B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Crazy Liz,
Is a philosophical concept, not one a spirtually descerned one about the truth of Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
Should we allow gay marriage.
- Thread starter Armistead
- Start date
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To RegularGuy
I see your point but I can see it is opposite to the Biblical testimony and thus wrong.
And I am not only certain there is enough evidence for the majority of people, I am certain you have no evidence to support homosexuality either.
You are equally able to be mistaken, you don’t need to point that out. Based on the evidence I would say you do look mistaken.
I am not judgeing your belief I am judging your disbelief. If someone doesn’t not believe what something says they don’t believe it, that’s basic logic.
Nor did He say anything about paedophile marriage, but we know from what He did say that same sex unions and paedophila are error, so I don’t see what your point was.
Ok so your definition denies that Christians believe the Bible is the record of God’s testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, fair enough, I disagree with you 100%
Yes I do. Do you fully understand what it means?
Yes ok I accept your point there. I however would say something has to be fundamentally Christian or it isn’t Christian. So I would suggest that views you see as other than fundamental Christian are not Christian.
I know that’s your point, but I fully reject your point in favour of mine. And furthermore Jesus Christ’s NT teaching describes all food as clean to eat (Mark 7, Romans 14) but declares only man/woman faithful unions or celibacy (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and condemns same sex unions (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1)
I see your point but I can see it is opposite to the Biblical testimony and thus wrong.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To KCKID,
Which I think further demonstrating my point. The choice God has presented is to follow Jesus Christ or not, not to follow ones own desires.
I have no idea what you are implying except to guess that you think people who have same sex attraction and desires are somehow different from everyone else and any attraction or desire they have.
Which I think further demonstrating my point. The choice God has presented is to follow Jesus Christ or not, not to follow ones own desires.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
What part of "these are Paul's teachings, not Christs" is so difficult for you to grasp?
Upvote
0
I thought you were touting the superiority of certainty. Certainty is an epistemological term.
Upvote
0
D.W.Washburn
The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Brightmorningstar...
Well, we'd have to poll the majority of people to determine that. As for support, you're right, I have no support for homosexuality that would satisfy you. Oh, well.
I have never said that I cannot be mistaken. From my side of this debate, I would say that you look mistaken. Each of us must decide for themselves.
This is antics with semantics. I contend that you are not in the place to judge me.
By the way, I'm assuming that the double negative in your second sentence was unintentional, and therefore I am ignoring it. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Let's be careful, Brightmorningstar, not to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. There is a world of difference between the sexual abuse of children and consensual adult sex acts.
Jesus said nothing about pedophilia whatever. The Bible says nothing about pedophilia whatever. The only way to build a biblical case against pedophilia is by inference and interpretation. But of course, you say you don't do interpretation.
And here's an interesting point to consider. I have read that in the culture and times of the Bible it was not unusual for a young girl of 12 to be married to a much older man, say in his thirties or even his forties. Today this would be called "pedophile marriage."
No. I deny that the definition of Christian is someone who believes "the Bible is the record of Gods testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Some Christians may believe this but it is not what makes them Christians. Please note that this is very different from what you assert in the quote above.
As long as you understand that a tautology does not constitute proof, I'm satisfied.
More antics with semantics. Fundamentalsts are not the only kind of Christian.
Oddly enough, in Acts it says that the Apostles wanted Gentile converts to refrain from certain foods anyway. Is it possible that the various authors of the NT had differing opinions on the subject?
As to the rest, though I expect you will deny it, you are offering an interpretation of the verses you quote.
Well, we'd have to poll the majority of people to determine that. As for support, you're right, I have no support for homosexuality that would satisfy you. Oh, well.
I have never said that I cannot be mistaken. From my side of this debate, I would say that you look mistaken. Each of us must decide for themselves.
This is antics with semantics. I contend that you are not in the place to judge me.
By the way, I'm assuming that the double negative in your second sentence was unintentional, and therefore I am ignoring it. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Let's be careful, Brightmorningstar, not to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. There is a world of difference between the sexual abuse of children and consensual adult sex acts.
Jesus said nothing about pedophilia whatever. The Bible says nothing about pedophilia whatever. The only way to build a biblical case against pedophilia is by inference and interpretation. But of course, you say you don't do interpretation.
