Is the Bible correct?

[Jet_A_Jockey]

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.

The law still exists, christians are however not held under it because of Christ's fulfillment of it. We are sanctified through Him alone.

The difference between those two examples is that stealing violates "love thy neighbour", and is thus wrong. Homosexuality violates neither.

You conveniently left out the first commandment. An interesting example can be made of groups who do not balance the two, you have those who only love their God (pharisee) and those only love their neighbor (humanists).

Unfortunately, Christianity and humanism are not one in the same.

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.

So people have created a new definition of a phobia now to suit to gays as well? These are the definitions I use:

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This homophobia
nounprejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ho·mo·pho·bi·a

–noun unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

I have no problem with gays at all, and personally do not care to know what they do in their privacy, the same goes for heteros. So by that definition I am not considered homophobic, yet I still read the bible and defend that it does nothing but condemn same-sex sexual interactions.

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.

It's speculation on either side. As far as being a no-brainer, yes it was a no-brainer. The jews already knew that same-sex sex was fornication so no point to reiterate it again (in contrast, as paul spoke with gentiles who were not born into a similar set of laws).

Remember the time he was living in: homosexuality was not the social taboo it would later become.

Actually, homosexuality (as a form of self-identification) did not even exist. People did not segregate themselves into separate groups based on their 'sexual preference', and this explains why scripture only points out the specific action rather than targeting a certain group of people.

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.

How does a definition become 'homophobic' solely because it is contrary to your previously held set of beliefs? If malakoi condemns the passive partner of a sexual action, then it gives even more ground to arsenokoites as condemning the active partner as well.

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.

I thought I basically went over this already, but OK. the same argument of him not using the more familiar term for a 'homosexual' can be used here, as he could've used a much more common word for harlot. This gives even more weight to his condemnation of the active partner of a same-sex sexual engagement. And most people also agree that this passage is a reflection of the leviticus passages of 'man-lying', so in that frame of thought your assessment falls short.

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 intentaiderasste.

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'.

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.

If a person raped his children, then he obviously is not being guided by the Holy Spirit. People do crazy and insane things all the time and use the name of God to console themselves. It comes down to whether someone is being truly guided by the Spirit of God or being guided by their own desires.

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...

If your statement were true, then it would also state that men left the natural use of men and went for women, and likewise the females also left the natural use of the females and went for males. It does not say that, however, because (biblically speaking) there is no natural use for same-sex sex. Once again your ideas are centered on the people's perception of natural rather than what IS natural, or by nature. Not by our nature, but by God's.

I disagree. Where in the Bible is idolatry ever used to describe desires, rather than physical idols?

Col 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.

This clearly shows that idolatry takes more forms than asherah poles and a golden calf. It's all about choosing something over God, and that includes ourselves (and our desires).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The law still exists, christians are however not held under it because of Christ's fulfillment of it. We are sanctified through Him alone.

Then why pay any heed to it?

You conveniently left out the first commandment.

No, I didn't. I said "Homosexuality violates neither".

So people have created a new definition of a phobia now to suit to gays as well?

It is the natural evolution of the term, as is the word 'gay' itself. Homophobia is synonymous with prejudice against homosexuals. That's just the way it is. If you can't comprehend the fluidic nature of language, just use the more clunky phraseology: "prejudice against homosexuals".

I have no problem with gays at all, and personally do not care to know what they do in their privacy, the same goes for heteros. So by that definition I am not considered homophobic, yet I still read the bible and defend that it does nothing but condemn same-sex sexual interactions.

I never accused you of being homophobic.

Actually, homosexuality (as a form of self-identification) did not even exist.

Doubtful. Homosexuality as we know it today is simply a word to denote one of many sexual preference. Such preferences are not a recent evolutionary trick; they likely co-evolved with socialism, let alone our own species emergance. That is, while people in and aroud Jesus' culture may not have realised it, homosexuality still existed.

How does a definition become 'homophobic' solely because it is contrary to your previously held set of beliefs?

It doesn't. It is homophobic because it was mistranslated to give homophobic connotations. It is the same as when Genesis was translated (properly or otherwise) to give racist overtones. Whether or not they just so happened to hit the mark, their prejudices are undeniable.

If malakoi condemns the passive partner of a sexual action, then it gives even more ground to arsenokoites as condemning the active partner as well.

How so? Malakoi specifically refers to 'weak, effeminate' males, while arsenokoitai's meaning is anyone's guess.

I thought I basically went over this already, but OK. the same argument of him not using the more familiar term for a 'homosexual' can be used here, as he could've used a much more common word for harlot. This gives even more weight to his condemnation of the active partner of a same-sex sexual engagement. And most people also agree that this passage is a reflection of the leviticus passages of 'man-lying', so in that frame of thought your assessment falls short.

I do not see how this reconciles the fact that Paul had a perfectly good word for homosexuals, yet chose not to use it.

If a person raped his children, then he obviously is not being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Who are you to question the wisdom of the Lord?

But seriously, by what measure did you determine this?

People do crazy and insane things all the time and use the name of God to console themselves. It comes down to whether someone is being truly guided by the Spirit of God or being guided by their own desires.

