Has the gay community infiltrated this website?

[EnemyPartyII]

Logical fallacy, appeal to emotion.

Nope, no apeal to emotion. If anyone is guilty of a logical fallacy, its you with the "apeal to tradition"

Who OBTW died in 1994, at age 47, of AIDS related diseases.

This is amazingly telling for a totally irrelevant comment...

What then would you substitute for the teachings of people like ...

I don't think ANYONE'S teachings should be dismissed, all I'm saying, all I've EVER said, really, is that to fully understand anyone's teachings, we MUST try to understand the context of the society and times in which they were written.

Just reading Leviticus... "gay=abomination" shows an utter lack of any attempt to look at the Bible through any sort of rational, contextual filter

 

[Der Alte]

Nope, no apeal to emotion. If anyone is guilty of a logical fallacy, its you with the "apeal to tradition"

Wrong! I see you are still ignoring the bulk of my posts. Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, immediate followers of John, they don't have anything to teach us. Again what do you propose to replace historical context with? How do we know what the meanings of ancient texts is? Here is a verse in my wife's native language. Please translate it for me? You can't yhou must ask someone who knows ths language. Dave has been arguing that nobody, no how, knows meaning of the word 'aresenkoites." I just quoted several early Christians all of whom interpreted it as meaning a homosexual.

Did the meaning of words in scripture somehow change since the 1st and 2d century. I know lets call it tradition and make up our own definitions of those words we don't like.
[SIZE=+1]그러나 참된 잠언(箴&#35328의 /말씀/과 같이, 개는 자기가 토한 것으로 되돌아가고 씻겨진 돼지는 진창 속에서 뒹군다, 하는 말이 그들에게 응하였도다[/SIZE]

This is amazingly telling for a totally irrelevant comment...I don't think ANYONE'S teachings should be dismissed, all I'm saying, all I've EVER said, really, is that to fully understand anyone's teachings, we MUST try to understand the context of the society and times in which they were written.

Would you have brain surgery from a proctologists, they are both MDs? Do you consult a historian or a sociologist for interpretation of Biblical texts? Tell me since Dave can't, did the Greeks have a word for homosexual in the 1st century that Paul would have known or did they not have any idea about orientation? Please do share with me the "context of the society" and do so without quoting any of that bad old tradition from the first century.

Just reading Leviticus... "gay=abomination" shows an utter lack of any attempt to look at the Bible through any sort of rational, contextual filter

Did you read my quote from the Talmud? It is what it is. Sanhedrin 54 a and b. available online.

 

[Lisa0315]

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?

You are meant to accept the Word of God. Given that everyone has their own interpetation of that today and given that everyone writes their own Bible to represent that interpertation, yes, the earth Church Fathers are a good place to start to find out what the original writings were intended to mean.

Other than that, I ask you to do the same. Fast, pray, and study this thing for one year while keeping yourself sexually pure. Then, come back and show us the will of God that has been revealed to you on this matter.

Lisa

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Did the meaning of words in scripture somehow change since the 1st and 2d century. I know lets call it tradition and make up our own definitions of those words we don't like.

Not at all. However, our UNDERSTANDING of what those words mean may have changed...

OF COURSE I can't read your wife's language, and would not presume to tell anyone what it means.

So why are you so sure that you CAN read the ancient Bible and presume to tell people what it DOES mean?

Do you consult a historian or a sociologist for interpretation of Biblical texts?

I think its a good idea to listen to what the historian and sociologist have to say about the society in which those texts were written before we try to interpret them, yes.

Please do share with me the "context of the society" and do so without quoting any of that bad old tradition from the first century.

I'm not sure what you mean, and don't wish to apear flippant, so please explain the question again?

Did you read my quote from the Talmud? It is what it is. Sanhedrin 54 a and b. available online.

"It is what it" is is NOT sufficient answer. You tell me WHY it is what it is, and we'll both be getting somewhere

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Other than that, I ask you to do the same. Fast, pray, and study this thing for one year while keeping yourself sexually pure. Then, come back and show us the will of God that has been revealed to you on this matter.

I spent much of my teenage years confused and praying for guidance. I believe I have recieved it. Thanks

 

[Der Alte]

Not at all. However, our UNDERSTANDING of what those words mean may have changed...

When the people in the 1890s referred to that era as the "Gay '90s" were they saying everybody was homosexual or that it was a relatively happy time? What we understand a word to mean today may be irrelevant, what it meant to the person who wrote it and his/her immediate audience at the time of writing is what is important.

OF COURSE I can't read your wife's language, and would not presume to tell anyone what it means.