And here's an interesting point to consider. I have read that in the culture and times of the Bible it was not unusual for a young girl of 12 to be married to a much older man, say in his thirties or even his forties. Today this would be called "pedophile marriage."
No. I deny that the definition of Christian is someone who believes "the Bible is the record of Gods testimony through directly from God or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Some Christians may believe this but it is not what makes them Christians. Please note that this is very different from what you assert in the quote above.
As long as you understand that a tautology does not constitute proof, I'm satisfied.
More antics with semantics. Fundamentalsts are not the only kind of Christian.
Oddly enough, in Acts it says that the Apostles wanted Gentile converts to refrain from certain foods anyway. Is it possible that the various authors of the NT had differing opinions on the subject?
As to the rest, though I expect you will deny it, you are offering an interpretation of the verses you quote.
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Does anyone but me wonder why it is that conservative Christians are always talking about paedophilia? I mean, I can go weeks on end when not involved in these debates without ever once thinking about the subject, but it seems that almost one post in three by a conservative chrizstian on the subject of homosexuality keeps adverting to paedophilia. Is it some fixation, or what?
Upvote
0
I believe that 'they' SO desire to level as much ammunition as they can toward homosexuality that they pull out all stops in order to do so. If they can make homosexuality seem 'worse than it is' in the minds of some (the gullible it would seem) then they've achieved their aim. I'd like to think that there are enough people with brains reading these posts who can figure out the sneaky motivations of others.
By the way, as someone said above, it seems that it was not uncommon in biblical times for 12 year-old girls to marry older men. The age of consent back in those days really didn't seem to be too much of an issue. Today the state-salaried 'do-gooders' would literally tear down the doors to rescue such a damsel from a life of 'psychological damage' and the male would be locked up and the keys thrown away.
What do 'these' people on the forum have to say about that?
Upvote
0
D.W.Washburn
The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Personally I'd like to propose a corollary to Godwin's Law, to wit: "In any internet discussion of homosexuality, it is only a matter of time before someone references pedophilia. The amount of time required is inversely proportional to the number of self-identified Conservative Christians involved in the discussion."
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Polycarp1,
Does anyone but me wonder why it is that conservative Christians are always talking about paedophilia? [/quote] Well that’s just your view. Christians mostly talk about paedophilia in response to liberal ideas proposing same sex unions. All sex outside marriage is outside God’s purpose and paedophila is just another example, it’s a good example because it shows the magnitude of the same sex union error.
Does anyone but me wonder why it is that conservative Christians are always talking about paedophilia? [/quote] Well that’s just your view. Christians mostly talk about paedophilia in response to liberal ideas proposing same sex unions. All sex outside marriage is outside God’s purpose and paedophila is just another example, it’s a good example because it shows the magnitude of the same sex union error.
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
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To RegularGuy,
Ok well have you got any Biblical support that wouldn’t satisfy me.
Then you have offered up your opinion against my opinion and evidence.
Again if I am judging what you believe I ma not judging you but what you believe. But this isn’t antics or semantics but basic logic.
On the contrary both paeophilia and homosexual practice are both outside the marriage union God created and ordained as faithful between man and women. We need to be careful we aren’t making exceptions where they don’t exist. My point was nor did He say anything about paedophile marriage, but we know from what He did say that same sex unions and paedophila are error, so I don’t see what your point was, its your point I was asking you about.
I do interpretation, its disbelief I don’t do.
Ok so are you now saying paedophilia is ok? Te question is where is same sex union treated as marriage.
I disagree, belief in the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you don’t believe is reliable.
I know that’s your point, but I fully reject your point in favour of mine. And furthermore Jesus Christ’s NT teaching describes all food as clean to eat (Mark 7, Romans 14) but declares only man/woman faithful unions or celibacy (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and condemns same sex unions (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1)
No its obviously not possible as I showed with Mark 7, Romans 14, Matt 19, 1 Cor 7, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1.
Upvote
0
D.W.Washburn
The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
OK, BrightMorningStar...
You see, this is the heart of the issue between us. Scripture is your only authority. Now, I too, accept the authority of Scripture, but not when it contradicts natural observation and plain reason. The Bible was written in a pre-Copernican age. There is no science in Scripture. The Bible was written in a different culture and was shaped by its cultural norms. Today we understand the world around us, the nature of sexuality, even the shape of the universe in ways that the writers of the Bible could not have conceived.
