Has the gay community infiltrated this website?

davedjy · Mar 15, 2007

article said:
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would have been referring to and proscribing male homosexuality in general in the sense of a male lying with a male as with a woman as did Leviticus.

This again, is an ASSUMPTION...did you get that, Der Alter? an assumption, and not based on clear, concise facts.

Der Alte · Mar 15, 2007

davedjy said:
I know, he THOUGHT he ripped him to shreds but he didn't. His debates against him, don't even make clear, concise sense, in the least way! He "assumes" too much, while Dale Martin's arguments were actually incredibly convincing.

Absolute utter nonsense. Your ONLY rule for what is right is if it promotes homosexuality. And you are ignoring the fact that you quoted out-of-context, the article does NOT support you.

davedjy · Mar 15, 2007

Der Alter said:
Absolute utter nonsense. Your ONLY rule for what is right is if it promotes homosexuality. And you are ignoring the fact that you quoted out-of-context, the article does NOT support you.

Dale Martin Supports me, Walter Wink supports me, and there are quite a few other Scholars behind what I say.

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behavior." -- Victor Paul Furnish, a Professor of New Testament from Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.

davedjy · Mar 15, 2007

Dr. Truluck personally wrote a letter to me, in responce to mine, in which he writes: ".... [arsenokoitai] was never translated as "homosexual" until 1946, and was a bad mistake then."
Jeramy Townsley says that "It seems clear that arsenokoites [arsenokoitai] does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships..." Learned in Greek and Hebrew, Jeramy received a MA. in philosophy/theology from Lincoln Christian College Seminary.
".... The term appears only in contexts dealing with greed, prostitution, adultery, idolatry, and lack of self control. Although it is a rare term, its use is probably best connected with those male prostitutes who are clearly condemned in the Old Testament, and who would fit in with those temptations which drew Paul's audience toward idolatry and greed, whether they were tempted to become such prostitutes or take advantage of their services.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm

davedjy · Mar 15, 2007

Your ONLY rule for what is right is if it promotes homosexuality

No, I cite SOURCES. I don't care what the author of the article thought, that proves absolutely nothing, I knew that ahead of time, I just cared about what the Scholar said that I quoted.

You believe in conversion therapy without ANY proof, and you refuse to look at any other side of this. Have you actually Googled this word? MANY don't agree with it, this is just one website...do you want more?????

davedjy · Mar 15, 2007

Reading arsenokoitai 'homosexuals' is an example of eisegesis. Homophobes who want to find condemnations of homosexuals in the Bible are capable of reading their prejudice into any given passage, just as their predecessors were capable of finding abundant encouragement for anti-Semitism and racism in the Bible. ...... At Judgment Day I don't think we will be held accountable for not harrassing those we thought were sinners; we will be held accountable for acting fairly and responsibly towards those who depended our actions." -- Gregory Jordan

"In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship. An attempt by some scholars to interpret I Cor 6:9 by taking malakos to mean the passive partner and arsenokoites the active partner is based on circular reasoning. The meaning of arsenokoites is problematic. There is no evidence that malakos was ever considered as a technical term for a passive partner. (There are other terms for passive and active partner in Greek. They never appear in the NT). Malakos' general meaning of effeminate is independent of sexual position or object. To define malakos arsenokoites is to define something already clear by something that is obscure." --- Deirdre Good, General Theological Seminary.

This is a mess, as is illustrated by the variety of translations of the word. So how do we find out what Paul meant? There are two ways to figure out what a word means. One is the etymological approach, which is a false method. The meaning of a word is not determined by its derivation, but by its usage. The meanings of words can change dramatically over short periods of time (even periods as short as 50 years!). Some contend that Paul coined the word from the Septuagint. I will discuss that later.
So the best thing to do would be to examine the uses of the word. It is found 73 times outside of Paul's letter.
In almost every one of these occurrences the word appears in a vice list so it is impossible to tell what they mean. The few times it does not appear in a vice list give us a better insight.
In the Apology of Arisites 13, Fragmenta 12,9-13.5.4 "arsenokoitai" refers to the sins of the Greek Gods. In the context it appears to be referring to the time Zeus abducted and raped a boy named Ganymede.
In Apology of Aristides, written 100 years after 1Corinthians, the word appears to be used for molestation of boys by men. Interestingly enough, Luther translated the word as "Knabenschaender" which meant "child abusers".

