• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is the Bible correct?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Onemessiah,
Problem is is that the bible has no authority, unless you're a christian.
Actually the Bible is the testimony of God which says to Jesus Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.
So keep it that way, instead of trying to force the bible down the world's collective throat.
I agree, but this thread is about the Bible being correct for believers, are you suggesting otherwise?
We know why people reject Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ tells us in the Biblical account.
 
Upvote 0
O

onemessiah

Guest
Dear Onemessiah,
Its not my Bible, its THE Bible and take some of the translations such as KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, CEV and the all say the same sort of thing.
Who wrote your Bible then and what translation and version is it?


Thomas Payne wrote my bible. I don't like fiction.

We know why people dont become Christians, THE Bible tells us, and there are various reasons.


And like I said, YOUR bible has no authority, so what do I care what it says of my intentions?
And what do you expect it to say? "Oh, it's true, half of the stuff in this book is make believe and wishful thinking, but if any realizes that, just call them deceptive. That'll do the trick."
 
Upvote 0
O

onemessiah

Guest
Dear Onemessiah,
Actually the Bible is the testimony of God which says to Jesus Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.

Oh, ok. So the bible has authority over me because it says so. :thumbsup:
And I have authority over you, cuz I say so. And since from here on out I do all your thinking for you, I commandeth thee to gist thy headeth out of thee's [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].
Whatever you say.....unfortunately, I'm not a puppet, so no, it has no authority over me.

I agree, but this thread is about the Bible being correct for believers, are you suggesting otherwise?


Have you read anything I said, or are you talking just to hear yourself type? I just told you in the post above that the bible has authority over christians. Draw your own conclusion from that statement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Onemessiah,

Oh, ok. So the bible has authority over me because it says so.
No, that is neither what I wrote nor what the Bible says. Jesus Chirst’s words recorded in the Bible is that all authority in heaven and earth is given to Him. Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but that’s the testimony whether you believe it or object to it.
 
Upvote 0
O

onemessiah

Guest
Dear Onemessiah,

No, that is neither what I wrote nor what the Bible says. Jesus Chirst’s words recorded in the Bible is that all authority in heaven and earth is given to Him. Whether you believe it or not is up to you, but that’s the testimony whether you believe it or object to it.

Oh, I apologize, JESUS has authority over me cuz the bible sez so. :thumbsup:
So essentially you did say that, because the bible would have to have authority over me to begin with in order to hand over that authority to Jesus.

Ok, instead of me being a smartaleck, maybe I could ask you a sincere question. Why should I believe it when the qu'ran also claims to be the word of god, and has authority over me? Do you have anything to support the bible's claim, or do I just spin the bottle and let the chips fall where they may?
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Onemessiah,
Oh, I apologize, JESUS has authority over me cuz the bible sez so.
So essentially you did say that, because the bible would have to have authority over me to begin with in order to hand over that authority to Jesus.
According to Jesus Christ, recorded in the Bible, He has all authority, for those who follow Him and all to be judged. What you feel about it is up to you, I am just showing you what Jesus Christ says. Matthew 28 “Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Why should I believe it when the qu'ran also claims to be the word of god, and has authority over me? Do you have anything to support the bible's claim, or do I just spin the bottle and let the chips fall where they may?
My reply would question whether you have anything to support the Quran’s claim, if not why use it to question the Bible. As to support, I believe the Bible is God’s testimony and Jesus Christ’s words speak for God, if you don’t that’s your view, have you any evidence why you don’t believe?


The forum section is about homosexuality and is a Christian based one, the focus of the discussion should be on homosexuality and not the foundations of Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Can we say the words, "ad homineum agenda", folks?

Obviously the poster does not like the OP, and wants to hijack it, by casting aspersions on the premise of the OP, and by extension anyone who dares to take up the position that God did not stutter when He, through the work of Holy Spirit and the unique personalities of men, caused the Bible to be written.

Polycarp1 is creating a false dichotomy; that is a debate pitfall into which I will not go.

And when he goes to the issue of intent, he is delving into psychology, for which he is not qualified, and if he were to be qualified, he would know that what he did was unethical.

Finally notice the words he uses to describe the Bible: unChristian, unloving, and untrue WOW! That is a contradiction in terms and definition. For how can the AUTHOR of Scripture, God the Father deny in deed or word what he through God the Son practiced and taught and what God, Holy Spirit inspired? If he actually means what he wrote, the poster is presenting a schizophrenic god, one who is at odds with himself.

First, I never said that the Bible was unChristian, unloving, or untrue. Neither did I claim that John T was. There was no ad hom.

