Gay theology (i.e. Mel White, Soulforce) why even try?

[Polycarp_fan]

Oh boy. Okay, dude. Looks like the end of the line for this discussion, then.

Satan is very real. Watch the Five O'Clock news.

I'm a non-theist, and I am not anti-Christian. I am doing a theology degree, so I happen to care what the Bible says and what Christians think. It is of academic interest to me.

"If" you are doing a theology degree, then you will know why your position is defined as an anti-Christ. Why did you edit out my post of john's description of it? You are an atheist, you are anti-Christ. Obviously, (as you will learn) if you don't believe in God, then you don't believe Jesus as God incarnate, came in the flesh. Accurate definitions shouldn't be upsetting to you at all.

I am also doing research work. I debate GLBT's and their supporters for a very serious reason.

D'aw, you think I'm the spirit of the Antichrist? I'm flattered!

I don't think John meant it as a compliment. But, seeing the anti-Christian movements around the WWW, I can see how you could hold to that.

As you'll see from your theology study, there is always hope for you.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You just don't listen, do you?
And your obsession with child abuse is decidedly creepy.
Again, provide proof of laws being passed based on the Charge of the Goddess or The Book of the Law or it will be clear that you are just making it up. And that you KNOW that you are making it up.
Lying is a sin, remember?

So is homosexuality and gey theology.

Answer the OP before we go to your spin games.

Intelligent people have invented many things without which your life would be a lot less pleasant than it is, while stupid people have contributed little more to history than a dreadful warning as to what happens when they have a little power.
"We are the angry mob, we read the papers every day, we like who we like we hate who we hate but we're also easily swayed."

Smart people kill stupid people. It is an old story. Though the smart people use neologism to hide their malice.

Your arguments from assertion are worthless. Your refusal to engage with people's arguments is pathetic, and your persistant refusal to use your brain is appalling.

The rectum. It is not a sex organ. The mouth, it is not a sex organ. There. I used my brain. Now, who is the stupid people and who are not? Logic and reason can be argued.

You don't think. You have renounced any type of critical independent thought in favour of slavish obedience to other people's translations and interpretations, and you parrot those interpretations blindly without any real understanding.

Your high and mighty position is typical of the debased. That is in the Bible as a lesson to learn as well. All you have is emotionalism supporting your gay theology. That is it.

You are a mental coward. You have deliberatly made yourself ignorant. You display a breathtaking lack of knowledge about the subjects you rail about. You make broad claims and sweeping generalisations that are actively libellous, and then declare that you are the persecuted one. Your hypocrasy is astounding.

Your insults and elitism, though sickening to have to deal with, is typical of the licentiousness crowd.

If you think that any of that last paragraph is untrue, prove it. Provide one solid piece of data that backs up any of your statements.

There is no promting of gay sex in the Bible. Want to stick to the OP? Or are we going to do the liberal spin all day long? I've been to college, and cognitive dissonance is not something I can catch from a person like you. We can insult each other all day long, like GLBT's screaming at Christians opposing Gay Pride parades, but I'm tiring of this. You have used Ezekiel as your basis of promoting gay sex. How about all of the New Testament? Any gay sex promoting texts there?

I predict, however, that whatever you reply will merely demonstate the accuracy of my description of you.

Your opinion of me is absolutely unimportant to me. You want gay sex promoted from the Bible and that repugnant position is antithetical to the morality we see played out as the Bible comes to a close in Revealation. Gay theology is far past heretical.

I would love to be proved wrong though. I would love to see that, under all the judgementalism and bile, you do have a few working brain cells.
I'm just not holding my breath.

Take a deep breath. Exhale and go live your life walking the path you choose. But you cannot walk it into the Christian Church and expect us to accept gay theology. We've seen it all before pal. Nero is a reality to Christian and secular history. Hadrian wasn't exactly sweet to Bible-believers either. And the Catholic Church is still dealing with gay theologians still. As in trying to rid their Church of them.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You just don't listen, do you?
And your obsession with child abuse is decidedly creepy.

Is it now? Me and Jesus then. And I can see why the words of Jesus threatening people that harm children would be creepy to the gay agenda and those that push it:

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin!

Such things must come,

but woe to the man through whom they come!

 

[cantata]

Satan is very real. Watch the Five O'Clock news.

