Homosexuality is a sin, get over it...

[ReformedChapin]

I think I like you

You cannot ask for evidence, while at the same time putting your fingers in your ears, squishing your eyes tight and saying "Lalalalalalalala" at the top of your voice.

Or rather, you can, but you will neither see, hear nor understand.

Good luck with that.

(Antidote, if anyone cares, is to open your heart. All else will follow.)

I love when people use, pointless rethoric for arguements when they have zero evidence. I guess it makes their argument better some how.

 

[ebia]

Oh dear Lord. All you have argued here is subjective "evidence", it's clear that you don't even believe in the infallability of scripture, so how can that be objective.

You are correct that I don't believe scripture to be infallible, but that isn't a requirement of objectivity.

Do you know what objective means?

I'm beginning to wonder if you do.

Didn't addres anything, so invalid statement.

Yeh, right. You make an assumption, someone points out that your assumption is unfounded, so that person's statement is self-evidently invalid. And you talk about objectivity.

All you have word of mouth

What? You make no sense.

and again you haven't prenseted what is "God's word."

The Word of God is Christ.

Is there some new canon that I need to know?

What are you on about?

And no, all reliabel scientific datat shows that homosexual orientation doesn't exist. The best homo advocates can come up with is " a result of some biological presuposition." Show me one peer review article that shows homosexuality is an orientation.

I think maybe you would need to define your terms first, but in any case see below.

What is God's word then?

I just said - Christ.

Oh please...the canon has been repeately been proven through history.

Only to the satisfaction of people who disregard any evidence to the contrary, and accept anything presented as evidence. It is not possible to prove that the bible is any of: "the Word of God (TM)", "infallible", etc. Neither is it desirable - one should value the bible because one trusts in God, not the other way around.

Not to mention you have not proven any reliabel source of Christ of your own. You got Christ out of thin air.

It wouldn't matter one iota if I had - and it would put me in some very good company. Come to think of it, I rather wish that were the case. But it isn't.

Nope, you just don't have common understanding of the various uses of the words.

Apparently the compilers of my dictionaries don't either.

1) I want to see the evidence for that, and biblically you're incorret.

Quite honestly, I can't be bothered because...

But then again your God comes out of thin air.

... I don't see a lot of point in continuing a conversation with someone who insists on repeatedly bearing false witness against me.

2)Fits perfectly well if you understand the context of the word.

"It offers evidence that you can use the word the way I want so long as you already agree with my definition of the word". Yeh, right.

lol. This made me laugh, if Christ lied then we don't have anything go on as Christain. We would all just believe in some random God.

My comment should have had a question mark on the end. Unfortunately that got lost in typing. I was actually querying your comment that apparently indictated that whether Christ was lying or not was irrelevent. I know he wasn't lying - as I made clear elsewhere in the same post.

This is simple, either it has wholes or it doesn't. If it does, then there is no point in listening to it.

That simply does not follow. God works through fallible things all the time - he works through fallible people, through a fallible creation, and a fallible church. He can, and does, also work (very effectively) through the fallible set of writings we call the bible.

You're taking the bible and the parts you like and using those and then the parts you don't like and saing their in valid.

Another false claim. Please stop bearing false witness.

I suggest you look at the canonization of scripture.

I have.

I would since the only being that could be objective is God.

I agree that God is the only person in a position to be perfectly objective, but I've no idea what inference you expect me to make from that in the context of this discussion.

How about you stop with the here say and step up with some evidence.

The words of Christ aren't evidence? (Remembered the question mark that time, phew.)

huh? Wow talk about hypocrital. My methodology is compromised of scripture first because that's the only realiable source of truth.

1. You have blown your objectivity right there with that assumption.
2. GOD is the only reliable source of truth, not the bible.
3. Even if the bible were what you claim it to be, your interpretation is seriously flawed because you are disregarding the implications of Christ's statement that all the law and prophets follow from the Great Commandments. You appear to be trying to distract from that (vital) point by attacking me.

