Perverted homosexual arguments

[PinkTulip]

Man, what. You sound a little...uh...crazy.

He's joking...he is always a little nuts.

 

[kiwimac]

The following is quite an interesting interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 from a Rabbi.

. . . According to the principle of kelal ufrat uchlal, the general terms ("kol she'eir besaro / anyone of his own flesh" and "mishkevei ishah / the lyings of a woman") only apply to items that are similar to the specific items on the list, viz. incestuous and adulterous relationships. However, the general terms extend the reach of the specific list so that it includes some additional prohibited relationships in the same general category. Leviticus 18:22 says that the male addressee should not lie these mishkevei ishah with a male. Therefore, just as a man is forbidden from having sex with his mother, his sister, or a married woman, he is also forbidden from having sex with his father, his brother, or a married man. Likewise, since all of these commandments apply to women as well, we can derive an equivalent category of forbidden relationships between two women. . .

SOURCE:

 

[Full_Moon]

The following is quite an interesting interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 from a Rabbi.



SOURCE:

You said something a while back, I questioned it, then you never responded.

Months ago (I checked my email), the same thing occured. You said you were going to get back to me but never did....

Not to over-generalize. But that makes three times in total that I recall you simply ignoring my questioning at critical points. Dave keeps doing that as well. He is asked to name the 28 denominations and he gives a few shaky ones. He is asked simple questions and responds with side-stepping answers that are not answers to the questions.

Is there something to all this or is it just you both being rude? I get the feeling you know when you're aproaching disproof and so you avoid being proven wrong to your self by fleeing.

If a single pro-gay person would follow one single line of reasoning I would be impressed. More so, I could stop being so creeped out by the strange behavior at critical moments.

I'll add in a reason why this is of interest to me. It has been my experience with all kinds of spiritual blindness that the one who is blinded seems to have some form of heightened subconscious-type intellegence that allows them to continue in blindness without being confronted with undeniable reality. In so many ways with so many issues I have witnessed this. I can only explain it as chasing a snake in the grass, that each time I am about to grab the tail it runs off. Of course this is just observation.

 

[davedjy]

You said something a while back, I questioned it, then you never responded.

Months ago (I checked my email), the same thing occured. You said you were going to get back to me but never did....

Not to over-generalize. But that makes three times in total that I recall you simply ignoring my questioning at critical points. Dave keeps doing that as well. He is asked to name the 28 denominations and he gives a few shaky ones. He is asked simple questions and responds with side-stepping answers that are not answers to the questions.

Is there something to all this or is it just you both being rude? I get the feeling you know when you're aproaching disproof and so you avoid being proven wrong to your self by fleeing.

If a single pro-gay person would follow one single line of reasoning I would be impressed. More so, I could stop being so creeped out by the strange behavior at critical moments.

I'll add in a reason why this is of interest to me. It has been my experience with all kinds of spiritual blindness that the one who is blinded seems to have some form of heightened subconscious-type intellegence that allows them to continue in blindness without being confronted with undeniable reality. In so many ways with so many issues I have witnessed this. I can only explain it as chasing a snake in the grass, that each time I am about to grab the tail it runs off. Of course this is just observation.

I DID give some of the denominations, quite a few in my area alone. Presbyterian, UCC, Metropolitan Community Church, a few Catholic ones, a Quaker one, etc. I have said this many times, so don't even suggest that I side-stepped that question, I have said it, and ask other members, because I posted some of the denominations already!


I believe you are spiritually blind on this, and you believe I am, that isn't really a credible argument either way...

 

[Full_Moon]

I DID give some of the denominations, quite a few in my area alone. Presbyterian, UCC, Metropolitan Community Church, a few Catholic ones, a Quaker one, etc. I have said this many times, so don't even suggest that I side-stepped that question, I have said it, and ask other members, because I posted some of the denominations already!


I believe you are spiritually blind on this, and you believe I am, that isn't really a credible argument either way...

The question was to name them. The answer did not name them, it only named a few. And of those few only one I found appeared to have a solid stance on the issue. In order to answer the question, as it was asked, you would have had to name 28 denominations that had a policy of accepting homosexual relations. You did not answer the question. Yet this was not my question and only pertained to your honesty in making the claim that 28 denominations etc etc..

A real example is this: You admitted many scriptures referenced the law regarding sexual morality. I asked you what the law regarding sexual morality is in scripture. Your answer was that it is only a purity code. You failed to answer the question. You have yet to quote the scriptures of the law regarding sexual morality that you've already admitted to exist.

I asked you which concordance you were using because your explanation of a word was different than my concordance. You answered this question by saying you had already answered it and then repeating your definition which still disagreed with my concordance. This stems from your refusal to confront the fact that it is an abomination to God for one man to lay with another man as with a woman.

In the thread we first communicated on I asked you to verify your claim that the 18th chapter of leviticus was not relevant to sexual morality. I asked you to verify your statements by all the other verses to see if you would agree that it is morally O.K. to have sex with your mom, your sister, your dog etc etc. Of course you didn't answer this because you would be condoning what is obviously immoral, such things as having sex with your mom, sister and dog. We have a chapter of obvious sexually immoral activities and you have deemed it not important, calling it a "purity code" Yet you refuse to answer me in confronting every verse in the same way you explain the one on male-intercourse as a "purity code" and not about morality or relevant to us.

I could go on, but this should suffice for now. I will not mention what I read others complaining about in your answers to the questions they ask.

Here is a prediction. You will still not answer the questions. You will pick one and appear to answer it while disregarding the rest. Likely you will choose the one about the 28 denominations because it is complettely besides any good point. But who knows what genius you will come up with in avoiding the real issue. I say this to corner you, to push you further. By following my prediction it will give truth to my words in your ears. The best thing to do is get insulted or think me an idiot and deem none of these questions as important enough to answer.... For if you answered them all specifically to how they were asked.... It would be very very difficult to maintain the claims you have made. (psst, get a bigger and better claim, get onto another side-step issue)

 

[Der Alte]

Sorry- what is the English Translation

Ah but this is a test to see how clever someone is.

 

[Der Alte]

NOTHING is going to change my opinion on this, absolutely nothing! I have been set free by the Holy Spirit...more than any of this head knowledge, so I know Der Alter is incorrect somehow.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. You “somehow” know that I am incorrect?

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Prov 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.​

Quoting old Jewish texts does not equate "the Heart of God". If one of my sources is lacking in certain credentials, he feels the need to refute the whole source, which is unreasonable at best.

Then why did you first quote a Jewish Rabbi claiming that the Talmud, OBTW an old Jewish text, said something it did NOT say? In response, I quoted the actual Talmud, not a second hand false reference. It’s too bad the actual Talmud does not support homosexuality as you, and that rabbi, claimed, and I proved.

God will not, cannot contradict his revealed word, the scriptures. So people better be careful about calling their highly subjective feelings, “the Heart of God" and “set free by the Holy Spirit.”

You seem to have duped yourself into believing that anything, written by anybody, anywhere, as long as it supports homosexuality is right, and that anything which proves otherwise, is wrong. And you check nothing, verify nothing. OTOH, I believe that only people knowledgeable in a particular field are qualified to speak meaningfully on that subject. Just because a person has a PhD, does not make them an expert in Biblical languages or history.

For example, both a brain surgeon and a proctologist are MDs but I would not want a proctologist performing brain surgery on me. Although I can see how that may be necessary for some people.

Your two main guys, Boswell, was a history professor, no indication he had any specific education in Biblical languages or church history. Your other guy, Campolo, is a retired sociology professor, also no specific education in Biblical languages or church history. Neither one of them is competent to say what a Greek word does, or does not, mean or make pronouncements about church history.

You may wish to stop saying "hypocrisy"...
Do you know the rules of this forum?

Is this the same guy who called someone’s post “garbage” and “crap?”

I'm more familiar with the ENGLISH DICTIONARY VERSION

HOMOPHOBIA - unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

What did ya think a phobia was? it's a fear.

