C.A.R.M. 's homosexuality webpage

[katautumn]

The mentioning of genitalia is INAPPROPRIATE on this PUBLIC board, especially considering the manner that it came. There was no context that would make it appropriate, and discussing the physical characteristics of any genitalia is not appropriate on this board.

But mentioning men having sex with other men and men trying to rape angels is appropriate?

 

[drstevej]

JohnT, this is an example of how far this website has declined spiritually.

The long standing effort to undermine any biblical foundation in debate areas and theology has largely succeeded. Biblical morality is lampooned.

Please do not invite young Christians to this part of CF.

God did not write the Pauline epistles. A very flawed man, Paul, is attributed as having written them.

Attack the messenger.
Sad time for CF... and it is growing darker.

 

[CaDan]

JohnT, this is an example of how far this website has declined spiritually.

The long standing effort to undermine any biblical foundation in debate areas and theology has largely succeeded. Biblical morality is lampooned.

Please do not invite young Christians to this part of CF.



Attack the messenger.
Sad time for CF... and it is growing darker.

Dark like the Curse of Ham?

 

[OllieFranz]

[Note: I'm glad Im saved it this time. I could not post because my reply was too long. I have to break it up into sections.]

OK, second try at replying to this post. This time, I'm saving my work before I hit "send."

If you are going to trash CARM, the least you can do is quote their response accurately instead of making a fallacious straw man argument, then supply your inaccurate paraphrases as “proofs”

I supplied the link. I choose not to violate copyright laws (Thou shalt not steal). I did not give "inaccurate paraphrases," I did refer to their lack of content, and I stand by that statement.

Objections Answered

1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

• The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy.

Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.
The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.
The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.


Sorry, but your whining is at odds with the facts.

So, where in the Bible is the passage that commands, describes, or even allows someone to divide up God's Law into parts, some of which are to be obeyed and others that must be ignored? And why is it that some people divide the Law into three parts ("priestly," "civil," and "moral") while others divide it into only two ("ceremonial" and "moral")?

And on what basis do you divide the individual commands? If I list several commandments from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, can you tell me whether they are priestly, civil, or moral, and can you tell me why other "Consevative Christians" sometimes label them differently?

1 Kosher dietary laws (Leviticus 11:2-47)
2 Masturbation and "Wet Dreams", also Menses (Leviticus 15:16-28)
3 Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:34)
4 Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18)
5 Exposing a menstruating woman's genitals (presumably a euphemism for having sex with her)(Leviticus 18:19)
6 Adultery (Leviticus 18:20)
7 Sabbath laws (and by extension, Sunday blue laws)(Leviticus 19:3)
8 Haircuts, piercings, tatoos (Leviticus 19:27-28)
9 Passover (Leviticus 23:4-8)
10 Phylactaries and the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)
11 "Mixed" marriages (Deuteronomy 7:3)
12 Heart Circumscision (Deuteronomy 10:16)
13 Moving boundary markers (and thus stealing property) (Deuteronomy 19:14
14 Cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5)
15 Building a safety railing around a rooftop patio or a balcony (Deuteronomy 22:8)
16 Mixing different seeds in the same field. (Deuteronomy 22:9)
17 Plowing with ass and ox unequally yoked (Deuteronomy 22:10)
18 "Taking" one's father's wife. (Deuteronomy 22:30)
19 Re-marrying an ex-wife (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
20 Leverite marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
21 Lying a man with the lyings of a woman (Leviticus 18:22)

CARM provided no answer for any of these questions. They just assumed that we would accept their fiat that some parts of the Law can be ignored, while others can be used to condemn people that are different from them.

Well I don't accept their fiat, because I don't recognize their authority. It is not Biblically based.

2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God. This is a fallacious argument.
Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one.
This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.
Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.

If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture.
Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.


Again, you fail to establish your point, for your accusations are contrary to fact.

Again, my point is that CARM (and most conservative Christians) have by fiat has made a statement (in this case a definition of marriage). Some debaters on the other side have tried to work around the definition by calling same-sex marriages "loving, committed relationships." This is a mistake which places those debaters in a no-win situation.