Der Alter said:
Absolute utter nonsense. Your ONLY rule for what is right is if it promotes homosexuality.

1) Absolute utter nonsense is not having any proof of conversions. Even Tony Campolo believes homosexuality is a sin, but he fights for gay rights, because he believes committed, loving monogamous relationships are more morally acceptable to God than promiscuity. He also says
that conversions are just not possible. He knows WAY more about this than I would say 99% of Christians.

2) Absolutely true...I am fighting for my orientation, so I can reconcile my faith and my sexuality before God. I have won on both accounts, and I don't care if I lose a debate, I know that God loves me for who I am.

Der Alte · Mar 15, 2007

davedjy said:
...
You believe in conversion therapy without ANY proof, and you refuse to look at any other side of this. Have you actually Googled this word? MANY don't agree with it, this is just one website...do you want more?????

Dissembling rubbish! Show me where I have ever promoted conversion therapy? You can't do it because I never have.

Der Alte · Mar 15, 2007

davedjy said:
Dr. Truluck personally wrote a letter to me, in responce to mine, in which he writes: ".... [arsenokoitai] was never translated as "homosexual" until 1946, and was a bad mistake then."
Jeramy Townsley says that "It seems clear that arsenokoites [arsenokoitai] does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships..." Learned in Greek and Hebrew, Jeramy received a MA. in philosophy/theology from Lincoln Christian College Seminary.
".... The term appears only in contexts dealing with greed, prostitution, adultery, idolatry, and lack of self control. Although it is a rare term, its use is probably best connected with those male prostitutes who are clearly condemned in the Old Testament, and who would fit in with those temptations which drew Paul's audience toward idolatry and greed, whether they were tempted to become such prostitutes or take advantage of their services.[/B]

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm

Whoever the guy is, he does NOT know what he is talking about. Tell him to read the quotes form the early church fathers I have quoted several times.

The other quotes you posted are ALL garbage! You can quote a 100 so-called scholars, with all kinds of degrees, all swearing that arsenokoites was never translated as homosexual, etc . blah, blah, blah and all it takes is one irrefutable proof. I quoted several early church fathers that proves every one of those so-called scholars a LIAR! And your only response is they were biased.

How can the early church fathers I quoted be biased if according to the jerks you quoted nobody ever translated arsenokoites as homosexual until 1946?

aflower4God · Mar 15, 2007

united4Peace said:
From what Ive read so far (I just started reading mind you) Im assuming the OP figures that those that are Homosexual are Atheists

I could be wrong though

Thank you for clarifying that for me!

If that is the case this is probably why Homosexuals do not like alot of Christians... SO sad!

Lisa0315 · Mar 15, 2007

Der Alter said:
Whoever the guy is, he does NOT know what he is talking about. Tell him to read the quotes form the early church fathers I have quoted several times.

The other quotes you posted are ALL garbage! You can quote a 100 so-called scholars, with all kinds of degrees, all swearing that arsenokoites was never translated as homosexual, etc . blah, blah, blah and all it takes is one irrefutable proof. I quoted several early church fathers that proves every one of those so-called scholars a LIAR! And your only response is they were biased.

How can the early church fathers I quoted be biased if according to the jerks you quoted nobody ever translated arsenokoites as homosexual until 1946?

Peace. Passion has its place, and I do not disagree with you, but lets practice peace in this forum. No one is ever reached with anger. Only love, my friend.

Lisa

davedjy · Mar 15, 2007

Der Alter said:
Whoever the guy is, he does NOT know what he is talking about. Tell him to read the quotes form the early church fathers I have quoted several times.

