A re-examination of nothing (2)

[EnemyPartyII]

There's about a .5% variance between the various manuscripts in our possession if that's what you mean. Never the less..the verse STILL SAYS that ALL scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness..NOT just the parts the sinful nature of us human beings would LIKE to be right.

I totally agree that all scripture is useful for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness", I never suggested otherwise. However, thats still not the same as saying its all God's direct, inerrant word.

Re transcription errors, no, I was talking more about the added or dropped zeros between certain OT numbers, and things like that. But heck, lets look at your excample, even 0.5% variance is more than you'd expect to see in a God protected, inerrant document.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And when you point out logical fallacies in certain people's statements, you get reported and ALL your posts deleted. I find the running to the teacher mindset interesting.

If you have the Real Holy Spirit(TM) in you, you can say anything you want, God said it, so there.

QFT

Don't forget, anyone whose opinion is even at slight variance to the self appointed Godly elect aren't REAL Christians, but rather satan filled abominations. God hates tolerance and diversity.

 

[BreadAlone]

I totally agree that all scripture is useful for "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness", I never suggested otherwise. However, thats still not the same as saying its all God's direct, inerrant word.

Re transcription errors, no, I was talking more about the added or dropped zeros between certain OT numbers, and things like that. But heck, lets look at your excample, even 0.5% variance is more than you'd expect to see in a God protected, inerrant document.

The variants are insignificant things..and I think the Bible's 99.5% accuracy compared to..what is it? I think it's Homer's works..nevertheless it comes nowhere close to those percentiles.

Furthermore, OT number variants in numbers and things can be attributed to varying counting systems, or simply the fact that numbers you think are refering to the same event simply are not.

Anyways, numbers rarely concern me. Salvation by Grace through faith in Jesus, given to us by the Holy Spirit does!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Furthermore, OT number variants in numbers and things can be attributed to varying counting systems, or simply the fact that numbers you think are refering to the same event simply are not.

So, where in Kings it says Solomon has 4000 horse stalls and in Samuel it says he had 40,000 horse stalls, this is atributable to different counting systems?

Anyways, numbers rarely concern me. Salvation by Grace through faith in Jesus, given to us by the Holy Spirit does!

I cite numbers merely as an example. If the Bible has errors in such simple things as that, how do we know it doesn't have errors in more complex, important matters? Thats why we need to use our BRAIN, as well as the Bible to determine what God wants for us.

Therefore, if there is a logical, empirical reason backing up a Bible verse, I'll believe it. If reality appears to contradict the Bible, then its probably a good thing to re-examine your Bible, and try to work out where the problem lies. If the Bible makes a claim that seems completely illogical, redundant, or totally inappropriate to our modern situation, well then, that needs looking at too.

So, short version, if you can give me a reason OTHER than "the Bible SEZ!", that is logically consistent, to condemn homosexuality, then fine. I'll quit. This very afternoon.

Of course, if all you got is "well, my personal interpretation says homo sex is bad, and anyway, my pastor tole me"... then I'm afraid I remain unconvinced

 

[BreadAlone]

So, where in Kings it says Solomon has 4000 horse stalls and in Samuel it says he had 40,000 horse stalls, this is atributable to different counting systems?

I cite numbers merely as an example. If the Bible has errors in such simple things as that, how do we know it doesn't have errors in more complex, important matters? Thats why we need to use our BRAIN, as well as the Bible to determine what God wants for us.

Therefore, if there is a logical, empirical reason backing up a Bible verse, I'll believe it. If reality appears to contradict the Bible, then its probably a good thing to re-examine your Bible, and try to work out where the problem lies. If the Bible makes a claim that seems completely illogical, redundant, or totally inappropriate to our modern situation, well then, that needs looking at too.

So, short version, if you can give me a reason OTHER than "the Bible SEZ!", that is logically consistent, to condemn homosexuality, then fine. I'll quit. This very afternoon.