Good, I quoted directly from the Webster’s Collegiate. Even your “ENGLISH DICTIONARY VERSION,” includes the meaning “antipathy.” My point, which flew right over your head, is the word “phobe,” when used in combination, has more than one meaning. Therefore, when I said, “God is a Sinophobe,” it did not mean that God is afraid of sin but has antipathy toward it. It seems, not only do you not know anything about Biblical Greek or Hebrew, you seem to have an English deficiency as well.

 

[davedjy]

The question was to name them. The answer did not name them, it only named a few. And of those few only one I found appeared to have a solid stance on the issue. In order to answer the question, as it was asked, you would have had to name 28 denominations that had a policy of accepting homosexual relations. You did not answer the question. Yet this was not my question and only pertained to your honesty in making the claim that 28 denominations etc etc..

A real example is this: You admitted many scriptures referenced the law regarding sexual morality. I asked you what the law regarding sexual morality is in scripture. Your answer was that it is only a purity code. You failed to answer the question. You have yet to quote the scriptures of the law regarding sexual morality that you've already admitted to exist.

I asked you which concordance you were using because your explanation of a word was different than my concordance. You answered this question by saying you had already answered it and then repeating your definition which still disagreed with my concordance. This stems from your refusal to confront the fact that it is an abomination to God for one man to lay with another man as with a woman.

In the thread we first communicated on I asked you to verify your claim that the 18th chapter of leviticus was not relevant to sexual morality. I asked you to verify your statements by all the other verses to see if you would agree that it is morally O.K. to have sex with your mom, your sister, your dog etc etc. Of course you didn't answer this because you would be condoning what is obviously immoral, such things as having sex with your mom, sister and dog. We have a chapter of obvious sexually immoral activities and you have deemed it not important, calling it a "purity code" Yet you refuse to answer me in confronting every verse in the same way you explain the one on male-intercourse as a "purity code" and not about morality or relevant to us.

I could go on, but this should suffice for now. I will not mention what I read others complaining about in your answers to the questions they ask.

Here is a prediction. You will still not answer the questions. You will pick one and appear to answer it while disregarding the rest. Likely you will choose the one about the 28 denominations because it is complettely besides any good point. But who knows what genius you will come up with in avoiding the real issue. I say this to corner you, to push you further. By following my prediction it will give truth to my words in your ears. The best thing to do is get insulted or think me an idiot and deem none of these questions as important enough to answer.... For if you answered them all specifically to how they were asked.... It would be very very difficult to maintain the claims you have made. (psst, get a bigger and better claim, get onto another side-step issue)

I HAVE named all of them, I will have to find them again.

Please tell me how that changes the truth one way or the other? If there were 75 denominations on my side, that doesn't mean I'm correct, it just means there are more denominations that agree!

 

[davedjy]

Good, I quoted directly from the Webster’s Collegiate. Even your “ENGLISH DICTIONARY VERSION,” includes the meaning “antipathy.” My point, which flew right over your head, is the word “phobe,” when used in combination, has more than one meaning. Therefore, when I said, “God is a Sinophobe,” it did not mean that God is afraid of sin but has antipathy toward it. It seems, not only do you not know anything about Biblical Greek or Hebrew, you seem to have an English deficiency as well.

A Phobia is a fear, plain and simple! Your definition doesn't encompass the whole thing, but nonetheless it is of no consequence.

 

[Full_Moon]

I HAVE named all of them, I will have to find them again.

Please tell me how that changes the truth one way or the other? If there were 75 denominations on my side, that doesn't mean I'm correct, it just means there are more denominations that agree!

Dude. I said that prediction not to make you look bad but to help you avoid what I predicted would happen if I didn't say that....

You chose the irrelevant question... the 28 denominations one... and then repeated that it is irrelevant.....(just like I said you would in order to help you complettely avoid the issue while appearing to confront it to yourself)

Man. I'd like someone else to give input on this anomaly. Why is it that certain questions are avoided/ side-stepped as though they were death itself?