Again, how does one determine this?

If your statement were true, then it would also state that men left the natural use of men and went for women, and likewise the females also left the natural use of the females and went for males.

If there were any homosexuals among them, then yes, they would abandon their natural desires.

It does not say that, however, because (biblically speaking) there is no natural use for same-sex sex.

It's talking about natural desires, not uses. But then, that depends on how one translates it.

Col 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.

This clearly shows that idolatry takes more forms than asherah poles and a golden calf. It's all about choosing something over God, and that includes ourselves (and our desires).

Well, there you go then.

 

[Ave Maria]

The Bible is correct in the original manuscripts. However, most of our translations have been badly translated to essentially condemn homosexuals when the Bible does not actually condemn homosexuals. The Bible condemns temple prostitutes, not homosexuals.

 

[savedandhappy1]

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.

So you can't see how these teaching were pasted down from generation to generation, and so as time pasted and more and more of the world was taught these teaching makes I more likely to be the truth then someone now trying to say what they meant back then? As they learned the language of other countries the teachings were pasted down, but scholars think they know more today then they did, how confusing.

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.

You can count whatever you want to count, but that will not change the fact that you will one day have to stand before the Lord and give account of the things you did during your life.

The worship of Nature is common to all Wiccan traditions, and most of modern Paganism.

Anything worshiped is idolatry, and the 1st Commandment plainly says this is wrong, and a sin.

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 do what His word tells me to do. I do what the Holy Spirit leads me to do. So not sure how that would be blaspheming.

It's not so much confusion as it is a rejection of your conclusion: not everyone agrees that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.

No they don't, which causes confussion in the church. We are told that confussion does not come from God, so yes there is confussion and rejection of the Lord. Nothing new, because all these things have been going since the beginning of time.

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.

Interesting. Thank for explaining where you are coming from on these issues.

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.

Just pointing out that both hetrosexuals and homosexuals have sexual sins, and both need forgiveness.

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?

How is this not rationale to point out that we all sin, and fall short of the Glory of God? So many try and muddy the water by claiming that those who believe homosexuality is a sin are, by saying it is, also saying that they don't sin. Which isn't true, but that is so of the stuff put out there when someone points out that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

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.

Sorry to hear that, and I will be praying for you to meet Jesus and accept the mercy and grace He has for you.

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.

You seem to also misunderstand me. Condemning is not my job, but stating what the word says is wrong and can lead to someone being condemned by God is. Trying to add to the Kingdom of God and trying to keep people from spending eternity in hell by showing them that God loves them is my goal and commandment.

People don't see that they need a Saviour if they don't understand why they need saved and from what, so I am just trying to show how sin has taken away our fellowship with our Creator. If I can show this and what God did so that we can again be in fellowship with Him then I am doing what I am supposed to do.

 

[savedandhappy1]

In Genesis we see how God saw that man shouldn't be alone so He made him a helpmate, Eve.

So if man shouldn't be alone and so is partnered up by God with a woman doesn't show Gods desire for a union to be between a man and a woman?

Taking the scriptures as a whole, and not even reading the ones that speak of homosexuality, we see how man and woman are what is considered right in the scriptures. Well unless you now are saying that all scirptures are considered misinterpretated?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you can't see how these teaching were pasted down from generation to generation, and so as time pasted and more and more of the world was taught these teaching makes I more likely to be the truth then someone now trying to say what they meant back then?

Correct. Over two millenia, things become exceedingly distorted. This is why we have 39000 denominations of Christianity.

As they learned the language of other countries the teachings were pasted down, but scholars think they know more today then they did, how confusing.

Because scholars today translate directly from the original text to their language. As the teachings were spread, however, it was essentially Chinese whispers: it was translated a myriad of times before it got to today's users.

And I think you mean 'passed', not 'pasted'.

You can count whatever you want to count, but that will not change the fact that you will one day have to stand before the Lord and give account of the things you did during your life.

I always find it amusing when a Christian threatens a non-Christian with something the latter doesn't even believe in. In before "it's not a threat".

Anything worshiped is idolatry, and the 1st Commandment plainly says this is wrong, and a sin.

According to the Christian faith, perhaps. You'll forgive me if I'm a little nonplussed at your comment.

I do what His word tells me to do. I do what the Holy Spirit leads me to do. So not sure how that would be blaspheming.

I was referring to you dictating what is and is not moral. You were placing yourself on par with Christ.

No they don't, which causes confussion in the church. We are told that confussion does not come from God, so yes there is confussion and rejection of the Lord.

Which seems to imply that the Church is unGodly. How interesting.

Nothing new, because all these things have been going since the beginning of time.

Then how are they indicative of the end of days?

Interesting. Thank for explaining where you are coming from on these issues.

Not at all.

Just pointing out that both hetrosexuals and homosexuals have sexual sins, and both need forgiveness.

Yes, I get that, but I thought the point of our discussion was to ascertain whether homosexuality or homosexual sex is/are sinful in and of themselves.

