Questions Regarding the Creation Story

[- DRA -]

Even further, if long hair on a man is a shame to the man, as Paul says, and God does not look on the outward appearance, as 1Samuel 16:7 says, you too have a contradiction to deal with.

Lee,

Your point has stirred my curiosity. You seem to solve the perceived contradiction that you describe by saying that Paul was writing by his own reasoning and cultural influences, and not writing the things that were directly from God. How do you know for sure that whoever recorded the writings of 1 Sam. 16:7 wrote them accurately?

As I analyze your reasoning process, I see where you have studied extensively the angles that you need to justify homosexuality in your mind. What you do not realize, is that your reasoning process puts the accuracy of all the Scriptures open to question. Rather than realizing what the LORD said to Samuel in 1 Sam. 16:7 is just as true as what Paul taught under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 11:14-15, you seek to undermine Paul's apostleship and teaching - - to justify yourself! This method of picking and choosing whatever you decide to believe, accept, and follow - - dismissing what you don't like - - leaves the door wide open to do as you wish on any topic or practice. I pray that you find within yourself a way to give the Holy Scriptures the respect and reverence that they are due - - and that God commands.

. . . Denny

 

[leecappella]

This is one of your sentences from the same paragraph: Though he was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. The implication is that you think either some of the things Paul said were under divine inspiration, or that none of the things which Paul wrote are by divine inspiration. Which is it?



Christ promised to send the Spirit of truth to the apostles (John 16:13) to guide them into all truth. The message of the apostles was confirmed by signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 2:3-4). We now have the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25) and all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

Now, about 2,000 years later, you have decided that you will test the apostle Paul's teaching. How do you propose to do this?

You wish to test his humanity? He was human. I thought that was a given. I don't think that it is his humanity you want to test. Rather, you disagree with his teachings i.e. homosexuality, so you would downplay and discredit an apostle of the Lord who wrote much of the New Testament. You compare an apostle of the Lord who wrote under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit to one who preaches a sermon today. They are not the same. Is Paul's teaching against homosexuality the only part of his teaching that you take issue with?



2 Pet. 1:3 & 1 Peter 4:11a are good starters. Also, you might consider what Jesus said in John 8:32. Either we have the truth, or we don't. I believe it is there for us. Evidently, you do not.



Consider Jesus' prayer in John 17 i.e. vs.21. Does it sound like the Lord promotes different understandings? How about 1 Cor. 1:10-15 . . . does Paul promote following different preachers? How about Eph. 4:3-6? Doesn't Paul promote the unity of the Spirit? No. No. No. No. What did the Bereans do in Acts 17:10-11 when confronted with the teachings of Paul and Silas?
Should we not focus our attention on his WORD - - the basis for our faith (Rom. 10:17)?

The Spirit of God is likened to a wind (John 3:6-7). It is in the context of contrasting the spirit with the flesh. You have taken a scriptural concept and started running with it . . . wildly . . . as one beating the air (1 Cor. 9:26-27). I suggest that you learn about the discipline that Paul is speaking of in verse 27.

dra: This is one of your sentences from the same paragraph. "Though he was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration". The implication is that you think either some of the thinks Paul said were under divine inspiration, or that none of the things which Paul wrote are by divine inspiration. Which is it?

me: As I stated, I don't believe that everything Paul said was under divine inspiration. That does not mean that I am implying that none of the things Paul said were under divine inspiration. That is not an implied option. You verified that to me when you told me that Paul, at times, indicated when he was sharing his views. This proves everything he said was not under divine inspiration. I was already aware that Paul, at times, said things like, "I speak this by permission and not of commandment" or "I have no commandment of the Lord" or "..after my judgement..". What was not answered back to me was if Paul indicates when he is not speaking from the Lord, when does he indicate that his judgement has ceased and he has begun again 'speaking by commandment' ? I don't doubt that Paul was inspired of God, but I do doubt that just because he was inspired of God that means his humanity, in its ability to be fallible, ceased to be fallible because he was inspired of God, thus making him infallible like only God is. My belief is that he was a human man who was used by God who, though inspired, was still capable of human error when inspired. This is what we all are. He was no different. He was of the same flesh as we are. Human, imperfect, fallible! The bible is the product of human response to the Spirit's leading.

dra: Christ promised to send the Spirit of truth to the apostles (John 16:13) to guide them into all truth.



me: All believers, not just the apostles, have the Spirit of truth. I do not deny this. However, just because the Spirit was given to us to guide us and dwell in us does not mean that those of us who live in the Spirit as humans are always correct and without error when it comes to things bible related. God is perfect, Christ is perfect, the Spirit is perfect, but the vessels and instruments used by God, us, including Paul, are not perfect and without error in our human response to the Spirit's guidance. Truth is something that means not concealed or hidden. It is what God gave to us in the form of Jesus. He and all He represents is truth. If the Holy Spirit is a part of Christ, and it is, then that is the truth that Jesus is who God says He is. The Spirit's very existence proves true that Christ is the Son of God. That is the truth preached by Paul and others. Don't imply that truth is that homosexuality, in no matter what form, is a sin. That is not the 'truth' referred to in the passage you have provided for me. I do not preach another gospel. Another gospel would be taking Christ from the salvation equation and replacing Him with another or saying that instead of being saved by grace through faith alone, one has to do something more than have faith and relationship with God. That is another gospel!