All the news demonstrates to me is that people exist and are capable of being both very clever and very stupid.

"If" you are doing a theology degree,

Which I am. Thank you for asking.

then you will know why your position is defined as an anti-Christ. Why did you edit out my post of john's description of it?

I didn't; quotations are automatically left unquoted in subsequent posts, and I didn't care enough to copy and paste it.

You are an atheist, you are anti-Christ. Obviously, (as you will learn) if you don't believe in God, then you don't believe Jesus as God incarnate, came in the flesh. Accurate definitions shouldn't be upsetting to you at all.

I don't mind at all, being called an Antichrist. It's not much of an insult, when you aren't a Christian.

I am also doing research work. I debate GLBT's and their supporters for a very serious reason.

Good, thank you for telling me. I didn't ask, though. You asked me why I am here, and I explained.

I don't think John meant it as a compliment.

I'm sure he didn't, but then, he was clearly a very bitter man, and I prefer not to feel insulted by people who are obviously upset.

But, seeing the anti-Christian movements around the WWW, I can see how you could hold to that.

I was, you'll be astonished to learn, being facetious.

As you'll see from your theology study, there is always hope for you.

How condescending. I am certainly newly filled with the hope that more Christians will actually read and appreciate the Bible for what it is.

 

[PetersKeys]

Gay theologians posit that the Bible affirms same-gender sex acts can be engaged in by Christians.

By what authority and by what scriptural support do they do this?

It is broken down by them to this: The Bible is silent on condemning "homosexuality," and it is claimed by gay theology the Bible has some supporting evidence approving same-gender sexual behavior.

Gay theologians present only a few examples of or for this position.

The first is argument from silence.

Sodom (sodomy) was about inhospitality or pagan religion worship, which included same-gender sex acts for adherants as a matter of worship. If a person avoids pagan religion he/she are free to engage in same-gender sexual unions. (Genesis 18, 19, Ezekiel 16)

Ruth and Naomi, a mother in law and daughter in law are presented by gay theology as having had a lesbian relationship. Ruth, went on to marry a man named Boaz. They had a son named Obed. (Book of Ruth)

Next is David and Jonathan whose close friendship is said to include a homosexual encounter. (1 Samuel 18, 2 Samuel 1)

The last is a situation where a Roman Soldier ownes a slave boy (pais) and is said to have a sexual relationship with this slave. This slave had become sick and Jesus was asked by this Roman commander to heal the boy, and since Jesus healed the slave-boy, this is a gay affirming situation. (Matthew 8, Luke 7)

All of these incidents can be easily explained as NOT affirming same-gender sex (as being apporpriate behavior for believers, as in the case of the Roman and the Sodomites) and can in the case of Naomi and Ruth and David and Jonathan can be explained as common and exceptional love between people with no sexual aspect at all.

There are many places in scripture that shows sexual immorality is to be avoided and/or given up and repented of by believers. And there is the definition of marriage being man/woman as an immutable structure (for believers) designed as such by God the Father. (Matthew 19, Mark 10)

Why then does gay theology even exist?

Why try?

Well first they have no authority to claim what they think the bible says. They have no apostolic authority derived from the apostles and their succesors and thus their opinion is just a "clanging symbol".

If its not coming from an apostolic source then don't even bother because you will just get millions of different interperatations among millions.

 

[Aerika]

Well first they have no authority to claim what they think the bible says. They have no apostolic authority derived from the apostles and their succesors and thus their opinion is just a "clanging symbol".

If its not coming from an apostolic source then don't even bother because you will just get millions of different interpretations among millions.

Which can be translated to they don't believe as I do so they must be wrong. Why is Apostolic Authority more important to you than Christs ?

Did not Christ give his life on the cross and offer his salvation ? And didn't he do it long before Paul started his ministries or the creation of the New Testament?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

Do you have any reason to believe that believing in Paul or the New Testament excludes you from Christ's salvation?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well first they have no authority to claim what they think the bible says.

By what "authority" do you make that bold claim. "They" Christians, most certainly do. The New Testament is the guidelines, the apologia, for being a Christian. And as you can obviously see, there is no promoting or condoning that same-gender sex acts are to be engaged in by Christians.

They have no apostolic authority derived from the apostles and their succesors and thus their opinion is just a "clanging symbol".

