Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[RMDY]

I completely disagree with this. The assumption that the Bible is inerrant is merely an assumption, and one that cuts off much of the real debate. It's like saying, in a forum on evolution, that we must assume the Bible to be inerrant. That assumption by itself wipes out real debate, because it cuts off the opposing argument right from the beginning.

To my mind, the assumption that the Bible is inerrant is both wrong and dangerous. I see this belief as a way in which people can and do rationalize the worst prejudices and the worst forms of discrimination. All people have to do to try to justify prejudice and discrimination is to point to the Bible. They can remove themselves from the requirement that they truly examine what they are doing and its real life impact. They take the debate entirely out of the realm of real life and the real effect of their beliefs and their behavior on others. This is what I find most offensive about the belief in Biblical inerrancy....people use this belief to undermine real thinking and real discussion of the effects of human behavior in the real world.

The secular world is the world we live in, whether people like it or not. The world of the Bible is mostly imaginary. If people refuse to grapple with and live in the real world, then they are hiding in an imaginary universe. They have invented God in their own image, and they have manipulated their understanding of reality so that it bears little resemblance to the world we actually live in.

When the Son of Man comes with power and glory on the clouds, you will regret saying these things, and you will shrink in shame---unless you repent and believe in the gospel.

 

[Floatingaxe]

The secular world is the world we live in, whether people like it or not. The world of the Bible is mostly imaginary. If people refuse to grapple with and live in the real world, then they are hiding in an imaginary universe. They have invented God in their own image, and they have manipulated their understanding of reality so that it bears little resemblance to the world we actually live in.

You have it backwards. Christians are the most real people you will ever meet. They know the Maker of the universe personally...so they have the most relevant of things to say and have the most real views of most things.

It is the unbeliever, the scoffer and the homosexual who claims Christ who has a skewed view and has actually devised a god of their own making, according to their own personal agenda and limited understanding.

Of course it stands opposed to secular society--this is the realm of Satan that was given to him by Adam at the Fall.

For someone to say that the Bible is imaginary, is more far from Christianity than even he or she knows. If you seek to follow Jesus Christ, you need to believe not only what He says, but what eyewitnesses have attested, and also believe IN Him.

Ohioprof, as a history professor, you should know about believing eyewitness accounts. It's rather odd that you refute the eyewitness accounts of all Scriptural events! There is obviously a serious spiritual block in you, and I believe it comes from your homosexual mind, which is in opposition to almost everything spiritually sound.

 

[Floatingaxe]

When the Son of Man comes with power and glory on the clouds, you will regret saying these things, and you will shrink in shame---unless you repent and believe in the gospel.

Yes, and there will be no place to run. Every knee will bow and proclaim Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Those who do so with the joy of knowing Him will go on to glory. Those who never knew Him, and lived in their sins, will be forced to concede to Him as such---because they will immediately know He is who He says He is---and will go on to their eternal torment.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

oh, for Pete's sake...

Go back and read it, please? How do you know it makes blanket statements out of context if you didn't even read it? Geeez...

Maybe I should've specified, I read the entire post, but I stopped really paying attention after the first sentence. Only because it starts on a false premise.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

hello Prof!

I completely disagree with this. The assumption that the Bible is inerrant is merely an assumption, and one that cuts off much of the real debate. It's like saying, in a forum on evolution, that we must assume the Bible to be inerrant. That assumption by itself wipes out real debate, because it cuts off the opposing argument right from the beginning.

Actually, no, the biblical errancy threads are doing just fine where they are. This however is not a biblical errancy thread, and arguing the legitimacy of scripture at a whole is pointless since this is regarding what the bible does or doesn't condemn. Oh wait, I can see the reply now, its not what the bible condemns but what God condemns, right? Without it we would have no clue unless he launched thunderbolts at us each time we err

To my mind, the assumption that the Bible is inerrant is both wrong and dangerous. I see this belief as a way in which people can and do rationalize the worst prejudices and the worst forms of discrimination.

Disagree, of course. This is not a valid reason to discredit it. Those who have hate in their hearts will find a way to justify it, bible or not.

