A re-examination of nothing

[davedjy]

Davedjy said:



And I ask you once again: Why do you even bring it up if you believe the Bible was mistranslated? All the translations could be minimizing gay-sin for all we know.

This is why your argument is a fallacy: It starts by saying the Bible as we read it is a lie, then your argument says the Bible is reliable information to justify gay-sex.

I'm sorry but this is a hypocrisy. You aren't sincere, and you can't have it both ways.

Once again, you turn the attention to something else. I was stating that these passages do not address a same sex union. The only passages of Scripture I believe to be in error are 1 Tim and 1 Cor. 6:9, which use a false translation of the word "arsenokoitai".

All other passages I have not said were in translation error, but don't agree with your interpretations of the other passages.

Btw, none of my argument is a fallacy, you love to use that word like it actually proves something, but it doesn't.

 

[savedandhappy1]

P.S. You know I feel really moved to spend the day in prayer for those who were affected by the 68 tornadoes last night. Have a Good Day All.

 

[MercyBurst]

Davedjy;

Once again, you turn the attention to something else. I was stating that these passages do not address a same sex union. The only passages of Scripture I believe to be in error are 1 Tim and 1 Cor. 6:9, which use a false translation of the word "arsenokoitai".

All other passages I have not said were in translation error, but don't agree with your interpretations of the other passages.

Once again you just don't seem to get it. You can not both discredit and credit the Bible. And those two verses aren't the only ones you question. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

If you don't believe the Bible then anything else you say just looks like plain hypocrisy, and that goes for the 2 verses you don't like. In my opinion, you've already defeated your own argument.

Btw, none of my argument is a fallacy, you love to use that word like it actually proves something, but it doesn't.

You based your argument on an assumption that says, if the Bible doesn't specifically say gay-marriage is wrong, then it must be alright.

I've heard you say it and I've heard others say it. So now if that's not what you really mean, then please stop saying it. ok


In this same thread there were at least two other participants that heard you advocate this point before I brought it up. Initialy I was responding in agreement with the same point that I now find myself making to you.


So this isn't "just me," and it isn't something that I just "dreamed up" to be off-topic.


Hence that is why I choose to ignore most if not all of what you say.


Your argument goes like this, "King Jimmy lies. King Jimmy says my conduct is ok."

There's no sense in debating it.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

P.S. You know I feel really moved to spend the day in prayer for those who were affected by the 68 tornadoes last night. Have a Good Day All.

Yeah what bes UP with that? They bes all over the globe, too. A friend in the midwest had one then later someone else what bes in New Zealand saying he bes havesy them too.

Something bes up with that. Something NOTW.

 

[davedjy]

Davedjy;



Once again you just don't get it. You can not both discredit and credit the Bible. And those two verses aren't the only ones you question. Either you believe the Bible or you don't.

I'm not discrediting the Bible, I'm discrediting a translation and your FLAWED interpretation of it. Big difference, which is why you aren't even qualified to debate me, since you don't understand the difference between the two.

If you don't believe the Bible then anything else you say just looks like plain hypocrisy, and that goes for the 2 verses you don't like. You've already defeated your own argument.

Straw man argument. I don't disbelieve the Bible, I disagree with one translation of a word, and your fundamental, flawed interpretation of it. Once again, not a credible debate point from you.

You based your argument on an assumption that says, if the Bible doesn't specifically say gay-marriage is wrong, then it must be alright.

No, I base my argument off of the fact there is no proof that marriage is about two opposite sex genders solely. Once again, this IS NOT what my post was responding to though, so stop skirting the point. You don't address my post rebuttal, which is that none of the clobber passages address a same sex union. I don't need proof from the Bible, I'm not the one saying same sex marriage and monogamous relationships are condemned in Scripture, when clearly, they aren't mentioned.
If I wish to go down the same flawed logic path is you I will say "none of the passages mention a same sex marriage, therefore it is condemned and not allowed". Or how about, "the Bible doesn't mention eating ice cream, therefore, eating ice cream is sinful".

