claim the same thing? It would certainly make Sodomy laws more interesting: "You, er, don't seem to exist, so we can't charge you with anything!"

 

[Kerwin]

But the original texts don't say they were "close" it uses precisely the same sort of language to describe their relationship as is used to describe romantic relationships, when there were terms that WOULD mean "male brotherly, good friend type closeness" available. Yet the authors chose the romantically charged terms. Why would they do that?

Really, Or is it just that some being insecure with their own gender do not like to us the word "love" in relation to another of the same gender. The same could be said of one man kissing another which is certainly frowned on in American and other cultures while embraced by the French.

The reasons they chose the words they used as they were conversing with others of the same culture and not with us with our different culture. It has certainly caused difficulties in communication before and will most likely cause them again. I have even heard some wars were cause over such cultural conflicts.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Really, Or is it just that some being insecure with their own gender do not like to us the word "love" in relation to another of the same gender. The same could be said of one man kissing another which is certainly frowned on in American and other cultures while embraced by the French.

The reasons they chose the words they used as they were conversing with others of the same culture and not with us with our different culture. It has certainly caused difficulties in communication before and will most likely cause them again. I have even heard some wars were cause over such cultural conflicts.

Nevertheless, their language was consistent with romantic lovers in their culture. "Your love surpasses that of a woman", "They hugged and kissed and wept, until David became great", "Their souls were knit", etc. These are all expressions of a union that is typically associated with a male-female romantic relationship, hence the contrast. Notice, however, that David and Jonathan's relationship was never frowned upon, and was even considered preferable to an unloving heterosexual one.

PS: I write those excerpts from memory, don't take them as the Gospel truth .

 

[Kerwin]

Nevertheless, their language was consistent with romantic lovers in their culture. "Your love surpasses that of a woman", "They hugged and kissed and wept, until David became great", "Their souls were knit", etc.

1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

This is just like stating that Jonathan loved David as himself which goes along with the command to love your neighbor as yourself.

11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one man.

Sounds like quite the homosexual orgy according to your interpretation.

1 For I would have you know how greatly I strive for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;
2 that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, that they may know the mystery of God, even Christ,
3 in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden.

I suppose you think this is another orgy but it evolves a whole church so heterosexuality may also be involved.

I already pointed out that there are plenty of non-homosexual men who have better friendships with other men than they do with their wives so I see not further reason to go into the phrase "Your love surpasses that of a woman",

41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the South, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

The kissing and weeping between men was acceptable in the Hebrew culture and actually fairly common just as it is written:

4 And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

27 And he came near, and kissed him. And he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son Is as the smell of a field which Jehovah hath blessed.

13 And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister's son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things.

27 And Jehovah said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mountain of God, and kissed him.

1 Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not that Jehovah hath anointed thee to be prince over his inheritance?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sounds like quite the homosexual orgy according to your interpretation.

The context is different: one refers to the relationship between two men, the other to a group of men (notice how the latter is singular: as one man). It's also worth mentioning that I wasn't talking about sex, just the nature of the relationship.

I suppose you think this is another orgy but it evolves a whole church so heterosexuality may also be involved.

Again, the context is different: they were "knit together in love" insofar as they loved Christ. Jonathan and David's souls were knit by their love for each other.

I already pointed out that there are plenty of non-homosexual men who have better friendships with other men than they do with their wives so I see not further reason to go into the phrase "Your love surpasses that of a woman",

Yet the comparison would not be one of Platonic love: a man and a woman would not even speak to each other in public, let alone have a 'just friends' arrangement. The comparison, therefore, is one of romantic relationships: his romantic love for him surpasses any romantic love for woman.

The kissing and weeping between men was acceptable in the Hebrew culture and actually fairly common just as it is written:

Indeed, but the reason for the weeping and kissing differs:

In the first, Jacob and Esau were twins.

In the second, the blind Isaac has found his son, Jacob.

In the third, Laban and Jacob are uncle and nephew, and the former had just found out that the latter is to be wed to Rachel and Leah (notice also that, a few verse previously: "Then Jacob kissed Rachel and began to weep aloud").

In the fourth, Aaron and Moses were brothers. Notice a pattern? Weeping and kissing is done between people with an intimate relationship, be it familial or romantic. Notice that Jacob and Rachel were unrelated, in a romantic relationship, and were in the midst of marriage: weeping and kissing ensued. The same is true for Jonathan and David: they were unrelated, and were weeping and kissing: by the verses you present, Hebrew culture would see that as a romantic relationship.