What I said was that the OP, as it it phrased is unChristian, unloving, and untrue, for reasons eloquaintly expressed by Polycarp1. Polycarp1, after stating that, allowed that John T might not have meant to express his question in such an unChristian, unloving, and untrue way, and allowed him an "out" to rephrase it differently. John T rejected that out of hand. Which means that he is fine with the OP as phrased.

I said nothing else. I have nothing else to say to the OP as John T prefers to phrase it.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Olliefranz,
What I said was that the OP, as it it phrased is unChristian, unloving, and untrue, for reasons eloquaintly expressed by Polycarp1.
But thats just your opinion and Polycarp1's opinion, my opinion is that the OP is soundly Christian and loving and true. My main question for you is how can the OP with so much scripture quoted be untrue? That means you dont believe the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
We know why people reject Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ tells us in the Biblical account.
How beautifully circular.

Tell me, in which translation of which Bible does Jesus espouse this explanation?
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟33,375.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat


Dear Polycarp1,
That’s not the issue as has been discussed many times before. The truth is the Bible says what it says, many here dispute what it says. In the case of same-sex sex it only countenances man/woman unions, it describes them as God’s creation purpose, which logically excludes same-sex unions, and it describes sex outside of man/woman faithful marriage, which same-sex sex is, as sin, and it condemns directly and indirectly same-sex unions in 9 passages.
These are taken in context and holistically, to show us same-sex sex is error.

The argument for same-sex sex is based solely on disputing every passage, and It’s the very definition of disbelief, not hermeneutics or interpretation.

Dear Phinehas2,

First, the issue of gay sex itself was not part of the OP topic, which was related to the validity of Scripture.

But more directly, I have only two comments to make back. First, no matter how many times you attempt to equate "how I, Phinehas2, interpret the meaning of Scriptural passages" with "what the Bible really says," you do not therefore magically become Lord High Arbiter of Scriptural Understanding. Neither do I nor anyone else. But second, what makes a post arrogant and bombastic is the content, not whether it is cloaked in the forms of courteous parlance. I suggest that along with your courtly manners you cultivate respect for the opinions of others. Yeah, it's just a message board, and we're just discussing. But like everything else, it has the potential to change or blight lives. Wouldn't it be nice if it were a force for good.

Your humble and obedient servant,
Polycarp1
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Dear Polycarp1,

First, the issue of gay sex itself was not part of the OP topic, which was related to the validity of Scripture.
It most certainly was part of it, please familiarise yourself once again. The OP and thread was raised because posters are attempting to discredit scripture in order to make a case for the pro homosexual agenda:


But more directly, I have only two comments to make back. First, no matter how many times you attempt to equate "how I, Phinehas2, interpret the meaning of Scriptural passages"
Which I don’t do, thats what you do, so stop saying it.
with "what the Bible really says,"
which is what the Bible really says if I and others quote it.
you do not therefore magically become Lord High Arbiter of Scriptural Understanding.
And if I don’t do what you accuse me of, neither do I become what you accuse me of.

If you have anything useful to add to the debate instead of merely accusing me of what I do please offer it.

On this forum we are encouraged to cite and quote scripture, what point would there be to that if scripture doesn’t mean what it says?
But second, what makes a post arrogant and bombastic is the content, not whether it is cloaked in the forms of courteous parlance.
You are entitled to your opinion, but as the content is based on the Biblical quotes and citations you must therefore consider the Bible arrogant and bombastic.

I suggest that along with your courtly manners you cultivate respect for the opinions of others.
I suggest I don’t where the opinions are against the word of God.

But like everything else, it has the potential to change or blight lives. Wouldn't it be nice if it were a force for good.
I share your view here, it is a force for good when the truth is posted, it’s a force for evil when the truth is disputed.


Alas the Bible is clear, there are more than a dozen passages that exclude or condemn same-sex unions, in context and holistically, not changed in the slightest by hermeneutics or interpretation. No amount of hermeneutics or interpretation can conjure up the opposite.

There are 8 Biblical quotations in the OP, there are none in your post.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Does the Bible Approve of Homosexuality?
pixel.gif
by Brad Bromling

It is becoming increasingly common to read and hear arguments made in defense of homosexuality. Usually no appeal is made to Scripture. However, on occasion, books and articles appear that attempt to address the biblical passages that discuss the subject. This article is a brief response to common claims about the Bible and homosexuality.