I've heard you say it, I've heard EP say it, and I've heard others say it. So now if that's not what you really mean, then please stop saying it. ok

I'm not going to stop saying what I originally did.

 

[tulc]

Do you really believe that crap?

...I'm sorry? Did you just call Scripture crap?

Jesus will be in the City. You can't pull another scripture out of context and make it fit. Do yourself a favour and study God's Word. Know what He means before you try to refute someone.

1st, I don't try and refute, I'm more of a "Have you considered this?" kind of guy. I was just wondering if you had considered that Scripture said Jesus suffered outside the city and we are called to go there also?
tulc(suspects you weren't trying to be insulting, but you did just come off a little..tense in your post to me)

 

[Floatingaxe]

[/size][/font][/b]
...I'm sorry? Did you just call Scripture crap?


1st, I don't try and refute, I'm more of a "Have you considered this?" kind of guy. I was just wondering if you had considered that Scripture said Jesus suffered outside the city and we are called to go there also?
tulc(suspects you weren't trying to be insulting, but you did just come off a little..tense in your post to me)

Once again, there is a lack of understanding of the fatc that Jesus suffered outside the city, Jerusalem. That is where the scapegoat was led in the OT.

We are not CALLED to that! Only Jesus!

 

[tulc]

Once again, there is a lack of understanding of the fatc that Jesus suffered outside the city, Jerusalem. That is where the scapegoat was led in the OT.

uhmm I understood that, it was the point I was making. It seems like the Church looks too much to the return of Christ as the triumphant King that it forgets He spent more time speaking about the suffering we will have while here on Earth.

We are not CALLED to that! Only Jesus!

So...are we greater then our Lord? Only He was called to suffer? And that scripture in Hebrews about our being called to go out to where He died? Is that one of those "Let me explain why a plain reading of THIS scripture isn't right!" situations?
tulc(never real good at figuring those ones out)

 

[Floatingaxe]

God does not regard things as humans do. He condescends to communicate with humans in ways they can grasp. This bes not the same thing as harboring human sentiment. We shall have to agree to disagree if you cannot comprehend that.

God doesn't condescend at all...at least in the sense that "condescend" means for most of us. He loves us with an unfathomable love, and longs for a relationship with each one of us.We have to elevate our thinking a bit to grasp His.

 

[Floatingaxe]

uhmm I understood that, it was the point I was making. It seems like the Church looks too much to the return of Christ as the triumphant King that it forgets He spent more time speaking about the suffering we will have while here on Earth.

So...are we greater then our Lord? Only He was called to suffer? And that scripture in Hebrews about our being called to go out to where He died? Is that one of those "Let me explain why a plain reading of THIS scripture isn't right!" situations?
tulc(never real good at figuring those ones out)

While we all suffer through various trials, we are called to a victorious, overcoming life.

 

[tulc]

While we all suffer through various trials, we are called to a victorious, overcoming life.

...only if you ignore quite a few Scriptures. And the rest of the body that has and is suffering on a daily basis.
tulc(who suspects this is why so many people believe in the Rapture, it's one more chance to avoid the pain of following Jesus)

 

[Floatingaxe]

...only if you ignore quite a few Scriptures. And the rest of the body that has and is suffering on a daily basis.
tulc(who suspects this is why so many people believe in the Rapture, it's one more chance to avoid the pain of following Jesus)

Jesus died and rose again so that we can have a victorious life! Not for us to languish in suffering! He gives us the tools to deal well with suffering and also the tools to overcome it!

He wants His people to prosper in life and be the great witnesses they should be to His power and His love. Yes, we suffer, we fall ill, we hurt. But it is in the overcoming that the world witnesses Christ. We walk through the fire unscathed because of Jesus' power, showing the dark world how wonderful knowing Jesus really is.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Jesus died and rose again so that we can have a victorious life! Not for us to languish in suffering! He gives us the tools to deal well with suffering and also the tools to overcome it!