Prove that. Otherwise, your idea about love, is that anything goes. And once again, as you can see by reading the New Testament writings, "anything" does not go.

If its not coming from an apostolic source then don't even bother because you will just get millions of different interperatations among millions.

That is why the seperation of the wheat from the chaff. Notice, what happens to the chaff. What happens to the chaff is not by the authority of the Apostles, it is by the authority of Christ.

So much for "anything goes."

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Which can be translated to they don't believe as I do so they must be wrong. Why is Apostolic Authority more important to you than Christs ?

The Apostles wrote about what Christ Jesus said and did.

Did not Christ give his life on the cross and offer his salvation ? And didn't he do it long before Paul started his ministries or the creation of the New Testament?

The Apostles and Disciples wrote down what they did to make a record of the Messiah and in response to false teachers and false teachings enetering "The Church."

Do you have any reason to believe that believing in Paul or the New Testament excludes you from Christ's salvation?

Many gay theologians exist in the class of liberal theologians (and heresy), and many of them believe in Paul but have many distinctive and heretical views about Jesus. Read the attacks by the Jesus Seminar club. Read John Shelby Spong's idiocy. Many people attack and alter scripture, and it's always done to further their agenda, not the Apostle's.

 

[Aerika]

The Apostles wrote about what Christ Jesus said and did.



The Apostles and Disciples wrote down what they did to make a record of the Messiah and in response to false teachers and false teachings enetering "The Church."



Many gay theologians exist in the class of liberal theologians (and heresy), and many of them believe in Paul but have many distinctive and heretical views about Jesus. Read the attacks by the Jesus Seminar club. Read John Shelby Spong's idiocy. Many people attack and alter scripture, and it's always done to further their agenda, not the Apostle's.

But Jesus offered his sacrifice, salvation and was resurrected before Paul started his ministries or before the New Testament existed. Any post-resurrection teachings about Christ is indicative of a religion, it's too late to change God's plan on salvation after the sacrifice.

There are around 1200 different Christian denominations in the US alone. Primarily because they differ in their interpretations of the Bible. Christ's salvation is exclusive of the Bible and our enlightenment of his will is through his personal guidance in our lives.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

 

[Polycarp_fan]

All the news demonstrates to me is that people exist and are capable of being both very clever and very stupid.

C'mon now. But your response does seperate the wheat from the chaff, now that I look at it longer.



Which I am. Thank you for asking.

I didn't; quotations are automatically left unquoted in subsequent posts, and I didn't care enough to copy and paste it.

Please reference my statement when you are responding to one of them. It's just the right thing to do. And you seem to search for that in many of your statements.

I don't mind at all, being called an Antichrist. It's not much of an insult, when you aren't a Christian.

That's to be expected. Facts shouldn't insult anyone.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

I don't think John meant it as a compliment.​

​

Originally Posted by Cantata:

I'm sure he didn't, but then, he was clearly a very bitter man, and I prefer not to feel insulted by people who are obviously upset.

John??? Thank Darwin that you are studying theology.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

But, seeing the anti-Christian movements around the WWW, I can see how you could hold to that.​

​

Originally Posted by Catanta

I was, you'll be astonished to learn, being facetious.

It's tough to tell sometimes.

Originally Posted by Polycarp_fan

As you'll see from your theology study, there is always hope for you.​

​

Originally Posted by Cantata

How condescending. I am certainly newly filled with the hope that more Christians will actually read and appreciate the Bible for what it is.

I was being sincere and obviously I am also filled with the hope that more Christians will actually read the Bible and appreciate it "for what it is." I also think you have some excellent qualities, it's just that I don't want you to get the wrong idea (s) if I say that often.

It is a book for GLBT's too, but just not the way that gay theologians use it. You'll learn that in your studies if you haven't gotten into your education just to try to prove your forgone positions. By the way, the Bible does not support atheism either. Go ahead, study that.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

But Jesus offered his sacrifice, salvation and was resurrected before Paul started his ministries or before the New Testament existed.

Paul makes mention of that.

Paul "also" does not promote gay theology.

What's your point?

Any post-resurrection teachings about Christ is indicative of a religion,

Prove that. The religion of Paul and the Apostles was from the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets. The New Testament was written for the reasons stated in it by its writers. It was not to create a new religion.

it's too late to change God's plan on salvation after the sacrifice.

That is impossible. You are correct. 100%.