dra: The message of the apostles was confirmed by signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 2:3-4).

me: Not sure why you have referred me to this text. I do not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit.

dra: We now have the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25) and all things that pertain to life and gdliness (2 Peter 1:3).

me: Not sure why you have directed me here either.

dra: Now, about 2,000 years later, you have decided that you will test the apostle Paul's teaching. How do you propose to do this?

me: Via Paul himself (notice, lower case 'h'), when it comes to interpreting the inspired message of others, he says, in the NEB bible, "Do not stifle inspiration, and do not despise prophetic utterances, but bring them all to the test and then keep what is good in them and avoid the bad of whatever kind" (1Thessalonians 5:19-22). Inspired messages and prophetic utterances are the inspired utterances of truth through human channels. The authors of the bible are just that as well: Inspired human channels used by God. We are told to bring them to the test. Compare them to the Word, which is Christ, not the scriptures. The bible never calls itself the Word of God, it only says the scriptures were inspired of God (via imperfect human instruments).- parenthesis mine.

dra: You wish to test his humanity? He was human. I thought that was a given.

me: I'm sure you know that I don't mean that His being human is partly my point.

dra: I don't think that it is his humanity you want to test. Rather, you disagree with his teachings i.e. homosexuality, so you would downplay and discredit an apostle of the Lord who wrote much of the New Testament.

me: I find Paul's view of homosexuality to be limited to his place, time, and culture. I believe that he attributed same sex acts with individuals who he believed loved not God, sought not God, and denied relationship with God. Why? Because this is how he presents it in Roman 1. All the signs in that chapter point to people who have rejected God for false images of gods. Today, we have christians who seek God, love God, and are in progressive relationship with God...and some of them are gay. If Paul did believe this, he was obviously incorrect based on today's world. I am living proof of that. What this is all about is whether or not a human is fallible when inspired because they are human or infallible when inspired by God despite being human. I have obviously chosen my position. This is not about denying the truth that is Christ. Neither you nor I denies that truth.

dra: You compare an apostle of the Lord who wrote under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit to one who preaches a sermon today. They are not the same.

me: What is the difference? Both are human, fallible, imperfect, and of the same flesh. If they are different, why should they (ie. pastors, preachers, etc.) be listened to by others? If they are the same, everything they say in what they deem to be their inspired messages should be considered without error because it is inspired of God, like Paul was. If that is the case, being human, they are perfect and not imperfect. Or are they only perfect when inspired and imperfect when uninspired? You imply that one's humanity does not affect their inspiration and, therefore, what an inspired person of God says is infallible and nothing false can be found in it. How many believers today accept without any doubt the assertion that if there is anything women want to know, "let them ask of their husbands at home"? (1Corinthians 14:35). We, as humans, would have to be perfect and infallible in order to always comprehend a perfect, infallible bible, but since we are not perfect and infallible, our interpretation of scripture is not always going to be in perfect, infallible understanding.

dra: Is Paul's teaching against homosexuality the only part of his teaching that you take issue with?

me: No. I have an issue with Paul saying long hair on a man is a shame. Saying that implies that God has an issue with the length of a man's hair as well. That's if what Paul says is equivalent to God's thinking. If this is true, this is in contradiction to 1Samuel 16:7. Also, I have an issue with 1Corinthians 14:35, if we are to read it and take it for what it says. Yes, the bible is inspired of God, but since that inspiration came through imperfect humans, we have to seperate the wheat from the chaff (1Thessalonians 5:19-22).

dra: 2 Pet. 1:3 & 1 Peter 4:11a are good starters. Also, you might consider what Jesus said in John 8:32. Either we have the truth, or we don't. I believe it is there for us. Evidently, you do not.

me: I don't see how the 2Peter reference refers to the bible calling itself infallible. The same with the 1Peter reference. As far as John 8:32 goes, what 'truth' are you referring to? Define it!

dra: Consider Jesus' prayer in John 17 i.e. vs.21. Does it sound like the Lord promotes different understandings? How about 1 Cor. 1:10-15 . . . does Paul promote following different preachers? How about Eph. 4:3-6? Doesn't Paul promote the unity of the Spirit? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. What did the Bereans do in Acts 17:10-11 when confronted with the teachings of Paul and Silas?

me: In regards to 1Corinthians 1:10-15, I have no doubt that Paul promoted Christ. I promote Christ. In John 17:21, Jesus is verifying that He is the truth. The unveiled truth of our salvation. I do not deny that truth (ie. Jesus). The gospel is salvation to all that believe. I believe and I only speak of one God (Ephesians 4:3-6). The Word of God is Christ and the scriptures a testimony to the Word (ie. Christ).

dra: The Spirit of God is likened to a wind (John 3:6-7). It is in the context of contrasting the spirit with the flesh. You have taken a scriptural concept and started running with it . . . wildly . . . as one beating the air (1 Cor. 9:26-27). I suggest that you learn about the discipline that Paul is speaking of in verse 27.

me: Jesus was speaking of the state of natural, human birth and the state of spiritual birth. The two are not the same, but Nicodemus was not comprehending. Jesus compared those who are born of the Spirit with the wind, which blows where it wants to or is inclined to blow. People who are led by the Spirit go where they are led or inlcined to via the Spirit. Sorry, but I'm not beating the air here. Also, my discipline is great. If you knew me, you would know that.