He wants His people to prosper in life and be the great witnesses they should be to His power and His love. Yes, we suffer, we fall ill, we hurt. But it is in the overcoming that the world witnesses Christ. We walk through the fire unscathed because of Jesus' power, showing the dark world how wonderful knowing Jesus really is.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VP4OvUU-ZHU

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Jesus died and rose again so that we can have a victorious life! Not for us to languish in suffering!

Which is why I don't believe that Jesus would want us to deny our natural desires to find hapiness with the people we love.

 

[Leah]

I can pretty much answer all of your complaints in two words:

COMMON. SENSE.

Common Sense? Would that be the common sense that sees how well a man and womans bodies fit together as they look into each others eyes and become one flesh?

Or would that be the one where two men don't face each other and.......................or two woman that have to use other things to get the desired effect that God planned?

Even without the bible you are right common sense confirms just what the bible says. That God created them male and female and told them to go forth and multiple. And also, as Jesus tells us how a man will leave his parents and take a wife and they will become one flesh.

Wow, a man and woman become one flesh just like what it looks like when they are fit together the way they were designed.

Nice.

 

[Leah]

Which is why I don't believe that Jesus would want us to deny our natural desires to find hapiness with the people we love.

What do you mean by 'natural desires'??

 

[Floatingaxe]

Which is why I don't believe that Jesus would want us to deny our natural desires to find hapiness with the people we love.

That is right. God created in us a need for love, in all its expressions: filial, familial, and marital. In His children, He longs to give us what we desire, and to give us what He knows is the very best and what will please us the most! So, when we come to Him and ask for His best, He is pleased to give us those people in our lives that He desires for us. In His kids, of course, the need for marital love would naturally be fulfilled by those of the opposite sex, because plainly God possesses a hatred for homosexual acts.

Hence the title of this thread!

 

[HaloHope]

Which is why I don't believe that Jesus would want us to deny our natural desires to find hapiness with the people we love.

Exactly.

A loving God would be pretty unloving if he were to condemn people who mutually love and care for each other and are both emotionally sexuality compatible to a life unable to be together and act on thier compatability.

Seeing as I dont believe God is unloving the only logical conclusion I can reach is homosexuality = not a sin.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Exactly.

A loving God would be pretty unloving if he were to condemn people who mutually love and care for each other and are both emotionally sexuality compatible to a life unable to be together and act on thier compatability.

Seeing as I dont believe God is unloving the only logical conclusion I can reach is homosexuality = not a sin.

Please produce Scripture that tells us exactly that. I would love to see it how man's logic is not as fallible as we know it really is.

 

[Leah]

Exactly.

A loving God would be pretty unloving if he were to condemn people who mutually love and care for each other and are both emotionally sexuality compatible to a life unable to be together and act on thier compatability.

Well, from my own experience, I too have loved and have been emotionally and sexuality compatible with some men in the past (and they me as well) but a intimate relationship did not happen. Why? Because he was not the right one for me nor I him. So to me, you cannot depend upon your emotions and especially sexual compatibility (when btw, can be easily learned if marriage were to happen) to decide what's love and what's not. And to bring God into this like He just HAS to approve everything we think is good, otherwise He's a spiteful mean and selfish God? Please. If that were true, then honey, I'd be the happiest woman on earth!

Seeing as I dont believe God is unloving the only logical conclusion I can reach is homosexuality = not a sin.

Read and study Romans 1:21-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11. They will explain to you why homosexuality is sin. And our own logic has nothing to do with spirituality. Read Proverbs 3:5-6.

Because in case you didn't know, this is spritual battle everybody in this world is in, whether we like it or not. So it's not enough to just be adamite about what is sin and what isn't and leave it at that and be on about your business, but WHY it is and just how damaging it can be for those who submit to sin and also those who have to bear the burden of those who choose to sin.

Tha's why the bible is so important. It tells us WHY, among many other things.