The Bible is an excellent source for doctrine (some would say the only source). The Bible contains great spiritual truth and wisdom. The Bible teaches us everything necessary for salvation.
We know now that, contrary to the witness of the Scriptures, that the cosmos is not geocentric. We also know, as the Apostle Paul and the author/s of Leviticus could not have known, that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality.
Making a blanket condemnation of all homosexual acts from the few passages of the Bible that speak of them is not justified.
The evidence you offer is your faulty interpretation of an old collection of spiritual writings whose authors knew nothing of homosexuality as it is now understood, and which never attempted to define "marriage." Your evidence only stands up if every other form of evidence is ignored.
Let's review: You have said that pro-gay arguments are disbelief. (#296, #316) Disbelief is a loaded term and insulting.
I have countered that you are in no position to judge my belief. (#318)
You replied that you were not judging my belief, but my disbelief. (#322). That, BrightMorningStar, is what I called "antics with semantics" that is, playing with words (#326). Now you say that you are judging what I believe, directly contradicting what you said at #322.
But, if you can separate my belief from myself, then I will concede that you are not judging me.
Pedophilia is not equivalent to homosexuality. It is false and inflammatory to say that it is. The sexual abuse of a child involves the victimization of the weak and a misuse of power. Consensual sexual activity between adults is of a different order.
Well, this is new. Until now you have repeatedly said that you only quote Scripture, you don't interpret it.
I did not say that pedophilia is "ok." I sometimes think you deliberately twist my words. I did say that what we today would consider "pedophile marriage" was common and accepted in the time and culture in which Jesus lived. The point is that cultural norms have changed. The Scriptures were written in, and to some extent shaped by, the culture of their time and place.
That culture accepted "pedophile marriage." Our culture is, rightly, abhorred at the thought of a twelve year old girl marrying a 30 year old man.
That culture did not accept same sex marriage. Our culture is moving toward doing so. Given what we now know about homosexuality, I think that this is a good thing...a matter of justice.
Still, "belief in the Bible" is not the definition of Christian.
Yes. That is your interpretation. You know maybe "peanut butter" was a bad example. Maybe I should have said "shoes" or "garden rakes."
All this shows is that Paul, Mark and Matthew agree against Luke. If you want to show that all of the writers of the Bible agree that all foods are clean, you will have to do better than this. You can, by the way, but you'll have to do your own work.
It seems clear to me that the Bible was written by different people, with different points of view and even different theologies. They have a basic core of shared belief, but I don't expect them to agree in every detail.
You see, this is the heart of the issue between us. Scripture is your only authority. Now, I too, accept the authority of Scripture, but not when it contradicts natural observation and plain reason. The Bible was written in a pre-Copernican age. There is no science in Scripture. The Bible was written in a different culture and was shaped by its cultural norms. Today we understand the world around us, the nature of sexuality, even the shape of the universe in ways that the writers of the Bible could not have conceived.
The Bible is an excellent source for doctrine (some would say the only source). The Bible contains great spiritual truth and wisdom. The Bible teaches us everything necessary for salvation.
We know now that, contrary to the witness of the Scriptures, that the cosmos is not geocentric. We also know, as the Apostle Paul and the author/s of Leviticus could not have known, that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality.
Making a blanket condemnation of all homosexual acts from the few passages of the Bible that speak of them is not justified.
The evidence you offer is your faulty interpretation of an old collection of spiritual writings whose authors knew nothing of homosexuality as it is now understood, and which never attempted to define "marriage." Your evidence only stands up if every other form of evidence is ignored.
Let's review: You have said that pro-gay arguments are disbelief. (#296, #316) Disbelief is a loaded term and insulting.
I have countered that you are in no position to judge my belief. (#318)
You replied that you were not judging my belief, but my disbelief. (#322). That, BrightMorningStar, is what I called "antics with semantics" that is, playing with words (#326). Now you say that you are judging what I believe, directly contradicting what you said at #322.
But, if you can separate my belief from myself, then I will concede that you are not judging me.