Now notice the same about "marriage."

There are around 1200 different Christian denominations in the US alone. Primarily because they differ in their interpretations of the Bible. Christ's salvation is exclusive of the Bible and our enlightenment of his will is through his personal guidance in our lives.

Have you ever seperated wheat from the chaff? At the end of the day, notice the two piles.

Here's something of interest to your statement from the last letter in the New Testament before we get to Jonh's revelation. Fast forward to July 11th 2008:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share,

I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

This Christian goes on, his "opinion" could have been written last night July 10th 2008:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

This guy goes on through some very heavy stuff, and continues as if he lives in any European or American city today:

These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves.

They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead.

They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

But, as a Christian, he seeks the beautiful:

But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.

They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.


But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

Be merciful to those who doubt;

snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—

hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—

to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

 

[cantata]

C'mon now. But your response does seperate the wheat from the chaff, now that I look at it longer.

I prefer not to regard people as wheat and chaff.

Please reference my statement when you are responding to one of them. It's just the right thing to do. And you seem to search for that in many of your statements.

I did. I just didn't reference John. I figured you knew what you'd quoted.

John??? Thank Darwin that you are studying theology.

Having studied John in detail, it's quite clear to me that he was very bitter.

Just look at how rude he is about the Jews.

It's tough to tell sometimes.

My apologies.

I was being sincere and obviously I am also filled with the hope that more Christians will actually read the Bible and appreciate it "for what it is."

I suspect that we appreciate the text in different ways, no?

I also think you have some excellent qualities, it's just that I don't want you to get the wrong idea (s) if I say that often.

Yes, of course - too many compliments could give me the impression that you approve of my sinful lifestyle, right? I really think I'm quite unlikely to make that mistake, Polycarp_fan, but I appreciate your concern!

It is a book for GLBT's too, but just not the way that gay theologians use it. You'll learn that in your studies if you haven't gotten into your education just to try to prove your forgone positions.

I don't personally believe the Bible has a lot of nice things to say to non-heterosexual people; I'm sure that most of the people who wrote it were just as prejudiced as many of the people who wave it about today. But of course, I don't care, because I'm not a Christian.

Whatever the Bible might say, I can imagine what a God is like who is worthy of worship. One of the things he doesn't do is condemn people for things that don't do any harm. Another thing he doesn't do is condemn people for sincere mistakes. Whether BibleGod is anything like that is little concern of mine, to be honest, except academically.

By the way, the Bible does not support atheism either. Go ahead, study that.

Surprisingly enough, the Bible isn't going to convince me not to be an atheist, because unless you already believe in BibleGod, the Bible isn't much of an authority.

 

[Aerika]

But Jesus offered his sacrifice, salvation and was resurrected before Paul started his ministries or before the New Testament existed.

Prove that.

Prove what exactly? Honestly there is no physical proof of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross.

Paul’s first missionary journey begins in Acts 13 in Antioch in approximately AD 47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

That places his first missionary about 14 years after the death of Christ.

The original texts of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. Its 27 books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries. The New Testament is a central element of Christianity,

Note it took several centuries before they were assimilated into the Bible.

The religion of Paul and the Apostles was from the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets. The New Testament was written to for the reasons stated in it by its writers. It was not to create a new religion.

Torah; Jewish religious literature, the Pentateuch, being the first of the three Jewish divisions of the Old Testament

religion : a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Christianity :the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Jesus made his sacrifice and offered his salvation about 14 years before the first original text of the first New Testament book was written. And it was several centuries before the Canon of the Bible. The proof is in the history and their definition,

Have you ever seperated wheat from the chaff? At the end of the day, notice the two piles.

No I haven't, but regardless the lesson in the Bible is still subject to interpretation of what we consider good fruit or bad fruit.

[QUOTE-polycarp_fan]Here's something of interest to your statement from the last letter in the New Testament before we get to Jonh's revealtion. Fast forward to July 11th 2008:[/quote]

Please provide me a link. Everything else you said is pretty much rhetoric and I can see no reason to respond to it.

 

[Archer93]

So is homosexuality and gey theology.

Answer the OP before we go to your spin games.

Smart people kill stupid people. It is an old story. Though the smart people use neologism to hide their malice.