Everything else is based on falliable knowledge, whether it's reason or experience which is what you are doing.

Everything is based on fallible knowledge. Everything. No exceptions. Even (by your own admission) any evidence that the scripture was infallible would be itself fallible. The only thing that is infallible is God. No me, not you, not scripture, and certainly not anybody's interpretation of scripture. In the end, your reason for scripture being is infallible is no more than "it is because I want it to be", which is hardly objective.

Again, if part of is right, we have no christ.

Again, this does not follow.

Christ is based on the concept on the entire falliabel word of God.

No he is not. If the bible is 100% unreliable then we have a problem, but it doesn't need to be 100% infallible to be useful.

How do we know certain parts are true about hima nd others are not?

No-one ever said life was easy. By testing its application in the same ways we have to test anything else. I would actually suggest that the author of the letter to Timothy was correct - that it's all useful for something, but one needs some thought, discretion and discernment to determine how to use different parts in different contexts. A claim of "it's infallible" doesn't help that, but rather gets in the way as one get's bogged down in the 'facts' and misses the chance for God to speak through it.

Any peice of "evidence" you claim is subjective. Unless you want to present another canon and your evidence for it you have nothing.

I have Christ - that's all I need. (The bible is extremely useful, but I could survive without it if necessary.) You can call that "nothing" if you want, but I wouldn't.

OH please, talk about flase witness, not only do you have no evidence for none of your arguments all you do is make random statments.

I'm sorry if you are having trouble following a coherent arguement that doesn't agree with your assumptions.

Even if you don't recognize your lies or admit to them, they are still there.

I have not deliberately lied. If I have made a false statement please point it out and I will endevour to correct it.

In the meantime, please stop making false claims about my motives - by doing so you are bearing false witness.

 

[ebia]

I love when people use, pointless rethoric for arguements when they have zero evidence. I guess it makes their argument better some how.

Humpf. My irony meter just exploded.

 

[Konkurrent]

I just want to say that there is a very clear superior in the use of language in this exchange. (I won't point fingers, not because it's impolite but instead because it's so painfully obvious.)

I always find it amusing when one side accuses the other of improper use of language, all the while butchering it beyond recognition. Granted, I'm prone to literati tendencies, but it's always particularly entertaining to observe someone playing the role of vocabulary nazi while being seemingly oblivious to the spell check function built into the website.

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks it valuable to first ensure one's own use of language is nigh bullet-proof before condemning someone else's?

I mean honestly... there's even an obvious Bible quote that fits here. Does Matthew 7:5 ring any bells?

 

[ReformedChapin]

You are correct that I don't believe scripture to be infallible, but that isn't a requirement of objectivity.

Actually it is, everything in a Christian world is subjective and fallen nature.

I'm beginning to wonder if you do.

I do, do you need me to help you by posting the philosophical definition?

Yeh, right. You make an assumption, someone points out that your assumption is unfounded, so that person's statement is self-evidently invalid. And you talk about objectivity.

What are my assumptions then? And what persons? What are you talking about?

What? You make no sense.

ironic

The Word of God is Christ

Again, WHERE IS CHRIST? WHERE DOESYOUR CHRIST COME FROM? All you are saying the word of GOD IS CHRIST? HOW DO YOU PERCIEVE IT?

What are you on about?

I’m thinking that about you.

I think maybe you would need to define your terms first, but in any case see below.

Nope, you just need to understand words in context. It will help you with your hermantics.

I just said - Christ.

Only to the satisfaction of people who disregard any evidence to the contrary, and accept anything presented as evidence. It is not possible to prove that the bible is any of: "the Word of God (TM)", "infallible", etc. Neither is it desirable - one should value the bible because one trusts in God, not the other way around.

Prove it how? You mean by the scientific method? Duh. But it’s been assumed to be the infallible word of God since the early church fathers. Several events in history have been proven to be accurate such as Isaiah 40: 22 which states the earth is round.

So where does this Christ come from? Did he come at night and tell you a little secret?