I don't dispute that even CARM can "win" the argument if they can convince the other side to accept that definition. I, however, reject that definition as unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible does God define marriage. Nor is there any command about who can and can't marry. Almost all of the passages about marriage are about what is to happen in the marriage -- including that old favorite Genesis 2:24. There are a couple of verses in Leviticus that forbid marrying two women who are closely related, and other passages that warn about the dangers of religiously mixed marriages, but nowhere does the Bible claim that marriages made in defiance of these passages are not marriages. Only those covenanting a marriage can define that marriage. If a particular government or a particular church refuses to recognize it, it does not invalidate it, it only invalidates any claim that government or that church over the marriage and the members thereof.

So I agree that a "loving, committed relationship" is not the same as a marriage, but I disagree that a "loving, committed relationship" outside of marriage the best that a same-sex couple can achieve. Since their marriage is valid, and sex, even gay sex, within marriage is not forbidden, there is no sin of sexual immorality. Should a couple choose not to covenant a marriage, they are fornicating, and their sin is the same whether they are the same sex or opposite sexes.

I don't see all relationships outside marriage as the same. I especially do not equate a loving, committed relationship, sinful as it may be, with cruel and evil relationships such as child molesting. And even if the molester claims to "love" the child, the relationship is not a loving one, and is only "committed" if the molester is obsessed.

Once you reject CARM's unfounded and unbiblical fiat definition of marriage, their argument collapses, just as I said.

3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.
The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding?

Looking at the four verses, especially just a surface look at the English translation without context, either textual or historical, does not even begin to address this argument. At best, these verses can be considered "teachings." (That is they would be teachings if they actually taught what Carm claims they do, but more on that later.)

The argument CARM pretends to refute claims that the incidents that the Bible condemns, and which could be claimed to relate in some way to homosexuality, are evil regardless of the sex of the victim. In fact, in one case the actual victim was a woman. The three incidents were Sodom (Genesis 19), Gibeah (Judges 19), and Hanun, King of the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10; 1 Chronicles 19) I'll have more to say on this in the next section, discussing CARM's take on Sodom.

 

[OllieFranz]

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROVIDE THE HEBREW TEXTS FOR YOU? THEN YOU CAN TELL US WHERE CARM, AND THE BIBLE TRANSLATORS MESSED UP, OR THAT THE CONTEXT IS WRONG.

Don't bother. Instead let me post an extract from a post I made a little more than a year ago:

ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא׃
Leviticus 18:22

Such a short verse. Only seven words, two and a half of them are auxilliaries of so little account that most dictionaries and concordances do not even index them.

The five words of consequence are:

ואת־זכר With the male/man
תשכב to lie
משכבי the lyings
אשה of the female/woman/wife
תועבה is taboo.

The meaning of the verse seems clear, especially if you already "know" what it is supposed to say: "Sex with a man is sin."

But there is some degree of controversy on four of the five words. I'll discuss the first three together, since together they define the act. I'll look at the fourth afterward


תשכב and משכבי -- these are not forms of the same word, although their respective root words both mean "to lie (down)" and, in fact, both are very closely related.

משכבי -- "the lyings" comes from a root word which simply means to lie down. משכבי appears 46 times in the Hebrew scriptures. 39 times it is translated "bed" or "couch" and usually refers either to a piece of furniture that one lies down on or "taking to one's bed" in illness or injury. Skipping over this verse and the related Leviticus 20:13, there are 8 verses (including three of the verses where it was translated as "bed") where it refers to someone with whom the subject has shared a bed, usually a wife or concubine.

תשכב -- "to lie" also comes from a root word which simply means to lie down. But when it is used in a clearly sexual situation there is almost always an element of non-consent involved, and often outright rape.

אשה -- "of the woman" can simply mean female as זכר means either man or male. But it can also mean woman in the particular sense of wife (or concubine). This can be important if you choose to translate "the lyings" as bed-partner.

So some possible translations of the taboo act are:

1. Lying (sexually) with a man as you would with a woman;
2. Lying (sexually) with a man in the bed you share with your wife;
3. Lying (for any purpose, even sleep) with a man in the bed you share with your wife;
4. Raping a man (even if in a manner that the Bible seems to allow for raping a woman);
5. Raping a man in the bed you share with your wife;
6. Lying (sexually) with your wife's lover;
7. Lying (sexually) with your wife and her lover;
8. Raping your wife's lover.

There are other combinations, but they are rather unlikely to be the best way to translate the description of the taboo act.

The most likely translation is the traditional one (1), although we can't entirely rule out (4), (6), (7), or even (2).

-----

תועבה -- "is taboo" was translated as "abomination" in the AV, before the word taboo entered the English language. Because of its familiarity, many modern translations also translate תועבה as "abomination," despite the fact that "abomination" has aquired a much stronger and visceral connotation in the last 400 years.

To appreciate the meaning of תועבה we have to compare it with two other Hebrew words which are also often translated as "abomination": ושקץ and זמה.

ושקץ is a defilement which is temporary. You wash away the offending taboo and thereafter the person or object usually are considered unclean only until the next morning.

תועבה is a stronger defilement which requires a blood sacrifice to expiate. Usually it implies contamination not by a natural agent (such as a woman's menses or a man's sperm) as is the case of ושקץ, but by association with heathen practices, especially idolatry.

זמה is a moral (often sexual) transgression and is more often translated as wickedness rather than abomination.

So if the act was banned because it is an immoral sexual practice, it would be labelled זמה, wickedness, not תועבה, taboo. It is תועבה for the same reason that too close a fraternization with the heathens, or cross-dressing are תועבה -- it is a non-mixing law like not wearing mixed fabrics, to remind the Jews not to mix with the "Nations." This is confirmed in the verses in Leviticus 18, and 20 which follow after the lists of banned actions, of which "lying with a male" is just one.

The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality.

I looked at Leviticus 18:22 above, much more closely than CARM does. I concluded that it is likely that the ban was a "separation" law, saying that the Jews must not adopt pagan practices. This, in turn suggests that there may have been a specific pagan ritual that the writer had in mind, though that is not a certainty.

Leviticus 20:13 repeats the ban in almost the exact same words. Paul either coined the word αρσενοκοιται or he used a rare (and previously undocumented) word peculiar to Greek-speaking Jews. I am convinced that the word directly relates to the Levitical ban, so an understanding of the use of the word in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, is dependent on the proper understanding of the original ban. Thus, all four of these verses have the same view on the banned activity.

And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent. WHAT DOES A PAGAN PHILOSOPHER HAVE TO DO WITH SCRIPTURE??? (((SHAKING MY HEAD)))

I thought you claimed to have studied the original documents. How could you have done that and not know that in his letter to the Romans, Paul borrows several ideas from Plato, and that the very lines you showcase are not
Paul's but Plato's?

And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.
-- Plato Laws: Book 1 Line 636c

Yes, There are differences, Paul did not quote directly. Examining Paul's changes, and the likely reasons behind them only show that Paul went out of his way to downplay the "homosexual" elements in Plato's example. But the results of that examination could fill several discussion threads, and there is still more of your post to respond to.

There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.

Well, as far as the Old Testament goes, rape is certainly condemned, especially when the victim is male. And "man-lying" is taboo, but whether "man-lying" is rape, an idolatrous sexual rite, gay sex in general, or even taking one of the two positions (the one considered the "active" role) in one specific sexual act is something not agreed on.

But we have only just begun to look at the New Testament.

Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth.

It may surprise you to discover that I agree with everything in this paragraph up to this point.

God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible.

But this is simply not true, as stated. There are many forms that sexual immorality can take, and many other sins that have a sexual component, and the sex of the victim has no bearing on these crimes, and so one is not shielded from the consequences of sin by being gay, but homosexuality itself is not unequivocally condemned.

 

[drstevej]

no

 

[OllieFranz]

It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense [I assume you meant to type "sin" here] and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:26ff

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them. ASV
1. Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things. 2. And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things. 3. And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? [ASV]


26 δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν 27 ομοιως τε και οι αρρενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες 28 και καθως ουκ εδοκιμασαν τον θεον εχειν εν επιγνωσει παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις αδοκιμον νουν ποιειν τα μη καθηκοντα 29 πεπληρωμενους παση αδικια πορνεια πονηρια πλεονεξια κακια μεστους φθονου φονου εριδος δολου κακοηθειας ψιθυριστας 30 καταλαλους θεοστυγεις υβριστας υπερηφανους αλαζονας εφευρετας κακων γονευσιν απειθεις 31 ασυνετους ασυνθετους αστοργους ασπονδους ανελεημονας 32 οιτινες το δικαιωμα του θεου επιγνοντες οτι οι τα τοιαυτα πρασσοντες αξιοι θανατου εισιν ου μονον αυτα ποιουσιν αλλα και συνευδοκουσιν τοις πρασσουσιν Stephanus
1. διο αναπολογητος ει ω ανθρωπε πας ο κρινων εν ω γαρ κρινεις τον ετερον σεαυτον κατακρινεις τα γαρ αυτα πρασσεις ο κρινων 2. οιδαμεν δε οτι το κριμα του θεου εστιν κατα αληθειαν επι τους τα τοιαυτα πρασσοντας 3. λογιζη δε τουτο ω ανθρωπε ο κρινων τους τα τοιαυτα πρασσοντας και ποιων αυτα οτι συ εκφευξη το κριμα του θεου [Textus receptus, base text is Stephens 1550, with variants of Scrivener 1894.]

Here is the original Greek followed by perhaps the most accurate American translation of Scripture.

Where did the experts go wrong??

Well, first, CARM did not examine the text in context, either historical, or textual. They presented the isolated prooftext in translation and imposed their understanding of the meaning of the English words on the verses. You did a little better when you quoted the passage from the beginning, but you broke off too soon. I added a few more verses, enough to show Paul's true purpose in writing the passage, although it would have been better to continue on to the conclusion.

Second, CARM failed to acknowledge that the phrase "For this cause" refers back to earlier verses. In so doing, they ignore the fact that the verse clearly states that giving them over to their baser passions is a punishment for earlier sins, not simply allowing them the free will to sin. This is emphasized by the phrase "and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." The construction of that phrase in the Greek indicates that they are currently recieving the recompense which is their due.

Third, by refusing to aknowledge Plato as the original source of the line, they are cutting themselves and their readers off from properly understanding Paul's reasoning in quoting Plato. By understanding Plato's meaning, and seeing where Paul agrees and disagrees, we get a better understanding of Paul's position.

Fourth (Although I briefly mentioned this in the first and fourth points, it deserves a point of its own), CARM completely ignores Paul's main point. As did you when you cut off the passage too soon. After listing all of the sins and faults of the pagan Romans, Paul turns his attention back to his readers, the Roman Christians. "And you," he says, "don't get any ideas that you are any better than them. We are all sinners, none of us are justified under the Law. We have no right to point a finger at anyone else."

In 1 Corinthians 6 that is again Pauls real point, and so it really does not matter what αρσενοκοιται means, if you are not guilty of that, you are guilty of something else. The only people it could possibly matter to are those whom it may apply, and those to which apply one or more from the list in Romans 1:

being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:
(emphasis mine)

4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.
This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'

ACTUALLY, THE HEBREW WORD IS TRANSLATED “KNOW” AND IT HAS AS A MEANING “KNOW SEXUALLY” THIS IS THEREFORE TOTALLY IN KEEPING WITH THE HEBREW; I CAN COPY FROM SEVERAL HEBREW LEXICONS ON THAT ONE.

Yes when used sexually, "know" is generally mild, and is most often used of the relations a man has with his wife. But actually, I believe that the word "know" should be translated more literally here. They actually did want to learn more about these visitors and their purpose in visiting with Lot, who was, himself, a foreigner.

The English word "interrogate" probably best describes what it is that the townspeople wanted. Interrogation can get physical, and even brutal. Remember Abner Louima? And that was in a country that is supposed to honor the dignity of man and uphold civil rights. The planned rape of Lot's visitors was no more an act of lust than the rape of David's ambassadors that Hanun ordered.

