Homosexuality from a christian point of veiw.

[Ledifni]

I might post some relevant scholarship later, but I am not going to waste my time with you.

Why's that? What's wrong with me personally? Is my face ugly, or did I forget to wash behind my ears, or what?

 

[Brennin]

You have been lurking on this thread the whole time and I am still waiting...

Still waiting. Are you waiting for someone to try to bail you out via PM?

 

[Brennin]

Why's that? What's wrong with me personally? Is my face ugly, or did I forget to wash behind my ears, or what?

My objection to you is that you tried to correct me when you were in error yourself. I have no patience for that sort of thing.

 

[levi501]

Name some relevant scholars and while you are at it tell me when, where, and with whom you studied Ancient Greek (Attic or Koine) as I have.

*yawns*
I'd be quite impressed if 1. I believed you... or 2. I cared.
And I'm not the one appealing to my own authority when I make claims so I don't see where what credentials I have or don't have is relevant. I can tell you're full of yourself here, but recognize on the internet your simply another anonymous face who's got to back up the bs you spew just like everyone else.

 

[Followers4christ]

So, you'd say heterosexual divorcees are "putting their sins behind them?" That's funny, I thought Jesus said divorce was a sin. Oh drat. Hope there aren't any divorced preachers, 'cause they're "not trying to change but just keep on sinning without seeking Jesus Christ."

Man, I hope those wicked divorcees don't go trying to get marriage rights or something, because we sure wouldn't want to endorse sinful lifestyles, would we now?

A Christian can file for divorce if he or she was unfaithful (As stated in Matthew 5:32).Other than that if he or she divorces and they get remarried other than with their former wife/husband they will be commiting adultry.So yes if a man divorces and remarries another woman he's made him and her commit adultry,therefore he should not be a pastor,because a pastor has to live by the law of God and do what he preaches.
But most Christian marriages do not end up in divorce.God created marriage for a man and a woman only.Marriage is not sinful if its between a man and a woman but if its with the same sex it is sinful and an abomination.Marriage between a man and a woman cannot be wicked because God created it.God Bless

 

[levi501]

I am still waiting levi501. If you knew what you were talking about you could have answered very quickly.

don't get upset muffin, I'm here for you.

 

[Brennin]

*yawns*
I'd be quite impressed if 1. I believed you... or 2. I cared.
And I'm not the one appealing to my own authority when I make claims so I don't see where what credentials I have or don't have is relevant. I can tell you're full of yourself here, but recognize on the internet your simply another anonymous face who's got to back up the bs you spew just like everyone else.

I do not care if you believe me. The fact is that I can demonstrate my knowledge of Ancient Greek and Biblical scholarship, whereas you do not have even a pretense of learning of either.

 

[Brennin]

don't get upset muffin, I'm here for you.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[levi501]

I do not care if you believe me. The fact is that I can demonstrate my knowledge of Ancient Greek and Biblical scholarship, whereas you do not have even a pretense of learning of either.

haha... you don't get it pal. You aren't special. You like everyone else have to support what you say. We aren't going to just simply take your word for it.

 

[Brennin]

Accept it or take your toys and go home.

Sorry, but I do not take directives from you.

 

[levi501]

Thank you for proving my point.

well someone has to as you never bother to do it yourself.

 

[Ledifni]

My objection to you is that you tried to correct me when you were in error yourself. I have no patience for that sort of thing.

Have I tried to correct you? The only thing I've corrected you on is which language is relevant to understanding the original of the OT. On that, you are most certainly wrong, and I can prove it. Would you like me to prove to you that the original of the OT is in Hebrew?

 

[Brennin]

Have I tried to correct you? The only thing I've corrected you on is which language is relevant to understanding the original of the OT. On that, you are most certainly wrong, and I can prove it. Would you like me to prove to you that the original of the OT is in Hebrew?

I did not mention the OT. The foremost standard of truth for Christians is the New Testament.

 

[Ledifni]

But most Christian marriages do not end up in divorce.

Do you have a source for that claim? There are studies that say otherwise.

 

[Ledifni]

I did not mention the OT. The foremost standard of truth for Christians is the New Testament. You just keep digging yourself deeper (let me know when you reach China).

Yes you did mention the OT. You mentioned the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures that are now the OT. Apparently you don't know what the Septuagint is, either.

 

[Brennin]

Yes you did mention the OT. You mentioned the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures that are now the OT. Apparently you don't know what the Septuagint is, either.

I know what the Septuagint is. You are trying to obscure your error. I did not mention the OT (Septuagint or otherwise) until after you falsely asserted that Ancient Hebrew is the relevant language (and even then it was as a parenthetical afterthought).

 

[Ledifni]

I do not care if you believe me. The fact is that I can demonstrate my knowledge of Ancient Greek and Biblical scholarship, whereas you do not have even a pretense of learning of either.

The fact that you haven't done so yet leads me to doubt you can do it. I'll happily withdraw my doubts if you can confirm your knowledge of the relevant scholarship, but you'll have to do so first.

 

[Brennin]

The fact that you haven't done so yet leads me to doubt you can do it. I'll happily withdraw my doubts if you can confirm your knowledge of the relevant scholarship, but you'll have to do so first.

Here is a start. When are you going to concede you were in error when you wrote:

Recall, please, that many respected theologians with thorough knowledge of not only ancient Greek, but also the relevant language, which is ancient Hebrew...

 

[Ledifni]

I know what the Septuagint is. You are trying to obscure your error. I did not mention the OT (Septuagint or otherwise) until after you falsely asserted that Ancient Hebrew is the relevant language (and even then it was as a parenthetical afterthought).

Ancient Hebrew is the relevant language, as the truth of the NT is largely based on prophecies, theological principles, and so forth in the OT. You cannot understand the NT (in the sense that Christians understand it) without understanding the OT (especially since the NT is rich in quotes from the OT). That was not a false assertion.

You later asserted that Christians derive their truth purely from the NT; I disagree, and I think you can be clearly shown to be wrong about that, but you did not state that before I told you that Hebrew is the relevant language. Therefore you have no business complaining that I "falsely" asserted that, since it was actually a true assertion within the parameters you had set at that point.

And the relevant language to the Septuagint, all your assertions to the contrary, is indeed ancient Hebrew. You say the relevant language of NT scholarship is Greek, yet my NT isn't written in Greek. Why do you say that? Because the original is in Greek. Now Brennin, in what language is the original of the Septuagint written, and which language can we then conclude is the relevant language to scholarship regarding the document which, when in Greek, is called the Septuagint?

But all this "relevant language" business is rather beside the point. The only reason we're still belaboring it is because for some odd reason, you're trying to use it as an excuse not to demonstrate that you do indeed know the "relevant scholarship" thoroughly enough that you can categorically state that no honest Christian can accept homosexuality. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that. Shall we continue to belabor the "relevant language" point or are you prepared yet to drop your excuse?

I mean, Brennin, I suppose we don't have to have this discussion if it makes you so uncomfortable. But perhaps, if you don't want people to demand justification from you, you shouldn't loudly proclaim that everybody who disagrees with you is wrong and that you are the expert here who doesn't need to prove to anybody else that he's the expert.

 

[Ledifni]

Here is a start. When are you going to concede you were in error when you wrote:

Woah, woah. We ask you to demonstrate your knowledge, and you respond by linking to a theologian who agrees with you? Excuse me? Anybody on this site could Google up a theologian who agrees with them in a matter of seconds. That does not mean you are an expert. Why don't you demonstrate some of your knowledge?