It wouldn't matter one iota if I had - and it would put me in some very good company. Come to think of it, I rather wish that were the case. But it isn't. huh?

Apparently the compilers of my dictionaries don't either.

Get better dictionaries.

Quite honestly, I can't be bothered because...

So you have nothing, I thought so.

... I don't see a lot of point in continuing a conversation with someone who insists on repeatedly bearing false witness against me.

More useless garbage.

"It offers evidence that you can use the word the way I want so long as you already agree with my definition of the word". Yeh, right.

False representation and more useless trash.

My comment should have had a question mark on the end. Unfortunately that got lost in typing. I was actually querying your comment that apparently indictated that whether Christ was lying or not was irrelevent. I know he wasn't lying - as I made clear elsewhere in the same post.

Uh, yeah right.

That simply does not follow. God works through fallible things all the time - he works through fallible people, through a fallible creation, and a fallible church. He can, and does, also work (very effectively) through the fallible set of writings we call the bible.

Again, you have no understanding of historical Christianity or how the biblical God works. I suggest you take a theology course.

Another false claim. Please stop bearing false witness.

Ironic

I have.

yeah right.

I agree that God is the only person in a position to be perfectly objective, but I've no idea what inference you expect me to make from that in the context of this discussion.

And the bible is God’s word..makes sense?

The words of Christ aren't evidence? (Remembered the question mark that time, phew.)

Again, where did you get the Words of Christ? Did he come out of a genie bottle? Oh and if you got some words of Christ from the bible? How are they not infallible if the bible has flaws?

1. You have blown your objectivity right there with that assumption.
2. GOD is the only reliable source of truth, not the bible.
3. Even if the bible were what you claim it to be, your interpretation is seriously flawed because you are disregarding the implications of Christ's statement that all the law and prophets follow from the Great Commandments. You appear to be trying to distract from that (vital) point by attacking me.

1)[FONT=&quot] You don’t know what objectivity is[/FONT]
2)[FONT=&quot] The bible is God’s word, you haven’t demonstrated how else we can perceive God[/FONT]
3)[FONT=&quot] You have no understanding of the law, Christ’s statements or biblical history. And this isn’t about attacking you like you have been attacking me, except you somehow slip the bible into things you like and don’t like and called it God’s word.
[/FONT]

Everything is based on fallible knowledge. Everything. No exceptions. Even (by your own admission) any evidence that the scripture was infallible would be itself fallible. The only thing that is infallible is God. No me, not you, not scripture, and certainly not anybody's interpretation of scripture. In the end, your reason for scripture being is infallible is no more than "it is because I want it to be", which is hardly objective.

If it’s not we have no perception of God at all.
​

Again, this does not follow.

Good time for the hermeneutics class.

No he is not. If the bible is 100% unreliable then we have a problem, but it doesn't need to be 100% infallible to be useful.

Who gets to choose what’s reliable then? You?

No-one ever said life was easy. By testing its application in the same ways we have to test anything else. I would actually suggest that the author of the letter to Timothy was correct - that it's all useful for something, but one needs some thought, discretion and discernment to determine how to use different parts in different contexts. A claim of "it's infallible" doesn't help that, but rather gets in the way as one get's bogged down in the 'facts' and misses the chance for God to speak through it.

And your evidence for this is what? Your emotions… just great.

I have Christ - that's all I need. (The bible is extremely useful, but I could survive without it if necessary.) You can call that "nothing" if you want, but I wouldn't.

So if I make random statements and claim they are Christ, they are Christ? lol

I'm sorry if you are having trouble following a coherent arguement that doesn't agree with your assumptions.

Ironic, wow two in a row.

I have not deliberately lied. If I have made a false statement please point it out and I will endevour to correct it.

You have no understanding of scripture and you have lied worst of all making statements about Christ which are untrue.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

In the meantime, please stop making false claims about my motives - by doing so you are bearing false witness.

Listen to your own advice.[/FONT]​

 

[ReformedChapin]

Humpf. My irony meter just exploded.

