Wiccan_Child
Contributor
- Mar 21, 2005
- 19,419
- 673
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I trust that the irony of calling an ex-gay 'one that has fallen' is not lost on you?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I trust that the irony of calling an ex-gay 'one that has fallen' is not lost on you?Well, to be quite honest, there is no better person to learn from than the one that has fallen.
Ok thats the difference, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6 Hebrews 13, all quotes Genesis 2 God having created woman for man for the purpose of man and woman to be in faithful iunion. Genesis 19, Judges 19, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1 all implicate same-sex acts as wicked, and Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 5-7 Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1 all directly exclude and condemn same-sex acts.You misquoted me since all my previous posts concerning the Bible and homosexuality have expressed the diametric opposite to what you claim here.
Thats not really evidence of any kind different from the observable testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit in ex-gays.As far as I know, my gods have not manifested as humans, though it there is a rite in which the Goddess enters the body of the High Priestess of a Coven. So yes, I would say they have been seen.
Having read all your post you dont seem to have addressed most of what I actually said, you seem to have misquoted me and addressed tangents.
Ok thats the difference, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6 Hebrews 13, all quotes Genesis 2 God having created woman for man for the purpose of man and woman to be in faithful iunion
Genesis 19, Judges 19, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1 all implicate same-sex acts as wicked, and Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 5-7 Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1 all directly exclude and condemn same-sex acts.
So now please justify the diametric opposite. Where are your texts that support same-sex sex and same-sex relationships, OT and NT?
Indeed. However, as I have said before, I fully concede that my faith, like all faiths, is irrational. The aforementioned rite can be explained more parsimoniously, as can the 'transformation' of 'ex-gays'. My point was that I have 'seen' my deities insofar as you have 'seen' yours.Thats not really evidence of any kind different from the observable testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit in ex-gays.
Diametrically opposed would be that you think the Bible countenances same-sex sex as opposed to it being condemned. If you disagree you are merely disagreeing, that not diametrically opposite at all. As it stands your Bliblical argument for same-sex sex is baseless. I am delighted to debate with you but until you can provide some evidence to support what you are saying I am no longer going to listen to your denial of my Biblical evidence.since all my previous posts concerning the Bible and homosexuality have expressed the diametric opposite to what you claim here.
Indeed. However, as I have said before, I fully concede that my faith, like all faiths, is irrational. The aforementioned rite can be explained more parsimoniously, as can the 'transformation' of 'ex-gays'. My point was that I have 'seen' my deities insofar as you have 'seen' yours.
Not rational? Your faith is very rational from what I have heard. "have sex with whoever makes you happy," or somthing like that. The point is that that is the most rational thing ever. Plesure non-stop, very rational idea.
He needs a course in logic.Not rational? Your faith is very rational from what I have heard. "have sex with whoever makes you happy," or somthing like that. The point is that that is the most rational thing ever. Plesure non-stop, very rational idea.
Diametrically opposed would be that you think the Bible countenances same-sex sex as opposed to it being condemned. If you disagree you are merely disagreeing, that not diametrically opposite at all.
As it stands your Bliblical argument for same-sex sex is baseless. I am delighted to debate with you but until you can provide some evidence to support what you are saying I am no longer going to listen to your denial of my Biblical evidence.
Just as a further words about the arguments against the Biblical exclusion and condemnation of same-sex sex. From McNeil to Boswell to Wink, pro-gay theologians have systematically presented each new analysis once the previous has been shown not to be conclusive. They are therefore not looking for the revelation of God but to prove what they themselves wish to believe.
Where does my faith advocate such a thing?Not rational? Your faith is very rational from what I have heard. "have sex with whoever makes you happy," or somthing like that. The point is that that is the most rational thing ever. Plesure non-stop, very rational idea.
If you have found a flaw in my logic, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, try not to derail the thread with idle banter.He needs a course in logic.
Alright, first you stated that anyone who has faith is irrational. What you fail to recognize is that EVERYONE MUST HAVE FAITH. You cannot take the evidentalist position without pressuposing (having faith) that something is true in the first place. So by your own logic everyone is irrational.If you have found a flaw in my logic, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, try not to derail the thread with idle banter.
Correct. However, I define faith to be the belief in the irrational. Faith is inherently irrational. It is simple definitions, nothing more.Alright, first you stated that anyone who has faith is irrational.
Not necessarily. There is nothing forcing people to believe in the irrational. Atheists, for example, are without faith in most, if not all, things.What you fail to recognize is that EVERYONE MUST HAVE FAITH.
On the contrary, the 'evidentalist [sic]' position does not presume that all statements have a boolean truth value. The statement "This statement is false", for example, has no boolean truth value. It is a common error to think in terms of black and white. Rather, most things turn out to be in terms of black, white, and colourless (yes, I know I've overextended the metaphor).You cannot take the evidentalist position without pressuposing (having faith) that something is true in the first place. So by your own logic everyone is irrational.
Alright, first you stated that anyone who has faith is irrational. What you fail to recognize is that EVERYONE MUST HAVE FAITH. You cannot take the evidentalist position without pressuposing (having faith) that something is true in the first place. So by your own logic everyone is irrational.
It is obvious to see that no one is rational. A truly rational person would off themselves right away.
No it isnt. Is English not your first language? The dictionary definition of ‘diametrically’ is exactly opposite. What I said is correct. If you believe the Bible says diametrically opposite then cite where it does.Semantics.
I won't paste the whole chapter. Suffice to say, if concerns the sacking of
Its states the men’s desire to know the men carnally is wicked. To say it implies it is a lie, it states it. If you cant recognise what the text actually says in the first passage you choose, how are you going to comment on the rest?Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim. The four cities were sentenced to destruction before the encounter with the Angels. To say that this implies that homosexuality is wicked requires other verses. So let's move on.
This is Peter's condemnation of
As stated before it was as it is specifically stated, here it is reaffirmed. How many times do you intend to reject the evidence?Sodom & Gomorrah. As noted before, their sin was not stated to be that of homosexuality.
Jude 1
For believers it points to same-sex sex. Its not natural, God created woman for man.You aren’t a believer so you wont believe this. You stick to interpreting your own religion and leave me to tell you of mine.Jude condemns Sodom & Gomorrah, and states that they had gone after 'unnatural flesh'. This does not point to homosexuality, but to any lust that is not of one's nature.
Leviticus 18 & 20
It doesn’t mention a marital bed, that’s your insertion but it does mention a man with a man instead of a woman.Both condemn same-sex sex in a woman's marital bed. Like the rest of Leviticus, this is a condemnation of two actions that are only sinful when combined: in this case, homosexual sex, and sex in a woman's marital bed. It is not a condemnation of homosexual sex itself, but rather the befouling of a marital bed .
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Incorrect knowledge. In actual fact Jesus teaching in Matthew 19, 15, Mark 7 & 10 makes it quite clear the faithful union of man and woman is broken by ‘moicheia’ and ‘porneia’ which appear I this list. So there is no room for homosexual practice anyway so 1 Cor 6:9-10 excludes any possibility of same-sex sex. If malakoi means temple prostitutes, arsenokoites means homosexual offenders, Man bed-s dosnt mean prostitutes, it means man beds. It almost certainly refers to the Septuagint Leviticus 18 and 20, a man ‘arsen’ shall not lie ‘koites’ with another man ‘arsen’ as with a woman. We know it must be because arsenokoites in 1 Tim 1 refers to the law and ‘arsenokoites’ follows ‘porneia’.η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται ουτε κλεπται ουτε πλεονεκται ουτε μεθυσοι ου λοιδοροι ουχ αρπαγες βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν
The emboldened words (malakoi and arsenokoitai, respectively) are the ones commonly believed to concern homosexuality. In actual fact, the former literally means 'morally weak', or 'soft', and refers to the males prostituting in the temple. The latter is a word of Paul's devising, and is constructed from 'arseno' and 'koitai', or 'man-beds'. That is, the beds of men. That is, prostitutes again.
Quite how homosexuality in general is condemned I shall never know.
Romans 1
IS English your first language? God gave them over to idolatry, and also gave them over to men lusting after men and committing indecent acts with other men. God also gave them over to greed and malice and all kinds of wickedness. Read it again.This is Paul's letter to the Christians of Rome, warning them that God will give them up if they return to Pagan idolatry, and the punishment that will hence befall them. The verses alleged to concern homosexuality, R1:26-27, talk of turning from one's inborn lusts. That is, homosexuals lusting after the opposite sex, and heterosexuals lusting after the same sex.
Ironically, these verses condemns the ex-gay movement!
Well be assured it condemns same-sex sex, but yes it does also condemn pagan idolatry such as Wicca, if you believe the Bible condemns it but you don’t believe the Bible is true, so how can you believe it condems it if you don’t believe its true?So, brightmorningstar, I still do not believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Rather, it condemns Pagan idolatry, befouling a woman's marital bed, enslaved prostitutes (and the hiring and ownership thereof), etc. But never homosexuality itself.
It is easy, on ejust has to point out the text doesn’t say what you are saying and point out to you what the text does say that somehow you cant see.If that is so, and if that is true for my analysis, then you should be able to easily point out the flaws in mine.
On the contrary, I made no such statement, and I take offense to being misquoted. Do not do so again.I dunno, you posted it somewere though.
Please come up with some evidence and stop posting attacks on my beliefs.
Its states the mens desire to know the men carnally is wicked. To say it implies it is a lie, it states it. If you cant recognise what the text actually says in the first passage you choose, how are you going to comment on the rest?
As stated before it was as it is specifically stated, here it is reaffirmed. How many times do you intend to reject the evidence?
For believers it points to same-sex sex.
Its not natural, God created woman for man.
You arent a believer so you wont believe this. You stick to interpreting your own religion and leave me to tell you of mine.
IS English your first language?
God gave them over to idolatry, and also gave them over to men lusting after men and committing indecent acts with other men. God also gave them over to greed and malice and all kinds of wickedness. Read it again.
Well be assured it condemns same-sex sex,
but yes it does also condemn pagan idolatry such as Wicca,
if you believe the Bible condemns it but you dont believe the Bible is true, so how can you believe it condems it if you dont believe its true?
Unfortunately, I do not blindly trust inaccurate translations.It is easy, on ejust has to point out the text doesnt say what you are saying and point out to you what the text does say that somehow you cant see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?