 

[- DRA -]

dra: This is one of your sentences from the same paragraph. "Though he was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration". The implication is that you think either some of the thinks Paul said were under divine inspiration, or that none of the things which Paul wrote are by divine inspiration. Which is it?

me: As I stated, I don't believe that everything Paul said was under divine inspiration. That does not mean that I am implying that none of the things Paul said were under divine inspiration. That is not an implied option. You verified that to me when you told me that Paul, at times, indicated when he was sharing his views. This proves everything he said was not under divine inspiration. I was already aware that Paul, at times, said things like, "I speak this by permission and not of commandment" or "I have no commandment of the Lord" or "..after my judgement..". What was not answered back to me was if Paul indicates when he is not speaking from the Lord, when does he indicate that his judgement has ceased and he has begun again 'speaking by commandment' ? I don't doubt that Paul was inspired of God, but I do doubt that just because he was inspired of God that means his humanity, in its ability to be fallible, ceased to be fallible because he was inspired of God, thus making him infallible like only God is. My belief is that he was a human man who was used by God who, though inspired, was still capable of human error when inspired. This is what we all are. He was no different. He was of the same flesh as we are. Human, imperfect, fallible! The bible is the product of human response to the Spirit's leading.

Lee,

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). This concept is not hard to understand. All Scripture is inspired, or "God-breathed." You say that God breathed it, and Paul messed some of it up. Thus far I understand you to be saying that Paul misunderstands "nature" - - both from a homosexuality and the length of hair perspective. Are there other areas of Paul's writings that he taught erroneously about? And was Paul the only writer of the Scriptures that did this, or did some, or all, of the other writers of the Bible also teach error?

I can only think of a few instances in which Paul wrote about his judgment i.e. 1 Cor. 7. Consider 1 Cor. 7:6. Paul offers his judgment about staying single in the three following verses. Then he speaks by the Lord's commandment in verses 10-11. Paul offers his judgment again - - starting in verse 12 and going through verse 24 - - this time about remaining in the state in which he/she was called in. Paul's judgment continues about these same matters in verses 25-40.

Your quote: "I don't doubt that Paul was inspired of God, but I do doubt that just because he was inspired of God that means his humanity, in its ability to be fallible, ceased to be fallible because he was inspired of God, thus making him infallible like only God is."
My response: All Scripture is inspired (God-breathed), the apostle Paul was not God-breathed. That is why Paul specifically points out when he speaks in matters that deal with judgment and opinion, and not by a command of the Lord i.e. 1 Cor. 7:12.

You seem to be saying that because Paul was of human flesh that he cannot be infallible, or perfect. Really? Would you use the same logic for the Lord - - who also put on the same human flesh (Heb. 2:9, 14)? Would you use your same logic to render the Lord fallible, and imperfect (Heb. 4:15, 1 Peter 1:29)?

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

dra: Christ promised to send the Spirit of truth to the apostles (John 16:13) to guide them into all truth.

me: All believers, not just the apostles, have the Spirit of truth. I do not deny this. However, just because the Spirit was given to us to guide us and dwell in us does not mean that those of us who live in the Spirit as humans are always correct and without error when it comes to things bible related. God is perfect, Christ is perfect, the Spirit is perfect, but the vessels and instruments used by God, us, including Paul, are not perfect and without error in our human response to the Spirit's guidance. Truth is something that means not concealed or hidden. It is what God gave to us in the form of Jesus. He and all He represents is truth. If the Holy Spirit is a part of Christ, and it is, then that is the truth that Jesus is who God says He is. The Spirit's very existence proves true that Christ is the Son of God. That is the truth preached by Paul and others. Don't imply that truth is that homosexuality, in no matter what form, is a sin. That is not the 'truth' referred to in the passage you have provided for me. I do not preach another gospel. Another gospel would be taking Christ from the salvation equation and replacing Him with another or saying that instead of being saved by grace through faith alone, one has to do something more than have faith and relationship with God. That is another gospel!

The Holy Spirit is not promised to all believers in the same sense it was promised and given to the apostles - - see John 14:26.

dra: The message of the apostles was confirmed by signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 2:3-4).

me: Not sure why you have referred me to this text. I do not deny the existence of the Holy Spirit.

Whether or not the Holy Spirit exists is not the issue. The point the writer of Hebrews makes is that this text shows God's confirmation - - or approval - - of the message and work of the apostles. This is the point I think you have missed. God showed His approval of the apostles teachings and writings by the works that He worked through them. (Note: this is the same thing that Nicodemus concluded about Jesus in John 3:2). I see God's approval of the apostles' teachings and writings. I do not see any evidence to support your charge that Paul taught falsely.

dra: We now have the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25) and all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

me: Not sure why you have directed me here either.

God says that we have a perfect (or complete) law of liberty. He also says that we have ALL things that pertain to life and godliness. You desire to cast doubt on the Scriptures - - you suggest that we have a mixture of of God's will and man's misunderstandings - - but offer no way to tell the difference. The reasoning that you present is not in harmony with what the Bible says about itself.