The rectum. It is not a sex organ. The mouth, it is not a sex organ. There. I used my brain. Now, who is the stupid people and who are not? Logic and reason can be argued.

Your high and mighty position is typical of the debased. That is in the Bible as a lesson to learn as well. All you have is emotionalism supporting your gay theology. That is it.

Your insults and elitism, though sickening to have to deal with, is typical of the licentiousness crowd.

There is no promting of gay sex in the Bible. Want to stick to the OP? Or are we going to do the liberal spin all day long? I've been to college, and cognitive dissonance is not something I can catch from a person like you. We can insult each other all day long, like GLBT's screaming at Christians opposing Gay Pride parades, but I'm tiring of this. You have used Ezekiel as your basis of promoting gay sex. How about all of the New Testament? Any gay sex promoting texts there?

Your opinion of me is absolutely unimportant to me. You want gay sex promoted from the Bible and that repugnant position is antithetical to the morality we see played out as the Bible comes to a close in Revealation. Gay theology is far past heretical.

Take a deep breath. Exhale and go live your life walking the path you choose. But you cannot walk it into the Christian Church and expect us to accept gay theology. We've seen it all before pal. Nero is a reality to Christian and secular history. Hadrian wasn't exactly sweet to Bible-believers either. And the Catholic Church is still dealing with gay theologians still. As in trying to rid their Church of them.

Yup. You got nothin'. Thought as much.
One last little point, though- the word 'arsenekoites' was, at the time Paul was writing, a neologism.
If you're going to be consistant, you probably shouldn't denounce the making of new words to defend something it took a new word to denounce in the first place. Especially when it's not clear what the new word was meant to mean in the first place.

 

[Archer93]

Well first they have no authority to claim what they think the bible says. They have no apostolic authority derived from the apostles and their succesors and thus their opinion is just a "clanging symbol".

Apostolic succession = love?
Oh, and it's 'cymbal', BTW.

 

[cantata]

Oh, and it's 'cymbal', BTW.

Unless he was making a rather awesome pun.

 

[Archer93]

Unless he was making a rather awesome pun.

It's possible... but then we'd need something for the opinions to be symbols of.

 

[cheese007]

Yup. You got nothin'. Thought as much.
One last little point, though- the word 'arsenekoites' was, at the time Paul was writing, a neologism.
If you're going to be consistant, you probably shouldn't denounce the making of new words to defend something it took a new word to denounce in the first place. Especially when it's not clear what the new word was meant to mean in the first place.

[FONT=arial, helvetica]When "malakos" or similar words are used by other Greek speakers and writers, they are never unambiguous references to sex between males. There were plenty of other words in ancient Greek language -- "erastes," "eromenos," "paedika," "paederastes" and others -- which Paul would have had at his command.[/FONT]

http://www.whosoever.org/v4i1/paul.html
I win.

 

[PetersKeys]

By what "authority" do you make that bold claim. "They" Christians, most certainly do. The New Testament is the guidelines, the apologia, for being a Christian. And as you can obviously see, there is no promoting or condoning that same-gender sex acts are to be engaged in by Christians.



Prove that. Otherwise, your idea about love, is that anything goes. And once again, as you can see by reading the New Testament writings, "anything" does not go.



That is why the seperation of the wheat from the chaff. Notice, what happens to the chaff. What happens to the chaff is not by the authority of the Apostles, it is by the authority of Christ.

So much for "anything goes."

whoops I was answering arekia, not you. Accidently quoted your post. sorry for the confusion.

 

[PetersKeys]

Which can be translated to they don't believe as I do so they must be wrong. Why is Apostolic Authority more important to you than Christs ?

Did not Christ give his life on the cross and offer his salvation ? And didn't he do it long before Paul started his ministries or the creation of the New Testament?



Do you have any reason to believe that believing in Paul or the New Testament excludes you from Christ's salvation?

Apostolic authority COMES from Christ from his apostles he elected. If a problem arises within the church one must goto that authority that Christ gave us. The Church has infallibly declared that homosexuality is a mortal sin for the past 2000 years. Add that to the OT and that makes it around 6000 years.

Paul spoke from the same holy spirit Jesus gave to his apostles. All writings in the NT are equally inspired by God and one isn't more important than the other.

Ignoring the NT would be actively ignoring God's Holy Writ. Ignorance is not bliss. Salvation involves an active turning away from your sins.