I hope you know what irony is

 

[ebia]

Actually it is, everything in a Christian world is subjective and fallen nature.

Imperfect does not mean the same as subjective. But, if you want to work to that 'definition' of subjective fine, then there is no possibility of anyone (including you) being objective.

I do, do you need me to help you by posting the philosophical definition?

You can if you like - it might help you.

What are my assumptions then?

You made assumptions about my motives and my methods. I pointed out that you are wrong. You then try to get off the hook simply by saying my corrections are invalid. Apart from God, I'm the only person here who can know what my motives are.

ironic

I guess that was easier than clarifying.

Again, WHERE IS CHRIST?

Everywhere, in the sacraments, at the right hand of the father,...

WHERE DOESYOUR CHRIST COME FROM?

From God

All you are saying the word of GOD IS CHRIST?

Christ is the Word of God. You have a problem with this? Maybe the questions you are asking aren't the right ones for the information you want.

HOW DO YOU PERCIEVE IT?

God speaks through people, through the bible, through prayer, through his call and action in my life and others,... I've already answered this.

I’m thinking that about you.

That's nice dear.

Nope, you just need to understand words in context. It will help you with your hermantics.

No - if you want me to provide evidence, then you will need to define the terms so that I can provide evidence that actually answers your question. I'm not going to try and guess what your definitions are, given that you seem to be working to different defintions of several other important words.

So where does this Christ come from? Did he come at night and tell you a little secret?

I'm sorry if God doesn't speak to you at all. Perhaps you need to stop talking and start listening.

Get better dictionaries.

The OED will do me nicely, thankyou.

So you have nothing, I thought so.

Correct. I can find something, but currently it doesn't seem worth the effort.

More useless garbage.

A request that someone stop bearing false witness is not "useless garbage". It speaks volumes that you think it is.

False representation and more useless trash.

Explain why it is false representation. How is my paraphrase not an accurate reflection of what you said?

Uh, yeah right.

Believe it or not, it's true - as should be clear from a careful reading of the rest of the post in question.

Again, you have no understanding of historical Christianity or how the biblical God works. I suggest you take a theology course.

LOL

And the bible is God’s word..makes sense?

The bible is not God's word. God's Word speaks through the bible.

Again, where did you get the Words of Christ? Did he come out of a genie bottle? Oh and if you got some words of Christ from the bible? How are they not infallible if the bible has flaws?

In the same way that they survive being transmitted through some fallible people - eg Mark, Matthew, John etc. God works his purposes succesfully through fallible things.

2)The bible is God’s word, you haven’t demonstrated how else we can perceive God

In the same way he has always worked - and the same way he is described as working in the bible - and (for that matter) the same way the bible itself came to be. If God could only work through the bible:
a. the bible would not exist
b. it's descriptions of God working in other ways would be wrong.

3)You have no understanding of the law, Christ’s statements or biblical history.

What you actually mean is that my understanding does not agree with yours. Given that you keep avoiding dealing with the problems in your understanding (eg your repeated avoidance of dealing with Christ's statement that the law and the prophets) by trying to attack your assumptions about my methods and motives I suspect life would be better served by my just ignoring all further attacks and reminding you of the point until you deal with it. They are just a distraction.

If it’s not we have no perception of God at all.

Why do you keep making these clearly untrue statements?​

 

[ebia]

I hope you know what irony is

I live in Australia.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

I am not really sure why we are having such a hard time with this distinction. Jesus is the Word of God, scripture can sort of be called the word of God but only if you keep in mind the reason that John refers to Jesus as the Word of God.

To insist without qualification that the bible is entirely true ignores many interesting historical facts pertaining to the manner in which the bible comes to us today.

Heck, the oldest OT manuscripts we have are from the tenth century CE and the oldest NT manuscripts (not the whole canon, mind you, that is an accident of history as well) are from the early 2nd century.

It is, to say the least, troubling that we do not have a single manuscript written contemporaneously with Jesus' life. Even more troubling is the fact that there are PLENTY of non-religious manuscripts from that period of time and we have TONS of Greek manuscripts from centuries earlier.

I wont even mention the hundreds of differences that exist between any two world class biblical manuscripts.

Don't get me wrong, scripture is of tremendous importance. It is the most important way that Christians have passed down their faith through the centuries, but it is not the only way and it is CERTAINLY not the Word of God.

I also want to stress that I believe that SOME of the bible is divine in origin but I also believe that MUCH of what is in the bible as we know it is not original and that many of the most ancient Christian writings have been lost.

"So!" One might say: "You don't believe that every jot of the bible is true. Where then, Sir, do you draw the line!" Yeah, that is a toughie and I am studying hard to learn Greek so that I can get a little closer. I refuse to take the easy way out and say, for instance, that the KJV is 100% God's Word straight from the source. That is too easy a way out. I place me confidence in salvation solely upon the person of Christ, the living risen Messiah. To put it another way, I trust in God and God's Word for salvation, I study the scriptures for illumination.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Just as an addendum, I find it interesting that discussions about homosexuality always end up being about fundamental questions of faith: what must a Christian do to attain salvation, in what way can we learn God's truth, what role ought a Christian to play amongst other believers they feel have erred?

The answers to these questions are not cut and dried, God IS still speaking and I will NOT "get over it".

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

Sin is sin. And no sin is more sinful than any other according to God per the Bible. All our faith is like dirty rags. Feeling that our sin is lesser or someone else's is worse, is a man thing. It's not a God thing.

There are a lot of sins spoken of in the Bible. And most of them, we don't seem to care much about, let alone even talk about. This sin in particular is spoken of in almost the same breath as having sex with animals ...nobody advocates beastiality. There is no Beastiality Pride parade, no beastiality symbols, no television shows trying to make beastiality seem cool. It's abhorant to us. Why? If all sins are equally abhorant to God, why are some sins in our eyes not as bad as others? Man's thing. Not God's.

We're all sinners. None are righteous in the eyes of the Lord. If we know it's sin and do it anyway...that is rebellion, which is also...a sin. If we sin and lie about it, that is a sin. If we think about a sin lustfully in our minds...again, a sin. God's thing. Not mans.

For that matter though, so is judging someone else or being mean to them...not just for sin, but for any reason. God's thing. Not mans.

Let he who is without sin (and yes, unless you are Jesus Christ, you are a sinner), cast the first stone. (Do you get this point?)

We can only be responsible to God for our own actions. All we can do is try not to sin, and ask for forgivness when we fall short. And we all fall short. Repentance is the way to forgivness. God's thing. Not mans.

 

[ebia]

There are a lot of sins spoken of in the Bible. And most of them, we don't seem to care much about, let alone even talk about. This sin in particular is spoken of in almost the same breath as having sex with animals ...

Um, not it's not. The word used to condemn men lying with men in the OT is a word used to condemn ritual acts, not sexual acts.

However, (to the exten it is mentioned at all it) is spoken of in the same breath as gossip, slander and greed in the N.T.

nobody advocates beastiality. There is no Beastiality Pride parade, no beastiality symbols, no television shows trying to make beastiality seem cool.

Comparisons with beastiaity are simply absurd. One is capable of being a loving, consentual, monogomous, faithful, permanent and equal relationship in the same way as any hetrosexual marriage. The other is not - its purely a one-sided sexual act.

It's abhorant to us. Why? If all sins are equally abhorant to God, why are some sins in our eyes not as bad as others? Man's thing. Not God's.

The people who are trying to rank sin are those who are anti-homosexual.

 

[OObi]

Humpf. My irony meter just exploded.

Aw! I got one of those too!! It was on e-bay, cheap, like $30 or something like that...



I see now why there are so many homosexuality threads. Because they are just titled homosexuality while in reality they don't address the issue at hand, that being homosexuality. So while we have 3 billion gay threads, it really only comes down to a small percentage that deals with the gays. I guess this is... mission accomplished?