 

[davedjy]

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. You “somehow” know that I am incorrect?

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Prov 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.​

I used to debate against homosexuality in this very forum, till I was convicted of it. Yes, I was mad that I was convicted, remember that pride is stronger even my own identity of who I am!

Then why did you first quote a Jewish Rabbi claiming that the Talmud, OBTW an old Jewish text, said something it did NOT say? In response, I quoted the actual Talmud, not a second hand false reference. It’s too bad the actual Talmud does not support homosexuality as you, and that rabbi, claimed, and I proved.

religioustolerance.org is a very credible reference and usage for anything. Do you have any dirt on them too, I would love it...they are very credible.

God will not, cannot contradict his revealed word, the scriptures. So people better be careful about calling their highly subjective feelings, “the Heart of God" and “set free by the Holy Spirit.”

God DOES and HAS contradicted INTERPRETATIONS and DOCTRINAL beliefs. I never said to go against the Word of God, I said that I am 100% sure in my assessments of what the Bible actually means.

You seem to have duped yourself into believing that anything, written by anybody, anywhere, as long as it supports homosexuality is right, and that anything which proves otherwise, is wrong. And you check nothing, verify nothing. OTOH, I believe that only people knowledgeable in a particular field are qualified to speak meaningfully on that subject. Just because a person has a PhD, does not make them an expert in Biblical languages or history.

I have read countless websites, but through that the Lord has set me free in my own life. THAT is why I'm changed, not because I found some way to "justify" some sin, I am not a practicing homosexual, nor have I ever been! I'm still a virgin, how many heterosexual Christians do you know that still are? My niece at 15 is sexually active and isn't even a virgin anymore.

For example, both a brain surgeon and a proctologist are MDs but I would not want a proctologist performing brain surgery on me. Although I can see how that may be necessary for some people.

Well, I don't lean on Tony Campolo, I have prayed and asked for Wisdom from the Lord I know and have known...I have a personal relationship with Christ.

Your two main guys, Boswell, was a history professor, no indication he had any specific education in Biblical languages or church history. Your other guy, Campolo, is a retired sociology professor, also no specific education in Biblical languages or church history. Neither one of them is competent to say what a Greek word does, or does not, mean or make pronouncements about church history.

I'm not sure, I will have to look up who Tony Campolo cited as for the Scholars disagreeing. I don't doubt his credibility, he is very reputable in the Christian community, but nonetheless, I will cite his sources, I'm sure Boswell is only 1 example.

Is this the same guy who called someone’s post “garbage” and “crap?”

Fair enough

Good, I quoted directly from the Webster’s Collegiate. Even your “ENGLISH DICTIONARY VERSION,” includes the meaning “antipathy.” My point, which flew right over your head, is the word “phobe,” when used in combination, has more than one meaning. Therefore, when I said, “God is a Sinophobe,” it did not mean that God is afraid of sin but has antipathy toward it. It seems, not only do you not know anything about Biblical Greek or Hebrew, you seem to have an English deficiency as well.

That doesn't make me "deficient", I have only seen this as a phobia. Do you have an all-encompassing and vast knowledge of the English language? I always got straight A's in English in advanced classes, but that doesn't change anyone having a perfect knowledge of the language.

 

[Full_Moon]

I HAVE named all of them, I will have to find them again.

Please tell me how that changes the truth one way or the other? If there were 75 denominations on my side, that doesn't mean I'm correct, it just means there are more denominations that agree!

Will you stand up to the challange I give?

Confront the questions I reposted in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of post 145. I'll be very specific to help you avoid avoidance. Answer the questions I said I asked, not the answer I said you gave. If you feel any of the questions are not specific or unclear in any way I will repeat them for you.

 

[davedjy]

Will you stand up to the challange I give?

Confront the questions I reposted in paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of post 145. I'll be very specific to help you avoid avoidance. Answer the questions I said I asked, not the answer I said you gave. If you feel any of the questions are not specific or unclear in any way I will repeat them for you.