All people have to do to try to justify prejudice and discrimination is to point to the Bible. They can remove themselves from the requirement that they truly examine what they are doing and its real life impact. They take the debate entirely out of the realm of real life and the real effect of their beliefs and their behavior on others. This is what I find most offensive about the belief in Biblical inerrancy....people use this belief to undermine real thinking and real discussion of the effects of human behavior in the real world.

You are stating this on the premise that the bible is a big fairy tale. Believe what you want, but i'd rather take the scripture over a stay-puft marshmallow god who doesn't care what we do.

The secular world is the world we live in, whether people like it or not. The world of the Bible is mostly imaginary.

How is it imaginary? Many modern societies were founded on biblical principles.

If people refuse to grapple with and live in the real world, then they are hiding in an imaginary universe.

There is nothing wrong with applying the love of God to the world.

They have invented God in their own image, and they have manipulated their understanding of reality so that it bears little resemblance to the world we actually live in.

Sure people do this, when they try to humanize and rationalize Him. This is comparable to identifying oneself as a christian yet completely denying the existence of Christ.

 

[David Brider]

But if a poster considers the Bible to be errant, their arguments are going to be articulated from that position. They can then reject any argument made under the guise of "I don't believe the Bible is true, therefore your argument is not valid."

In my case, at least, that's a false dichotomy you've set up. No, I don't subscribe to the view that the Bible is "inerrant", because that's a very loaded term, and it's not a statement which Scripture ever makes for itself. I do, however, believe that the Bible is true.

The issue (for me, at least) in the discussions re: homosexuality primarily relates to translational and interpretational issues. In other words, I agree about what the Bible says (at least in terms of what was written in the original Hebrew/Greek, which isn't always the same thing as what's written in the various translations exist), just not necessarily about what it means. Perhaps if we could have a translation about the various interpretations and translations of the Leviticus verses and 1 Corinthians 6:9, without some of us being accused of all manner of evils simply because we don't agree with the traditional interpretation/translation of those verses, things would proceed a bit better?

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,
The claim that Bible is inerrant concerns its reliability in all matters of faith and conduct. The Bible is revelation, history, poems, stories etc. How can a poem be errant?

not a statement which Scripture ever makes for itself.

Well yes it is as has been pointed out to you, Jesus cites OT scripures and says not one iota is changed, that should give you a clue that the Bible is reliable for those like us who believe Jesus ot be the truth. But thats without 2 Timonthy 3:16 which does tell you All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so all scripture is inerrant in teaching, rebuking correcting and training.

The issue (for me, at least) in the discussions re: homosexuality primarily relates to translational and interpretational issues. In other words, I agree about what the Bible says (at least in terms of what was written in the original Hebrew/Greek, which isn't always the same thing as what's written in the various translations exist), just not necessarily about what it means.

Well not if you believe the Bible is errant as the various translations on an errant basis my all be wrong.
yet the translation of 2 Tim 3:16 given above is NIV, if you take the KJV it is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
If you take Youngs literal it is "every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

You see all the Bible translations say 'all scripture' or 'every scripture' is useful for teaching etc... none of them say 'not all scripture', and none of them say 'isnt useful' No, your point is not about translation but about disbelief.

Perhaps if we could have a translation about the various interpretations and translations of the Leviticus verses and 1 Corinthians 6:9, without some of us being accused of all manner of evils simply because we don't agree with the traditional

then you would need a gay and lesbian version that didnt relflect a proper translation.

 

[David Brider]

Well yes it is as has been pointed out to you, Jesus cites OT scripures and says not one iota is changed, that should give you a clue that the Bible is reliable for those like us who believe Jesus ot be the truth. But thats without 2 Timonthy 3:16 which does tell you All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so all scripture is inerrant in teaching, rebuking correcting and training.

"Inerrant" means "without error". "Useful" means "useful". The two words aren't interchangeable.

No, your point is not about translation but about disbelief.

That particular non sequitur would only work if I didn't believe the Bible to be true.

Then you would need a gay and lesbian version that didn't reflect a proper translation.

No, just open and honest discussion about the best translations and interpretations of the verses under discussion.

David.

 

[Zecryphon]

You have it backwards. Christians are the most real people you will ever meet. They know the Maker of the universe personally...so they have the most relevant of things to say and have the most real views of most things.

It is the unbeliever, the scoffer and the homosexual who claims Christ who has a skewed view and has actually devised a god of their own making, according to their own personal agenda and limited understanding.

Of course it stands opposed to secular society--this is the realm of Satan that was given to him by Adam at the Fall.

For someone to say that the Bible is imaginary, is more far from Christianity than even he or she knows. If you seek to follow Jesus Christ, you need to believe not only what He says, but what eyewitnesses have attested, and also believe IN Him.

Ohioprof, as a history professor, you should know about believing eyewitness accounts. It's rather odd that you refute the eyewitness accounts of all Scriptural events! There is obviously a serious spiritual block in you, and I believe it comes from your homosexual mind, which is in opposition to almost everything spiritually sound.

Axe, her homosexuality is not the cause of the spiritual block that may be going on here. Her sinful nature dictates these kinds of statements and behaviors. To simply say that it is the homosexuality, is not accurate. It's just a way for you to continue pounding on her over a sin you believe is detestable in God's sight, but it never really gets to the heart of the matter.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,
Originally Posted by Phinehas2 http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=41236118#post41236118
Well yes it is as has been pointed out to you, Jesus cites OT scripures and says not one iota is changed, that should give you a clue that the Bible is reliable for those like us who believe Jesus ot be the truth. But thats without 2 Timonthy 3:16 which does tell you All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so all scripture is inerrant in teaching, rebuking correcting and training.

"Inerrant" means "without error". "Useful" means "useful". The two words aren't interchangeable.

You haven’t addressed what I wrote, and by the way I agree with you, I don’t seen any relevance to your statement.
Can you address the Biblical passages please,

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Zecryphon,
I am not so sure, it would seem that homosexuality is the spiritual barrier, just possessions was for the rich man who wanted to justify himself with Jesus. The 'pounding' is two way, challenging the outright denial of the blatently obvious.

 

[Zecryphon]

In my case, at least, that's a false dichotomy you've set up. No, I don't subscribe to the view that the Bible is "inerrant", because that's a very loaded term, and it's not a statement which Scripture ever makes for itself. I do, however, believe that the Bible is true.

The issue (for me, at least) in the discussions re: homosexuality primarily relates to translational and interpretational issues. In other words, I agree about what the Bible says (at least in terms of what was written in the original Hebrew/Greek, which isn't always the same thing as what's written in the various translations exist), just not necessarily about what it means. Perhaps if we could have a translation about the various interpretations and translations of the Leviticus verses and 1 Corinthians 6:9, without some of us being accused of all manner of evils simply because we don't agree with the traditional interpretation/translation of those verses, things would proceed a bit better?

David.

"In my case, at least, that's a false dichotomy you've set up."

My comments were addressing Ohioprof, not you.

"No, I don't subscribe to the view that the Bible is "inerrant", because that's a very loaded term, and it's not a statement which Scripture ever makes for itself."

I believe it does in 2 Timothy 3:16. God is not capable of comitting an error. He used mankind to record His revelation to us about Himself, the way you'd use a pen to record a letter.

"I do, however, believe that the Bible is true.

The issue (for me, at least) in the discussions re: homosexuality primarily relates to translational and interpretational issues. In other words, I agree about what the Bible says (at least in terms of what was written in the original Hebrew/Greek, which isn't always the same thing as what's written in the various translations exist), just not necessarily about what it means. Perhaps if we could have a translation about the various interpretations and translations of the Leviticus verses and 1 Corinthians 6:9, without some of us being accused of all manner of evils simply because we don't agree with the traditional interpretation/translation of those verses, things would proceed a bit better?"

Perhaps. But as along as the word "homosexuality" is one of the translated meanings of the original Greek or Hebrew words, you are always going to have a debate over whether or not the word "homosexuality" is what the writer intended to say in a particular passage. It's my understanding that the word "Arsenokoites" can mean homosexual as well as a few other things. As long as the word "homosexual" is an accepted translation of "Arsenokoites", the debate will continue. When you can find a way to eliminate the word "homosexual" as a translation of "arsenokoites" then and only then will this debate end. I personally don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Zecryphon]

Dear Zecryphon,
I am not so sure, it would seem that homosexuality is the spiritual barrier, just possessions was for the rich man who wanted to justify himself with Jesus. The 'pounding' is two way, challenging the outright denial of the blatently obvious.

"I am not so sure, it would seem that homosexuality is the spiritual barrier, just possessions was for the rich man who wanted to justify himself with Jesus."

You're looking at the symptom rather than the disease. What underlying factor do both the rich young ruler and an unrepentant homosexual have in common? A sinful nature. That is the underlying cause behind all sins against God. And that is what must be dealt with by God through Jesus. He's the only one who can fix the fallen state of mankind.

"The 'pounding' is two way, challenging the outright denial of the blatently obvious. "

I agree. It needs to stop on both sides, so we can get to the issue at hand. This thread is all over the place with personal attacks on all sides. This needs to stop if intelligent debate is to resume on this topic. I think the thread is too far gone now for that to happen though.

 

[Ohioprof]

When the Son of Man comes with power and glory on the clouds, you will regret saying these things, and you will shrink in shame---unless you repent and believe in the gospel.

Nope. I am already a Christian, and you aren't going to scare me with statements like this. I love God, and I am very blessed in my life. I have no reason to feel shame. Just appreciation.

 

[Ohioprof]

You have it backwards. Christians are the most real people you will ever meet. They know the Maker of the universe personally...so they have the most relevant of things to say and have the most real views of most things.

It is the unbeliever, the scoffer and the homosexual who claims Christ who has a skewed view and has actually devised a god of their own making, according to their own personal agenda and limited understanding.

Of course it stands opposed to secular society--this is the realm of Satan that was given to him by Adam at the Fall.

For someone to say that the Bible is imaginary, is more far from Christianity than even he or she knows. If you seek to follow Jesus Christ, you need to believe not only what He says, but what eyewitnesses have attested, and also believe IN Him.

Ohioprof, as a history professor, you should know about believing eyewitness accounts. It's rather odd that you refute the eyewitness accounts of all Scriptural events! There is obviously a serious spiritual block in you, and I believe it comes from your homosexual mind, which is in opposition to almost everything spiritually sound.

I don't necessarily believe so-called "eyewitness accounts." And the world we experience every day is the real world. We don't need to invent another reality and believe in "miracles." The world is a miracle just as it is. Jesus doesn't have to be the son of God to teach us about the miracle of our lives, or to encourage us to love God and each other. His teachings are great even coming from an ordinary person, a mortal.

 

[Ohioprof]

No. You stand toe-to-toe against your Maker! He did not make you the way you are--YOU did.

You are making Him the liar, because His word speaks against what you hold up as truth. Someone is wrong---and it's not God. It is you.

I don't agree with this.

I am not disagreeing with God. I disagree with you.

 

[Ohioprof]

Nonetheless, Ohiprof's point is a speculation. She is seeking her own knowledge to understand God and lacks faith in the gospel because she doesn't trust the bible as being acurate.

I think parts of the Bible are historically accurate and parts are not.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

Nope. I am already a Christian,

Thats just you opinion and interpretation, you arent according to the Biblical account, the traditional historical Christian creeds, the statements of faith of all the major Christian chuches, and the forum FAQ's.

 

[Ohioprof]

Ohiprof, I find this kind of talk unacceptable. I find your talk about the resurrection of Jesus unacceptable from one who claims he follows Christ, and I find it even more unacceptable that you believe the bible is not a source to know God and is full of lies. (although you didn't say that the bible is "full of lies," you asserted it in your beliefs that you "do not believe the Bible contains the words or the views of God.")

So that is where we part. You claim to follow Jesus but you fall short in believing in the gospel and believing in the resurrection.

Well, if you find what I have to say "unacceptable," then scroll past what I write, or put me on ignore. I am not going to stop saying what I honestly believe simply because you disagree with it.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
Thats just you opinion and interpretation, you arent according to the Biblical account, the traditional historical Christian creeds, the statements of faith of all the major Christian chuches, and the forum FAQ's.

And you have said this how many times? It's not important to me whether you think I am a Christian. The important thing is that I know I am a Christian. And why do you care one way or the other about what I think?