The other quotes you posted are ALL garbage! You can quote a 100 so-called scholars, with all kinds of degrees, all swearing that arsenokoites was never translated as homosexual, etc . blah, blah, blah and all it takes is one irrefutable proof. I quoted several early church fathers that proves every one of those so-called scholars a LIAR! And your only response is they were biased.

How can the early church fathers I quoted be biased if according to the jerks you quoted nobody ever translated arsenokoites as homosexual until 1946?

The other scholar even mentioned that words go deeper than just root meanings. You have not proved that is definitely the meaning of this word, and it truly is an unknown word. They know for sure, that Paul wouldn'tve used that word if he was just referring to homosexual activity by itself, he would've used the word "homophilia" or something.

I'm sorry, I trust Tony Campolo over your sources, because he would not lie about the word origin being unknown...he has done more research on this subject than anyone else, I can even think of. In one of his audio things, he even tracked down Early Church lineage, so I'm near certain your sources are not valid.

Der Alte · Mar 16, 2007

davedjy said:
This again, is an ASSUMPTION...did you get that, Der Alter? an assumption, and not based on clear, concise facts.

I'm sorry you are totally misrepresenting what the author said. It is an informed conclusion, or assumption, based on clearly stated and substantiated facts.

davedjy · Mar 16, 2007

Der Alter said:
I'm sorry you are totally misrepresenting what the author said. It is an informed conclusion, or assumption, based on clearly stated and substantiated facts.

Not really...he assumes too much. I am NOT talking about the author, let's not confuse that I was quoting the SCHOLAR, not the author...huge difference.

Facts? no, the fact still REMAINS. Paul DID NOT aim his verses towards homosexuals, otherwise he would've used the word "homophilia".

Der Alte · Mar 16, 2007

davedjy said:
The other scholar even mentioned that words go deeper than just root meanings. You have not proved that is definitely the meaning of this word, and it truly is an unknown word. They know for sure, that Paul wouldn'tve used that word if he was just referring to homosexual activity by itself, he would've used the word "homophilia" or something.

I have asked you before to back up your claim that the word "homophilia" existed in the time of Paul. I even linked to the LSJ classical Greek lexicon. You have not backed it up, merely repeated the same unsupported assertion. Repeating something does not make it true.

Terms Lacking

What might be called the philological evidence calls this notion into question. If it were true, someone would long ago have given this class a name. That no one did until very recently suggests that the notion is not true.

In the first footnote of the first chapter of Greek Homosexuality, which is generally regarded as the definitive treatment of its subject, Oxford classical scholar K. J. Dover points out that the ancient Greek language has no nouns corresponding to the English nouns a homosexual and a heterosexual. Such an observation would seem to call for more notice than is accorded by a single short footnote, but even the apparent concession is misleading, insofar as it suggests that the absence of these terms is a peculiarity of Greek.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f

This will response to two posts, this one and the one where you said that Dale Martin's so-called discussion made more sense than Gary R. Jepsen, who you were actually quoting.

First Martin trying to prove, NOT from Greek, but from two English, compound words that the compound Greek word [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoites could not mean homosexual, although the two separate words mean man and to have sex with. Martin's words in blue.

Martin NEVER cites any instance in Greek where where a compound does not have a meaning related to its component words.

We begin with the dissection of the word arsenokoites. Martin notes how interpreters have frequently split the word into its two root words, arsen (=male) and koites (=to bed or sleep with sexually; like the English word coitus). Thus, they have tended to assume that it refers generally to any man having sex with another male.

This is a faulty assumption Martin says, because the meaning of a compound word is usually more than the sum of its parts. He gives as an example the word "understand" and notes that understand does not mean to stand under. Or, consider the word "chairman." Martin says, "None of us ... takes the word 'chairman' to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did." Therefore, to leap to the conclusion that arsenokoites refers to men having sex with other males is "linguistically invalid," Martin says. It is "naive and indefensible."

