• 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.

Look at the logic

marksman315

Finally in the Fight
Jul 27, 2008
134
14
United States
Visit site
✟22,892.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No. I have never said that, nor have I alluded to that. My position is that, if something is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, then one cannot use the Bible to condemn it. It's also worth pointing out the dubious translation of quite a number of key verses; depending on which source you read, there are a number of incompatible translations (in this case, there are pro-gay, anti-gay, and neutral translations).

I have given you the verses on this (unless I wrote it to someone else), please check earlier in this thread. I still would like to know where you get your versions of those verses from, and what they actually state.

Nevertheless, my logic stands: the vast majority of relationships are heterosexual, so it makes sense to use that as the default for his literary rhetoric.

Sorry, your logic does not stand. The majority of ancient Greeks where bi-sexual. He wrote this to the church in Corinth which is in Greece.

On the contrary, the lawyer seeks to have his presupposed opinion proven: that is his goal. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the specifics of Biblical morality, just so long as we agree. It could explicitly condone paedophilic bestiality with a dash of watersports for all the impact it would have on me.

The lawyer twists the truth to fit his goal. My only goal is to see the truth in its purest form, unadulterated by people with agenda and bias.

If this is how you feel, then why are you here debating this? It seems like you just want to cause problems. Your "truth" is your "truth". You came to a Christian forum to debate your version of "truth" versus our version. What kind of answers are you expecting to get? We have God and the Bible, and you have yourself. You are free to do what you want, so why do you care what we (Christians) think?
 
Upvote 0

*Starlight*

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time
Jan 19, 2005
75,346
1,474
38
Right in front of you *waves*
Visit site
✟140,803.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The logic is that it is exactly as it was written. There are no hidden meanings that I can see in it or anything that makes this passage wide open. For a Christian this should be an important set of verses, but for non-Christians, this really does not matter. If your logic means you are adding to the Bible then that is at your own risk, and your own choosing. I'm just going by what it states and the context of when and where it was written.
I simply don't see any reasons why what you posted before wouldn't apply to homosexual relationships as well. If you know any such reasons, you can post them and I'll consider them. :)
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I have given you the verses on this (unless I wrote it to someone else), please check earlier in this thread.
I know what the verses are.

I still would like to know where you get your versions of those verses from, and what they actually state.
Take [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1 Cor[/FONT]inthians 6:9-10, for instance. The KJV translates these as:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The emboldened terms are typically interpreted as condemnations of homosexuality, and other translations are more explicit in this (the latter, for instance, is often rendered as simply "nor homosexuals"). However, this is almost certainly not Paul's intent: he used the words 'malakoi (μαλακοι)' and 'arsenokoitai (αρσενοκοιται)', respectively. The former refers to the 'morally soft', and was typically used to refer to the young, male, anal temple prostitutes. The latter is a word seems to have been coined by Paul; etymologically, it means 'man-bed' (arsen-koitai). Given the preceding word, it is likely that 'arsenokoitai' refers to those who indulged themselves in the malakoi (for want of a better phrase).

And besides, if he had wanted to condemn homosexuality, he would have used the word "paiderasste", which was the standard Greek term at the time for general male-male sex.

Sorry, your logic does not stand. The majority of ancient Greeks where bi-sexual. He wrote this to the church in Corinth which is in Greece.
Nevertheless, heterosexual was the norm in the world at large. Paul knew this, and was probably drawing on the norms and his own Jewish background. Besides, you haven't explained why his terminology implies that marriage is to the exclusion of same-sex couples.

If this is how you feel, then why are you here debating this?
I come here because I want to learn why people believe things differently to me, because I enjoy debate, and because there are a surprising number of misconceptions about science and (to a lesser extent) mathematics.

It seems like you just want to cause problems. Your "truth" is your "truth".
No. Truth is truth, regardless of belief.

You came to a Christian forum to debate your version of "truth" versus our version.
No, I did not. When I learned of your beliefs, and why you believed them, I noticed faulty logic. Thus, I began to discuss this with you.

What kind of answers are you expecting to get? We have God and the Bible, and you have yourself. You are free to do what you want, so why do you care what we (Christians) think?
Because it is the anti-gay movement that wishes to impose their beliefs upon me. Because, just as they have every right to espouse their views, I have every right to criticise them. If I concurred with their exegesis, then I would say no more about it; I would, instead, redouble my scrutiny on misunderstandings of homosexuality and the science surrounding it. However, this is not the case: in my opinion, the Bible was never intended to condemn homosexuality.
 
Upvote 0

marksman315

Finally in the Fight
Jul 27, 2008
134
14
United States
Visit site
✟22,892.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I simply don't see any reasons why what you posted before wouldn't apply to homosexual relationships as well. If you know any such reasons, you can post them and I'll consider them. :)

The exact reason is that it states "husband and wife". It does not state "husband and husband" or "wife and wife". It either comes down to believing what you read or not believing it. God gave you the choice to do this.
 
Upvote 0

marksman315

Finally in the Fight
Jul 27, 2008
134
14
United States
Visit site
✟22,892.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Wiccan_Child,

We are at the point where we just need to respectfully disagree with each other. I think your logic is wrong and you think my logic is wrong. Our versions of truth are incompatible with each other, and we could keep telling each other the same things over and over again and not get any where.

However, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views. We have given each other more insight into the thinking of the "other side", and at least we can take that knowledge and apply it further in other discussions.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Wiccan_Child,

We are at the point where we just need to respectfully disagree with each other. I think your logic is wrong and you think my logic is wrong. Our versions of truth are incompatible with each other, and we could keep telling each other the same things over and over again and not get any where.
Agreed. When was the last time you saw one poster sway another ^_^.

However, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views. We have given each other more insight into the thinking of the "other side", and at least we can take that knowledge and apply it further in other discussions.
It's the best we can hope for. Good talking to ya :wave:.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Just in case anyone wants to know the Gay Christian Agenda...it's JESUS
On the contrary, Jesus is how we know it isnt.
Jesus teaches that God's creation purpose is man and woman to be united and that men with men instead of with women is error. The gay agenda denies that and is threfore not Christian in that respect.
Ref. Gen 2, Romans 1
 
Upvote 0