How is this not rationale to point out that we all sin, and fall short of the Glory of God? So many try and muddy the water by claiming that those who believe homosexuality is a sin are, by saying it is, also saying that they don't sin. Which isn't true, but that is so of the stuff put out there when someone points out that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Again, you completely miss the point. Why did you define fornication in terms of heterosexuality?

Sorry to hear that, and I will be praying for you to meet Jesus and accept the mercy and grace He has for you.

Yes, I get that a lot. If God is the one who fills someone with the Holy Spirit and makes them a Christian, and if so many people are praying for this to occur, it makes one wonder just what God is waiting for.

You seem to also misunderstand me. Condemning is not my job, but stating what the word says is wrong and can lead to someone being condemned by God is. Trying to add to the Kingdom of God and trying to keep people from spending eternity in hell by showing them that God loves them is my goal and commandment.

Which appears to contradict your previous statements. Oh well.

People don't see that they need a Saviour if they don't understand why they need saved and from what, so I am just trying to show how sin has taken away our fellowship with our Creator. If I can show this and what God did so that we can again be in fellowship with Him then I am doing what I am supposed to do.

I think the first step towards this goal would be showing such a Creator exists at all. Then that sin exists, then that sin somehow "seperates" one from an omnipotent, omnipresent Creator entity. Good luck with that.

In Genesis we see how God saw that man shouldn't be alone so He made him a helpmate, Eve.

So if man shouldn't be alone and so is partnered up by God with a woman doesn't show Gods desire for a union to be between a man and a woman?

Ah, the old "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" argument. When God created Adam's helpmeet, he had two choices: another male, or a female. If the former, then the human race would have ended there and then. If the latter, then humanity could "go forth and multiply". Thus, God's choice of helpmeet is not so much a edict of morality than it is a logical necessity. The morality or immorality of homosexuality would have no bearing on God's choice of helpmeet, so it is a moot point.

Taking the scriptures as a whole, and not even reading the ones that speak of homosexuality, we see how man and woman are what is considered right in the scriptures. Well unless you now are saying that all scirptures are considered misinterpretated?

Again, you are making a logical fallacy (or, at least, a bizarre interpretation of the Bible): just because "man and woman are considered right" in the Bible does not mean that man and man, or woman and woman, are not right.
Or more generically: "A implies B" does not imply "¬A implies ¬B".

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Then why pay any heed to it?

Simple, its part 1 of the greatest commandments. Loving God entails loving what He loves, and that is obedience to His rules.

No, I didn't. I said "Homosexuality violates neither".

Which is incorrect, if one gains understanding of God's will through scripture. Loving God means following God, and following God means following His rules and commandments, even if they may not necessarily have an impact on our salvation.

It is the natural evolution of the term, as is the word 'gay' itself. Homophobia is synonymous with prejudice against homosexuals. That's just the way it is. If you can't comprehend the fluidic nature of language, just use the more clunky phraseology: "prejudice against homosexuals".

I'd prefer to be clunky when discussing terms on this level, as a person's point is easily lost in this medium without very definitive descriptions.

I never accused you of being homophobic.

Good, because I don't think that I am. I have been called as such, by the pro-GLBT side because of my viewpoints, but whatever is whatever

Doubtful. Homosexuality as we know it today is simply a word to denote one of many sexual preference. Such preferences are not a recent evolutionary trick; they likely co-evolved with socialism, let alone our own species emergance. That is, while people in and aroud Jesus' culture may not have realised it, homosexuality still existed.

I was saying that homosexuality as a means of self-identification did not exist, at least not on a large enough scale to make a division in society, or to permeate the literature of the time.

It doesn't. It is homophobic because it was mistranslated to give homophobic connotations. It is the same as when Genesis was translated (properly or otherwise) to give racist overtones. Whether or not they just so happened to hit the mark, their prejudices are undeniable.

How was it mistranslated? You could say the same thing about the hetero condemnations as well and say it is also heterophobic. Whats the point in even reading scripture if you already negate its truth to your own?

How so? Malakoi specifically refers to 'weak, effeminate' males, while arsenokoitai's meaning is anyone's guess.

easy, a reference to the levitical 'man-lying' passage shows that it is re-addressed to include both parties of the action, not only the aggressive partner but also the submissive. This extra explanation teaches that both of the people involved are guilty of such, rather than just one.

I do not see how this reconciles the fact that Paul had a perfectly good word for homosexuals, yet chose not to use it.

Possibly because he was trying to separate between both parties of the action, to show that both were guilty, just as is done in cases of adultery.

Who are you to question the wisdom of the Lord?

But seriously, by what measure did you determine this?

By reading and studying scripture, as well as understanding and believing the promises of it. Saying you are Spirit-led and actually being Spirit-led are very different things.

If there were any homosexuals among them, then yes, they would abandon their natural desires.

You missed my point, its not what is natural to THEM, but what is natural according to God's plan. We can clearly see that heterosexual reproduction is natural, as it is backed by scripture. Regardless of this, the true error is in what someone lives their life by, whether they be God-centered, or Sex-centered (this applies to both gay and straight). We cannot expect God to change to suit our needs, but rather it is our duty to change to suit His will for us. (once again, this applies to everyone not just homosexuals)

It's talking about natural desires, not uses. But then, that depends on how one translates it.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. and what were these shameful lusts? next sentence-Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. but what was natural and unnatural, hmmm, next sentence27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women here is a better definition of what is natural, it shows that natural relations for the men were with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. and this shows that what they did was a perversion of what is natural


Anyhow, this shows the biblical stance on sexual relationships, and not only does it limit them to man/woman, it also shows that going into a same-sex sexual action was a penalty for their perversion. The way God works this situation, is that the people worshiped false idols, creature over Creator, and because of this God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts. It was already in their hearts, he just let them dwell in it. God bless.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Correct. Over two millenia, things become exceedingly distorted. This is why we have 39000 denominations of Christianity.

Denominations don't make a Christian or give anyone salvation.

Because scholars today translate directly from the original text to their language. As the teachings were spread, however, it was essentially Chinese whispers: it was translated a myriad of times before it got to today's users.

And I think you mean 'passed', not 'pasted'.

So you believe the people who spoke to the ones who wrote and taught the scriptures were wrong in what they understood to be the truth, but scholars today know more. Interesting.

Yep to many cups of coffee which have fallen and absorbed into my keyboard, but thanks for pointing out that I need to try and clean them again. Or give in and get a new non-coffee keyboard. Not sure why it really matters since I am sure you understood what was meant, but if it is important to you that ok.

I always find it amusing when a Christian threatens a non-Christian with something the latter doesn't even believe in. In before "it's not a threat".

No threat here. Maybe you should take that up with the Creator instead of the creation.

According to the Christian faith, perhaps. You'll forgive me if I'm a little nonplussed at your comment.

I have the answer to your bewilderment, and confusion, but it doesn't appear you are totally ready for that at this time anyhow.

I was referring to you dictating what is and is not moral. You were placing yourself on par with Christ.

I dictate nothing and am no where near par with Christ. It is God who says what is and is not moral, and all I do is show where He points these things out. If I had a penny for evertime someone tried to say quoting the Bible was me playing God I would be rich. All it appears to be is just attempts at taking the focus off of the real issues, the important issues, but at least most who do it use the same ones the other do so at least it is consistant.

Which seems to imply that the Church is unGodly. How interesting.

As the parable of the tares and wheat points out there will be righteous with the unrighteous, but the true church of God will be pure because it is cleaned by the blood that Jesus. Sorry you misunderstood what I was saying.

Then how are they indicative of the end of days?

Alittle confused as to what you are getting at here, will have to go back and read over the post, but it is late (3:11AM), so will have to get back to this answer.

Yes, I get that, but I thought the point of our discussion was to ascertain whether homosexuality or homosexual sex is/are sinful in and of themselves.

I believe homosexuality is a sin, but wanted to make it clear at the start that sin is sin, and me saying and believing homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean that that is the only thing I believe is a sin or the only people I believe sins. Those type of statements are stated alot, so just wanted to get that out of the way early in the postings.

=Wiccan_Child;47157153Again, you completely miss the point. Why did you define fornication in terms of heterosexuality?

Explained in the post above.

Yes, I get that a lot. If God is the one who fills someone with the Holy Spirit and makes them a Christian, and if so many people are praying for this to occur, it makes one wonder just what God is waiting for.

He is waiting on you. He will not come in unless we open the door and invite Him in.

Rev. 3:20
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

Which appears to contradict your previous statements. Oh well.

Sorry I'm not sure what you thinks seems to appear to contradict. Maybe I am just to tired.

I think the first step towards this goal would be showing such a Creator exists at all. Then that sin exists, then that sin somehow "seperates" one from an omnipotent, omnipresent Creator entity. Good luck with that.

So you really can look at all the complexed things in the world, along with the not so complexed, and not see a Creator? You really think that nothing suddenly became something and then over the years some of the something made a worm and some desided to make a tree, while other nothings wanted to be an eyeball? That really makes sense to you?

Ah, the old "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" argument. When God created Adam's helpmeet, he had two choices: another male, or a female. If the former, then the human race would have ended there and then. If the latter, then humanity could "go forth and multiply". Thus, God's choice of helpmeet is not so much a edict of morality than it is a logical necessity. The morality or immorality of homosexuality would have no bearing on God's choice of helpmeet, so it is a moot point.

So is there something you are wanting me to get by typing helpmeet instead of helpmate or have you spilled to much coffee on your keyboard too?

Nothing is a moot point to God, or atleast I don't believe that it is.

Again, you are making a logical fallacy (or, at least, a bizarre interpretation of the Bible): just because "man and woman are considered right" in the Bible does not mean that man and man, or woman and woman, are not right.
Or more generically: "A implies B" does not imply "¬A implies ¬B".

You don't think that somewhere, in the 66 chapters of the Bible, that if man and man or woman and woman was meant to be, that some story of them would have come up in atleast one of the history stories told in the OT?

How many years and how much geneology is told in the Bible, and yet we see no Adam and Steve anywhere?

