A re-examination of nothing

davedjy · Feb 14, 2008

Floatingaxe said:
I am amazed at the lack of trust in God our Father who has orchestrated and masterminded the translation of His holy Word to us in this era so that all may come to know Him.

We are seeing self-serving people change it to suit their own interests.

I will have nothing to to with such rewrites and fleshly pursuits that are only in existence to fulfill an evil agenda.

I know what my God tells me in His Word and you cannot influence me against Him in any way.

As stated, this is not a credible rebuttal of my post.

It matters not what you are willing to believe, the truth has been shown. I have posted the evidence, and then you go and defend the inconsistencies like saying masturbation and homosexuality are basically the same thing.

Can you actually try a proper rebuttal without saying something has an "evil agenda"?
You are not making a credible point by saying something has an "agenda", it proves nothing.

Floatingaxe · Feb 14, 2008

davedjy said:
As stated, this is not a credible rebuttal of my post.

It matters not what you are willing to believe, the truth has been shown. I have posted the evidence, and then you go and defend the inconsistencies like saying masturbation and homosexuality are basically the same thing.

Can you actually try a proper rebuttal without saying something has an "evil agenda"?
You are not making a credible point by saying something has an "agenda", it proves nothing.

It is very telling that the only issue that you are to post on and on about is this so-called evidence of mistranslation!

What? No others?

It screams agenda. It has no credibility with me or other bible-believing and Spirit-led Christians.

davedjy · Feb 14, 2008

Floatingaxe said:
It is very telling that the only issue that you are to post on and on about is this so-called evidence of mistranslation!

What? No others?

It screams agenda. It has no credibility with me or other bible-believing and Spirit-led Christians.

You do not speak for all Bible-believing Christians.

Once again, please do try refuting my post without saying it has an agenda, because that isn't a proper rebuttal. It proves nothing.

That is far from correct, I have posted interpretations of all the clobber passages. I usually only bring up the mistranslation when someone says one doesn't inherit the kingdom, since 1 Cor. is the only place that one can say it says this.

savedandhappy1 · Feb 14, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
refuse to answer a direct question and put up a smiley graphic.

You don't thing whether or not innocent rape victims should be stoned to death is important?

Can you remember what scripture that is? I was studying on that here while back, and I was starting to get the impression that they were saying she didn't scream because she wasn't being raped. Which is why they stone them both, but I don't know for sure now why I was getting that.

So anyhow you don't happened to remember where that scriptures is, because I would like to go back and look at that more, thank if you happened to know.

Floatingaxe · Feb 14, 2008

savedandhappy1 said:
Can you remember what scripture that is? I was studying on that here while back, and I was starting to get the impression that they were saying she didn't scream because she wasn't being raped. Which is why they stone them both, but I don't know for sure now why I was getting that.

So anyhow you don't happened to remember where that scriptures is, because I would like to go back and look at that more, thank if you happened to know.

Deuteronomy 22

Your interpretation is correct.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

Floatingaxe said:
Deuteronomy 22

Your interpretation is correct.

And does this verse give any scope to rape victims who do NOT scream out, not being stoned?

Jet_A_Jockey · Feb 14, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
And does this verse give any scope to rape victims who do NOT scream out, not being stoned?

What is the point in bringing up ancient civil laws? These debates have absolutely nothing to do with taking judicial action against someone who is in sin.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

Jet_A_Jockey said:
What is the point in bringing up ancient civil laws? These debates have absolutely nothing to do with taking judicial action against someone who is in sin.

The point is this (for the nth time) if you are happy to discard other ancient laws (e.g. stoning rape victims) why cling so desperately to the alleged law against homosexuality?

We don't execute rape victims anymore because we acknowledge they have done no wrong. What is so hard about making the same leap for homosexuals for you?

Jet_A_Jockey · Feb 15, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
The point is this (for the nth time) if you are happy to discard other ancient laws (e.g. stoning rape victims) why cling so desperately to the alleged law against homosexuality?

I'm not clinging desperately to anything, I don't care what homosexuals do or don't do. All I know is to claim that same-sex sex is blessed by God is not backed in scripture whatsoever.

We don't execute rape victims anymore because we acknowledge they have done no wrong. What is so hard about making the same leap for homosexuals for you?

i don't recall anyone attempting to outlaw homosexuality. We were never meant to execute anyone for anything, the punishments were to be given by civil authorities, not by the people. I'm not sure what rape victims were being executed to begin with, anyway.

Lets assume that 'rape victims' are to be stoned to death according to law, as well as homosexuals. I'd be against them both equally, since I think people should have the opportunity to learn from their actions instead of die for them. So please don't put words in my mouth.

savedandhappy1 · Feb 15, 2008

Floatingaxe said:
Deuteronomy 22

Your interpretation is correct.

Thanks.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 15, 2008

Jet_A_Jockey said:
I'm not clinging desperately to anything, I don't care what homosexuals do or don't do. All I know is to claim that same-sex sex is blessed by God is not backed in scripture whatsoever.

i don't recall anyone attempting to outlaw homosexuality. We were never meant to execute anyone for anything, the punishments were to be given by civil authorities, not by the people. I'm not sure what rape victims were being executed to begin with, anyway.