I never INTENTIONALLY dodge ANY question, but you have to understand, I get about 15+ Private messages a day from various members, respond to many threads in this forum alone, plus I have a life outside this forum...believe it or not!

 

[Full_Moon]

I never INTENTIONALLY dodge ANY question, but you have to understand, I get about 15+ Private messages a day from various members, respond to many threads in this forum alone, plus I have a life outside this forum...believe it or not!

You seem to have time to spend avoiding questions, why not just plainly answer them or admit you cannot.

It was a stupid challange I admit. Proving you wrong in your arguments doesn't help you that much because you will always come up with new ones to justify your conviction. It is kind of the nature of this thread, that I never hear any good arguments to justify homosexual acts biblically. That it is a perverted way of thinking.

Next time.

 

[davedjy]

You seem to have time to spend avoiding questions, why not just plainly answer them or admit you cannot.

It was a stupid challange I admit. Proving you wrong in your arguments doesn't help you that much because you will always come up with new ones to justify your conviction. It is kind of the nature of this thread, that I never hear any good arguments to justify homosexual acts biblically. That it is a perverted way of thinking.

Next time.

Your arguments are circular. You want to know why only this verse is a purity code violation. The menstrual cycle one is included, but I already explained why to you in a previous post, but you still ask the same questions.

Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination. This directly implies that it is ritual impurity, looking at the word tow'ebah.

Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is ritual impurity.

I gave you the websites, but are you too lazy to read them? they explain this and lots of other verses.

Do not say my "convictions", I do not have convictions over this.

 

[Full_Moon]

I never said to go against the Word of God, I said that I am 100% sure in my assessments of what the Bible actually means.

Originally Posted by Der Alter View Post
I almost fell out of my chair when I read this. You “somehow” know that I am incorrect?

2 Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Prov 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

One of the first things I ever said to you, Dave, is that the only way to argue for homosexual acts as being justified is to argue from human understanding. This is the root of all error.

As I underlined for you, you admit that it is YOUR assessment that makes you 100% sure. This is the same theme you repeat over and over in your posts, it is all about yours or anothers understanding, you never mention God's understanding. This is why I underlined that we are not to lean on our own understanding.

That your language indicates specifically how you know things (ie: your own understanding) gives you a level of honesty I pray you never lose. For many people, when pressed, end up replacing statements such as "I think" with "God thinks". Logically they become more sound, but in truth they commit a great lie by speaking for God when it is not God speaking. There are few things I know of that are worse than a false prophet.

A person told my wife that Jesus told them the world would end this coming up summer. If the world doesn't end that person has committed a far greater lie than relying on their own understanding. God knows that man's heart, I hope he is right but if he is not, then I know God understands his nature and so I pray for God to have mercy on him.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

One of the first things I ever said to you, Dave, is that the only way to argue for homosexual acts as being justified is to argue from human understanding. This is the root of all error.

unfortunately... we don't have access to any form of understanding that isn't human, so your argument fails

 

[Full_Moon]

Your arguments are circular. You want to know why only this verse is a purity code violation. The menstrual cycle one is included, but I already explained why to you in a previous post, but you still ask the same questions.

Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination. This directly implies that it is ritual impurity, looking at the word tow'ebah.

Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is ritual impurity.

I gave you the websites, but are you too lazy to read them? they explain this and lots of other verses.

Do not say my "convictions", I do not have convictions over this.

Man, saying you have answered the questions does not constitute answering the questions. If you have honestly answered the questions in another post then reference it so I might read the answer. All you have done here is repeat the same side-stepping answer you already gave me that doesn't answer my questions at all.

I said don't worry about it now, but if you want to worry about it, at least answer the specific questions AS THEY ARE ASKED. Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[davedjy]

Put the 3 questions in ONE post and get straight to the point, please. I am exhausted, and it is 1:30am here in Los Angeles, California.

 

[davedjy]

unfortunately... we don't have access to any form of understanding that isn't human, so your argument fails

That is actually correct, God doesn't give us anything greater than our human ability can handle.