Is the Bible correct?

[David Brider]

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".

Actually, no. Homosexuality refers to attraction, not to sexual activity. Hence, in the same way that one can be a heterosexual but not engage in heterosexual activity, so one can be a homosexual but not engage in homosexual activity.

David.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No that’s not what was said.

On the contrary, he said:
The law still exists, christians are however not held under it because of Christ's fulfillment of it.

And:

Loving God entails loving what He loves, and that is obedience to His rules.

I.e., you don't have to obey the rules, so long as you love God's love for rules. What a nifty system. I love the law, but I'm not accountable to it.

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.

I have no idea what any of that means.

So whether you consider OT laws barbaric or not is just your opinion, some may see Wiccan ideas as barbaric.

Well, of course. It was a passing comment to be taken as such. Methinks I've hit a nerve.

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.

Imagine going up to a black person and calling them sinful because of the colour of their skin. Would you construe that as racism?

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?

A little. But I take my information from modern scholars of Koine Greek.

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.

I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you be more explicit? As far as I am aware, Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew. Arsen and koites are Koine Greek. But then, isn't the Spetuagint in Greek?

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.

Except it's not. If Paul want to affirm that homosexuality is morally wrong, he would have used the word for homosexuality. Instead, he used words that had hitherto been used to describe male temple prostitutes, and of his own devising.

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.

This is not in dispute (I am taking it for granted, for the sake of discussion). With all due respect, if you are going to butt into someone else's conversation, you could at least keep track of what has been said before. It's tantamount to eavesdropping.

I cnat see how one can miss it?

One can't. That's the point.

Is your mind open enough to see it?

I'm a scientist. My mind is open.

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.

Methinks English isn't your first language. In any case, it shouldn't be a surprise that male and female parts 'fit' together. But what kind of argument is that?

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 whole point of my discussion with Jet_A_Jockey is to ascertain whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality or not.

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,

And which accout is that? KJV? NIV? YLT?

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.

Which would imply that homosexality is not a sin. Fantastic.

But based on what, your knowledge of koine Greek and Hebrew or your feelings?

Well, since I followed that sentence with an example of a mistranslation one of the key phrases, I'll let you work that out for yourself .

I suggest you would probably also disagree with all the passages which condemn or exclude same-sex unions, which means you disbelieve.

As I have said before, I don't care what the Bible says on any particular matter. I am simply in search of the truth. As such, I do not appreciate people citing fallacious translations of ancient documents.

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.

As ever, you completely miss what this point was about.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,
I notice Romans 5:8 on your signatiure.
God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
I'm very curious. What would you say to someone who said Christ couldnt have died for them as they arent a sinner? how could you convince them they were a sinner and that Christ did die for them?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Etymologically, yes. But etymology does not define a word. 'Homosexuality' is where one is attracted to members of the same gender as oneself. 'Heterosexuality' is the same, but to members of the opposite gender. 'Bisexuality' is the same, but to both genders.

Sexual intercourse itself is not an issue. One can be celebate and gay, for example (Stephen Fry springs to mind).

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,
I notice Romans 5:8 on your signatiure.
God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
I'm very curious. What would you say to someone who said Christ couldnt have died for them as they arent a sinner? how could you convince them they were a sinner and that Christ did die for them?

I'd just say that we're all sinners - that nobody, however apparently good a life they lead, can ever hope to measure up to God's standards by their own efforts.

Why do you ask?

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

Actually, no. Homosexuality refers to attraction, not to sexual activity.

Yes so that is the ‘uality’ bit. But ‘homosexual sex’ means same-sex attraction sex, which is really just same-sex sex.

 

[JohnT]

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).

WC
Since my studies of wiccanism told me that your beliefs are very eclectic, and not well organized, compared with Christianity, I am unable to state much about "wicaan theology" (yeah, I know that is an oxymoron, but humor me on that, OK?)

Nevertheless that eclecticism is the chief stumbling block that you have in understanding Christianity, or Scriptures, for that matter, and the OP. For example, EVERY church that is orthodox (as opposed to Orthodox) subscribes to the major creeds, Nicene, the Apostles, etc. Not so wiccanism. Therefore, your statement "original Christianity' has become exceedingly dilute" is an extremely vague, generalized statement, and like most generalities, totally off base.

What most Christian denominations do, excluding the cults, is adhere to the fundamentals, such as the creeds, and honor diversity on the non essentials among people holding to the same fundamentals.

Uniformly, ALL the cults focus on the exclusive nature of their own beliefs, and consign to hell the others not believing similarly. So what you did in your first paragraph is to mix the cults with the churches, and that is why your statement is so whacked out.

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?

I have no idea of where the Chinese whispers comes from, but except for chapters 1-7 of Daniel, the OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek.