Martin is correct in cautioning against jumping to conclusions regarding the meaning of compound words. To conclude that the meaning of a compound word is simply the sum of its independent parts is not always a justifiable conclusion or method. However, to assert as Martin does that this method is linguistically invalid, naive, and indefensible clearly goes too far.

Next look at Jepsen's discussion based on the use of the actual Greek words [size=+1]αρσενο[/size]/arseno and [size=+1]κοιτης[/size]/koites

Arsenokoites in Leviticus

More important for us is to see how the word was being used in an Old Testament Jewish context, which probably would have been the greater influence on Paul and his understanding of the word. So let us consider those passages in Leviticus that prohibit a man from lying with a male as with a woman.

Although originally written in Hebrew, we look to see how these OT passages were rendered in Greek. In the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the OT), we find that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 both use the two Greek words arsenos and koiten together (the root words for arsenokoites). The phrase from Lev 20:13 is rendered in Greek: kai os an koimaythay meta arsenos koiten gunaikos bdelugma etoiesan amphoteroi ("and if a man might lie with a male as with a female, abomination/desecration they both have done").

Lev 20:13 [size=+1]και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα[/size] [size=+1]αρσενος κοιτην[/size] [size=+1]γυναικος, βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν, ενοχοι εισιν[/size].

Notice that arsenos and koiten not only both appear in this sentence, but arsenos immediately precedes koiten. Thus, it is no stretch to see how Paul, who undoubtedly would have been familiar with these verses from the Septuagint, could have from their influence put the two words together to form a new word, arsenokoites, and as he did so, clearly had in mind "a man bedding a male as a female" (Lev 20:13).

This conclusion is not based on arsenokoites appearing in unrelated lists from a century or two after Paul and then speculating on what might have been the intended meaning. It is based directly on analysis of a text Paul would have been familiar with and whose meaning was and is clear. Even though at the time the Septuagint was written the two words had not previously (so far as we know) been joined together to make the single word arsenokoites, the essential meaning had already been established in the Septuagint's rendering of these verses. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Paul would have been referring to and proscribing male homosexuality in general in the sense of a male lying with a male as with a woman as did Leviticus.

davedjy said:
I'm sorry, I trust Tony Campolo over your sources, because he would not lie about the word origin being unknown...he has done more research on this subject than anyone else, I can even think of. In one of his audio things, he even tracked down Early Church lineage, so I'm near certain your sources are not valid.

You can trust Campolo from now to eternity but that CANNOT change the truth. Now please try to follow this. Campolo and a hundred other so-called scholars can swear on their mother's graves that the meaning of "arsenkoites" is unknown, but all it takes is one credible, verifiable historical quote to prove them wrong.

Here are links to three websites where the writings of the early church are available online. Feel free to read the actual sources, see the evidence with your own eyes and decide for yourself who is right and who is wrong. Or google and choose any site you like. I have absolute confidence you will not find anything to contradict my evidence.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

Here are the quotes from actual historical evidence, NOT just some guy, with NO qualification in Greek, claiming there is no evidence.
The early church interpreted [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size] as sodomy, lust, impurity, works of the flesh, carnal, lawless intercourse, shameless, burning with insane love for boys, licentiousness, co-habitors with males, lusters after mankind, etc.

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, "we shall also reign together with Him," provided only we believe. In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God," nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming. Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. The virgins also must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved. Now he says that the things which save are the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

Since, therefore, in that passage he recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven. For this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.

And Epicurus himself, too, as well as teaching atheism, teaches along with it incest with mothers and sisters, and this in transgression of the laws which forbid it; for Solon distinctly legislated regarding this, in order that from a married parent children might lawfully spring, that they might not be born of adultery, so that no one should honour as his father him who was not his father, or dishonour him who was really his father, through ignorance that he was so. And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering.

Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.

Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God," he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65. That all sins are put away in baptism.
In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God."

Der Alte · Mar 16, 2007

davedjy said:
...
Facts? no, the fact still REMAINS. Paul DID NOT aim his verses towards homosexuals, otherwise he would've used the word "homophilia".