Talk about making a logical fallacy.

I will retire now, and try and come back later to read over the post in hopes that I can make sense of the parts of your post I didn't understand because I'm so tired.

Sorry I was to tired to get it all answered. I will pull out the couple of post that I didn't get to, and place them in a post alone to avoid confussion.

Good Night.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

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.

Not at all, firstly the law was love God first, then love ones neighbour, you in true humanistic style put love ones neighbour first, as has been pointed out to you. Love ones neighbour can only be done when one loves God, otherwise one may not know what God’s love is and means and might have other ideas of love. And this is of course what happens when people support same-sex unions, they keep referring to the love of sexual unions, what they thinks is love is in fact sex. Jesus commands His disciples to love one another as He loved so the world will know who are His disciples.
What might be useful is if you pointed this out to those posters who don’t appreciate this and keep asking us about the law.

The difference between those two examples is that stealing violates "love thy neighbour", and is thus wrong. Homosexuality violates neither.

As my Christian colleague points out Christianity and humanism are not one in the same. Same-sex sex violates loving God for God’s purpose is for man and woman to be united as in Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5 etc. Furthermore all sexual immorality for Christians defiles not the neighbour but ones own body which is designed as a temple of the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 6:18 “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

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.

I think you misunderstand God who created people. Gay is a choice, race isnt. To believe in God is a choice, and so is sexual activity a choice.
Romans 1 describes how people turn form God and consequently try and justify their thinking.

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.

It's speculation on either side. As far as being a no-brainer, yes it was a no-brainer. The Jews already knew that same-sex sex was fornication so no point to reiterate it again (in contrast, as Paul spoke with gentiles who were not born into a similar set of laws).
NB. If you think that is exactly what Jet_A_Jockey wrote it is.. such is the unity in the Spirit that we fully agree and you will find that all the other believers of a like mind can say exactly the same. Acts 4.

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.

If a man rapes his children we know he isn’t being guided by the Holy Spirit. If a man has sex with another man we also know he isnt being guided by the Holy Spirit despite his claims. If a man has sex with another man and claims it is a Christian value from the HolY Spirit we know it isn’t.
What is the situation with Wicca? To what authority do you refer over the issue of sexual relationships?

 

[David Brider]

I have no problem with gays at all, and personally do not care to know what they do in their privacy, the same goes for heteros. So by that definition I am not considered homophobic, yet I still read the bible and defend that it does nothing but condemn same-sex sexual interactions.

Even if it's true that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual interactions (and you're well aware that not every Christian agrees with you on that), if you don't care what gays do in their privacy, why does what the Bible condemns matter to you on that particular issue? As long as you don't do what you believe the Bible condemns, you're okay. Taking part in debates such as this suggests that to some extent you do care what gay people do in their privacy.

David.

 

[David Brider]

The difference between those two examples is that stealing violates "love thy neighbour", and is thus wrong. Homosexuality violates neither.

As my Christian colleague points out Christianity and humanism are not one in the same. Same-sex sex violates loving God...

Wiccan_Child wasn't talking about same-sex sex, he was talking about homosexuality.

David.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not at all, firstly the law was love God first, then love ones neighbour, you in true humanistic style put love ones neighbour first, as has been pointed out to you.

I am not a humanist, and I put them in no particular order.

Love ones neighbour can only be done when one loves God, otherwise one may not know what God’s love is and means and might have other ideas of love. And this is of course what happens when people support same-sex unions, they keep referring to the love of sexual unions, what they thinks is love is in fact sex.

Source?

As my Christian colleague points out Christianity and humanism are not one in the same. Same-sex sex violates loving God for God’s purpose is for man and woman to be united as in Gen 2, Matt 19, Eph 5 etc. Furthermore all sexual immorality for Christians defiles not the neighbour but ones own body which is designed as a temple of the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 6:18 “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

This begs the question. What actions and practices are to be deemed sexually immoral?

I think you misunderstand God who created people.

I am aware of this aspect. It's shoved down our throats on a daily basis.

Gay is a choice, race isnt.

Source? You seem to be equivocating 'gay' with 'gay sex'. As you said before, love is not the same as sex.

To believe in God is a choice, and so is sexual activity a choice.
Romans 1 describes how people turn form God and consequently try and justify their thinking.

Justify their thinking? No, I think Romans 1 highlights the punishment God bestows upon the Roman Christians who reverted to Paganism

It's speculation on either side. As far as being a no-brainer, yes it was a no-brainer. The Jews already knew that same-sex sex was fornication so no point to reiterate it again (in contrast, as Paul spoke with gentiles who were not born into a similar set of laws).
NB. If you think that is exactly what Jet_A_Jockey wrote it is.. such is the unity in the Spirit that we fully agree and you will find that all the other believers of a like mind can say exactly the same. Acts 4.

I wouldn't call that "unity in the Spirit", as I would call it copypasta. At least you credited him, which is more than what most would do.

If a man rapes his children we know he isn’t being guided by the Holy Spirit. If a man has sex with another man we also know he isnt being guided by the Holy Spirit despite his claims. If a man has sex with another man and claims it is a Christian value from the HolY Spirit we know it isn’t.

Please explain how you deduced that the men in each of those scenarios aren't being guided by the Holy Spirit.

What is the situation with Wicca? To what authority do you refer over the issue of sexual relationships?

From the Wiccan Rede we have: "An it harm none, do what ye will". If it doesn't harm anyone, then go right ahead.
Note all this quote from my signature: Sing, feast, dance, make music and love, all in My Presence, for Mine is the ecstasy of the spirit and Mine is also joy on earth.

Ecstasy of the spirit and joy on Earth are where the Goddess rejoices.

Rape, however, is not joyful, and causes immense physical and mental harm to the victim. It is condemned by Wiccan morality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Simple, its part 1 of the greatest commandments. Loving God entails loving what He loves, and that is obedience to His rules.

So you have to love obedience to his rules, but not follow them? How bizarre.

Which is incorrect, if one gains understanding of God's will through scripture. Loving God means following God, and following God means following His rules and commandments, even if they may not necessarily have an impact on our salvation.

Then why do you not kill homosexuals? Or those who weave clothes from two different fibres? Or follow any of the other barbaric OT laws?

I'd prefer to be clunky when discussing terms on this level, as a person's point is easily lost in this medium without very definitive descriptions.

Fair enough. Whenever I use the word 'homophobic', read that to mean 'prejudice and/or discrimination against homosexuals'. I'll try to amend future correspondances.

Good, because I don't think that I am. I have been called as such, by the pro-GLBT side because of my viewpoints, but whatever is whatever

Fair enough.

I was saying that homosexuality as a means of self-identification did not exist, at least not on a large enough scale to make a division in society, or to permeate the literature of the time.

So why argue that Jesus would have mentioned it if he condoned it? As you say, it wasn't the headline maker it is today.

How was it mistranslated?

Because analysing the post-translation and pre-translation texts highlights a bias: of the myriad of possible translations, the most obscure was chosen. Why? For the same basic reason "the mark of Cain" was interpreted to justify racism, or God's creating Adam first to justify sexism, or what have you.

You could say the same thing about the hetero condemnations as well and say it is also heterophobic. Whats the point in even reading scripture if you already negate its truth to your own?

I read the Bible to see what all the fuss was about. Beautiful as it was in places, I wasn't particularily impressed. Currently, I read the Bible if I need to locate a particular verse to further my argument (biblegateway helps with that).

easy, a reference to the levitical 'man-lying' passage shows that it is re-addressed to include both parties of the action, not only the aggressive partner but also the submissive. This extra explanation teaches that both of the people involved are guilty of such, rather than just one.

Where is the reference to Leviticus?

Possibly because he was trying to separate between both parties of the action, to show that both were guilty, just as is done in cases of adultery.

If both are guilty, why the need to seperate the two?

By reading and studying scripture, as well as understanding and believing the promises of it. Saying you are Spirit-led and actually being Spirit-led are very different things.

Perhaps, but you did not answer my question: how do you discern whether or not someone is being guided by the Holy Spirit? How do you know God didn't desire and require the alleged lunatic to burn down the orphanage? Saying you read it in the Bible just means your particular interpretation of what Spirit-led means differs to what the claimant says Spirit-led means. How does one discern who is right?

You missed my point, its not what is natural to THEM, but what is natural according to God's plan.

How so? I don't see this distinction mentioned in the text.

We can clearly see that heterosexual reproduction is natural, as it is backed by scripture.

But this does not mean homosexuality is unnatural. The best argument against this is simply to cite the 1500+ observed instances of homosexuality in animals. I also like to point out that homosexuality wouldn't have evolve din the first place if it didn't offer some benefit to the society in which it evolves (note also that no non-social species has homosexual members).

Regardless of this, the true error is in what someone lives their life by, whether they be God-centered, or Sex-centered (this applies to both gay and straight). We cannot expect God to change to suit our needs, but rather it is our duty to change to suit His will for us. (once again, this applies to everyone not just homosexuals)

The question, then, is: what is his will for us? Some say it is to be heterosexual mothers and fathers who vote for the Conservatives. Others don't.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. and what were these shameful lusts? next sentence-Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. but what was natural and unnatural, hmmm, next sentence27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women here is a better definition of what is natural, it shows that natural relations for the men were with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. and this shows that what they did was a perversion of what is natural

As you may have guessed, I disagree that this translation is accurate.

For instance, the phrases "against nature", "contrary to nature", and "sin with each other" are all various ways in which translators have translated the Greek para physin (παρα φυσι&#957. They translate it to imply a moral condemnation. Indeed, it literally translates to something like "against nature".

However, Paul uses this phrase elsewhere, and its use is most decidedly not one of moral condemnation. In 1 Corinthians 11:14 he uses para physin to describe men with long hair as unusual or not ordinary. In Romans 11:24, he uses it to descirbe God's good actions to bring the Jews and Gentiles together.

Thus, Paul's use of the phrase para physin is almost certainly not one of moral condemnation: it is simply to highlight something out of the ordinary. Indeed, in the latter case, it is used positively.