AS TO THE SECOND SENTENCE, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, NOR ITS RELEVANCE. YOU SIMPLY FAIL TO REBUT THE CARM POSITION, AGAIN. (SIGH)

What I was saying is that CARM is in disagreement with the Scriptures. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Jesus (as quoted in Luke) all spoke of the sins of Sodom. None of them mentioned homosexuality.

In fact, the incident outside Lot's house had nothing directly to do with the destruction of the Cities of the Plain. There were no angels in the other cities, and the destruction had already been decreed. At most, it is just another illustration of their inhospitable attitude: shoot first and ask questions later.

Honestly, you will be more fruitful by trying to obey the plain truth of what God said rather than trying to find sophomoric ways to evade the plain truth.

Honestly, you will be more fruitful by trying to understand the plain truth of what God said rather than trying to find sophomoric ways to impose your prejudices on the Bible.

Howl and whine that we are unloving, etc, but the plain fact is that homosexuals are just like adulterers: sinners who need to be forgiven, accept Jesus as savior, then stop sinning. It is that simple.

I agree; it is that simple. We are all sinners who need forgiveness. But some people are more worried about their neighbors guilt than their own, choosing to impose on those neighbors rules and laws when they may not apply. Paul spoke to this in Romans (Chapter 14), 1 Corinthians (Chapter 8), and Colossians (Chapter 2).

James also spoke to this but I'll hold off on quoting the passage

All we do is quote Scripture; all you opponents do is try to wiggle out from the plain laws of God.

All I'm doing is examining the Scriptures in context instead of in one-or-two-verse prooftexts. Sure "soundbites" from a speech are easier to digest than the speech itself, but you often miss the "meat" of the politician's proposal. It is the same with studying Scripture.

There may be some who believe that he/she has good rhetorical skills on your side; (I found none so far) who can state things clearly and reasonable,

I do not pretend to be a skilled and educated debater, but I do try to understand and honor the rules.

I have found a few people on your side who truly understand logical fallacies and how to identify and avoid them, and a few who know the basic rules of rhetoric, and even a few who have a real respect for the rules and skills, but I have yet to meet someone with all three. To the contrary, all too many of the people on your side are proud of the fact that they don't know how to formally frame an argument. The more extreme among them read the prooftext 1 Corinthians 1:27 to mean that they are honoring God by trolling "in love" and otherwise disrupting the orderly progress of discussion. Somewhat less extreme, but more prevelant are those who answer every post with prooftexts without context or even their own commentary, or by pasting copyrighted (and therefore stolen) material that may or may not relate to that to which it was posted in response.

but do any of you think for one nanosecond that if you have the greatest skills in the world that you could convince a just, righteous and holy God to change his mind about what he wrote?

No, but then I never made any such claim. I just want to understand His will, not rewrite it. I'll leave that task to you.

Who are you to stand in the face of God and argue your case yourself?

I'm only a sinner, saved by grace. But I have a powerful Advocate.

Ultimately it is his judgment each of you will face, and I hope you do it as a humble Christian rather than as a PROUD homosexual.

Yes, it is His judgment we will all face.

Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
James 4:11-12

And you are still letting your prejudices guide you into unwarranted assumptions. I am not a "PROUD homosexual," but a simple and humble Christian, studying the Scriptures as advised by Paul (2 Timothy 2:15) in order to learn what He expects of me, day by day.

 

[OllieFranz]

It seems I lost a lot of my formatting in copying and pasting the second and third sections. If anything is unclear, I'll repost that section with the formatting restored to the best of my recollection.

 

[MercyBurst]

JohnT, this is an example of how far this website has declined spiritually.

The long standing effort to undermine any biblical foundation in debate areas and theology has largely succeeded. Biblical morality is lampooned.

Please do not invite young Christians to this part of CF.



Attack the messenger.
Sad time for CF... and it is growing darker.

amen brother.

I call it witnessing from "the Lowest Common Denominator" to lower the bar for spirituality, and cast doubt on the Lord's name. It's all downhill to the bottom. You'll also hear them attacking Paul and other great saints of the Bible.

Believers are supposed to exalt the Lord:

Psalms 34:3 O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together.

Psalms 99:9 Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the LORD our God is holy.

It's all uphill to the top.

 

[CaDan]

Blessed be the name of the Lord

 

[KCKID]

I do not pretend to be a skilled and educated debater . . .