 

[- DRA -]

dra: Now, about 2,000 years later, you have decided that you will test the apostle Paul's teaching. How do you propose to do this?

me: Via Paul himself (notice, lower case 'h'), when it comes to interpreting the inspired message of others, he says, in the NEB bible, "Do not stifle inspiration, and do not despise prophetic utterances, but bring them all to the test and then keep what is good in them and avoid the bad of whatever kind" (1Thessalonians 5:19-22). Inspired messages and prophetic utterances are the inspired utterances of truth through human channels. The authors of the bible are just that as well: Inspired human channels used by God. We are told to bring them to the test. Compare them to the Word, which is Christ, not the scriptures. The bible never calls itself the Word of God, it only says the scriptures were inspired of God (via imperfect human instruments).- parenthesis mine.

Your method of testing Paul is confusing. Let me get this straight: you use a passage of scripture given by Paul (1 Thess. 5:19-22) as a means to test him, but ignore what he writes in other passages (2 Tim. 3:16, Cor. 11:14, & Rom. 1:26-27. And you want the rest of us to buy into this, right? Well, thanks, but no thanks!

dra: I don't think that it is his humanity you want to test. Rather, you disagree with his teachings i.e. homosexuality, so you would downplay and discredit an apostle of the Lord who wrote much of the New Testament.

me: I find Paul's view of homosexuality to be limited to his place, time, and culture. I believe that he attributed same sex acts with individuals who he believed loved not God, sought not God, and denied relationship with God. Why? Because this is how he presents it in Roman 1. All the signs in that chapter point to people who have rejected God for false images of gods. Today, we have christians who seek God, love God, and are in progressive relationship with God...and some of them are gay. If Paul did believe this, he was obviously incorrect based on today's world. I am living proof of that. What this is all about is whether or not a human is fallible when inspired because they are human or infallible when inspired by God despite being human. I have obviously chosen my position. This is not about denying the truth that is Christ. Neither you nor I denies that truth.

You are assuming that this is Paul's view. Doesn't 2 Timothy 3:16 suggest that this is God's view of the situation?

You are assuming once again. This time you assume that homosexuals, who are still practicing homosexuality, are pleasing and acceptable to God. I don't think that I have seen any scriptural evidence whatsoever to support this assumption. Perhaps, I just missed it. If so, please post it again.

Apostles were capable of doing wrong. Peter is a good example. He denied the Lord 3 times, just as Jesus foretold that he would. Peter also was rebuked by the apostle Paul in Galatians chapter 2. But the issue is whether or not he taught or wrote error that went uncorrected. The same could be said of the apostle Paul. I don't imagine that his life was completely without sin. But our discussion is not really about the life of the apostles, or any of the writers of the Bible. It really boils down to whether or not we believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). You seem to believe it as long as it avoids the lifestyle you have chosen to follow.

 

[leecappella]

Lee,

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). This concept is not hard to understand. All Scripture is inspired, or "God-breathed." You say that God breathed it, and Paul messed some of it up. Thus far I understand you to be saying that Paul misunderstands "nature" - - both from a homosexuality and the length of hair perspective. Are there other areas of Paul's writings that he taught erroneously about? And was Paul the only writer of the Scriptures that did this, or did some, or all, of the other writers of the Bible also teach error?

I can only think of a few instances in which Paul wrote about his judgment i.e. 1 Cor. 7. Consider 1 Cor. 7:6. Paul offers his judgment about staying single in the three following verses. Then he speaks by the Lord's commandment in verses 10-11. Paul offers his judgment again - - starting in verse 12 and going through verse 24 - - this time about remaining in the state in which he/she was called in. Paul's judgment continues about these same matters in verses 25-40.

Your quote: "I don't doubt that Paul was inspired of God, but I do doubt that just because he was inspired of God that means his humanity, in its ability to be fallible, ceased to be fallible because he was inspired of God, thus making him infallible like only God is."
My response: All Scripture is inspired (God-breathed), the apostle Paul was not God-breathed. That is why Paul specifically points out when he speaks in matters that deal with judgment and opinion, and not by a command of the Lord i.e. 1 Cor. 7:12.

You seem to be saying that because Paul was of human flesh that he cannot be infallible, or perfect. Really? Would you use the same logic for the Lord - - who also put on the same human flesh (Heb. 2:9, 14)? Would you use your same logic to render the Lord fallible, and imperfect (Heb. 4:15, 1 Peter 1:29)?