Exactly! So why do you presume to reinterpret the Greek N.T. without any foundation in the language and culture, and how are you going to get that? I ask my wife, who are we going to ask about the N.T.? I suggest Christians who lived at the time.

So why are you so sure that you CAN read the ancient Bible and presume to tell people what it DOES mean?

I have studied at the post grad level both Biblical languages, Bible history etc. more than 2 decades ago. I learned to speak Greek almost 5 decades ago.

I think its a good idea to listen to what the historian and sociologist have to say about the society in which those texts were written before we try to interpret them, yes.

Not when it comes to Biblical languages and nobody is quoting them on history and sociology. Dave keeps quoting campolo over and over and over that nobody knows the meaning of "aresenkoites" in the face of irrefutable historical evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean, and don't wish to apear flippant, so please explain the question again?"

You said we should consider "the context of the society" but you rejected the early church fathers as "tradition." My comment was how can we "consider the context of the society" and reject the history at the same time?

It is what it" is is NOT sufficient answer. You tell me WHY it is what it is, and we'll both be getting somewhere

I quoted the Talmud showing the interpretation of the O.T. so-called "clobber passages" from the time of Moses, the meaning is what it is, whether we like it or not. According to ALL Jewish sources the meaning has been consistent since ca. 1200 BC, but in the last few decades people, most who know nothing about Biblical Hebrew, try to argue that the O.T. prohibitons refer only to pagan temple sex. It has never meant that to the Jews. It is what it is.

 

[davedjy]

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?

Right, because what I would rather do is listen to the "Early Church", who didn't have any knowledge of a sexual orientation, a Church that assumed everyone has a natural inclination to the opposite sex, LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What we understand a word to mean today may be irrelevant, what it meant to the person who wrote it and his/her immediate audience at the time of writing is what is important.

I could not agree more. Now explain how YOU KNOW what these things meant to the people who wrote them at the time?

I suggest Christians who lived at the time.

OK, lets. So... got any clear, unanimous writings from Christians contemporary with Jesus about his stance towards homosexuals, that cannot possibly be being misinterpreted?

I have studied at the post grad level both Biblical languages, Bible history etc. more than 2 decades ago. I learned to speak Greek almost 5 decades ago.

Cool. But what did you learn about the social context in which the writings were first authored? See, I think the language skills AND the cultural context are equally important to understand

Not when it comes to Biblical languages and nobody is quoting them on history and sociology.

STRONGLY disagree... if our social norm of marriage is different to the OT social norm of marriage, yet the same word is used, is there room for misunderstanding, even though the language is clear? Um... YES!

You said we should consider "the context of the society" but you rejected the early church fathers as "tradition." My comment was how can we "consider the context of the society" and reject the history at the same time?

You misunderstand me... I don't doubt the historical veracity of the early Church fathers... or that they wrote what they believed was appropriate and correct, WITHIN THEIR SOCIAL CONTEXT... however, since OUR social context is DIFFERENT, we need to take this into account when reading their writings...

It is what it is.

No problem. I believe that the Levitical prohibition on homosexuality is precisely what it appears to be.

However, I also believe that the REASON for that prohibition, is no longer relevant

 

[Lisa0315]

Not at all. However, our UNDERSTANDING of what those words mean may have changed...

OF COURSE I can't read your wife's language, and would not presume to tell anyone what it means.

So why are you so sure that you CAN read the ancient Bible and presume to tell people what it DOES mean?I think its a good idea to listen to what the historian and sociologist have to say about the society in which those texts were written before we try to interpret them, yes.I'm not sure what you mean, and don't wish to apear flippant, so please explain the question again?"It is what it" is is NOT sufficient answer. You tell me WHY it is what it is, and we'll both be getting somewhere

So, our CULTURE and Worldly Society is used to interpert scripture? hmm...God does not change, but we do. If God does not change, then, why should our interpertation of scripture?

Lisa

 

[davedjy]

So, our CULTURE and Worldly Society is used to interpert scripture? hmm...God does not change, but we do. If God does not change, then, why should our interpertation of scripture?

Lisa

Lisa, even if you think you are correct regarding this, you have to prove that this can be fixed, which it cannot, and there isn't any proof of it.

At the very least, one will have to live a celibate, boring, depressing and unfulfilling life, by your definition. Care to show how one goes from gay to straight. Any meds for this?

SAD.....

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So, our CULTURE and Worldly Society is used to interpert scripture?

Thats not what I said... what I'm saying is, that it is pointless trying to read scripture without understanding the differences between the culture of the authors, and our contemporary culture.

If God does not change, then, why should our interpertation of scripture?