There are a number of other key phrases whos translation is iffy (to use the vernacular).

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

Wiccan_Child wasn't talking about same-sex sex, he was talking about homosexuality.

but the Bible makes no reference to homosexuality or heterosexuality except in relation to sexual activity. So perhaps Wiccan_Child should take such a concept to another, non-Christian forum section.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Denominations don't make a Christian or give anyone salvation.

Nevertheless, the message of the 'original Christianity' has become exceedingly dilute; each denomination thinks it has the right way of thinking (possibly to the exclusion of others).

So you believe the people who spoke to the ones who wrote and taught the scriptures were wrong in what they understood to be the truth, but scholars today know more. Interesting.

No. The end result of the Chinese whispers is distorted from the first rendition. Attempts throughout the ages at 'getting back to the basics' have always yeilded results other than the mainstream. The same is true for scholars attempting to do so today. Which would you trust more: a text that has been translated one, or a translation of a translation of an interpretation of a fragmented copy of a translation?

Yep to many cups of coffee which have fallen and absorbed into my keyboard, but thanks for pointing out that I need to try and clean them again. Or give in and get a new non-coffee keyboard. Not sure why it really matters since I am sure you understood what was meant, but if it is important to you that ok.

Normally, I wouldn't comment. But you said it three times, so I thought you genuinely thought it was spelt that way. I used to write 'experiance' all the time, till someone corrected me.

No threat here.

Maybe you should take that up with the Creator instead of the creation.

This would be as futile as you appealing to Shiva (I assume you don't believe any of the Hindu pantheon exists; my apologies if you do).

I have the answer to your bewilderment, and confusion, but it doesn't appear you are totally ready for that at this time anyhow.

If it involves sitting under a Bodhi tree, I'm saving that for my 30[sup]th[/sup].

Alittle confused as to what you are getting at here, will have to go back and read over the post, but it is late (3:11AM), so will have to get back to this answer.

You said:

Nothing new, because [confusion in the Church has] been going since the beginning of time.

Yet earlier you said:

the Bible tells us that in the last days people will believe unsound doctrine.

So which is it: is doctrinal confusion in the Church a portent of the Apocalypse, or is it just an on-going symptom of the Church since its inception?

I believe homosexuality is a sin, but wanted to make it clear at the start that sin is sin, and me saying and believing homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean that that is the only thing I believe is a sin or the only people I believe sins. Those type of statements are stated alot, so just wanted to get that out of the way early in the postings.

Fair enough.

He is waiting on you. He will not come in unless we open the door and invite Him in.

Rev. 3:20
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

I have been told that, too. The problem is that I neither see a door nor hear a disembodied knocking. How, exactly, does one open this door?

Sorry I'm not sure what you thinks seems to appear to contradict. Maybe I am just to tired.

It probably wasn't importent.

So you really can look at all the complexed things in the world, along with the not so complexed, and not see a Creator?

Yes. As a physicist, I can look at the complex and see how it came about from the simple. Take the relatively simple task of squishing some mass, and you end up with the fantastically complicated thing known as a black hole (and all its paraphernalia).

The problem is that the human brain never evolved for things that move very fast, or are very large or small, so special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, respectively, are completely unintuitive to us.

You really think that nothing suddenly became something and then over the years some of the something made a worm and some desided to make a tree, while other nothings wanted to be an eyeball? That really makes sense to you?

No. Caricatures of evolutionary theory rarely do. I would be more than happy to discuss evolution and common descent with you, perhaps via PM or in the formal discussion forum over at Crevo.

So is there something you are wanting me to get by typing helpmeet instead of helpmate or have you spilled to much coffee on your keyboard too?

I didn't realise you'd typed helpmate. And besides, I've always read it as 'helpmeet'. Does it really matter?

Nothing is a moot point to God, or atleast I don't believe that it is.

Quite.

You don't think that somewhere, in the 66 chapters of the Bible, that if man and man or woman and woman was meant to be, that some story of them would have come up in atleast one of the history stories told in the OT?

Arguably, it did: ever read the story of Jonathon and Samuel?

How many years and how much geneology is told in the Bible, and yet we see no Adam and Steve anywhere?

I'll give you three guesses why Adam and Steve don't make it into a geneology.

Talk about making a logical fallacy.

1) Dogs are animals.
2) Cats are animals.
3) Therefore, dogs are cats.
ZOMG

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Even if it's true that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual interactions (and you're well aware that not every Christian agrees with you on that), if you don't care what gays do in their privacy, why does what the Bible condemns matter to you on that particular issue?

What matters to me is the truth. And it's being distorted by those making claims in an effort of justification.

As long as you don't do what you believe the Bible condemns, you're okay. Taking part in debates such as this suggests that to some extent you do care what gay people do in their privacy.

I care that they (and more importantly, those who come here for information rather than bantering) are told the truth rather than what their itching ears want to hear.


Good night (or morning)

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

So you have to love obedience to his rules, but not follow them? How bizarre.

No that’s not what was said. To love God is to obey His commands and purposes see. Matthew 28, John 14, 15 and 16.