GENESIS 19:1-11
Some contend that Genesis 19 should not be used to argue against homosexuality since Sodom was destroyed, not for homosexuality, but because of its inhospitality and pride (see Matthew 10:14-15; Ezekiel 16:48-49). The argument is that the men of the city did not necessarily have any sexual perversion in mind, but just wanted to “know” Lot’s guests in the sense of interrogating them in a disrespectful fashion.
While it is true to say that Sodom was not destroyed merely because some of its citizens practiced homosexuality, it is false to say that Sodom was destroyed merely because its inhabitants were inhospitable and proud. The city was destroyed because its citizens were exceedingly sinful (Genesis 13:13). Ezekiel 16, which does mention their pride, also says they “committed abomination before” the Lord. Their actions at Lot’s doorstep reflected that sinfulness (Genesis 19:4-11). When the men of Sodom said they wanted to “know” the messengers of God, they obviously had sexual intentions in mind. This is clear from Lot’s unfortunate offer of his two daughters. Jude 7 reinforces this view as well: “As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
LEVITICUS 20:13
Although Leviticus 20:13 enjoins the death penalty upon homosexuals, the passage is dismissed as irrelevant to the debate because it is part of a legal/holiness code that no longer is in force. It is no more binding than are the regulations against wearing different materials of cloth and planting different types of seed in the same ground.
It is true that the Mosaic legal/holiness code was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). However, to trivialize the code by placing all items in it on the same level is dubious. The Levitical condemnation of homosexual behavior is treated differently than the legislations against mixing cloths and sowing mixed seed. The former was under penalty of death; the latter were not (Leviticus 19:19). A better, though more unpleasant, analogy to the Levitical view of homosexuality is seen in the prohibitions against incest and bestiality, which are mentioned in the same context (Leviticus 20:14-16ff.).
WHAT DID JESUS SAY?
It commonly is argued that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. As our guide and model for life, we should follow Jesus’ example of silence. He taught, instead, that we should love one another in a non-judgmental way.
In response, it should be noted that Jesus’ silence on the issue is no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, or any number of other sexual perversions. Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name? Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do? To ask is to answer. In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say. Clearly, Jesus’ heterosexual view must be taken as normative (read Matthew 19:4-6 et al.).
1 CORINTHIANS 6 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1
Great strides are taken to prove that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 do not condemn homosexuality in general, but rather, abusive homosexual practices and male prostitution in particular.
Although the specific type of homosexual behavior mentioned in these two passages may be male prostitution and abusive homosexual practices, this does not in itself argue in favor of “loving, monogamous, homosexual” relationships. In fact, that concept is foreign to the New Testament. Both of these passages do condemn “fornication.” Fornication is a broad term that includes homosexuality. This is so for two reasons: (1) fornication refers to illicit sexual behavior; and (2) all sexual behavior that violates, is contrary to, or in addition to, the heterosexual behavior implied by a monogamous marriage, is illicit.
ROMANS 1:26-27
Clearly the most problematic passage for all who wish to say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.​
Proponents of homosexuality have tried to remove the force of this passage by suggesting that either Paul was expressing his own uninspired opinion, or he was merely laying the groundwork for his teaching on grace. So he was mainly concerned with idolatry, and not any sin in particular.
Although a biblical writer’s opinion might indeed appear in Scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:7), the suggestion that Romans 1:26-27 represents Paul’s uninspired opinion and is at variance with the rest of the Scripture, is erroneous. If we cannot trust Paul to express the will of God on this point, where can we trust him? What will be our standard? Unfortunately, our own opinions become the standard all too often.
The fact is, Paul meant exactly what Christians have long thought he meant—that homosexual behavior is symptomatic of sin in the world. This passage is not to be dismissed as too difficult to understand, or as an isolated passage that somehow is outweighed by an impressive array of passages teaching the opposite. Although this passage does not stand alone, from the standpoint of divine inspiration, one reference is enough.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is this: every time homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is condemned. The Bible is not homophobic (i.e., obsessively hostile toward homosexuality), but it clearly treats heterosexuality as normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3; et al.). These unsuccessful attempts to reinterpret the Bible’s teaching on the subject raise an even more crucial question: What Scripture can be presented that legitimizes homosexuality?



[SIZE=-2]
Copyright © 1995 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7237568&page=4
[/SIZE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zecryphon
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
All of them.
Perhaps, but you miss my point (which was a sly attempt to stay on topic): how can one discuss whether the Bible is correct if there is little consensus on just what the Bible is?