As far as Biblical transmission is concerned, there are MANY books and studies on it; seminaries devote an entire course to the subject, so it is a big subject, but here is the skinny: What we have today is HIGHLY ACCURATE, and as a result, we can say that through use of the Masoretic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the many codices, papyri and other manuscripts, there is a 99.99% assurance that we are able to reconstruct the texts of the original Scriptures (autographa).

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

Another (sigh) gross generalization. Without specifics, and especially your saying that "this is the truth" nothing can be said except to say the obvious: unsubstantiated opinion.

Yet earlier [another poster] 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?

He meant the former, because you did not make your point on the latter. BTW wiccanism is a "new" example of an old practice forbidden by God. The label is different, that is all. That is because it is self-described as "Neo-Pagan", and "Earth-Centered Worship". And while you in particular may not practice any of the crafts, diviniations or magiks, others calling themselves "wiccans" do.

Nevertheless, I hope that you can see that your error stems from a faulty understanding of the nature and history of the church.

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.

.

As a physicist, do you not believe in entropy? "Devolution", not evolution is the rule, for the energy to "go up" exceeds the energy to "go down" therefore the "movement" from simple to complex is neither observed, nor scientific. (If you mean sorting, then that is a different story)

But knowledge is never a process of evolution either; instead, it is building upon the old, and obtaining new that is in congruence with the old. Evolution theory demands new species apart from the old, a totally different genus or phylum. That is why even the non-scientist can also believe in quarks or nutrinos; through calculus, we can see their theoretical existence.

However the Christian religion follows neither path. Instead it is derived from what is given by God through the Bible and creation, and intuited through following "if this, then that" reasoning in accordance with the Bible. That is how the study of Systematic Theology comes into being.

And that brings us back to the OP, and how it relates to homosexuality. You see, God did not stutter when he caused the Bible to be written. The words the Scripture writers wrote were the EXACT words that God wanted them to say, in the exact context he wanted.

Both the words and context are important, for any verse taken out of its context is a pretext; and that is what many do who distort the Bible. That is why, despite their trying, some who want to make a homosexual affair between David and Jonathan are unable to do so, as just one example of out-of-context cherry picking.

Now the issue is was God kidding when Moses wrote Leviticus? You have to find reason within the context to support the belief that God changed his mind, or that the sin of the Sodomites was NOT homosexuality--among other things.

Bottom line is that in the absence of proof of the negative position, God did not mean what he said, the affirmative must stand unopposed by all rational thinkers: God meant what he said. That is what you must deal with, not irrational, contrary-to-evidence, wishful thinking as those taking the pro homosexual position do.

 

[JohnT]

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

You make a distinction without a difference.

The practice, homosexuality is impossible without the act, homosexual sex.

I say there! You Brits have not kept up with the English language, have you?

 

[HaloHope]

You make a distinction without a difference.

The practice, homosexuality is impossible without the act, homosexual sex.

I say there! You Brits have not kept up with the English language, have you?

Erm thats nonsense.

Homosexuality isnt a "practice" its a sexual attraction. One can be homosexual, and not have homosexual sex. The attraction is still there though.

 

[David Brider]

You make a distinction without a difference.

The practice, homosexuality is impossible without the act, homosexual sex.

Homosexuality isn't a practice. It's an attraction; indeed, it's not even that - it's a state of likelihood to attraction; so, a homosexual man is likely to be attracted to other men. He may or may not be attracted to anyone specifically at the moment, but any feelings of physical/sexual/romantic attraction which he experiences will be towards other men. However, he can experience those feelings of attraction without acting on them in any way (which can include, but is by no means limited to, the sexual act itself).

So you're wrong - homosexuality without the act of homosexual sex is perfectly possible.

I say there! You Brits have not kept up with the English language, have you?

I've kept up with fine. You seem to be experiencing some problems with it, though.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

On the contrary, he said:
The law still exists, christians are however not held under it because of Christ's fulfillment of it.

Yes what he said is right, what you said is not only not right but not what he said. To obey is to do what is asked for, you suggested not. Also to love God is to obey Him whereas you were referring to loving obedience rather than God.

Loving God entails loving what He loves, and that is obedience to His rules

I.e., you don't have to obey the rules, so long as you love God's love for rules. What a nifty system. I love the law, but I'm not accountable to it.

.

Obeying His commands is loving God, you now seem to be suggesting it isnt. The scripture actually says to love God is to recognise Jesus His Son and to do what Jesus teaches, its just that Jesus teaches to love ones neighbour is one of the teachings. If the Holy Spirit leads, one can do this. But many people who don’t believe in God love others whether their idea of love is the same as God’s or not.
So if one doesn’t love ones neighbour one is disobeying God and if one wilfully sins one is disobeying God.

I have no idea what any of that means.

Well I have given you the scriptures, do you mean you don’t understand the scriptures? Take it bit by bit what exactly don’t you understand
Do you believe in Christ there is no condemnation? What do you think it means to be ‘in’ Christ?
When Jesus says it doesn’t matter what we eat and we shouldn’t worry about what we wear do you think it still does according to the OT law. When it comes to sexual relationships its not just the law that Jesus corrects, but what the law actually required in the beginning according to God’s creation purposes.