. . . Denny

dra" "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). This concept is not hard to understand. All Scripture is inspired, or "God-breathed." You say that God breathed it, and Paul messed some of it up. Thus far I understand you to be saying that Paul misunderstands "nature" - - both from a homosexuality and the length of hair perspective. Are there other areas of Paul's writings that he taught erroneously about? And was Paul the only writer of the Scriptures that did this, or did some, or all, of the other writers of the Bible also teach error?

me: I think you are 'beating the air' with what I am saying. I will try to make it simple: I understand the meaning of "all scripture is God breathed". The question is does the concept of God breathed inspiration imply that God's communication with Paul and others expressed itself through their mortal perception, which can be fallible and imperfect at times because they are human OR does God breathed inspiration imply that all things pertaining to their humanity came to a halt and all fallibility and imperfectness in their humanity did not exist during this period of inspiration? Just as Paul says to test all things inspired and all prophetic utterances, I am proposing that the same be done with the bible, which is collection of inspired writings that were brought forth through human instrumentality. If someone in a church prohesies and another interprets, should it be automatically believed as truth or should it be tested?

dra: I can only think of a few instances in which Paul wrote about his judgment i.e. 1 Cor. 7. Consider 1 Cor. 7:6. Paul offers his judgment about staying single in the three following verses. Then he speaks by the Lord's commandment in verses 10-11. Paul offers his judgment again - - starting in verse 12 and going through verse 24 - - this time about remaining in the state in which he/she was called in. Paul's judgment continues about these same matters in verses 25-40.

me: And what about after verse 40? In chapter 8, is this Paul's judgement or God's?Where, after verse 40 of chapter 7 does Paul cease his judgements? What about 1Samuel 16:7 and 1Corinthians 11:14? Are these not contradictory to one another?

dra: You seem to be saying that because Paul was of human flesh that he cannot be infallible, or perfect. Really? Would you use the same logic for the Lord - - who also put on the same human flesh (Heb. 2:9, 14)? Would you use your same logic to render the Lord fallible, and imperfect (Heb. 4:15, 1 Peter 1:29)?

me: The Lord and Paul are not comparable. Though Christ was as human flesh and He felt as humans feel, He was still Christ and, unlike Paul, all knowing.

 

[- DRA -]

dra "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). This concept is not hard to understand. All Scripture is inspired, or "God-breathed." You say that God breathed it, and Paul messed some of it up. Thus far I understand you to be saying that Paul misunderstands "nature" - - both from a homosexuality and the length of hair perspective. Are there other areas of Paul's writings that he taught erroneously about? And was Paul the only writer of the Scriptures that did this, or did some, or all, of the other writers of the Bible also teach error?

me: I think you are 'beating the air' with what I am saying. I will try to make it simple: I understand the meaning of "all scripture is God breathed". The question is does the concept of God breathed inspiration imply that God's communication with Paul and others expressed itself through their mortal perception, which can be fallible and imperfect at times because they are human OR does God breathed inspiration imply that all things pertaining to their humanity came to a halt and all fallibility and imperfectness in their humanity did not exist during this period of inspiration? Just as Paul says to test all things inspired and all prophetic utterances, I am proposing that the same be done with the bible, which is collection of inspired writings that were brought forth through human instrumentality. If someone in a church prohesies and another interprets, should it be automatically believed as truth or should it be tested?

You didn't answer my questions. You are still saying that God breathed the words, but Paul messed up the ones that have a direct bearing on the way we view homosexuality. Now, why not answer my questions?
* Are there other areas of Paul's writings that he taught erroneously about? * And was Paul the only writer of the Scriptures that did this, or did some, or all, of the other writers of the Bible also teach error?

The spiritual gifts you mention have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10). We have the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25).

dra: I can only think of a few instances in which Paul wrote about his judgment i.e. 1 Cor. 7. Consider 1 Cor. 7:6. Paul offers his judgment about staying single in the three following verses. Then he speaks by the Lord's commandment in verses 10-11. Paul offers his judgment again - - starting in verse 12 and going through verse 24 - - this time about remaining in the state in which he/she was called in. Paul's judgment continues about these same matters in verses 25-40.

me: And what about after verse 40? In chapter 8, is this Paul's judgement or God's?Where, after verse 40 of chapter 7 does Paul cease his judgements? What about 1Samuel 16:7 and 1Corinthians 11:14? Are these not contradictory to one another?

Doesn't Paul wrap up his conversation in verse 40 of 1 Cor. 7? What makes you think that he carries his judgments on remaining single over into the discussion of chapter 8, which is a totally different discussion? What do you see that gives you the freedom to put all of Paul's writings under question?

dra: You seem to be saying that because Paul was of human flesh that he cannot be infallible, or perfect. Really? Would you use the same logic for the Lord - - who also put on the same human flesh (Heb. 2:9, 14)? Would you use your same logic to render the Lord fallible, and imperfect (Heb. 4:15, 1 Peter 1:29)?

me: The Lord and Paul are not comparable. Though Christ was as human flesh and He felt as humans feel, He was still Christ and, unlike Paul, all knowing.

So, since the Lord is all-knowing as you say, why did He put His word into the thoughts of such fallible men as Paul, who, as you portray, taught error? By the way, since Jesus didn't record His own words Himself, how do you have confidence that the words in red letters actually are the words of the Lord? After all, weren't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John just as likely to be as fallible as was Paul? And didn't they live in the same time period, and under the same culture?

 

[- DRA -]

dra: I can only think of a few instances in which Paul wrote about his judgment i.e. 1 Cor. 7. Consider 1 Cor. 7:6. Paul offers his judgment about staying single in the three following verses. Then he speaks by the Lord's commandment in verses 10-11. Paul offers his judgment again - - starting in verse 12 and going through verse 24 - - this time about remaining in the state in which he/she was called in. Paul's judgment continues about these same matters in verses 25-40.

me: And what about after verse 40? In chapter 8, is this Paul's judgement or God's?Where, after verse 40 of chapter 7 does Paul cease his judgements? What about 1Samuel 16:7 and 1Corinthians 11:14? Are these not contradictory to one another?