Pedophilia is not equivalent to homosexuality. It is false and inflammatory to say that it is. The sexual abuse of a child involves the victimization of the weak and a misuse of power. Consensual sexual activity between adults is of a different order.
Well, this is new. Until now you have repeatedly said that you only quote Scripture, you don't interpret it.
I did not say that pedophilia is "ok." I sometimes think you deliberately twist my words. I did say that what we today would consider "pedophile marriage" was common and accepted in the time and culture in which Jesus lived. The point is that cultural norms have changed. The Scriptures were written in, and to some extent shaped by, the culture of their time and place.
That culture accepted "pedophile marriage." Our culture is, rightly, abhorred at the thought of a twelve year old girl marrying a 30 year old man.
That culture did not accept same sex marriage. Our culture is moving toward doing so. Given what we now know about homosexuality, I think that this is a good thing...a matter of justice.
Still, "belief in the Bible" is not the definition of Christian.
Yes. That is your interpretation. You know maybe "peanut butter" was a bad example. Maybe I should have said "shoes" or "garden rakes."
All this shows is that Paul, Mark and Matthew agree against Luke. If you want to show that all of the writers of the Bible agree that all foods are clean, you will have to do better than this. You can, by the way, but you'll have to do your own work.
It seems clear to me that the Bible was written by different people, with different points of view and even different theologies. They have a basic core of shared belief, but I don't expect them to agree in every detail.
Upvote
0
Zaac
Well-Known Member
That at ain't the heart of the issue between you two. That's at the heart of the issue between you and GOD. Science is an attempt to understand what the hand of God has wrought. If your science is at odds with God's Word, your science is wrong.
And contrary to you and some others who seem to lack an understanding of Scripture, the Bible asserts no such thing.
You can quit trying to apply modern day chicanery towards God's Word. What He says is sin today, He said was sin yesterday. Yall can call homosexuality a normal variant of whatever you want. God still calls homosexual sex acts SIN.
God says it. That's all those who trust in Him as their authority need. But do tell us, which homosexual sex acts do you think God's Word endorses?
We said this before and I'll say it again. Ain't nobody gonna waste their time going back and forth with somebody who doesn't firmly stand on the Word of God. It says what it says.
If we wanted to get a Bible plus approach, we'd ask the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Bible says in Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Expect the sword to cut ya and insult ya when you're running against it instead of along side it.
The Word of God says in 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any mans judgment: For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
The Word of God also says 2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 1 Cor. 6:2-3
I don't have a problem directly saying that I am directly righteously judging your disbelief.
Sin is sin. Who it is perpetrated upon or with does not change it from sin.
Nice try, but God's Word trumps culture. And nowhere, culturally or otherwise, does God's Word EVER point out that God ordained marriage is anything other than between a man and a woman. And at no point does His Word EVER, culturally or otherwise, present sex between homosexuals as anything but sin.
Upvote
0
D.W.Washburn
The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
That at ain't the heart of the issue between you two. That's at the heart of the issue between you and GOD. Science is an attempt to understand what the hand of God has wrought. If your science is at odds with God's Word, your science is wrong.
Well, Zaac, I can say with complete confidence that this question of hermeneutics is at the heart of my disagreement with BrightMorningStar (and now, apparently, you). Since neither you nor BrightMorningStar are God, then you are not in the position to determine what issue may be between God and myself.
Science is an attempt to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. It's not my science. It's just science. Now I happen to believe that the hand of God is revealed in creation. That's a theological concept called "general revelation" or "natural theology." So, the observable world is also a revelation of God.
The truth of the Bible is not in its facticity. Science seeks to establish fact. If science disagrees with the Bible on an issue of fact, the evidence favors science.
I understand the Bible pretty well, thank you. Well enough not to read it in an unthinking literalistic manner. And you might want to ask why, until the time of Galileo no one...no one...found anything other than a geocentric cosmology in the Bible. It is only after the fact of heliocentricism was firmly established that it was read back into the Scriptures.
Chicanery? You like to use loaded terms don't you?
In OT God called eating shellfish "sin." You know that Zaac. In the NT, all foods are declared "clean."
God, apparently changed his mind.
The Bible says it Zaac. Not God. The Bible is not God. Nor is the Bible God's word in some simple way. The Bible contains God's word. The Bible reveals God's word. The Bible declares Jesus to be God's Word.