Well, of course. It was a passing comment to be taken as such. Methinks I've hit a nerve.

Not really it was juts to show your comment was opinion as it carried no reasoning.

Imagine going up to a black person and calling them sinful because of the colour of their skin. Would you construe that as racism?

But I wouldn’t do that because its nonsense. Being black isn’t a sin and Jesus NT teaching is that there is no distinction for those who are in Christ. (Gal 3, Col 3) A person is not a sexual activity.

A little. But I take my information from modern scholars of Koine Greek.

Most modern scholars don’t agree with you and if you wish to debate what they say we can do so.

I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you be more explicit? As far as I am aware, Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew. Arsen and koites are Koine Greek. But then, isn't the Spetuagint in Greek?

That’s right, the Septuagint is in Greek and so is 1 Corinthians.

Except it's not. If Paul want to affirm that homosexuality is morally wrong, he would have used the word for homosexuality. Instead, he used words that had hitherto been used to describe male temple prostitutes, and of his own devising.

Actually that’s incorrect and where you seem to have been mislead. Paul was as much the first to use this word as we can see and if he had wanted to use another word he might have missed making the precise reference to Lev 18 and 20. In addition he has used pornos which is fornication in general and could be in conjunction with temple prostitution, eidololatres which is idoloterer and could be in conjuction with temple prostitution, and moichos which could be in conjunction with temple prostitution as well as malakos. Yet he knew from Jesus teaching that moichos and pornos break what God has ordained in creation for man and woman (Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5)

I'm a scientist. My mind is open.

so you aren’t Wiccan? If you are how does science see Wicca?

Methinks English isn't your first language. In any case, it shouldn't be a surprise that male and female parts 'fit' together. But what kind of argument is that?

Methinks English isnt your primary language and Greek and Hebrew even further removed. If male and female parts fit together and male and male don’t fit together anymore than a male sex organ and any other orrafice, what does that tell you?

The whole point of my discussion with Jet_A_Jockey is to ascertain whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality or not.

You don’t need to ascertain it from Jet_A_Jockey the Bible tells you same-sex unions are condemned, hence my post with Bible citations.

And which accout is that? KJV? NIV? YLT?

All of them. All the translations are based on the scriptures which are God’s account.

Which would imply that homosexality is not a sin. Fantastic.

Which states that same-sex unions are error.

Well, since I followed that sentence with an example of a mistranslation one of the key phrases, I'll let you work that out for yourself .

Its not mistranslated, you don’t even speak Greek very well. Your view is therefore based on a faulty assumption.

As I have said before, I don't care what the Bible says on any particular matter. I am simply in search of the truth. As such, I do not appreciate people citing fallacious translations of ancient documents.

So why are you disputing what the Bible says if you don’t care? And as a Christian believe the Bible contains the teachings and revelation from the one who is the truth.
But you haven’t answered my question which is that you would probably also disagree with all the passages which condemn or exclude same-sex unions? If so what are your reasons?

 

[JohnT]

Homosexuality isn't a practice. It's an attraction; indeed, it's not even that - it's a state of likelihood to attraction; so, a homosexual man is likely to be attracted to other men. He may or may not be attracted to anyone specifically at the moment, but any feelings of physical/sexual/romantic attraction which he experiences will be towards other men. However, he can experience those feelings of attraction without acting on them in any way (which can include, but is by no means limited to, the sexual act itself).

So you're wrong - homosexuality without the act of homosexual sex is perfectly possible.

David.

David and Halo:


Go fight MANY dictionaries, then!
The words are synonyms according to these esteemed sources. Or do you have another, more esteemed source?

American Heritage Dictionary - ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty (hō'mə-sěk'shōō-āl'ĭ-tē, -mō-) n.

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

homosexuality
noun a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition -

homosexuality

A sexual attraction between persons of the same sex. (See gay and lesbian; compare heterosexuality.)

[Chapter:] Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary -

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·tyn.

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary -


Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-"sek-sh&-'wal-&t-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

[David Brider]

David and Halo:

Go fight MANY dictionaries, then!
The words are synonyms according to these esteemed sources. Or do you have another, more esteemed source?

Most people I know use "homosexuality" to describe the fact of being a homosexual, as distinct from taking part in homosexual activities. The dictionary definitions you provide tend to keep "attraction" and "action" separate within their definitions, so it's obvious that they agree that there is a distinction to be made there. It might need to be better made than it is at the moment.

How would you describe the state of being attracted (or being likely to be attracted) to people of the same gender as oneself? If you wouldn't use the word "homosexual" for that, then what word would you use? And if you would use the word "homosexual", then how would you distinguish between "homosexual but not engaging in homosexual sex" and "homosexual and engaging in homosexual sex"?