Well lets see, how closely do YOU follow Levitical laws? Because if your answer is anything but "completely as read" then your justification should answer your own question

 

[davedjy]

Thats not what I said... what I'm saying is, that it is pointless trying to read scripture without understanding the differences between the culture of the authors, and our contemporary culture.Well lets see, how closely do YOU follow Levitical laws? Because if your answer is anything but "completely as read" then your justification should answer your own question

This should do just fine, I think


Romans 7:4--So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

 

[PinkTulip]

This should do just fine, I think


Romans 7:4--So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Keep reading Romans. He also says, "Should we sin because we do not live by the Law?"

 

[davedjy]

Keep reading Romans. He also says, "Should we sin because we do not live by the Law?"

It basically informs us that we aren't under the old Leviticus laws anymore. Are you wearing clothing of mixed fabrics? that was an equal ritual impurity abomination (tow'ebah).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Keep reading Romans. He also says, "Should we sin because we do not live by the Law?"

Let me simplify...

We should live by OT law, yes or no?

 

[davedjy]

Let me simplify...

We should live by OT law, yes or no?

LOLOLOL!!!!!!


Maybe we should also obey that one in Leviticus about taking slaves for ourselves, do you think Enemyparty? why did they forget that rule???????????????????????

 

[davedjy]

Keep reading Romans. He also says, "Should we sin because we do not live by the Law?"

How could you sin if you don't have to go by the law? LOL

 

[Lisa0315]

Thats not what I said... what I'm saying is, that it is pointless trying to read scripture without understanding the differences between the culture of the authors, and our contemporary culture.Well lets see, how closely do YOU follow Levitical laws? Because if your answer is anything but "completely as read" then your justification should answer your own question

That is the biggest fallacy in all of Christianity. Everyone uses this argument, and everyone already knows the answer.

1) Unless you are Jewish, you were never under the law. The law was given to show us that we needed a Saviour.
2) After Christ, the law was not null and void, but we did gain liberty from it.
3) Some laws were given exclusively to the Jews for purity and for the hardness of their hearts. (Divorce for example)
4) Other laws were given to everyone.

So, God joined man and woman, and it was so from the beginning. Just because God permitted Moses to write a bill of divorcement for the hardness of man's heart, does not mean it was His intention that a man and woman should not remain married except for sexual sin within the marriage.

The only just and acceptable cause for divorce is sexual sin. Thus, we can clearly see that sexual sin in all of its diversity is not God's intent for mankind. In the law, over the law, behind the law, around the law, there is no other interpertation but this: Sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage is a sin.

Homosexuality, regardless of interpertation, culture, history, the modern thought of man, has been, is, and always will be outside the Godly ordination of marriage. Therefore, it is sexual sin and cannot be condoned by any church that has not divorced herself from all semblance of righteousness.

Lisa

 

[davedjy]

Homosexuality, regardless of interpertation, culture, history, the modern thought of man, has been, is, and always will be outside the Godly ordination of marriage. Therefore, it is sexual sin and cannot be condoned by any church that has not divorced herself from all semblance of righteousness.

All semblance of righteousness? you are dead wrong on this one, my Church accepts gay, bi, transgendered and lesbians the way they are, and it is a very Christian church.
Can you tell me what Isaiah says about our righteousnesses? what does it say that they are?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

1) Unless you are Jewish, you were never under the law. The law was given to show us that we needed a Saviour.

ok, so, not under the law, why is homosexuality wrong for me?

2) After Christ, the law was not null and void, but we did gain liberty from it.

OK, liberated from the law, why is homosexuality wrong for me?

3) Some laws were given exclusively to the Jews for purity and for the hardness of their hearts. (Divorce for example)

I'm not Jewish, so why is homosexuality wrong for me?

4) Other laws were given to everyone.

How do you know which ones apply to everyone and which ones only to Jews?

The only just and acceptable cause for divorce is sexual sin. Thus, we can clearly see that sexual sin in all of its diversity is not God's intent for mankind. In the law, over the law, behind the law, around the law, there is no other interpertation but this: Sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage is a sin.

I disagree with your conclusions.

Homosexuality, regardless of interpertation, culture, history, the modern thought of man, has been, is, and always will be outside the Godly ordination of marriage. Therefore, it is sexual sin and cannot be condoned by any church that has not divorced herself from all semblance of righteousness.

marriage is about maintaining family property. Since children are unlikely to "accidentally" occur in a homosexual relationship, property concerns and family breakdown is not a problem. Therefore, homosexuality does not create the sort of problems that OT injunctions against extra marital sex are intended to prevent