Then why do you not kill homosexuals? Or those who weave clothes from two different fibres? Or follow any of the other barbaric OT laws?

Hang on you are now confusing yourself with your own contradiction. Jesus fulfils the OT law and prophets. In Him there is no condemnation (Romans 8, John 8) He fulfils the clothing and dietry requirements (see Mark 7, Romans 12) and the sexual ones, (see Matt 15, Eph 5 etc, and notably Romans 1, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1 etc) Also Jesus NT teaching makes it clear we all fall short of God’s glory, that no-one is righteous and in sin we die. (Romans 3, Luke 15 etc) God wishes that no-one should perish, (2 Peter 3) that means some may, Jesus is the way to eternal life so as not to perish. So whether you consider OT laws barbaric or not is just your opinion, some may see Wiccan ideas as barbaric.

Fair enough.

Jet_A_Jockey makes a good point, I am continually called homophobic yet continue to socialise and be friends with homosexuals. The word seems to have a confused meaning and used too often merely as a false accusation.

Because analysing the post-translation and pre-translation texts highlights a bias: of the myriad of possible translations, the most obscure was chosen. Why? For the same basic reason "the mark of Cain" was interpreted to justify racism, or God's creating Adam first to justify sexism, or what have you.

I don’t think so, I think the idea that the translation is anything but what it says is almost baseless. Do you have a grasp of the ancient Greek even?

Where is the reference to Leviticus?

If you haven’t seen it when its pointed out you aren’t necessarily going to see it now. 1 Tim 1 refers to the law with arsenokoites and arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6:9 is in a list of sexual sins and obviously refers to the arsen and koites of the Septuagint Lev 18 & 20. That’s why we are sure its homosexual offenders.

If both are guilty, why the need to seperate the two?

Why not, at least it states clearly to those who are interested in same-sex sex that it is wrong. Perhaps this is re-affirming this point for this very reason.

Perhaps, but you did not answer my question: how do you discern whether or not someone is being guided by the Holy Spirit?

Because Jesus said the Holy Spirit will remind people all He said John 14, 15,… and of course if its true the NT writers who wrote this as well were lead by the Spirit to write the NT. So disputing the NT is Spirit lead, is a sign of not having the HolY Spirit.

How so? I don't see this distinction mentioned in the text.

I cnat see how one can miss it? Is your mind open enough to see it?

But this does not mean homosexuality is unnatural.

Well yes we can biologically as the sex of a person is defined by their sexual organs, for which opposite sex is functional as can be seen for a purpose of reproduction. For God it is, but obviously not for all people as they have indulged in same-sex sex throughout history. Yet for God’s people it isnt allowed as the Bible makes clear throughout (Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1)

The question, then, is: what is his will for us? Some say it is to be heterosexual mothers and fathers who vote for the Conservatives. Others don't.

I know but His will is what He says not what some people say. There is no concept of heterosexual in God’s Biblical account, His purpose is man and woman in union, so if one looks at the Biblical testimony from a heter/hom sexuality way of thinking it seems it blinds one from the way God has created things.

As you may have guessed, I disagree that this translation is accurate.

But based on what, your knowledge of koine Greek and Hebrew or your feelings? I suggest you would probably also disagree with all the passages which condemn or exclude same-sex unions, which means you disbelieve.

They translate it to imply a moral condemnation. Indeed, it literally translates to something like "against nature".

Then they translate it correctly, you just don’t like it. It is clutching at straws, the passage in Romans says men with men instead of with women is error, it actually makes no difference whether it is against their nature or not as Romans has already said it is the product of turning from the knowledge of God.

Arguably, it did: ever read the story of Jonathon and Samuel?

The question is did you actually read it. Kissing was common than as it is now amoung Christians, but not sexually or on the lips, and disciples of Christ love Jesus Christ more than any other man or woman. The relationship between David and Joanthan begins by identifying it as of the spirit and soul. David saw a naked woman and ended up sleeping with her and he also married woman. There is no evidence he slept with Jonathan. I think the pansexual human thinking about this account comes as a result of the inability to understand love in terms of God.

 

[JohnT]

[/color]
Wiccan_Child wasn't talking about same-sex sex, he was talking about homosexuality.David.

That is a linguistically impossible statement!

The prefixes "homo" and "hetro" are Greek. In the former, the prefix means the same, and in the latter, the prefix means different. By definition of the terms, HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS THE SAME AS SAME SEX SEXUAL ACTIONS.

 

[David Brider]

That is a linguistically impossible statement!

The prefixes "homo" and "hetro" are Greek. In the former, the prefix means the same, and in the latter, the prefix means different. By definition of the terms, HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS THE SAME AS SAME SEX SEXUAL ACTIONS.

Quite so, but homosexuality isn't the same thing as homosexual sex.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Quite so, but homosexuality isn't the same thing as homosexual sex.

But according to the word it is. This is why the whole thinking is error as the word means Homo='same' and sex='sex'' so the word is "same -sex- uality" which means its a defintion of same sex act desires, otherwise same-sex relationships are friendships.