There NEVER was any such word as "homophilia" in ancient Greek.

davedjy · Mar 16, 2007

Der Alter said:
There NEVER was any such word as "homophilia" in ancient Greek.

The problem with your arguments are that they attach Effeminate with "abusers of themselves with mankind", and use a biased translation to come to terms with that.

To find the truth out, you DO NOT look to the Early Church Fathers! that would not be the way to necessarily find the answers.

Would you look to the Early Church on issues of whether slavery should be practiced currently? what about whether woman should be allowed to vote?

Early Church represents DOCTRINE, that's it!
There was no such thing as "co-inhabitors with males", they had no knowledge of that, and history factual evidence ALONE proves you wrong!

Go back in your time machine, Der Alter, and ask the Early Church Fathers about a sexual orientation. Visualize and imagine how they would say "what is this of which you speak?".

Argument for Early Church: USELESS and OUT OF DATE

Arguments against homosexuality: Bigotry and don't represent the Heart of God (God doesn't make up arbitrary rules)

Der Alte · Mar 16, 2007

davedjy said:
The problem with your arguments are that they attach Effeminate with "abusers of themselves with mankind", and use a biased translation to come to terms with that.

Totally false! None of the early fathers I quoted attached "effeminate" to "abusers of themselves with mankind." I have asked you more than once to find me an unbiased translation of the early church fathers. Still waiting. Google on "early church fathers" and quote me some "unbiased translations."

davedjy said:
To find the truth out, you DO NOT look to the Early Church Fathers! that would not be the way to necessarily find the answers.

More dissembling. You claimed that Campolo studied the early church fathers. That is exactly the way to find the TRUTH, about how an ancient word should be translated, you study historical documents. I PROVED from indisputable credible historical evidence that the meaning of [SIZE=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/SIZE] was sodomy, lust, impurity, works of the flesh, carnal, lawless intercourse, shameless, burning with insane love for boys, licentiousness, co-habitors with males, lusters after mankind, etc.

davedjy said:
Would you look to the Early Church on issues of whether slavery should be practiced currently? what about whether woman should be allowed to vote?

IRRELEVANT, Logical Fallacy, red herring to avoid discussing the topic of this thread, start talking about slavery, etc.

davedjy said:
Early Church represents DOCTRINE, that's it!
There was no such thing as "co-inhabitors with males", they had no knowledge of that, and history factual evidence ALONE proves you wrong!

You're right there was no such thing as "co-inhabitors" with males. The word is "co-habitors." Unfortunately for people who try to distort the Word of God, the REAL history proves there was such a thing. That is what I quoted the REAL, ACTUAL documented history of the early church, including Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, and Irenaeus, a student of Polycarp.

The unsupported opinions of the likes of Campolo and Boswell are certainly not history.

What are you calling "factual history," when you argue against the actual, history written by the Christians who lived it? What do you consider "factual history," the unsupported, undocumented claims of Campolo and Boswell? Unless they, or any scholar, quote actual historical documents, as I have done, nothing they say is "history," it is supposition and opinion.

davedjy said:
Go back in your time machine, Der Alter, and ask the Early Church Fathers about a sexual orientation. Visualize and imagine how they would say "what is this of which you speak?".

Is that a fact? I thought you said they had a word for "a sexual orientation" and that word was supposedly "homophilia?" So which is it now, they had a word for sexual orientation or they didn't know anything about sexual orientation?

Proof that the so-called "word" "homophilia" is a phony 20th century invention. The first word is 'homo," for the sake of discussion I will concede that it means "same." Now the second word is, I assume derived from [SIZE=+1]φιλεω[/SIZE] , commonly called brotherly love. So "homophilia" would mean to love the same as a friend or brother. The Greek word for sexual love is [SIZE=+1]ερως[/SIZE]. The word for "homosexual" if such a word existed would have to be "homoeros", NOT "homophilia.".