Lets assume that 'rape victims' are to be stoned to death according to law, as well as homosexuals. I'd be against them both equally, since I think people should have the opportunity to learn from their actions instead of die for them. So please don't put words in my mouth.

But, (and heres the point) since the Bible calls for the stoning of rape victims... surely you see that it is laying blame on rape victims? blame we no longer place there?

Jet_A_Jockey · Feb 15, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
But, (and heres the point) since the Bible calls for the stoning of rape victims... surely you see that it is laying blame on rape victims? blame we no longer place there?

my bible doesn't call for the stoning of rape victims that is why i put quotations around the term.

David Brider · Feb 15, 2008

Jet_A_Jockey said:
my bible doesn't call for the stoning of rape victims that is why i put quotations around the term.

Odd, mine does.

Deuteronomy 22:23 - 24 said:
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

I guess you could argue that the implication is that because the victim doesn't scream for help, she's a willing participant, but that doesn't allow for the fact that there may be other reasons for not screaming for help (like, the guy puts his hand over her mouth).

There are countless other commands in Leviticus and Deuteronomy which it seems we're happy to ignore, so I am rather curious as to why the whole "lying with a man as with a woman" thing seems to be such an important one in the overall scheme of things.

David.

Floatingaxe · Feb 15, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
And does this verse give any scope to rape victims who do NOT scream out, not being stoned?

One thing I know is that God blessed Israel with wisdom in her judges. any woman who was indeed raped and didn't cry out, I trust the judges to have been completely able by God to have sussed that out and dealt accordingly.

The Jews are very wise people still. A gift from God.

Case closed.

Phinehas2 · Feb 15, 2008

Dear EnemyPartyII

From you no. The purpose of the thread is examination fo scriptures that show countenance for same-sex sex. So far you have presented nothing

The scriptures don't specifically have to countenance same sex...

Thats just your opinion, my opinion is that the scriptures condemn same-sex sex and I have given you examples whether you believe them or not.
If you have no examples then you have no evidence to support your argument and thats really the end of your debate on this thread as this thread is about evidence to countenance same-sex sex.

Phinehas2 · Feb 15, 2008

Can I ask all posters please to either come up with, and discuss scriptures that countenance same-sex sex only. Please do not discuss the scriptures already put forward as condemning same-sex sex such as 1 Cor 6, Romans 1, Lev 18 & 20 etc. These have already been presented and discussed at length on other threads.

OllieFranz · Feb 15, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Can I ask all posters please to either come up with, and discuss scriptures that countenance same-sex sex only. Please do not discuss the scriptures already put forward as condemning same-sex sex such as 1 Cor 6, Romans 1, Lev 18 & 20 etc. These have already been presented and discussed at length on other threads.

OK, but...

Your argument seems to be* that because there are no passages that "countenance" "same-sex sex," then the Bible forbids it. So first you tell me where I can find any passages that "countenance" "cross-sex sex." The only passages I can find that directly mention sex (as opposed to mentioning, say, marriage or siring children which we interpret to imply that sex occurred), are all discussing sexual sins. The closest I can find to favorably mentioning sex are the variant of "And Aaaa begat Bbbb" which goes "And Aaaa knew his wife and she concieved and bare Bbbb," and Paul's "It's better to marry than to burn."

By your standard then, all sex is sin.

While the Bible does not "countenance" any specific sexual acts, it does praise several relationships between people, especially covenanted relationships such as marriage. Nor do those relationship need to be cross-sex.

The Bible praises the relationship of Ruth to her mother-in-law Naomi. It praises the covenanted relationship between Jonathan and David. There are probably dozens of other relationships I could mention, but I'll content myself with only one more: Elijah and Elisha.

*If I am mistaken about your point, I apologize. If you have some other purpose in trumpeting the fact that the Bible does not seem to "countenance" "same-sex sex," I cannot fathom what that might be.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 15, 2008

Floatingaxe said:
One thing I know is that God blessed Israel with wisdom in her judges. any woman who was indeed raped and didn't cry out, I trust the judges to have been completely able by God to have sussed that out and dealt accordingly.

The Jews are very wise people still. A gift from God.

Case closed.

so... you accept that there are cases where it is right to decide people are innocent where the Bible says they are guilty?

Just like homosexuals.

Case closed.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 15, 2008

Phinehas2 said:
Can I ask all posters please to either come up with, and discuss scriptures that countenance same-sex sex only. Please do not discuss the scriptures already put forward as condemning same-sex sex such as 1 Cor 6, Romans 1, Lev 18 & 20 etc. These have already been presented and discussed at length on other threads.

the whole bit about Jonathon and David. They were gay lovers or I'm a pink tank

Phinehas2 · Feb 15, 2008

Dear EnemyPartyII,
Thats better thanks.
What reasoning have you that Johnathan and David were gay lovers?
Consider that David had more than one wife. Consider also 2 Samuel 11. "One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her."
Now thats the definition of a heterosexual, so David and Jonathan couldnt have been gay lovers because David wasnt gay.
So let me also ask you if David loved Jonathan more than any woman and David isn't recorded as sleeping with Jonathan like he did with women, what do you think love means. Consider in your response that David loved jonathan as himself and Jesus affirms God's purpose to love our neighbour as ourself, so is Jesus asking us to sleep with everyone?

A re-examination of nothing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Well-Known Member

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Phinehas2

Guest

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Phinehas2

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency