David and Jonathan

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, to be quite honest, there is no better person to learn from than the one that has fallen.

I trust that the irony of calling an ex-gay 'one that has fallen' is not lost on you?

 

[david_x]

I trust that the irony of calling an ex-gay 'one that has fallen' is not lost on you?

That is not what I meant. Much more broader than that. We have all fallen, just it is better to learn from those that fell harder.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

Having read all your post you don’t seem to have addressed most of what I actually said, you seem to have misquoted me and addressed tangents.

However this is the crucial bit.

You misquoted me since all my previous posts concerning the Bible and homosexuality have expressed the diametric opposite to what you claim here.

Ok that’s 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?
Because if you haven’t I would say you are merely denying what the Bible says.

Just one other thing.

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.

That’s not really evidence of any kind different from the observable testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit in ex-gays.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Having read all your post you don’t seem to have addressed most of what I actually said, you seem to have misquoted me and addressed tangents.

Quite.

Ok that’s 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

Perhaps. But does this preclude same-sex union?

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.

Only if one is has a KJVo stance. Otherwise, I believe that a careful and unbiased analysis of the original texts yeilds different conclusions to the one you present here.

So now please justify the diametric opposite. Where are your texts that support same-sex sex and same-sex relationships, OT and NT?

First, I would like to point out that you stated:
"ok so you seem bothered because God’s word in the Bible is anti-same-sex sex."
To which I made my diametric comment. That is, you say I am bothered because the Bible is anti-same-sex sex, but I do not see the Bible as anti-same-sex sex. I do not see it condemning same-sex sex.
Because if you haven’t I would say you are merely denying what the Bible says.
Second, I disagree that the Bible condemns homosexuality. The story of Jonathan & David, and Paul's condemnation of turning against one's inborn nature, support homosexuality. So in that way,

That’s not really evidence of any kind different from the observable testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit in ex-gays.

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.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Not at all
You wrote

since all my previous posts concerning the Bible and homosexuality have expressed the diametric opposite to what you claim here.

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.

 

[david_x]

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.

 

[DMagoh]

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.

Unfortunately, I know some liberal Christians who have the same belief system. I have seen posters write things like, "God wants us to be happy. If this makes me happy....".

 

[ReformedChapin]

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Semantics.

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.

Your Biblical evidence thus far:

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.

Let us examine your evidence.

Genesis 19
I won't paste the whole chapter. Suffice to say, if concerns the sacking of 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.

Judges 19
Effectively a retelling of Genesis 19: a man plays host to a stranger, and the men of the town want to rape him. The fact that they accept the host's daughter in place of the man is pretty much proof that they were not interested in homosexual sex, but rather any form of sex. Any condemnation on this story is on the gang rape, not the intended homosexuality.

2 Peter 2
This is Peter's condemnation of Sodom & Gomorrah. As noted before, their sin was not stated to be that of homosexuality.

Jude 1
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
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
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
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!

And finally, the lengthy:

1 Timothy 1:9-10
1T1:9-10 contains a list of abominable pairs and triples:

• The lawless and the disobedient,
• The ungodly and the sinners,
• The unholy and the profane,
• The murderers of fathers, the murderers of mothers, and manslayers,
• 'Pornoi' and 'Arsenokoitai' and 'Andrapodistes', and
• Liars and perjurers.

The penultimate triplet is what interests us, so let us analyse the words.

1. 'Pornoi' is derived from the Greek 'pernemi', and means 'to sell'. 'Pornoi' is Strong's Number 4205, and means either, 'a male prostitute', or 'a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse'.
2. 'Arsenokoitai' is not a derivation since it is only found, in the entire of the Greek language, at 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians; it was made up by Paul!
3. 'Andrapodistes' is derived from 'andrapodistai'. It is Strong's Number 405, and means 'a slave dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer, one who unjustly reduces men to slavery or who steals the slaves of others and sells them'.

If we assume the three words are linked, as the other pairs & triplets are, then 'Arsenokoitai' must be related to the other two words somehow.
1) Pornoi refers to an enslaved male prostitute,
2) Arsenokoitai refers to a man who sleeps with a 'pornoi', and
3) Andrapodistes refers to an enslaver.
Thus, the common theme is slavery and not homosexuality.