G5368 [SIZE=+1]φιλεω[/SIZE] phileō fil-eh'-o[/b]
From G5384; to be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), that is, have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while G25 is wider, embracing especially the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as G2309 and G1014, or as G2372 and G3563 respectively; the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head); specifically to kiss (as a mark of tenderness): - kiss, love

.

davedjy said:
Argument for Early Church: USELESS and OUT OF DATE

Is the N.T. also useless and out of date, it was written before the early church fathers?

You didn't think the ECF were "useless and out of date" when you were claiming Campolo, "In one of his audio things, he even tracked down Early Church lineage"

davedjy said:
Arguments against homosexuality: Bigotry and don't represent the Heart of God (God doesn't make up arbitrary rules)

From the time of Moses, through, the N.T., through the early church, to the present day the Word of God did and does, condemns homosexuality. I quoted actual historical evidence you quote people who say what you want to hear. God does not make up arbitrary rules.

Lisa0315 · Mar 16, 2007

davedjy said:
The problem with your arguments are that they attach Effeminate with "abusers of themselves with mankind", and use a biased translation to come to terms with that.

To find the truth out, you DO NOT look to the Early Church Fathers! that would not be the way to necessarily find the answers.

Would you look to the Early Church on issues of whether slavery should be practiced currently? what about whether woman should be allowed to vote?

Early Church represents DOCTRINE, that's it!
There was no such thing as "co-inhabitors with males", they had no knowledge of that, and history factual evidence ALONE proves you wrong!

Go back in your time machine, Der Alter, and ask the Early Church Fathers about a sexual orientation. Visualize and imagine how they would say "what is this of which you speak?".

Argument for Early Church: USELESS and OUT OF DATE

Arguments against homosexuality: Bigotry and don't represent the Heart of God (God doesn't make up arbitrary rules)

Early Church, useless and out of date? Oh, the treachery and deceit that one would have to be in order to think such.

These are those who gave their lives for Christ. Do you think they would do so if they did not have the fullness of Truth?

The fruit of their lives bear witness to the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If they speak truth, then, the truth is in them. If not, then, the Truth is not in them. No man would die for less than the absolute truth.

During the Roman and Greek empires, there were those in power who participated in a homosexual lifestyle, and were as offended by the preaching against it as you are. It would not surprise me that many of the Apostles and the early church was put to death for the preaching against sexual sin as much as they were for the preaching of the cross.

All the prophets were put to death rather than the nation repent of their sin. The early church fathers gave their lives for the same reason. Yet, you seriously believe that their preaching against sexual sin INCLUDING homosexuality was biased????

Lord, Help you. You are completely deceived.

Tell you what. Give up the lifestyle. Live a life of purity, repent of the sexual sin in your life. Live one year in purity, praying, fasting, and seeking the will of God in the matter. Then, come back and tell us that God has condoned homosexuality or ANY sex outside the marriage that God has ordained.

If you truly want to find the truth, then, dedicate yourself to finding it.

Lisa

EnemyPartyII · Mar 16, 2007

Early Church, useless and out of date? Oh, the treachery and deceit that one would have to be in order to think such.

So the eraly church had all of the answers nailed down from the start, and no one is to use any sort of rational evaluation or thinking about Christianity, we're just meant to accept what the traditional idea are, huh?

Der Alte · Mar 16, 2007

EnemyPartyII said:
So the eraly church had all of the answers nailed down from the start, and no one is to use any sort of rational evaluation or thinking about Christianity, we're just meant to accept what the traditional idea are, huh?

Logical fallacy, appeal to emotion. What then would you substitute for the teachings of people like Polycarp and Ignatius, disciples of John, and Irenaeus a student of Polycarp. Do you agree with Dave all the ECF are useless and out of date, and we should listen to the likes of Tony Campolo, a sociology professor, with no stated expertise in Biblical languages or history, or John Boswell, a history professor, also no stated Biblical expertise. Who OBTW died in 1994, at age 47, of AIDS related diseases. Is that the yellow brick road you want to go down?

Has the gay community infiltrated this website?

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

observant petal

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Respect Catholics and the Mother Church!

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency