Homosexuality

[Phinehas2]

Dear artybloke,

So because the anonymous author decided to use some obscure Greek word nobody is exactly sure what it means (theopneustos: a neologism is scripture) we have to take your word for it that it means some kind of verbal inspiration? Why? what kind of authority are you?

More of an authority than you it seems. Firstly theopneustos is a compound of two words and we know the meaning, scholars know the meaning. Even if the word was absent from the text it would still say all scripture is useful. Secondly 2 Tim is begun by Paul introducing himself as the author. Besides I was addressing your point about Paul’s revelation being from the risen Lord so your further doubts are even more unsubstantiated. Your disbelief is very strong indeed.

Everybody interprets the literal text; only some of us do it without our homophobic spectacles on.

No by demonstration that isnt the case, I have merely quoted scripture and people have said its just my interpretation. Oh and I am not bothered about being homophobic, homophobic is good, especially when one gets up out of bed at night to go and take ones gay friend to hospital, yes homophobia is good, your perverted hatred is the problem I think

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

its more like someone is putting their 'disbelief of scripture' spectacles on.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Jet_A_Jockey,
No I think the battle is getting people to address what they actually said which has lead to the discussion about literalism. It is the response to quoting scripture as somehow the individual’s opinion that I am addressing concerning what the text literally says.

 

[artybloke]

I have merely quoted scripture and people have said its just my interpretation.

Quoting scripture in English, out of its literary and historical context is interpretation.

Firstly theopneustos is a compound of two words and we know the meaning,

Portmanteu words almost never mean one word + the other word.

Secondly 2 Tim is begun by Paul introducing himself as the author.

So? That doesn't mean he wrote it. This is pseudipigrapha. The vast majority of NT scholars don't think he did. I'd rather go with people who know what they're talking about.

Even if the word was absent from the text it would still say all scripture is useful.

Useful is very very long way down from "innerant." And I agree it's useful. Just not inerrant.

Your disbelief is very strong indeed.

Too right. I don't worship the Bible, unlike fundamentalists and Pharisees everywhere (the ones Jesus addressed in John 5:39 as putting their trust in the scriptures.)

It is the response to quoting scripture as somehow the individual’s opinion that I am addressing concerning what the text literally says.

Quoting an isolated scripture, out of context, and in English, is an individual opinion. Without the historical, and literary, context of the quote, you might as well just take a pair of scissors to the Bible, cut it into individual verses, and pick and choose which ones fit with your favourite prejudice or dogma. Isolating scripture from context is the wide road to perdition.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

Quoting scripture in English, out of its literary and historical context is interpretation.

that’s just your interpretation, all I have done is quote the translated scripture, as I said. Besides my interpretation is that it is in literary and historical context.

Portmanteu words almost never mean one word + the other word.

well it obviously does in this case otherwise it would be out of its literary and historical context.. and even you don’t like that it seems

So? That doesn't mean he wrote it.

It means that’s the only claim it makes about the author, do you not believe anything that is stated? What evidence have you got to support your doubt?

The vast majority of NT scholars don't think he did. I'd rather go with people who know what they're talking about.

on the contrary the vast majority of scholars believe Paul did write it and I will go with the vast majority of scholars who know what they are talking about.

Useful is very very long way down from "innerant." And I agree it's useful. Just not inerrant.

Wheelbarrow is a long way from useful as well but the text doesn’t say wheelbarrow or inerrant, its says useful. So how is all scripture useful to you when you don’t believe it.?? The hammer I haven’t got is very useful to me?? Doesn’t make sense.

Too right. I don't worship the Bible, unlike fundamentalists and Pharisees everywhere (the ones Jesus addressed in John

5:39 as putting their trust in the scriptures.)

I don’t worship the Bible either as I have explained before, I worship the one whose testimony is recorded in the Bible, so I have no idea who you are judging.

Quoting an isolated scripture, out of context, and in English, is an individual opinion.

No. One may quote the scripture because one believes it is in context, if another disagrees it is in context they may say so, but the scriptural text still says what it says, I am addressing the response to scripture as personal opinion. In short just because you for example don’t believe the scripture is in context doesn’t make it not in context, the person who thinks it is may be right, if you disagree argue why don’t just dismiss the other person’s point of view just because you think you are right all the time.
And besides quote the scripture you believe is in context.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear artybloke,

Quoting scripture in English, out of its literary and historical context is interpretation.

Well thats the Bible my friend, what you mean is you dont believe the Bible but cal your disbelief interpretation.
Subtle deception.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You could possibly be fighting a tough battle here. As I was basically told yesterday, if you don't believe that Jesus will get out all the carpentry tools and rebuild the temple in 3 days after it is destroyed then u are not a biblical literalist. Lol to that by the way, as not only are the liberal definitions being molded around to suit everyone's needs, but apparently so are the conservative's.