David.

 

[JohnT]

Most people I know use "homosexuality" to describe the fact of being a homosexual, as distinct from taking part in homosexual activities. The dictionary definitions you provide tend to keep "attraction" and "action" separate within their definitions, so it's obvious that they agree that there is a distinction to be made there. It might need to be better made than it is at the moment.
David.

Again, you make a distinction without a difference. ONE WORD, two synonymous meanings


Since you choose to make words mean what you (and perhaps friends) want them to mean, and not what the rest of the civilized world KNOWS they mean, the post above reminds me of Lewis Carol"s Alice in Wonderland, and here's an apt quote:

The Mock Turtle: Alice in Wonderland Quotes
Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

WC
Since my studies of wiccanism told me that your beliefs are very eclectic, and not well organized, compared with Christianity, I am unable to state much about "wicaan theology" (yeah, I know that is an oxymoron, but humor me on that, OK?)

I wouldn't call it an oxymoron, but w/e.

Nevertheless that eclecticism is the chief stumbling block that you have in understanding Christianity, or Scriptures, for that matter, and the OP. For example, EVERY church that is orthodox (as opposed to Orthodox) subscribes to the major creeds, Nicene, the Apostles, etc. Not so wiccanism. Therefore, your statement "original Christianity' has become exceedingly dilute" is an extremely vague, generalized statement, and like most generalities, totally off base.

I don't see how. First, you only include those denominations which you consider to be orthodox (but not Orthodox with a capital O; I'm not sure what the difference is). Second, you misunderstand what I was getting at. The variety of denominations stems not from the canon they subscribe to, but rather their interpretation of the texts.

My whole point was that the Christianity as understood by the earliest Christians has been come exceedingly dilute over time. This is a fact: the plethora of denomenations differ in their interpretation of just what 'Christianity' means. Protestantism and Catholicism differ on what the authors of the text meant, but by and large have the same text.

Uniformly, ALL the cults focus on the exclusive nature of their own beliefs, and consign to hell the others not believing similarly. So what you did in your first paragraph is to mix the cults with the churches, and that is why your statement is so whacked out.

And who defines what is a cult and what is a church? I can smell survivor's bias.

I have no idea of where the Chinese whispers comes from, but except for chapters 1-7 of Daniel, the OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek.

I suggest you read up on my and savedandhappy1's previous correspondances. That might clear up your confusion.

As far as Biblical transmission is concerned, there are MANY books and studies on it; seminaries devote an entire course to the subject, so it is a big subject, but here is the skinny: What we have today is HIGHLY ACCURATE, and as a result, we can say that through use of the Masoretic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the many codices, papyri and other manuscripts, there is a 99.99% assurance that we are able to reconstruct the texts of the original Scriptures (autographa).

Source?

Another (sigh) gross generalization. Without specifics, and especially your saying that "this is the truth" nothing can be said except to say the obvious: unsubstantiated opinion.

I am all for having a discussion/debate with you, but I do not appreciate you misquoting me: I was quoting another poster to highlight a contradiction of hers.

He meant the former, because you did not make your point on the latter.

I was not making a point .

BTW wiccanism is a "new" example of an old practice forbidden by God. The label is different, that is all. That is because it is self-described as "Neo-Pagan", and "Earth-Centered Worship". And while you in particular may not practice any of the crafts, diviniations or magiks, others calling themselves "wiccans" do.

I am aware of what Wicca is, thank you.

Nevertheless, I hope that you can see that your error stems from a faulty understanding of the nature and history of the church.

My error? She made two apparently inconsistent statements, and I was asking her to clarify.

As a physicist, do you not believe in entropy?

Of course. It's a perculiar trait of the universe.

"Devolution", not evolution is the rule, for the energy to "go up" exceeds the energy to "go down" therefore the "movement" from simple to complex is neither observed, nor scientific. (If you mean sorting, then that is a different story)

Wait.
Wait.
Wait.
Did you just say that "simple to complex" is neither observed nor scientific? Have you ever seen a computer chip?

I would be more than happy to discuss evolution with you (the notion of "devolution" is most troubling). Via PM, or in the Crevo forum?

But knowledge is never a process of evolution either; instead, it is building upon the old, and obtaining new that is in congruence with the old. Evolution theory demands new species apart from the old, a totally different genus or phylum. That is why even the non-scientist can also believe in quarks or nutrinos; through calculus, we can see their theoretical existence.

And through the fossil record and other lines of evidence, we can deduce the common ancestry of all life on Earth.

However the Christian religion follows neither path. Instead it is derived from what is given by God through the Bible and creation, and intuited through following "if this, then that" reasoning in accordance with the Bible. That is how the study of Systematic Theology comes into being.

Which is why it is not science: science does not start at a priori assumptions and work backward through convoluted theology.

And that brings us back to the OP, and how it relates to homosexuality. You see, God did not stutter when he caused the Bible to be written. The words the Scripture writers wrote were the EXACT words that God wanted them to say, in the exact context he wanted.

Perhaps, but the problem is understanding just what was written. If you hadn't realised, it was written in Hebrew and Koine Greek, which makes it hard for an Anglophone to understand just what is being said. Hence, the myriad of definitions and translations offered by the many versions of the Bible.

Both the words and context are important, for any verse taken out of its context is a pretext; and that is what many do who distort the Bible. That is why, despite their trying, some who want to make a homosexual affair between David and Jonathan are unable to do so, as just one example of out-of-context cherry picking.

How is it out-of-context? Reading their story is like reading one of Shakespeare's romantic tragedy.

Now the issue is was God kidding when Moses wrote Leviticus? You have to find reason within the context to support the belief that God changed his mind, or that the sin of the Sodomites was NOT homosexuality--among other things.

Well, the latter is easy: there is no mention in the Bible that the four cities were levelled for homosexuality. 'Sexual immorality' and 'strange flesh', yes, but these condemnations simply beg the question.

Bottom line is that in the absence of proof of the negative position, God did not mean what he said, the affirmative must stand unopposed by all rational thinkers: God meant what he said. That is what you must deal with, not irrational, contrary-to-evidence, wishful thinking as those taking the pro homosexual position do.

By all means, demonstrate that such arguments are a) irrational, b) contrary to the evidence, and c) based upon wishful thinking.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes what he said is right, what you said is not only not right but not what he said. To obey is to do what is asked for, you suggested not. Also to love God is to obey Him whereas you were referring to loving obedience rather than God.

I was simply reiterating what he said. Don't shoot the messenger.

So if one doesn’t love ones neighbour one is disobeying God and if one wilfully sins one is disobeying God.

Which begs the question: what is deemed 'sin'?

Well I have given you the scriptures, do you mean you don’t understand the scriptures?

I mean I don't understand any of it. The grammar and syntax do not resemble our Earth grammar and syntax.

Do you believe in Christ there is no condemnation? What do you think it means to be ‘in’ Christ?

I have absolutely no idea. Jesus is a human who allegedly existed ~2000 years ago, so being 'in' him doesn't seem to make sense.

When Jesus says it doesn’t matter what we eat and we shouldn’t worry about what we wear do you think it still does according to the OT law. When it comes to sexual relationships its not just the law that Jesus corrects, but what the law actually required in the beginning according to God’s creation purposes.

Nice cherry picking.

But I wouldn’t do that because its nonsense. Being black isn’t a sin and Jesus NT teaching is that there is no distinction for those who are in Christ. (Gal 3, Col 3) A person is not a sexual activity.
Most modern scholars don’t agree with you and if you wish to debate what they say we can do so.

I believe I am already have that discussion with other people.

Actually that’s incorrect and where you seem to have been mislead. Paul was as much the first to use this word as we can see and if he had wanted to use another word he might have missed making the precise reference to Lev 18 and 20. In addition he has used pornos which is fornication in general and could be in conjunction with temple prostitution, eidololatres which is idoloterer and could be in conjuction with temple prostitution, and moichos which could be in conjunction with temple prostitution as well as malakos. Yet he knew from Jesus teaching that moichos and pornos break what God has ordained in creation for man and woman (Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5)

You appear to contradict yourself: you seem to strongly agree that Paul is condemning temple prostitution by the words he chose to use, yet then arbitrarily make an anti-homosexuality conclusion. Why?

so you aren’t Wiccan?

I am both a scientist and Wiccan.

If you are how does science see Wicca?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Science is a methodology, a mindset. It doesn't have views and opinions.

Methinks English isnt your primary language and Greek and Hebrew even further removed. If male and female parts fit together and male and male don’t fit together anymore than a male sex organ and any other orrafice, what does that tell you?

It tells me nothing. The human penis and orangutang vagina also fit together. Do you therefore advocate bestiality?

You don’t need to ascertain it from Jet_A_Jockey the Bible tells you same-sex unions are condemned, hence my post with Bible citations.
All of them. All the translations are based on the scriptures which are God’s account.

Again, you misunderstand me. Gods, give me strength...

Its not mistranslated, you don’t even speak Greek very well. Your view is therefore based on a faulty assumption.

I do not appreciate ad hominem attacks. Show me my error.

So why are you disputing what the Bible says if you don’t care?

Because other people care. There are Christians who genuinely believe that the Bible condemns homosexual sex and marriage, and wish to impose their religious beliefs upon the masses. I oppose this.

But you haven’t answered my question which is that you would probably also disagree with all the passages which condemn or exclude same-sex unions? If so what are your reasons?

I did answer your question: you presume that I am operating with a bias, yet I am not. I said I do not care what the Bible concludes to show you that I do not interpret or translate the Bible with a bias, contrary to your assumption.

 

[David Brider]

Again, you make a distinction without a difference.

No, there's very obviously a difference between attraction (physical/sexual/romantic) and sexual activity. The first can definitely take place without the second, even if the second is unlikely to take place without the first.

ONE WORD, two synonymous meanings.

No, the meanings aren't synonymous at all.

And I notice you didn't answer the question I asked you:

How would you describe the state of being attracted (or being likely to be attracted) to people of the same gender as oneself? If you wouldn't use the word "homosexual" for that, then what word would you use? And if you would use the word "homosexual", then how would you distinguish between "homosexual but not engaging in homosexual sex" and "homosexual and engaging in homosexual sex"?

David.

 

[savedandhappy1]

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).

If the differences don't have anything to do with Salvation, then I really don't think they are important enough to dwell on. I really don't see how the differences that don't have anything to do with salvation have exceedingly dilute Christianity, but maybe I'm not totally understanding what you are referring to.

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?

From my studing of the old manuscripts and fragmented copies I have found that they have recovered alot of the Bible. I also think that it is important to know that old manuscripts that were found along way apart were found to have no errors that changed the meanings of the scriptures.

This show me that God is more than able to keep His word from being biases, prejudices and from human errors that would change what He wants us to know.

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).

You are right in your assumption are correct, so no apology needed. Sorry that you don't see that there is a Creator to go with the creations, and hopefully without offense I will tell you how I will pray that that changes for you.

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?

Alittle of both I guess would be the best way to answer this. Paul felt called to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles and some of those that felt called to preach the Gospel to the Jews were confused about whether the Gentiles should follow all the rules of the Jews. ( circumcision, what foods should be eaten, etc.)

Things like I mentioned above I place in the area of confusion. Things that have to do with if everyone will go to heaven, what it takes to be saved, what sin is and what the penalty for sin is, is there a hell and who will go there, etc. has to do with unsound doctrine to 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?

Romans 10:13 "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved!"
- Call out to God in the name of Jesus!​

​

Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
- If you know that God is knocking on your heart's door,
ask Him to come into your heart.

Jesus said,
Revelation 3:20a "Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him..."
- Is Jesus knocking on your heart's door?​

Believe in Him.​

Ask Him to come in to your heart by faith,​

and ask Him to reveal Himself to you.​

Open the Bible to the Gospel of John and read what God says about Jesus,​

about you, and about being born again. ​

God will help you. He loves you. ​

The door is referring to your heart, and the knocking is the sofe voice of the Lord calling you to Him. Opening the door just means that you are asking Him to forgive you and to come live within your heart.

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.

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.

I will get back with you on this, as I don't believe I have the time right now to give my full attention to a discussion on evolution vs. God right now, but thanks for the offer. When I get some more time I will see if you are still interested in this.

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

Nope doesn't matter as long as I wasn't missing some point you were trying to make.

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

I will assume you are meaning David and Jonathon, and yes I have studied the story, and see nothing that would make most believe that the friendship was anyting more than that.

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


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

1. God meant man and woman to be one flesh
2. God created them male and female, while pointing out that man shouldn't be alone so He gave him a female helpmate.
3. Because Adam and Steve can't have a geneology since they can't have children of their own, because God didn't make their bodies to fit together as one flesh.

So is there some reason why you felt sarcasim was needed (ZOMG)?

I thought we were sharing our opinions and beliefs for better understanding in a nice friendly manner, and so am confused why..............................

Nevermind, didn't mean to bother with questions, and won't bother you again.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the differences don't have anything to do with Salvation, then I really don't think they are important enough to dwell on. I really don't see how the differences that don't have anything to do with salvation have exceedingly dilute Christianity, but maybe I'm not totally understanding what you are referring to.

We are talking about the Christianity of the original Christians. The particular classes of beliefs hasn't come into the conversation, up till now.

You are right in your assumption are correct, so no apology needed. Sorry that you don't see that there is a Creator to go with the creations, and hopefully without offense I will tell you how I will pray that that changes for you.

Of that I have no doubt.

Alittle of both I guess would be the best way to answer this. Paul felt called to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles and some of those that felt called to preach the Gospel to the Jews were confused about whether the Gentiles should follow all the rules of the Jews. ( circumcision, what foods should be eaten, etc.)

Things like I mentioned above I place in the area of confusion. Things that have to do with if everyone will go to heaven, what it takes to be saved, what sin is and what the penalty for sin is, is there a hell and who will go there, etc. has to do with unsound doctrine to me.

Fair enough.

The door is referring to your heart, and the knocking is the sofe voice of the Lord calling you to Him. Opening the door just means that you are asking Him to forgive you and to come live within your heart.

And how does one do that? I must say, I appreciate your candour. Most other Christians would have just harpooned me with more metaphors.

I will get back with you on this, as I don't believe I have the time right now to give my full attention to a discussion on evolution vs. God right now, but thanks for the offer. When I get some more time I will see if you are still interested in this.

