Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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".
No that’s not what was said.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
One can't. That's the point.I cnat see how one can miss it?
I'm a scientist. My mind is open.Is your mind open enough to see it?
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)
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.
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.
As ever, you completely miss what this point was about.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.
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.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.
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?
Yes so that is the ‘uality’ bit. But ‘homosexual sex’ means same-sex attraction sex, which is really just same-sex sex.Actually, no. Homosexuality refers to attraction, not to sexual activity.
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).
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.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?
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.Nothing new, because [confusion in the Church has] been going since the beginning of time.
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.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?
.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.
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?
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?
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.On the contrary, he said:
The law still exists, christians are however not held under it because of Christ's fulfillment of 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.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.
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 understandI have no idea what any of that means.
Not really it was juts to show your comment was opinion as it carried no reasoning.Well, of course. It was a passing comment to be taken as such. Methinks I've hit a nerve.
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.Imagine going up to a black person and calling them sinful because of the colour of their skin. Would you construe that as racism?
Most modern scholars don’t agree with you and if you wish to debate what they say we can do so.A little. But I take my information from modern scholars of Koine Greek.
That’s right, the Septuagint is in Greek and so is 1 Corinthians.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?
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)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.
so you aren’t Wiccan? If you are how does science see Wicca?I'm a scientist. My mind is open.
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?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?
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.The whole point of my discussion with Jet_A_Jockey is to ascertain whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality or not.
All of them. All the translations are based on the scriptures which are God’s account.And which accout is that? KJV? NIV? YLT?
Which states that same-sex unions are error.Which would imply that homosexality is not a sin. Fantastic.
Its not mistranslated, you don’t even speak Greek very well. Your view is therefore based on a faulty assumption.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 .
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.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.
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?
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.
I wouldn't call it an oxymoron, but w/e.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 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.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.
And who defines what is a cult and what is a church? I can smell survivor's bias.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 suggest you read up on my and savedandhappy1's previous correspondances. That might clear up your confusion.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.
Source?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).
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.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 was not making a pointHe meant the former, because you did not make your point on the latter.
I am aware of what Wicca is, thank you.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.
My error? She made two apparently inconsistent statements, and I was asking her to clarify.Nevertheless, I hope that you can see that your error stems from a faulty understanding of the nature and history of the church.
Of course. It's a perculiar trait of the universe.As a physicist, do you not believe in entropy?
Wait."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)
And through the fossil record and other lines of evidence, we can deduce the common ancestry of all life on Earth.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.
Which is why it is not science: science does not start at a priori assumptions and work backward through convoluted theology.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.
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.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.
How is it out-of-context? Reading their story is like reading one of Shakespeare's romantic tragedy.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.
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.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.
By all means, demonstrate that such arguments are a) irrational, b) contrary to the evidence, and c) based upon wishful thinking.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.
I was simply reiterating what he said. Don't shoot the messenger.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.
Which begs the question: what is deemed 'sin'?So if one doesnt love ones neighbour one is disobeying God and if one wilfully sins one is disobeying God.
I mean I don't understand any of it. The grammar and syntax do not resemble our Earth grammar and syntax.Well I have given you the scriptures, do you mean you dont understand the scriptures?
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.Do you believe in Christ there is no condemnation? What do you think it means to be in Christ?
Nice cherry picking.When Jesus says it doesnt matter what we eat and we shouldnt 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 Gods creation purposes.
I believe I am already have that discussion with other people.But I wouldnt do that because its nonsense. Being black isnt 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 dont agree with you and if you wish to debate what they say we can do so.
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?Actually thats 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 am both a scientist and Wiccan.so you arent Wiccan?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Science is a methodology, a mindset. It doesn't have views and opinions.If you are how does science see Wicca?
It tells me nothing. The human penis and orangutang vagina also fit together. Do you therefore advocate bestiality?Methinks English isnt your primary language and Greek and Hebrew even further removed. If male and female parts fit together and male and male dont fit together anymore than a male sex organ and any other orrafice, what does that tell you?
Again, you misunderstand me. Gods, give me strength...You dont 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 Gods account.
I do not appreciate ad hominem attacks. Show me my error.Its not mistranslated, you dont even speak Greek very well. Your view is therefore based on a faulty assumption.
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.So why are you disputing what the Bible says if you dont care?
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.But you havent 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?
Again, you make a distinction without a difference.
ONE WORD, two synonymous meanings.
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"?
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).
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?
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 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 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?
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 didn't realise you'd typed helpmate. And besides, I've always read it as 'helpmeet'. Does it really matter?
Arguably, it did: ever read the story of Jonathon and Samuel?
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
We are talking about the Christianity of the original Christians. The particular classes of beliefs hasn't come into the conversation, up till now.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.
Of that I have no doubt.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.
Fair enough.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.
And how does one do that? I must say, I appreciate your candour. Most other Christians would have just harpooned me with more metaphors.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.
I look forward to it.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.
Aha, yes, David and Jonathan, my mistake.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.
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.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.
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 flySo 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..............................
A pity, I was enjoying our discussion.Nevermind, didn't mean to bother with questions, and won't bother you again.
John T said: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.
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.Wiccan_Child;47172625 I don't see how. First said: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.
John T said: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?
John T said: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.
John T said: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
John T said: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 .
John T said: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.John T said:As a physicist, do you not believe in entropy?Of course. It's a perculiar (sic) trait of the universe.
John T said:"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 Moors Law. The theory of evolution deals with LIFE FORMS. By any chance are you mistaking biology for physics?
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.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?
John T said: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.
John T said: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.Science indeed makes a priori assumptions. It assumes that it can answer all questions via experimentation, and that is chutzpah.Which is why it is not science: science does not start at a priori assumptions and work backward through convoluted theology.
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.
John T said: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.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?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.
John T said: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.I agree that the ending of all of Sauls family is tragic because he disobeyed God (see 1 Kings 15-17); as also is the life of David, one of Israels 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.How is it out-of-context? Reading their story is like reading one of Shakespeare's romantic tragedy.
John T said: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.Ah, English fails us here. In Hebrew, it is abundantly clear that they wanted to have sex with the angels.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.
John T said: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="]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]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?