That is, 1T1:9-10 is a condemnation of, among other things: those who hire, those who own, and those who are, enslaved male prostitutes.


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.
Phew.

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.

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Where does my faith advocate such a thing?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He needs a course in logic.

If you have found a flaw in my logic, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, try not to derail the thread with idle banter.

 

[ReformedChapin]

If you have found a flaw in my logic, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, try not to derail the thread with idle banter.

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Alright, first you stated that anyone who has faith is irrational.

Correct. However, I define faith to be the belief in the irrational. Faith is inherently irrational. It is simple definitions, nothing more.

What you fail to recognize is that EVERYONE MUST HAVE FAITH.

Not necessarily. There is nothing forcing people to believe in the irrational. Atheists, for example, are without faith in most, if not all, things.

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.

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).

 

[Floatingaxe]

We are spiritual beings--living in a tent of flesh. We all have faith in something, as we were created to have faith in God Almighty. Those who refuse must fill that void with something. An atheist has faith in man. A Wiccan has faith in either a goddess or nature...which is a created thing--idolatry.

So anyone who denies faith in Jesus Christ is an idolator of some form.

 

[david_x]

Where does my faith advocate such a thing?

I dunno, you posted it somewere though.

 

[david_x]

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.

 

[Floatingaxe]

It is obvious to see that no one is rational. A truly rational person would off themselves right away.

Oh yes, a brilliant proclamation.

Jesus doesn't call us to be rational. He calls us to faith. What was rational in Peter stepping out of the boat?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

Semantics.

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.


Please come up with some evidence and stop posting attacks on my beliefs.

For the record here we go again.

I won't paste the whole chapter. Suffice to say, if concerns the sacking of

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.

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?

This is Peter's condemnation of

Sodom & Gomorrah. As noted before, their sin was not stated to be that of homosexuality.

As stated before it was as it is specifically stated, here it is reaffirmed. How many times do you intend to reject the evidence?

Jude 1

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.

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.

Leviticus 18 & 20

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 .

It doesn’t mention a marital bed, that’s your insertion but it does mention a man with a man instead of a woman.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

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.

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’.

Romans 1

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I dunno, you posted it somewere though.

On the contrary, I made no such statement, and I take offense to being misquoted. Do not do so again.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Please come up with some evidence and stop posting attacks on my beliefs.

Pray tell, where have I attacked your beliefs?

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?

As stated before it was as it is specifically stated, here it is reaffirmed. How many times do you intend to reject the evidence?

I wonder if you are a KJV-only. You seem to be replying on inaccurate translations. Why?

For believers it points to same-sex sex.

All believers?

Its not natural, God created woman for man.

Initially, yes. For whatever reason, God created humans to be a sexually reproducing species. Thus, the initial humans must represent all necessary sexes. It is not a statement of morality, but a fulfillment of necessity.

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.

Then our discussion is futile. Must we go through the reasons for it again?

It doesn’t mention a marital bed, that’s your insertion but it does mention a man with a man instead of a woman.[/quote]
Man shall not lie in the layings of a woman. I.e., where the woman is layed. I.e., her marital bed.

IS English your first language?

Yes. However, ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek are not, and I'm willing to bet that they aren't yours either.

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.

I have, many times. God gave them up to their unnatural lusts, and by way of example the Bible tells of men forgoing their natural use of the women (i.e., these men were straight), and going after their own gender (i.e., straight men going after men). It is a clear condemnation of going against one's nature, but it does not state what one's nature is.

Well be assured it condemns same-sex sex,

No offence, but I find your word less than trustworthy. I suggest you have a look at the original texts.

but yes it does also condemn pagan idolatry such as Wicca,

Indeed. Luckily, all faiths are protected by the law. I have no qualms about the Bible's condemnation of my faith.

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?

Whether the Bible is 'true' or not is irrelevant. It is still a collection of statements.

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.

Unfortunately, I do not blindly trust inaccurate translations.