What does Wicca say?
About nonbelievers? Very little. Presumably, non-Wiccans don't believe in Wicca for the same reasons any non-XYZian doesn't believe in XYZ.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
GENESIS 19:1-11
Some contend that Genesis 19 should not be used to argue against homosexuality since Sodom was destroyed, not for homosexuality, but because of its inhospitality and pride (see Matthew 10:14-15; Ezekiel 16:48-49). The argument is that the men of the city did not necessarily have any sexual perversion in mind, but just wanted to “know” Lot’s guests in the sense of interrogating them in a disrespectful fashion.
While it is true to say that Sodom was not destroyed merely because some of its citizens practiced homosexuality, it is false to say that Sodom was destroyed merely because its inhabitants were inhospitable and proud. The city was destroyed because its citizens were exceedingly sinful (Genesis 13:13). Ezekiel 16, which does mention their pride, also says they “committed abomination before” the Lord. Their actions at Lot’s doorstep reflected that sinfulness (Genesis 19:4-11). When the men of Sodom said they wanted to “know” the messengers of God, they obviously had sexual intentions in mind. This is clear from Lot’s unfortunate offer of his two daughters. Jude 7 reinforces this view as well: “As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated that the sin of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, was homosexuality. Sexual immorality and strange flesh are terms that beg the question: which sexual practices are moral, immoral, and amoral? Which flesh is strange, and which acceptable?

LEVITICUS 20:13
Although Leviticus 20:13 enjoins the death penalty upon homosexuals, the passage is dismissed as irrelevant to the debate because it is part of a legal/holiness code that no longer is in force. It is no more binding than are the regulations against wearing different materials of cloth and planting different types of seed in the same ground.
It is true that the Mosaic legal/holiness code was nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14). However, to trivialize the code by placing all items in it on the same level is dubious. The Levitical condemnation of homosexual behavior is treated differently than the legislations against mixing cloths and sowing mixed seed. The former was under penalty of death; the latter were not (Leviticus 19:19). A better, though more unpleasant, analogy to the Levitical view of homosexuality is seen in the prohibitions against incest and bestiality, which are mentioned in the same context (Leviticus 20:14-16ff.).
Nevertheless, this is no reason to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws you consider were superceded by the NT. Jesus said that the law was to be upheld to the letter until it was fulfilled. Jesus also said that he had come to fulfil the law. Thus, the law (i.e., OT rules and regulations) no longer apply.
And in any case, Jesus summed up the law thusly: Love thy neighbour and love thy God. If one's interpretation of the law falls outside these two archetypes, then that interpretaiton is wrong. Homophobia, then, is not the correct interpretation of the law.

WHAT DID JESUS SAY?
It commonly is argued that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. As our guide and model for life, we should follow Jesus’ example of silence. He taught, instead, that we should love one another in a non-judgmental way.
In response, it should be noted that Jesus’ silence on the issue is no argument that He approved of homosexuality. He never specifically addressed the issues of pedophilia, bestiality, or any number of other sexual perversions. Does this mean that Jesus approved of whatever He did not condemn by name? Are we to think that as long as people feel love, it doesn’t matter what they do? To ask is to answer. In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms. What Jesus did say carries more weight than our views of what He did not say. Clearly, Jesus’ heterosexual view must be taken as normative (read Matthew 19:4-6 et al.).
And he is right: heterosexuality is the norm. 95-98% of people are heterosexual. However, this tells us nothing about Jesus' position on homosexuality. He may have thought it was OK, he may have thought it was wrong. The point is that he said nothing about, either which way.

1 CORINTHIANS 6 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1
Great strides are taken to prove that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11 do not condemn homosexuality in general, but rather, abusive homosexual practices and male prostitution in particular.
Although the specific type of homosexual behavior mentioned in these two passages may be male prostitution and abusive homosexual practices, this does not in itself argue in favor of “loving, monogamous, homosexual” relationships.
Indeed. The point is that 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 do not condemn "loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships". They condemn temple prostitution (specifically homosexual?), but nowt else.

It's a counterargument, not an argument in its own right.

In fact, that concept is foreign to the New Testament. Both of these passages do condemn “fornication.” Fornication is a broad term that includes homosexuality. This is so for two reasons: (1) fornication refers to illicit sexual behavior; and (2) all sexual behavior that violates, is contrary to, or in addition to, the heterosexual behavior implied by a monogamous marriage, is illicit.
Please explain how you derived the latter condition. It appears you've just arbitrarily inserted the word 'heterosexual'. You might as well plug in "Aryan" while you're at it.