I do not view 1 Sam. 16:7 and 1 Cor. 11:14 as being contradictory. I view your understanding of one or both of the passages to be wrong. That is why the dilemma exists. The dilemma is in your understanding - - not in the Scriptures that are "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). Consider: Jesus taught about outward actions in Matt. 6 i.e. giving alms, praying, laying up treasure. Did His emphasis and instruction on these outward actions contradict 1 Sam. 16:7?

 

[- DRA -]

dra: I don't think that it is his humanity you want to test. Rather, you disagree with his teachings i.e. homosexuality, so you would downplay and discredit an apostle of the Lord who wrote much of the New Testament.

me: I find Paul's view of homosexuality to be limited to his place, time, and culture. I believe that he attributed same sex acts with individuals who he believed loved not God, sought not God, and denied relationship with God. Why? Because this is how he presents it in Roman 1. All the signs in that chapter point to people who have rejected God for false images of gods. Today, we have christians who seek God, love God, and are in progressive relationship with God...and some of them are gay. If Paul did believe this, he was obviously incorrect based on today's world. I am living proof of that. What this is all about is whether or not a human is fallible when inspired because they are human or infallible when inspired by God despite being human. I have obviously chosen my position. This is not about denying the truth that is Christ. Neither you nor I denies that truth.

This is the heart of the problem. Your viewpoint is that Paul managed to slip his personal feelings, opinions, and guesses into the midst of the communication that God wanted him to pass on to Christians. You still haven't told us how you feel about the other writers of the Holy Scriptures.

You are struggling with the contradiction that you view as existing between 1 Sam. 16:7 and 1 Cor. 11:14. You are very quick to undermine Paul's teaching, but how do you know that the writer of 1 Sam. 16:7 was not the one that was off track? Did you ever think about all the angles that you have to consider?

 

[- DRA -]

Leecappella,

Okay, here goes.

This is the real question in my mind: How do you know that God approves of same-sex relationships with sexual activity involved?

So far in our discussions, you have attempted to suggest that the creation story is not limited to a woman being the only spouse for a man; that Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned because of rape, idolatry, and a lack of hospitality; and that Paul was biased in his teachings in Romans 1, and 1 Cor. 6 as he taught against homosexuality. You even suggested that the strange flesh that Jude alludes to is angel flesh, and not human. Following through with your reasoning, then should I conclude that only the attempted rape of angels was being condemned? Your reasoning is an attempt to raise questions about the passages of scripture that relate to homosexuality and God's marriage law, but you have yet to show in any way, shape, or form that God approves of same-sex sexual activity. Why not? If God approves of it, there must be reasoning that justifies it. Where is this reasoning?

. . . Denny

 

[leecappella]

I do not view 1 Sam. 16:7 and 1 Cor. 11:14 as being contradictory. I view your understanding of one or both of the passages to be wrong. That is why the dilemma exists. The dilemma is in your understanding - - not in the Scriptures that are "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). Consider: Jesus taught about outward actions in Matt. 6 i.e. giving alms, praying, laying up treasure. Did His emphasis and instruction on these outward actions contradict 1 Sam. 16:7?

me: Admittedly, my relationship with God and my faith are a work in progress. As a believer, I am forever learning. I only seek to understand, like the rest of us. I find it valid to have questions. I am not opposed to my view changing, but as it stands now it has not. 1Samuel 16:7 sounds more like God's character than 1Corinthians 11:14. At first glance, they are contradictory. What am I missing here? What is the point of 1Corinthians 11:14? What are your views on this? Matthew 6 does not contradict 1Samuels 16:7 because Jesus is talking about an outward action, but his emphasis is on the inward heartfelt intent/motive concerning the outward action: the heart.

 

[leecappella]

...or is homosexuality really the only sin that you are interested in continuing?

. . . Denny

me: What do you mean by this?

 

[leecappella]

exactly[/b] what is going on between women in Romans 1:26 that was "against nature." But, he gives us more of an explanation than you may realize. Consider the first word in verse 27 - - "likewise." The points that follow this word tell us that the men left their natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, and men with men committed that which is shameful - - like the women were doing - - that is what is suggested by the word "likewise." So, what is it about this context that you do not understand? Does the text not suggest sexual activity between women and women, and between men and men? And does the text not suggest that this behavior was against nature and shameful? I sense that you find justification in your mind by saying that committed same-sex relationships are not addressed here, just lustful ones. I still haven't found where you find any approval at all for same-sex relationships from the Scriptures. You are assuming the very point that you have to prove (Col. 3:17 & 1 Peter 4:11a). I have no reason to suspect that Paul's understanding of homosexuality was any different than God's (2 Tim. 3:16). In fact, if I really "bought into what you are selling," then all of Paul's writings would be open to question - - we could challenge every single thing that he said on the basis that he was looking at it solely from his own perspective and from a Jewish and first-century culture. Is that what you desire to do? Would you really do that just to attempt to justify homosexuality?