Of course, if all you got is "well, my personal interpretation says homo sex is bad, and anyway, my pastor tole me"... then I'm afraid I remain unconvinced

Logical reason?

God is the all-powerful creator of the universe. He loved us SO much, he died for us.

Thus we have the church, united under Christ. Throughout scripture God portrays the church (in OT times it was Isreal) as his bride, his love.

Marriage symbolizes this ultimate union between God and his people. He established it as a divine example at the beginning of time. His ancient people understood it, and his New Testament Era people have understood it in the majority until very recently.

Homosexuality is NEVER spoken of highly in the scriptures. Homosexual marriage is never spoken of either, because it is non-existant. God uses instituted marriage for ONE man and ONE woman..nothing more, nothing less, nothing different. Anything else is a tool of Satan used to take the eyes of the church off of holiness and the relationship it has in communion with the One and Only, who is forever praised.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Logical reason?

God is the all-powerful creator of the universe. He loved us SO much, he died for us.

Thus we have the church, united under Christ. Throughout scripture God portrays the church (in OT times it was Isreal) as his bride, his love.

Marriage symbolizes this ultimate union between God and his people. He established it as a divine example at the beginning of time. His ancient people understood it, and his New Testament Era people have understood it in the majority until very recently.

Thats all beautiful. Very little to do with the price of fish though.

Homosexuality is NEVER spoken of highly in the scriptures.

Wrong. Homosexual RAPE is never spoken of highly in the scriptures... but thats a completely different thing to homosexuality.

Homosexual marriage is never spoken of either, because it is non-existant.

Here we go from what is, to what is your assumption... many would say that homosexual marriage isn't spoken of, not because it was non-existant, but merely because it was not particularly common. All throughout the Bible, what are addressed are common, normative states... however uncommon, unusual, or minority states are very rarely, if ever addressed.

God uses instituted marriage for ONE man and ONE woman..nothing more, nothing less, nothing different.

And yet so many of God's anointed were polygamists, unrepentent ones at that. Go figure. Not to mention that marriage is never actually DEFINED in the Bible, but rather, the predominant meme of the contemporary author is cited... but lets not let a little thing like facts get in the way of your argument.

Anything else is a tool of Satan used to take the eyes of the church off of holiness and the relationship it has in communion with the One and Only, who is forever praised.

Abraham and Solomon are tools of Satan? Ooookaayyyy....

 

[davedjy]

Anything else is a tool of Satan used to take the eyes of the church off of holiness and the relationship it has in communion with the One and Only, who is forever praised.

This is essentially an argument from silence: "Homosexual marriage is not mentioned, therefore it is a tool of satan, and God doesn't endorse it". There are plenty of positive and loving attributes found in lifetime committed, same sex relationships.

 

[BreadAlone]

Thats all beautiful. Very little to do with the price of fish though.

So does homosexual marriage.

Wrong. Homosexual RAPE is never spoken of highly in the scriptures... but thats a completely different thing to homosexuality.

Please show me where homosexuality is spoken of in high regard.

Here we go from what is, to what is your assumption... many would say that homosexual marriage isn't spoken of, not because it was non-existant, but merely because it was not particularly common. All throughout the Bible, what are addressed are common, normative states... however uncommon, unusual, or minority states are very rarely, if ever addressed.

You can check any encyclopedic source..Jewish tradition and record..homosexual marriage DID NOT exist, because first of all it didn't fall into the perimiters of marriage, and secondly because the law forbade homosexuality.

yet so many of God's anointed were polygamists, unrepentent ones at that. Go figure.

Indeed they were. We're all sinners.

Not to mention that marriage is never actually DEFINED in the Bible, but rather, the predominant meme of the contemporary author is cited... but lets not let a little thing like facts get in the way of your argument.

I guess you call God's unique (to emphasize the example he was trying to stress) way of creating humanity, specifically the genders, undefined. That little bit about "for this reason a man will be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" not clear enough for ya?