I look forward to it.

I will assume you are meaning David and Jonathon, and yes I have studied the story, and see nothing that would make most believe that the friendship was anyting more than that.

Aha, yes, David and Jonathan, my mistake.
Well, the verse that strikes me as being most indicative of a romantic relationship is:

1 Samuel 18:1-4
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Emphasis added. Such a covenant is highly unusual for the times, unless the perons involved were lovers. Naturally, the entire narrative paints a more obvious picture, but this particular passage is most telling.

1. God meant man and woman to be one flesh
2. God created them male and female, while pointing out that man shouldn't be alone so He gave him a female helpmate.
3. Because Adam and Steve can't have a geneology since they can't have children of their own, because God didn't make their bodies to fit together as one flesh.

Preciesly. But, as biological evidence shows, homosexuality is not an abberation of nature. So although God made them male and female, this is not an issue of moral edict. It is a logical necessity: the first couple had to be male and female, regardless of the subsequent moral status of homosexual unions.

So is there some reason why you felt sarcasim was needed (ZOMG)?

I thought we were sharing our opinions and beliefs for better understanding in a nice friendly manner, and so am confused why..............................

You mentioned logical fallacies. Given our jovial conversation, I gave an example of a classical logical fallacy (technically, it was an example of equivocation). The 'ZOMG' bit was my way of pretending to be shocked and appalled at the conclusion that pigs can fly .

I assure you, I meant no offense.

Nevermind, didn't mean to bother with questions, and won't bother you again.

A pity, I was enjoying our discussion.

 

[JohnT]

Nevertheless that eclecticism is the chief stumbling block that you have in understanding Christianity, or Scriptures, for that matter, and the OP. For example, EVERY church that is orthodox (as opposed to Orthodox) subscribes to the major creeds, Nicene, the Apostles, etc. Not so wiccanism. Therefore, your statement "original Christianity' has become exceedingly dilute" is an extremely vague, generalized statement, and like most generalities, totally off base.

interpretation[/i] of the texts.

My whole point was that the Christianity as understood by the earliest Christians has been come exceedingly dilute over time. This is a fact: the plethora of denomenations (sic) differ in their interpretation of just what 'Christianity' means. Protestantism and Catholicism differ on what the authors of the text meant, but by and large have the same text.

STILL it is an extremely vague, generalized statement, and like most generalities, totally off base. Repeating a baseless charge does not make it true. You show no proof. Thus the statement is bogus, and has not changed.

Uniformly, ALL the cults focus on the exclusive nature of their own beliefs, and consign to hell the others not believing similarly. So what you did in your first paragraph is to mix the cults with the churches, and that is why your statement is so whacked out.

I do not know what you smell, unless you stepped on something on your lawn. There are common definitions for cults, look them up, and then ask me about that, OK?

I have no idea of where the Chinese whispers comes from, but except for chapters 1-7 of Daniel, the OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek.

I suggest you read up on my and savedandhappy1's previous correspondances. (sic) That might clear up your confusion.

As far as Biblical transmission is concerned, there are MANY books and studies on it; seminaries devote an entire course to the subject, so it is a big subject, but here is the skinny: What we have today is HIGHLY ACCURATE, and as a result, we can say that through use of the Masoretic texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the many codices, papyri and other manuscripts, there is a 99.99% assurance that we are able to reconstruct the texts of the original Scriptures (autographa).

Source?

Do you really want to see my Critical Apparatus, or the many books I have on Biblical inerrancy, transmission and canon? Of course, to use the Critical Apparatus, you have to be familiar with both Greek and the various manuscripts, codices, etc

BTW wiccanism is a "new" example of an old practice forbidden by God. The label is different, that is all. That is because it is self-described as "Neo-Pagan", and "Earth-Centered Worship". And while you in particular may not practice any of the crafts, divinations or magiks, others calling themselves "wiccans" do.

I am aware of what Wicca is, thank you .

Nevertheless, I hope that you can see that your error stems from a faulty understanding of the nature and history of the church.

My error? She made two apparently inconsistent statements, and I was asking her to clarify.

As a physicist, do you not believe in entropy?

Of course. It's a perculiar (sic) trait of the universe.

"Devolution", not evolution is the rule, for the energy to "go up" exceeds the energy to "go down" therefore the "movement" from simple to complex is neither observed, nor scientific. (If you mean sorting, then that is a different story)

Wait.
Wait.
Wait.
Did you just say that "simple to complex" is neither observed nor scientific? Have you ever seen a computer chip?

In case you did not realize computer chips are INORGANIC, and their getting smaller is a matter of technology following Moor’s Law. The theory of evolution deals with LIFE FORMS. By any chance are you mistaking biology for physics?

I would be more than happy to discuss evolution with you (the notion of "devolution" is most troubling). Via PM, or in the Crevo forum?