ROMANS 1:26-27
Clearly the most problematic passage for all who wish to say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.​
Proponents of homosexuality have tried to remove the force of this passage by suggesting that either Paul was expressing his own uninspired opinion, or he was merely laying the groundwork for his teaching on grace. So he was mainly concerned with idolatry, and not any sin in particular.
Although a biblical writer’s opinion might indeed appear in Scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:7), the suggestion that Romans 1:26-27 represents Paul’s uninspired opinion and is at variance with the rest of the Scripture, is erroneous. If we cannot trust Paul to express the will of God on this point, where can we trust him? What will be our standard? Unfortunately, our own opinions become the standard all too often.
The fact is, Paul meant exactly what Christians have long thought he meant—that homosexual behavior is symptomatic of sin in the world. This passage is not to be dismissed as too difficult to understand, or as an isolated passage that somehow is outweighed by an impressive array of passages teaching the opposite. Although this passage does not stand alone, from the standpoint of divine inspiration, one reference is enough.
The criticism is not that this verse is not of divine inspiritation (we'll assume that the whole KJV is), but that it is taken out of context. Read Romans 1 in its totality: Paul is condeming Pagan idolatry, not homosexuality.

What Scripture can be presented that legitimizes homosexuality?
None. But this is not grounds for condemnation. If it were, then Christians should also condemn modern modes of transportation, telecommunications, and computers.
 
Upvote 0

Jet_A_Jockey

Jet+Jetslove=2gether4ever :)
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2006
11,279
1,082
hurricane central
Visit site
✟62,391.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi Wiccan_Child, good to see you.

Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated that the sin of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, was homosexuality. Sexual immorality and strange flesh are terms that beg the question: which sexual practices are moral, immoral, and amoral? Which flesh is strange, and which acceptable?
There's no such thing as 'the' sin of sodom, there were multitudes of sins, and the level of depravity is shown by the various actions of the inhabitants there.

Nevertheless, this is no reason to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws you consider were superceded by the NT. Jesus said that the law was to be upheld to the letter until it was fulfilled. Jesus also said that he had come to fulfil the law. Thus, the law (i.e., OT rules and regulations) no longer apply.
Um, Jesus never said that we were to ever stop upholding the law. The difference is that our salvation no longer relies on our perfect obedience to it.

And in any case, Jesus summed up the law thusly: Love thy neighbour and love thy God. If one's interpretation of the law falls outside these two archetypes, then that interpretaiton is wrong. Homophobia, then, is not the correct interpretation of the law.
Disregarding the bible's own statements and examples about a certain action falls outside of one of those archetypes as well, loving God (which comes first, mind you). I can still love my neighbor while knowing and believing that gay sex is sinful, just as in I can love my neighbor while knowing that stealing is.

Not everyone who believes same-sex sex to be in sin is homophobic, that's like calling me arachnaphobic because I don't want a spider as a pet. homophobia entails fear of homosexuality (i.e. homosexuals), there is a differentiation between what a person identifies themselves as, and what their potential actions may be.

And he is right: heterosexuality is the norm. 95-98% of people are heterosexual. However, this tells us nothing about Jesus' position on homosexuality. He may have thought it was OK, he may have thought it was wrong. The point is that he said nothing about, either which way.
If He thought it was OK, then you'd think there would've been a concerted effort to record Him teaching on it, since He was (is) perfectly versed in scripture, and obviously knew what the rabbi's were teaching. As far as I know, the Jewish tradition has never taught that same-sex sex was anything other than sinful.

Indeed. The point is that 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 do not condemn "loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships". They condemn temple prostitution (specifically homosexual?), but nowt else.
How do you figure? They have nothing to do with temple prostitution, or even hint at it. Perhaps you are thinking of the leviticus passages. Anyhow, the focus of the corinthians and timothy passage are 'arsenokoites', which one side will say it means 'practicing homosexuals' and the other just throws their hands up and says they have no idea. I just stick with the definition, and it literally means 'man bedders' or 'man layers'. Could it mean something other than what that obviously entails? Sure, but its just speculation either way.


Please explain how you derived the latter condition. It appears you've just arbitrarily inserted the word 'heterosexual'. You might as well plug in "Aryan" while you're at it.
defining fornication is a touchy subject, and personally I think it falls into that category of whether one is convicted of their actions or not. This of course implies one has the Holy Spirit to guide them.

The criticism is not that this verse is not of divine inspiritation (we'll assume that the whole KJV is), but that it is taken out of context. Read Romans 1 in its totality: Paul is condeming Pagan idolatry, not homosexuality.
Paul condemned pagan idolatry, sure. But what you fail to mention is that he also shows God's judgment against those pagan idolaters. What was that judgment? He gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts. What were the sinful desires? You can guess, or read (although I'm sure you know where I'm going with this).