I don't know about that. You've done yourself proud with the above posts.

Well done.

 

[KCKID]

JohnT, this is an example of how far this website has declined spiritually.

Meaningless and nonsensical rhetoric. The scary thing is that you really believe it.

The long standing effort to undermine any biblical foundation in debate areas and theology has largely succeeded. Biblical morality is lampooned.

A handful - if that - of scriptures that are ambiguous at best have been (re)interpreted in a way that goes against YOUR PERSONAL grain, Rep Daddy. Because they HAVE been interpreted in a way that COULD WELL be correct but are nevertheless an interpretation that goes against YOUR PERSONAL grain you ACTUALLY see this as an affront to God! How unbelievably arrogant of you to actually believe that you and only you and your supporters have license to interpret scriptures as you would have them interpreted.

Please do not invite young Christians to this part of CF.

Remove the TV and computer from them also since these things will surely corrupt them. Ban them from public school, put blinders on them, insert ear plugs, strap the Bible to their forehead, enroll them into a monastery if need be and keep them from observing REAL life at any cost. If some of them (young Christians) are struggling with homosexuality (and many ARE!) pretend that this is not really happening within out churches. Don't discuss these issues at any cost since to do so will bring down the wrath of God not only on the 'offenders' but also on those who wish to learn more about what makes people 'tick'. Regard all homosexuals as evil-doers recruited by Satan and if one should get close to you raise the Bible in a heroic gesture and he/she will shrivel away.

Attack the messenger.
Sad time for CF... and it is growing darker.

Excuse me ...I think I need to vomit.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Look ~E~lsewhere.

Never heard of it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

But to equate those who were taken against their will, having no choice in the matter and being forced to be slaves of another with homosexual behavior is indeed absurd.

Where is this mentioned?

Homosexual behavior is a learned behavior

Perhaps in the same way heterosexuality is, but not otherwise.

and the Bible calls it a sin.

Wrong.

To accept your premise, one would have to conclude that being a black person is likewise a sin.

And so the forces which wanted to keep them down did. Thank you.

Your logic concludes that those who practice bestiality or swingers likewise would not be sinners.

Invalid slippery slope fantasy.

Go argue with Paul, for he wrote "“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17)

Devil's in the details.

That was a facetious remark. The point is that God calls homosexuality a sin in various places. In that he is consistent; no one is ever going to change the mind of God on that. He wrote what he wrote.

He said nothing of this sort.

The mentioning of genitalia is INAPPROPRIATE on this PUBLIC board, especially considering the manner that it came. There was no context that would make it appropriate, and discussing the physical characteristics of any genitalia is not appropriate on this board.

It was appropriate for the topic and always is. The remark was innocuous.

 

[Texas Lynn]

JohnT, this is an example of how far this website has declined spiritually.

The long standing effort to undermine any biblical foundation in debate areas and theology has largely succeeded. Biblical morality is lampooned.

This website is vastly superior to what it was was politically correct fundamentalism was enforced.

Please do not invite young Christians to this part of CF.

Our youth need to see how faith is misused to enact oppression.

Attack the messenger.

Finger-waggers represent none but themselves.

Sad time for CF... and it is growing darker.

By the participation of those who fight oppression CF is walking in the bright sunshine of human rights.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I call it witnessing from "the Lowest Common Denominator" to lower the bar for spirituality

To stand firm for human rights is to raise the bar.

 

[OllieFranz]

I don't know about that. You've done yourself proud with the above posts.

Well done.

Thank you. But I was not being unduly modest. My full statement was the simple truth.

I do not pretend to be a skilled and educated debater, but I do try to understand and honor the rules.

I have not had formal training in rhetoric, and I do not want to wind up in an escalating war with John over who knows more rules or who can construct their arguments more formally.

Still I do try to keep in practice with what I do know and to to learn more.

Every day I try to learn at least one thing I never knew before. As much as possible (my goal is at least five days a week), I want what I learn to be something from one of the seven classic liberal arts: Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Mathematics, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy, or of the other traditional subjects Latin (not so much Latin itself, but my vocabulary grows through the understanding of the Latin roots of some English words), Philosophy, Theology, and Natural Science.