Guess what you get if you allow dogs to reproduce randomly: mutts. That is an example of devolution, entropy. No matter how hard you or anyone tries, no one can point to any living specie that has been observed morphing from another specie.

But knowledge is never a process of evolution either; instead, it is building upon the old, and obtaining new that is in congruence with the old. Evolution theory demands new species apart from the old, a totally different genus or phylum. That is why even the non-scientist can also believe in quarks or neutrinos; through calculus, we can see their theoretical existence.

And through the fossil record and other lines of evidence, we can deduce the common ancestry of all life on Earth.

Deduction is not the same as observation. Did you not learn that in school? To be “scientific” it has to be observed, and repeatable. By definition, creation is neither observable, nor repeatable.

However the Christian religion follows neither path. Instead it is derived from what is given by God through the Bible and creation, and intuited through following "if this, then that" reasoning in accordance with the Bible. That is how the study of Systematic Theology comes into being.

Which is why it is not science: science does not start at a priori assumptions and work backward through convoluted theology.

Science indeed makes a priori assumptions. It assumes that it can answer all questions via experimentation, and that is chutzpah.
The Bible does begin with an assumption: God exists. The third word in the Hebrew Bible is God (Elohim), and then it goes on to state what created. More important, it details how He covenants with his highest creation, humanity.

And that brings us back to the OP, and how it relates to homosexuality. You see, God did not stutter when he caused the Bible to be written. The words the Scripture writers wrote were the EXACT words that God wanted them to say, in the exact context he wanted.

Perhaps, but the problem is understanding just what was written. If you hadn't realised, (sic) it was written in Hebrew and Koine Greek, which makes it hard for an Anglophone to understand just what is being said. Hence, the myriad of definitions and translations offered by the many versions of the Bible.

Would you like me to find good translations for you to read? I can do some, but not as well as others can. That way, you will be sure to know what God ACTUALLY says, OK?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47166700#post47166700
Both the words and context are important, for any verse taken out of its context is a pretext; and that is what many do who distort the Bible. That is why, despite their trying, some who want to make a homosexual affair between David and Jonathan are unable to do so, as just one example of out-of-context cherry picking.

How is it out-of-context? Reading their story is like reading one of Shakespeare's romantic tragedy.

I agree that the ending of all of Saul’s family is tragic because he disobeyed God (see 1 Kings 15-17); as also is the life of David, one of Israel’s greatest kings a tragic life. But for anyone to state that their love for each other was a homosexual mélange, that is belief contrary to any supporting facts.

Now the issue is was God kidding when Moses wrote Leviticus? You have to find reason within the context to support the belief that God changed his mind, or that the sin of the Sodomites was NOT homosexuality--among other things.

Well, the latter is easy: there is no mention in the Bible that the four cities were leveled for homosexuality. 'Sexual immorality' and 'strange flesh', yes, but these condemnations simply beg the question.

Ah, English fails us here. In Hebrew, it is abundantly clear that they wanted to have sex with the angels.

Bottom line is that in the absence of proof of the negative position, God did not mean what he said, the affirmative must stand unopposed by all rational thinkers: God meant what he said. That is what you must deal with, not irrational, contrary-to-evidence, wishful thinking as those taking the pro homosexual position do.

By all means, demonstrate that such arguments are a) irrational, b) contrary to the evidence, and c) based upon wishful thinking.

Logic, WC, logic! This is a debate forum. The rules of debate are that I have to assert the positive, and then I supply the facts that back up my thesis. I have done that. That states my case.

Next, you need to find fault with the supporting details that I have posted. It is your job to counter the affirmative, which you have failed to do. You have failed to establish that my arguments are a) irrational, b) contrary to the evidence, and c) based upon wishful thinking. Until such a time comes, then my position remains established, and unanswered.

You see, WC, God made the rules. All I do is repeat them as they are stated regarding homosexuality, or any other sin. And to call homosexuality a sin is the most freeing, loving thing that anyone can do, In doing so, there is forgiveness, and reconciliation to God for all who repent.

Is it not a loving act to call humanity back to their creator? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God, and all who refuse him are headed for a godless, horrid eternity. The easy thing to do is to seek his face, and draw near, and he will come to you. Do not harden your heart, WC. There is still time to get right with God.

Bottom line is that homosexuality is an abomination as is wiccanism. It is a "new" example of an old practice forbidden by God. The label is different, that is all. That is because it is self-described as "Neo-Pagan", and "Earth-Centered Worship". And while you in particular may not practice any of the crafts, divinations or magiks, others calling themselves "wiccans" do. These are all “occult” (actual meaning hidden) practices, and they are attempts at usurping the prerogatives of God. That is why he calls them all detestable.

[FONT=&quot]Wise up, WC! Do not be fooled by those over you. Only Jesus can save your soul, but you gotta sincerely ask Him to do that.[/FONT]