The other thing about idolatry is that it is a very broad term. They worshiped the creature rather than the Creator. That could mean more than a totem pole, or a golden calf, it also is applicable to people, and includes worshiping ourselves (and truly, our desires) over our Creator.

None. But this is not grounds for condemnation. If it were, then Christians should also condemn modern modes of transportation, telecommunications, and computers.
It is grounds for condemnation against the action if in the few times it is mentioned in scripture, it is consistently held as an example of depravity and sin. This is not even applying the general statements like the long-held "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" argument, if it were I could see you as making a point.


God bless.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated that the sin of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, was homosexuality. Sexual immorality and strange flesh are terms that beg the question: which sexual practices are moral, immoral, and amoral? Which flesh is strange, and which acceptable?

Sexual immorality and strange flesh are now being questions, which totally fits into how the Bible tells us that in the last days people will believe unsound doctrine. This was not the case when you look at what the fathers of Christianity practiced and believed. They, those that lived in the days of the bible, had no trouble understanding, it is just the deceiving and confussion of these days that make it unclear. Which the Bible warns us of.

also, like the verses that tell how people will worship the creation instead of the Creator, which is the practice of some wicca and other cults. Not sure if the sect you are in believes that or not.

Nevertheless, this is no reason to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws you consider were superceded by the NT. Jesus said that the law was to be upheld to the letter until it was fulfilled. Jesus also said that he had come to fulfil the law. Thus, the law (i.e., OT rules and regulations) no longer apply.
And in any case, Jesus summed up the law thusly: Love thy neighbour and love thy God. If one's interpretation of the law falls outside these two archetypes, then that interpretaiton is wrong. Homophobia, then, is not the correct interpretation of the law.

We are not told the law is no longer apply, but the opposite is true. NT scriptures tells us that if we are of Him we will obey the law. Maybe we should define what is meant by Jesus fulfilling the law along with the definition of love as spoke of throughout the NT.

Love...............if I love someone like Christ then I would not want that person to not ask for and not receive the mercy and grace which is freely given to those who seek and ask for it. If I love someone like Christ then I will tell a brother or sister in Christ if they have fallen into sin, just like I am told to in the NT. Love doesn't close their eyes and pretend it doesn't matter or it is none of our business if someone is willfilly sinning. Love doesn't think of themselves and say I will be called names and mistreated if I point out that we all need forgiveness, and so say nothing.

We are told in the NT that if we bring a brother/sister back after they have fallen we save a soul.

Gal 6:1-5
1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5 For each one shall bear his own load.

Hummmmmmmmmmm, fulfll the law of Christ, there is that law word again.

James 5:19-20
19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back,
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

You are right that homophobia is wrong, but so is saying that those who believe the Bible says it is a sin are homophobic is wrong also.

And he is right: heterosexuality is the norm. 95-98% of people are heterosexual. However, this tells us nothing about Jesus' position on homosexuality. He may have thought it was OK, he may have thought it was wrong. The point is that he said nothing about, either which way.

He tells us who and what is marriage to consist of, which is between a man and a woman. He tells us that this has always been so since the creation of man and woman. So yes He does tells us how things are to be, and yes I know you will say that doesn't mean anything. So since He didn't say beastiality is wrong then....... there are many things He didn't speak of but yet they are considered wrong.


Indeed. The point is that 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 do not condemn "loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships". They condemn temple prostitution (specifically homosexual?), but nowt else.

It's a counterargument, not an argument in its own right.

I really thought the use of "loving monogamous homosexual relationship was explained and/or meentioned. Anyhow, anytime homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is mentioned as a sin, so still don't understand how that is confusing, except that the Bible warns us of the confusions to come in the last days.


Please explain how you derived the latter condition. It appears you've just arbitrarily inserted the word 'heterosexual'. You might as well plug in "Aryan" while you're at it.

What is your definition of fornication? What is your definition of adulery? Whether hetrosexual or homosexual, sex before marriage is a sin. Also, since some homosexuals are married to a person of the opposite sex, while having affairs with same sex people, then adultery becomes a factor.

I didn't arbitrarily insert anything, sexual sin is sin whether you are white, black, etc. or whether you consider yourself hetrosexual, homosexual or bisexual.


The criticism is not that this verse is not of divine inspiritation (we'll assume that the whole KJV is), but that it is taken out of context. Read Romans 1 in its totality: Paul is condeming Pagan idolatry, not homosexuality.

Some have said that it isn't divinely inspired, and have errors because of the human elimate and human biases, but it is nice to see that you believe the Bible is by divine inspirationof God.