In the fifth, Samuel is presiding over the coronation of Saul (notice the absent of weeping).

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan-Child,

Nevertheless, their language was consistent with romantic lovers in their culture. "Your love surpasses that of a woman", "They hugged and kissed and wept, until David became great", "Their souls were knit", etc. These are all expressions of a union that is typically associated with a male-female romantic relationship, hence the contrast. Notice, however, that David and Jonathan's relationship was never frowned upon, and was even considered preferable to an unloving heterosexual one.

Not at all, there is no Biblical concept of a heterosexual relationship and this is where you have it all wrong. Close friends in the middle east hold hands but they would likley be thought of as homosexual in the west, but it would never occur to middle eastern people that were homosexual.
So we can see that those like you who think David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship are already sold out to the cultural thinking on homosexuality. The Bible tells us this is error and thinking that has turned away from God.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Really, Or is it just that some being insecure with their own gender do not like to us the word "love" in relation to another of the same gender. The same could be said of one man kissing another which is certainly frowned on in American and other cultures while embraced by the French.

The reasons they chose the words they used as they were conversing with others of the same culture and not with us with our different culture. It has certainly caused difficulties in communication before and will most likely cause them again. I have even heard some wars were cause over such cultural conflicts.

Nope, the first one. The authors chose to use romantically charged terminology when platonic, just-real-good-friends terminology was freely available. Why is that, do you think/

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not at all, there is no Biblical concept of a heterosexual relationship and this is where you have it all wrong.

Err... the whole point is to establish that there was a Biblical precedent.

Close friends in the middle east hold hands but they would likley be thought of as homosexual in the west, but it would never occur to middle eastern people that were homosexual.

Agreed. But there are mannerisms which would be considered 'gay' during the reign of King Saul, and it is those mannerisms which are depicted by the Bible.

So we can see that those like you who think David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship are already sold out to the cultural thinking on homosexuality.

Did anyone else catch that whiff of a patronising "you don't know anything outside your own back yard" stance? I sure did.

brightmorningstar, just because you fail to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, doesn't mean we are all intellectual fools: I, for one, am well aware of various aspects of various cultures. And I daresay most other people here are too, both pro-gay and anti-gay.

The Bible tells us this is error and thinking that has turned away from God.

I deconverted from Christianity for wholly other reasons. Barbaric morality is incidental.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nope, the first one. The authors chose to use romantically charged terminology when platonic, just-real-good-friends terminology was freely available. Why is that, do you think/

Reminds me of Romans 1: if Paul wanted to refer to homosexuality, there were perfectly good words available. Instead, he made one up to address the nuanced position he was describing.

 

[Kerwin]

Nope, the first one. The authors chose to use romantically charged terminology when platonic, just-real-good-friends terminology was freely available. Why is that, do you think/

Because according to them it was not "romantically charged terminology".

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_child,

Agreed. But there are mannerisms which would be considered 'gay' during the reign of King Saul, and it is those mannerisms which are depicted by the Bible.

There are none, there never was as we can see from the Bible up to that point and after.

So we can see that those like you who think David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship are already sold out to the cultural thinking on homosexuality.

Did anyone else catch that whiff of a patronising "you don't know anything outside your own back yard" stance? I sure did.

Well with respect I don’t really care whether you thought it was patronising, I didn’t mean it to be and as the Bible shows the concepts heterosexual and homosexual are not correct thinking; when one uses them to look at the Bible one is looking at the Biblical texts in a way the Bible tells one not to.

brightmorningstar, just because you fail to even acknowledge the possibility of being wrong,

I do not acknowledge the possibility if being wrong and neither do millions of others.

I deconverted from Christianity for wholly other reasons. Barbaric morality is incidental.

That’s your opinion and your choice, it doesn’t affect what the Biblical testimony says that what you propose is error and thinking that has turned away from God. (Romans 1)

Reminds me of Romans 1: if Paul wanted to refer to homosexuality, there were perfectly good words available. Instead, he made one up to address the nuanced position he was describing.

There is no concept of homosexuality or homosexuality so he doesn’t use a word to describe it, just so you can be sure he describes it. Yet you don’t seem to see that men lusting after men and committing indecent acts with men instead of women is homosexual, is it heterosexual then ?