 

[OObi]

The people who are trying to rank sin are those who are anti-homosexual.

Not so much anti-homosexual as we are anti-homosexuality. God Himself is anti-homosexuality. It is clearly evident when you just look at the sheer beauty of God's creation, everything, how wonderful and amazing it is. Then you look at how homosexuality destroys that picture, and how out of place it is. How distant it is from true beauty, I don't see how anyone can consider it approved by God.

 

[Konkurrent]

Not so much anti-homosexual as we are anti-homosexuality. God Himself is anti-homosexuality. It is clearly evident when you just look at the sheer beauty of God's creation, everything, how wonderful and amazing it is. Then you look at how homosexuality destroys that picture, and how out of place it is. How distant it is from true beauty, I don't see how anyone can consider it approved by God.

If you can't make your argument without saying "it's clearly evident" you can't make your argumennt.

If anything at all is "clearly evident" it's that people clearly disagree on whether homosexuality destroys anything.

There is one picture that homosexuality destroys: the one in which every living human being is a little copy of certain people's image of what it is to be "a good Christian".

But that's not a picture of reality.


Poverty causes more harm on a daily basis than whether or not same-sex couples exist. How about railing against poverty, fixing that problem first, and then trying to destroy homosexuality.

 

[ebia]

Not so much anti-homosexual as we are anti-homosexuality. God Himself is anti-homosexuality. It is clearly evident when you just look at the sheer beauty of God's creation, everything, how wonderful and amazing it is. Then you look at how homosexuality destroys that picture, and how out of place it is. How distant it is from true beauty, I don't see how anyone can consider it approved by God.

Sorry? I fail to see how two men or two women loving and supporting each other destroys the beauty of creation.

 

[Konkurrent]

Sorry? I fail to see how two men or two women loving and supporting each other destroys the beauty of creation.

Maybe that's next on the list of things to do for the Great Gay Conspiracy.

Step 1: Get sit-coms - Done
Step 2: Get Gay Marrige - In Progress
Step 3: Send World to Hell in Handbasket - Next

 

[ThirdDay3337]

Sorry? I fail to see how two men or two women loving and supporting each other destroys the beauty of creation.

But it doesn't support creation either. God does do a lot of creating and not destroying. But can a gay couple create life? They can support life and help life, but they cannot create life with each other.

 

[DivineRAiN]

ThirdDay: But it doesn't support creation either. God does do a lot of creating and not destroying. But can a gay couple create life? They can support life and help life, but they cannot create life with each other.

that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me, because I'm friends with a married couple (who are in their 40's now) and they cannot have children. They wanted children, but they just cannot create life together. Would you say their relationship destroys the beauty of Creation?
The gay friends that I do have, they cannot create life with their SO, but they are raising the children they already have.
And at the same time this made me think again of a guy who murdered his child (at the daycare) because he didn't want to pay child support anymore. Please.. Being a heterosexual n having the ability to create life doesn't make us better than those who can't.

 

[ThirdDay3337]

ThirdDay: But it doesn't support creation either. God does do a lot of creating and not destroying. But can a gay couple create life? They can support life and help life, but they cannot create life with each other.

that doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me, because I'm friends with a married couple (who are in their 40's now) and they cannot have children. They wanted children, but they just cannot create life together. Would you say their relationship destroys the beauty of Creation?
The gay friends that I do have, they cannot create life with their SO, but they are raising the children they already have.
And at the same time this made me think again of a guy who murdered his child (at the daycare) because he didn't want to pay child support anymore. Please.. Being a heterosexual n having the ability to create life doesn't make us better than those who can't.

I think I should explain myself more. I'm not saying people who can create life are better than everyone else. I'm not saying that heterosexual couples who cannot create life are not from God.

But it doesn't make sense to me that God would create a whole orieintation of people who cannot create life themselves because of mental reasons, homosexuality, not physical reasons, sterility.

Live for Christ

Luke