If you don't believe a carpentary tool, 3 day reconstruction of a physical building verses are literal, why believe the 7 days of non bigbang cosmology/non evolution biology creation is literal?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Everybody interprets the literal text; only some of us do it without our homophobic spectacles on.

Those "some" are those with a boatload of sin that are only too willing to carry on their own backs, rather than repent and let the Saviour of the world take them. so the meaning of salvation is totally lost on their blind, unreceiving hearts.

The Bible isn't a comic book, folks. It's a living document, full of power of the Holy Spirit to convince men of their sin. Unconvinced ones are the spiritually blind--they need prayer, and a miracle.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Those "some" are those with a boatload of sin that are only too willing to carry on their own backs, rather than repent and let the Saviour of the world take them. so the emaning of salvation is totally lost on their blind, unreceiving hearts.

The Bible isn't a comic book, folks. It's a living document, full of power of the Holy Spirit to convince men of their sin. Unconvinced ones are the spiritually blind--they need prayer, and a miracle.

only in your interpretation.

God loves homosexuals. Deal with it.

 

[Floatingaxe]

only in your interpretation.

God loves homosexuals. Deal with it.

I wasn't even referring to homosexuals in that post--it was generic.


But, now that you bring up the infernal subject again:

God loves everyone...he HATES homosexuality. There is no saving of unrepentant sinners. Deal with that---hopefully before it's too late.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear FloatingAxe,

only in your interpretation.

God loves homosexuals. Deal with it.

Sorry but did you say God doesnt love homosexuals? I thought you said it was homosexual practice. Is EnemyPartyII correct?

 

[Phinehas2]

Ah look ... posted while I wa compling

Dear EnemyPartyII
If you are going to debate please put your point of view and dont misrepresent other people's views.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Dear FloatingAxe,
Sorry but did you say God doesnt love homosexuals? I thought you said it was homosexual practice. Is EnemyPartyII correct?

What do you think, Phinehas? Do you not know what I think by now?

 

[everready]

If you don't believe a carpentary tool, 3 day reconstruction of a physical building verses are literal, why believe the 7 days of non bigbang cosmology/non evolution biology creation is literal?

Are you the one that reported me for flaming. then what do you call it when you do this dispicable thing to my savior who died and shed his blood for me, you need some serious

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear FloatingAxe,

What do you think, Phinehas? Do you not know what I think by now?

Yes I do, I was just hoping EnemyPartyII might read it.

 

[Ohioprof]

Are you the one that reported me for flaming. then what do you call it when you do this dispicable thing to my savior who died and shed his blood for me, you need some serious

What despicable thing? I don't understand this post.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
that’s just your interpretation, all I have done is quote the translated scripture, as I said. Besides my interpretation is that it is in literary and historical context.

well it obviously does in this case otherwise it would be out of its literary and historical context.. and even you don’t like that it seems

It means that’s the only claim it makes about the author, do you not believe anything that is stated? What evidence have you got to support your doubt?
on the contrary the vast majority of scholars believe Paul did write it and I will go with the vast majority of scholars who know what they are talking about.

Wheelbarrow is a long way from useful as well but the text doesn’t say wheelbarrow or inerrant, its says useful. So how is all scripture useful to you when you don’t believe it.?? The hammer I haven’t got is very useful to me?? Doesn’t make sense.

I don’t worship the Bible either as I have explained before, I worship the one whose testimony is recorded in the Bible, so I have no idea who you are judging.

No. One may quote the scripture because one believes it is in context, if another disagrees it is in context they may say so, but the scriptural text still says what it says, I am addressing the response to scripture as personal opinion. In short just because you for example don’t believe the scripture is in context doesn’t make it not in context, the person who thinks it is may be right, if you disagree argue why don’t just dismiss the other person’s point of view just because you think you are right all the time.
And besides quote the scripture you believe is in context.

I did not write the post to which you responded here. Please direct your response to the person whom you are actually quoting. Thanks.

 

[walloffire]

God loved Cain, but he hated the fact that he murdered Abel. God loved Pharaoh, and gave him every chance to repent and "Let my people go", showing numerous miracles and horrible plagues. He loves everyone, but he hates sin just as much as he loves people.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I wasn't even referring to homosexuals in that post--it was generic.


But, now that you bring up the infernal subject again:

God loves everyone...he HATES homosexuality. There is no saving of unrepentant sinners. Deal with that---hopefully before it's too late.

Why would God hate homosexuality?

He created it...

 

[walloffire]

He didn't "create" murder, and he didn't "create" homosexuality. He created light, which filled the darkness. He created life, and murder kills it. He created the woman for man to have sex with, so children could be made simply and effectively, and homosexuality taints that. He created possessions, he didn't create stealing. He created truth, but lies still exist - it doesn't mean he created lies.