Abraham and Solomon are tools of Satan? Ooookaayyyy....

Any sin is a tool of Satan. Christ yelled "get behind me, Satan!" to Peter, his "lead" apostle of sorts.

````
Isn't this civil discussion much more enjoyable than..other means?

 

[Brennin]

No, I insinuate nothing.

I will say straight out that God has never condemned homosexual relationships.

Your god, maybe, but the true God has. He will cast all of the other "gods" in the pit on the Day of Reckoning.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Your god, maybe, but the true God has. He will cast all of the other "gods" in the pit on the Day of Reckoning.

Amen! That He will!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Please show me where homosexuality is spoken of in high regard.

A. Jonathon and David.
B. Is it your contention that anything the Bible doesn't mention, or hold in high regard, is somehow condemned?

You can check any encyclopedic source..Jewish tradition and record..homosexual marriage DID NOT exist, because first of all it didn't fall into the perimiters of marriage, and secondly because the law forbade homosexuality.

What do I win if I show you an encyclopaedia source that says otherwise?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

Indeed they were. We're all sinners.

But never, you'll note, condemned for their polygamy. So again, I'll point out that the Bible never defines marriage as ONLY being between one man and one woman.

I guess you call God's unique (to emphasize the example he was trying to stress) way of creating humanity, specifically the genders, undefined. That little bit about "for this reason a man will be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" not clear enough for ya?

Check the context of the passage your citing? Whats the reason *smiles sweetly* are they defining marriage there? um, no... no they aren't.

Isn't this civil discussion much more enjoyable than..other means?

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

 

[EnemyPartyII]

hate to break it to you, I'm as Christian as you are

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

A. Jonathon and David.

The only thing that supports this theory is the way modern society views relationships. (i.e. 2 guys spend alot of time together, they must be 'doing it')

There is no evidence that they had any sort of sexual relationship

 

[David Brider]

The only thing that supports this theory is the way modern society views relationships. (i.e. 2 guys spend alot of time together, they must be 'doing it')

Actually, the only suggestion that has been made is that the Biblical account suggests that they may have been in a homosexual relationship. That's not the same as "doing it". Believe it or not, it's possible to have a romantic relationship which isn't sexually active (such as the one I currently have with my fiancée).

David.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Actually, the only suggestion that has been made is that the Biblical account suggests that they may have been in a homosexual relationship. That's not the same as "doing it". Believe it or not, it's possible to have a romantic relationship which isn't sexually active (such as the one I currently have with my fiancée).

David.

QFT

 

[k2svpete]

Don't know what bible you're reading but that is certainly not what is suggested.

What is detailed is that Jonathan loved David as he did himself ('love thy neighbour as thyself' sound familiar?). It is also recorded that Saul was resentful of David and sought to kill him.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Don't know what bible you're reading but that is certainly not what is suggested.

What is detailed is that Jonathan loved David as he did himself ('love thy neighbour as thyself' sound familiar?). It is also recorded that Saul was resentful of David and sought to kill him.

Yeah... a father wanting to kill his son's "special friend"... nope, nothing about THAT sets off the gaydar alarm bells...

 

[k2svpete]

What do I win if I show you an encyclopaedia source that says otherwise?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

You quote wikipedia as an encyclopaedic source and expect to be taken seriously?

Any academic (secular or theological) would laugh in disgust if you tried to use wikipedia as a resource to support an argument.

 

[k2svpete]

Yeah... a father wanting to kill his son's "special friend"... nope, nothing about THAT sets off the gaydar alarm bells...

How about looking at it in context? David was approved of God and had the support of the people. Saul was put on the throne by men, little wonder he was feeling insecure.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You quote wikipedia as an encyclopaedic source and expect to be taken seriously?

Any academic (secular or theological) would laugh in disgust if you tried to use wikipedia as a resource to support an argument.

Attacking the source, rather than the data, is the sign of someone who knows hes got no actual evidence. Care to try again?