I stand on God's Word: Jesus.
Interestingly enough, they would both probably agree with your assessment of homosexuality.
You may believe in the Bible only, if you wish. I prefer not to close my eyes to the reality of God's world.
The word of God is living and active. But the letter kills. The spirit makes alive.
If I thought, from what I have read of you, that you were the "spiritual man" I might let this bother me. But as it is I will not be subject to you judgment.
I don't have a problem directly saying that I am directly righteously judging your disbelief.
From what I know of saints, they are slow to declare their own righteousness.
Yes, sin is sin. Which is why we all need to look to the plank in our own eyes before we go picking at the specks in other people's eyes.
God's Word is ever and always spoken in and to the context of a culture. In the context of the biblical world, homosexuality was not understood as it is today anymore than the heliocentric cosmos. It's time we re-examined those old condemnations and asked ourselves what God is saying today.
Upvote
0
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Naah. It's not. You've just had too much schooling.
Since you're not God, how would you know what neither I nor BrightMorningstar are in a position to determine?
Science means the knowing. God is the All knowing. So like was said, your science just trying to figure out what God has already done.
So man knows more than the All-Knowing? Sounds like someone has placed science before God. That's called idolatry.
Scripture remains the same as it always has been.
Don't make me blush.He would have to be wrong to change His mind. And He didn't change His mind. He completed what He wanted you to know in the NT about what HE started saying in the OT.
The Bible is the Word of God Regular Guy.Yes God. It is 100% God's Word througgh and through. And just like you, many have tried in the past to disprove it. It continues to stand up against all comers.
So how is it that you know about this Jesus' character absent God's Word?
Explains why you say so much that is unaligned with God's Word.
There are a lot of spirits out there. How you know which one you're dealing with absent God's Word?
Look at that. Starting to make judgments yourself. And you're too late. Your words are already subject to righteous judgment.
Good thing I referred to how I was judging and not a measure of my character.
Ahh. So afterwards, as God Word says, I can see to properly remove the speck from my brothers eye.
Look at that. According to God's Word, I can judge after certain requirements are met.
Nice try. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His Word means the same today as it always has.
Homosexual sex was fornication, is fornication, and will be fornication tomorrow because God says so. And until He tosses sin and death into the Lake of Fire, it's gonna be fornication.
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
D.W.Washburn
The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Zaac...
I don't expect to be able to get back to you for a day or so.
You place the Bible in the stead of God. If you read back to what I have said concerning the Bible, you will know that I've said it is the source of doctrine and contains the knowledge necessary for salvation. Trading Bible barbs with you is fun, but not terribly productive.
I'm going to get back to my reading of the twenty-third chapter of Matthew. It says some interesting things about legalists who neglect justice, mercy and faith...
I don't expect to be able to get back to you for a day or so.
You place the Bible in the stead of God. If you read back to what I have said concerning the Bible, you will know that I've said it is the source of doctrine and contains the knowledge necessary for salvation. Trading Bible barbs with you is fun, but not terribly productive.
I'm going to get back to my reading of the twenty-third chapter of Matthew. It says some interesting things about legalists who neglect justice, mercy and faith...
Upvote
0
fated
The White Hart
Marriage has it roots before any history was written down. This tells us that it is rooted in the very nature of man, and that the Bible isn't necessary to defend it, though it can do so. Marriage, then, seems to be the way that society channels the heterosexual energy of mankind into its most beneficial aspect, by keeping parents together for the sake of society's children. This has not changed, with any amount of science or understanding of human sexuality. It puts gay marriage naturally unequal to the institution of gay marriage. It is therefore logical to protect traditional marriage, and throw effort into portraying it in a positive way.
Also, there is the danger of our children falling into a situation where they are fed gay propaganda in school, or where adoption centers are closed down because their religious affiliation can't allow them to place children with gay couples or single people.
Also, there is the danger of our children falling into a situation where they are fed gay propaganda in school, or where adoption centers are closed down because their religious affiliation can't allow them to place children with gay couples or single people.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Homosexuality appears to be equally rooted in the very nature of man, and what makes you think children would be fed "gay propaganda" at school? Do you think anyone is interested in "converting" otherwise heterosexual children to homosexuality?
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
Similar threads