Paul speaks of the grafting of wild olive branches into a good olive tree in Romans 11:17-24. He is using this illustration to show how we might view God bringing Jews and Gentiles together. God is the one who both cuts off the natural limbs, and the one that grafts the wild limbs into the tree. While it is true that God shows he has power over nature here and elsewhere (Matt. 14:25, Mark 4:36-41), that is not justification for anyone to act contrary to nature, as in Rom. 1:26-27! I do not determine by reading these passages that God's actions, although contrary to nature, were sinful. But I do determine by reading Romans 1:26-27 that those actions in that context were against nature and were indeed sinful. I also find that they are not to be tolerated among God's people in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

. . . Denny

dra: Have you not read about Jesus' views of marriage in Matt. 19:3-12? Some people simply do not have a right to remarry. It doesn't matter if they are in a committed relationship or not - - the Lord says that they don't have a right to each other physically. This context relates to the marriage of the husband and wife.

me: Jesus' goal in this text was to reiterate to the Pharisees that when a man and woman marry, they are not to be put asunder. The question presented to Jesus had to do with divorcing one's wife for any reason. Jesus opposed this. Remarriage was not permitted, by law, when the person one was married to was still living. If one's spouse was deceased, remarriage was permissable (Rom. 7:3). So, when you say that 'some people don't have the right to remarry', those people are those whose spouses are still living, according to Romans 7:3. You are correct when you say that this text relates to the marriage of the husband and the wife. The words of Jesus also relates to the marriage of the husband and the wife. However, Jesus says all (humans) cannot receive his words concerning heterosexual marriage. Verse 12 explains why this is so.

dra: Where exactly is the Scriptural context that allows for same sex relationships and/or marriages. I don't believe that I have found it yet. Could you point it out?

me: Where is the scriptural context that allows for the existence of cats? Where are they referenced in the bible? If they are not specifically mentioned in scripture, does that mean they did not exist? You know that same sex relationships of love are not presented in scripture, thus you can see why I've asked you a similar question. Your answer is?

dra: It is true that Paul doesn't say exactly what is going on between women in Romans 1:26 that was "against nature." But, he gives us more of an explanation than you may realize. Consider the first word in verse 27 - - "likewise." The points that follow this word tell us that the men left their natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, and men with men committed that which is shameful - - like the women were doing - - that is what is suggested by the word "likewise." So, what is it about this context that you do not understand? Does the text not suggest sexual activity between women and women, and between men and men?

me: Ambiguous means something is capable of being understood in more than one way. Verse 26 tells us that the women exchanged the natural use for a use that is against nature. Verse 27 begins with 'likewise'. Verse 27 is more detailed in the male's actions than verse 26 is about the female's actions. We do know that both went against nature. The possibility of 'likewise' implying lesbianism took place is something I am open to, but it is not something that I see as the only exclusive conclusion. Just because 'likewise' is a mediating word used between verses 26 and 27 does not mean that since males were with males, then women were 'likewise' with women. Paul could have been referring to some other act or acts. Considering this is an idolatrous context, the females could have engaged in sex with animals, as was the case in some idolatries. Based on what I've read, the possibilities are endless. Especially where orgies and prostitution and debauchery are concerned. Simply put, even heterosexual acts associated with ritualistic rites could be deemed 'against nature'. If I said, "Timmy abruptly turned right and, shortly thereafter, Tommy 'likewise' turned left", what do you learn? You learn that 'likwise' does not always mean that the actions involved were exactly the same. Something was similar, but not exact. This is one way of looking at verses 26 and 27. I would also like to say that based on the definition of 'natural' (ie. Strong's #5446 - physical ie (by implication) instinctive), that Paul's view was that all humans were created naturally instinctive physically towards the opposite sex. The term itself implies this. Ask a homosexual if they are naturally physically instinctive towards women. The answere is likely a 'no'. That makes Paul's view of humanity, as a whole in regards to orientation, untrue. Orientation (ie. inversion) was likely not a concept in bible days. We learn more as time goes by.

dra: I have no reason to suspect that Paul's understanding of homosexuality was any different than God's (2 Tim. 3:16).

me: I have no reason to believe that God, like Paul, believes long hair on a male to be a shame. Or that God, like Paul, feels that women should not be permitted to speak in church.

dra: Paul speaks of the grafting of wild olive branches into a good olive tree in Romans 11:17-24. He is using this illustration to show how we might view God bringing Jews and Gentiles together. God is the one who both cuts off the natural limbs, and the one that grafts the wild limbs into the tree. While it is true that God shows he has power over NATURE here and elsewhere (Matt. 14:25, Mark 4:36-41), that is not justification for anyone to act contrary to NATURE, as in Rom. 1:26-27!

me: Define nature in both places as indicated, please.

dra: I do not determine by reading these passages that God's actions, although contrary to nature, were sinful.

me: So, acting contrary to nature does or does not connote sin?

dra: But I do determine by reading Romans 1:26-27 that those actions in that context were against nature and were indeed sinful.

me: What is your definition of 'nature' as used in Romans 1? Is it the same 'nature' as in 1Corinthians 11:14?

dra: I also find that they are not to be tolerated among God's people in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

me: You shoudl try the link again. I don't want to retype too much of what I've already typed before http://christianforums.com/t64687

Ps. If this posts in bold, nothing is meant by it.