None. But this is not grounds for condemnation. If it were, then Christians should also condemn modern modes of transportation, telecommunications, and computers.

It is not for me to condemn anyone, but to warn of the condemnation that will come if people continue in willfill sinning and/or refuse to accept the free gift of grace and mercy.

So why do those who disagree about homosexuality being a sin throw out the computer, transportation, telecommuniations stuff anyhow? That has always comfused me when these things are used as some answer or proof of something?:confused:

Anything that we put above he Lord is a sin, and any sins committed whether on the computer, telephone or in a car are still sins. These items aren't evil, but what we do with them could be.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Hi Wiccan_Child, good to see you.
Yo :wave:

There's no such thing as 'the' sin of sodom, there were multitudes of sins, and the level of depravity is shown by the various actions of the inhabitants there.
"The sin of Sodom" is a common euphamism for homosexuality. It's not literally true, as you point out, but I thought it'd be snazzy.

Um, Jesus never said that we were to ever stop upholding the law. The difference is that our salvation no longer relies on our perfect obedience to it.
Matthew 5:17-18
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The laws were not abolished, but fulfilled. Moreover, he summed up all the laws and regulations as extrapolations of these two archetypes: Love thy neightbour, and love thy God. The point is that so long as one follows the two archetypes, one is automatically in the right.

Disregarding the bible's own statements and examples about a certain action falls outside of one of those archetypes as well, loving God (which comes first, mind you).
But the whole point is that it doesn't.

I can still love my neighbor while knowing and believing that gay sex is sinful, just as in I can love my neighbor while knowing that stealing is.
The difference between those two examples is that stealing violates "love thy neighbour", and is thus wrong. Homosexuality violates neither.

Not everyone who believes same-sex sex to be in sin is homophobic, that's like calling me arachnaphobic because I don't want a spider as a pet. homophobia entails fear of homosexuality (i.e. homosexuals), there is a differentiation between what a person identifies themselves as, and what their potential actions may be.
I think you misunderstand homophobia. It is the gay equivalent of racism or sexism: prejudice and discrimination based on an arbitrary character trait (in this case, sexual orientation).
While homophobia and arachnaphobia have similar etymological roots, only the latter is a true phobia.

If He thought it was OK, then you'd think there would've been a concerted effort to record Him teaching on it, since He was (is) perfectly versed in scripture, and obviously knew what the rabbi's were teaching.
Not necessarily: he may have thought it such a no-brainer that it wasn't worth mentioning. Or perhaps he did espouse his views on homosexuality, and we just don't have the records of it. Remember the time he was living in: homosexuality was not the social taboo it would later become.

How do you figure?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[FONT=&quot]η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται ουτε κλεπται ουτε πλεονεκται ουτε μεθυσοι ου λοιδοροι ουχ αρπαγες βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν[/FONT]

The emboldened words, malakoi and arsenokoitai, are what are commonly given homophobic mistranslations. Malakoi means "effeminate, soft, weak", and refers to the unmanly or the unvirile. It also refers to the behaviour of young, male, temple prostitutes: the were referred to as Malakoi because of their behaviour.


The second word, arsenokoitai, appears to be of Paul's own concotion. It is an amalgamation of arsen, which means 'male', and koitai, which literally means 'bed' and was used to refer to someone who was, basically, a harlot.

Given these translations, and the people to whom Paul was writing, it seems unlikely that he was condemning homosexuality in general. The most damning point is the fact that there is a perfectly good word for homosexuals that Paul would have used had that been his intent:paiderasste.


They have nothing to do with temple prostitution, or even hint at it. Perhaps you are thinking of the leviticus passages. Anyhow, the focus of the corinthians and timothy passage are 'arsenokoites', which one side will say it means 'practicing homosexuals' and the other just throws their hands up and says they have no idea. I just stick with the definition, and it literally means 'man bedders' or 'man layers'. Could it mean something other than what that obviously entails? Sure, but its just speculation either way.
On the contrary, Paul was quite explicit in who he was condeming. As I mentioned above, if he wanted to condemn homosexuality in general, he would have used the word 'paiderasste'.


defining fornication is a touchy subject, and personally I think it falls into that category of whether one is convicted of their actions or not. This of course implies one has the Holy Spirit to guide them.
So the man who rapes his children, believing himself to be guided by the Holy Spirit, has committed no sin? In any case, her words were still arbitrary: there is no obvious reason why 'heterosexual' is a necessary qualifier.