Yesterday I learned about temper in music. And why really old instruments sound out of tune when they are perfectly tuned for the temper of the music the were designed to play.

 

[katautumn]

JohnT, this is an example of how far this website has declined spiritually.

Yes, I would definitely call the Christian "love" displayed on some of the debate forums here a decline spiritually.

The long standing effort to undermine any biblical foundation in debate areas and theology has largely succeeded.

Ah, but I have not undermined the Bible. I clearly pointed out the context in which verses frequently used against homosexuals is not being used properly. I feel that many Christians like to pick little snippets from the Bible in hopes of condemning a group of people they have deemed "lesser beings". When you read in Leviticus 18 where is calls men lying with other men an abomination, it sounds pretty severe; however, when you apply it in the full scope of God speaking to Moses in chapter eighteen, you see that God called several sex acts an abomination - one of them is having sexual intercourse with your wife during her time of menstruation. So, do Christian men never have sex with their wives while they are menstruating? If so, why would they if God called that an abomination - one that in those times would get a married couple thrown out of the Jewish community?

Biblical morality is lampooned.

Here again, when Christians fail to debate Biblical morality in the proper context, who is guilty of lampooning?

Please do not invite young Christians to this part of CF.

No, please do not. I'd hate for someone to get the wrong impression that Christians are a bunch of intolerant, judgmental people.

Attack the messenger.

We are, hence why we are debating (the "messenger" being Christians throwing around partial passages of Scripture and interpreting them in the wrong context).

Sad time for CF... and it is growing darker.

Please. You guys had your fair share of happier times on this site. Need I remind anyone of the horrendous moderator bias in the conservatives' favor a few years ago? If you want a message forum where everyone is forced to conform to the same rigid standards, may I suggest CARM or Rapture Ready?

 

[kiwimac]

Do I agree that one group oppressing another is wrong? Yes.

But to equate those who were taken against their will, having no choice in the matter and being forced to be slaves of another with homosexual behavior is indeed absurd.

Homosexual behavior is a learned behavior, and the Bible calls it a sin. To accept your premise, one would have to conclude that being a black person is likewise a sin.

Show me ANY evidence from a reputable source which agrees that homosexuality is a learned behaviour please.

Your logic concludes that those who practice bestiality or swingers likewise would not be sinners.

Heiferdust

Go argue with Paul, for he wrote "“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17)

Paul was referring to the Old Testament here. There was no NT when he wrote that. Indeed the NT was not even codified until 300 CE.

That was a facetious remark. The point is that God calls homosexuality a sin in various places. In that he is consistent; no one is ever going to change the mind of God on that. He wrote what he wrote.


Finally, there is the words of Jesus Himself in John 17:17 "...thy word is truth." No greater authority than Jesus on earth, yet those holding your position demean that authority, saying that you know better than Him. Oy Vey!

So when Jesus told the Pharisees that the SCRIPTURES given through Moses which allowed divorce were wrong he was contradicting himself?

And as for Paul quoting from philosophers:

"...'for in him we live and move and have our being.'
As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "
(Acts 16:28)

Here Paul quotes the Greek poet Epimenides (500BC) and in Titus 1:12 he quotes the philosopher Aratus (300 BC)

Titus 1:12. He says "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."

Many of the Greek philosophers were counter-cultural and Paul pays tribute to that. Socrates was put to death for not caving into the moral degradation of the day. Aristotle rejected the multiple Gods of Greek popular theology. Plato went against the moral degradation of his day and spoke about moral absolutes. Paul often talks to the Jews and Greeks in his midst together. (Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11)

..

 

[kiwimac]

JohnT, this is an example of how far this website has declined spiritually.

The long standing effort to undermine any biblical foundation in debate areas and theology has largely succeeded. Biblical morality is lampooned.

Please do not invite young Christians to this part of CF.



Attack the messenger.
Sad time for CF... and it is growing darker.

This is a crock of that which enables plant growth and it is very, very strong. I would say more but cannot within forum rules. The fact is that what folk are disagreeing with here is not scripture BUT YOUR INTERPRETATION of it.