Paul condemned pagan idolatry, sure. But what you fail to mention is that he also shows God's judgment against those pagan idolaters. What was that judgment? He gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts. What were the sinful desires? You can guess, or read (although I'm sure you know where I'm going with this).
Actually, Paul says:

[FONT=&quot]God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature; and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.[/FONT]

The condemnation is explicit: the Pagans were turned against their natural affections. Straights became gay, gays became straights. I wonder what happened to bisexuals...
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
The other thing about idolatry is that it is a very broad term. They worshiped the creature rather than the Creator. That could mean more than a totem pole, or a golden calf, it also is applicable to people, and includes worshiping ourselves (and truly, our desires) over our Creator.
I disagree. Where in the Bible is idolatry ever used to describe desires, rather than physical idols?

It is grounds for condemnation against the action if in the few times it is mentioned in scripture, it is consistently held as an example of depravity and sin.
Indeed, hence our discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Sexual immorality and strange flesh are now being questions, which totally fits into how the Bible tells us that in the last days people will believe unsound doctrine. This was not the case when you look at what the fathers of Christianity practiced and believed. They, those that lived in the days of the bible, had no trouble understanding, it is just the deceiving and confussion of these days that make it unclear. Which the Bible warns us of.
You have not answered my questions: what do 'sexual immorality' and 'strange flesh' refer to? The "fathers of Christianity" did not speak English, so I fail to see your point there.

also, like the verses that tell how people will worship the creation instead of the Creator, which is the practice of some wicca and other cults.
Paganism has existed for millenia, yet the end of days has not come. The Bible has been subject to scrutiny since its inception, yet the end of days has not come. "The end is nigh!" has been declared since before Jesus died, yet, two thousand years later, nowt has happened. Forgive me if I count my eggs.

Not sure if the sect you are in believes that or not.
The worship of Nature is common to all Wiccan traditions, and most of modern Paganism.

He tells us who and what is marriage to consist of, which is between a man and a woman. He tells us that this has always been so since the creation of man and woman. So yes He does tells us how things are to be, and yes I know you will say that doesn't mean anything. So since He didn't say beastiality is wrong then....... there are many things He didn't speak of but yet they are considered wrong.
Indeed. Why is that? If Jesus is the ultimate moral authority, who are you to deem something right or wrong without his go ahead? I'm sure that's some form of blasphemy.

I really thought the use of "loving monogamous homosexual relationship was explained and/or meentioned. Anyhow, anytime homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is mentioned as a sin, so still don't understand how that is confusing, except that the Bible warns us of the confusions to come in the last days.
It's not so much confusion as it is a rejection of your conclusion: not everyone agrees that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.

What is your definition of fornication? What is your definition of adulery?
I don't use the terms, but from what I've heard, I think adultery is synonymous with cheating, and fornication is synonymous with sex. Both are used as perjoratives. But like I said, I've never used the terms myself, so I don't have a definition of my own, and I may have got the two wrong.

Whether hetrosexual or homosexual, sex before marriage is a sin. Also, since some homosexuals are married to a person of the opposite sex, while having affairs with same sex people, then adultery becomes a factor.
Nevertheless, homosexuality is not the issue. Sex outside of marriage and cheating on one's spouse, they are the issues. So I'm puzzled as to your point.

I didn't arbitrarily insert anything, sexual sin is sin whether you are white, black, etc. or whether you consider yourself hetrosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
On the contrary, by your own admission it was arbitrary: you defined fornication as:

(2) all sexual behavior that violates, is contrary to, or in addition to, the heterosexual behavior implied by a monogamous marriage, is illicit.

Yet you now say that sexual sin is irrespective to skin colour or sexual orientation. Why, then, did you mention the 'heterosexual' qualifier to the above definition? What possible rationale is there?

Some have said that it isn't divinely inspired, and have errors because of the human elimate and human biases, but it is nice to see that you believe the Bible is by divine inspiration of God.
Don't be silly, I don't consider the Bible to be any more a product of divine inspiration than you do the Qu'ran, or the Vedic texts. I am assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the morality of the Bible is the true morality. At the end of the day, the Bible could explicitly endorse incestuous rape for all I care.

So why do those who disagree about homosexuality being a sin throw out the computer, transportation, telecommuniations stuff anyhow? That has always comfused me when these things are used as some answer or proof of something?:confused:
You misunderstand me. The point I was responding to implied that Christians should condemn things that are not explicitly endorsed by the Bible (i.e., you said the Bible never explicitly endorses homosexuality, so it should be therefore condemned). I was highlighting the fallacy of this argument by way of example.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.