 

[leecappella]

You didn't answer my questions. You are still saying that God breathed the words, but Paul messed up the ones that have a direct bearing on the way we view homosexuality. Now, why not answer my questions?
* Are there other areas of Paul's writings that he taught erroneously about? * And was Paul the only writer of the Scriptures that did this, or did some, or all, of the other writers of the Bible also teach error?

The spiritual gifts you mention have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10). We have the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25).



Doesn't Paul wrap up his conversation in verse 40 of 1 Cor. 7? What makes you think that he carries his judgments on remaining single over into the discussion of chapter 8, which is a totally different discussion? What do you see that gives you the freedom to put all of Paul's writings under question?



So, since the Lord is all-knowing as you say, why did He put His word into the thoughts of such fallible men as Paul, who, as you portray, taught error? By the way, since Jesus didn't record His own words Himself, how do you have confidence that the words in red letters actually are the words of the Lord? After all, weren't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John just as likely to be as fallible as was Paul? And didn't they live in the same time period, and under the same culture?

dra: You didn't answer my questions. You are still saying that God breathed the words, but Paul messed up the ones that have a direct bearing on the way we view homosexuality.

me: I never said Paul messed them up. He simply understood the issue as his time and culture permitted him to. I think it true that had some bible characters lived today, some things would make more sense to them than it did then. We learn as time goes on. Hopefully, we grow as time goes on. The very definition of 'nature' in Romans 1 means to be naturally instinctive physically. Instinctive means natural tendency or inclination. It is not true that all males have a natural inclination physically towards women. This sound to me like what Paul is implying in Romans 1. Also, who are the 'we'? Not all christians view homosexuality as you do.

dra: Are there other areas of Paul's writings that he taught erroneously about? And was Paul the only writer of the Scriptures that did this, or did some, or all, of the other writers of the Bible also teach error?

me: Test all things. Keep the good of it and discard the bad.

dra: The spiritual gifts you mention have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10). We have the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25).

me: What spiritual gifts did I mention, prophesying?

dra: Doesn't Paul wrap up his conversation in verse 40 of 1 Cor. 7? What makes you think that he carries his judgments on remaining single over into the discussion of chapter 8, which is a totally different discussion? What do you see that gives you the freedom to put all of Paul's writings under question?

me: What makes you think that he doesn't carry his judgements over? The bible was not originally written as you have come to know it today. No header titles, no use of chapters, no verse numbers, etc. Are you assuming that because a new chapter starts (ie. chapter 8) that Paul has ceased his view and begun again with the Lord's view? And speaking of Paul's view. If all scripture is given by inspiration, should Paul's view, when he makes it known that what he is about to say is not of the Lord, be considered scripture? Does he not imply by saying, "I have no commandment of the Lord", that what he is about to say is not of the Lord, making it not inspired, and, therefore, making "all scripture is given by inspiration" not all scripture, but some scripture? In other words, when Paul speaks 'not of the Lord', is this considered scripture still? If it is, is it inspired still though it is not 'not of the Lord'? If it is not scripture, then all of the bible is not considered scripture, is it? There's nothing wrong with having questions.

dra: So, since the Lord is all-knowing as you say, did He put His word into the thoughts of such fallible men as Paul.

me: God uses humans despite the fact that we, including biblical authors, are infallible.

dra: By the way, since Jesus didn't record His own words Himself, how do you have confidence that the words in red letters actually are the words of the Lord. After all, weren't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John just as likely to be as fallible as was Paul? And didn't they live in the same time period, and under the same culture?

me: The same way you have confidence in what you believe in: faith. The same way you have confidence in accepting what it is you accept and discarding what it is that you decide to discard: faith. The same way you have confidence in what you are reading in the bible and what the meaning is or isn't in what you are reading: faith. I put not my confidence in the flesh (humans). Though we share the same faith in Christ, we don't share the same perceptions of that faith in regards to the bible. The gospel you believe in is the same one as I believe in. The gospel message itself is not what we have been dialoging about.

Ps. If this posts in bold, nothing is meant by it

 

[leecappella]

Part one:

I don't believe that is it at all. What I see as conflicting is two totally different lines of reasoning. First, you attempt to say that the teaching of Paul is ambiguous. Therefore, you cannot determine exactly what is against nature. Then, you wish to challenge the apostle Paul's teaching - - your charge is that he is expressing his own ideas and culture - - and is not speaking from God. I personally don't find what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26-27 to be that hard to figure out. Deep down, I also suspect that you can what I see. That is why you feel the need to downplay or discredit Paul's teaching.



I agree that the gospel in Romans 1:16 is extended to homosexuals just as it is to heterosexuals. Why can we not agree that certain activities must be stopped when one desires to follow the Lord - specifically, why can we not agree on 1 Cor. 6:9-11?

I still reject your reasoning on Romans 1. You would have us conclude that homosexuality is wrong just because it is associated with idolatry. Let's follow through with your logic. What about the list of sins in verses 29-31? Are they only wrong because they are associated with idolatry? Now, I don't know about you, but I can clearly see where such reasoning leads.




The phrase "in the name of the Lord" expresses the need for the authority of the Lord. We are not required to say "in the name of the Lord" everytime we say or do something, but we are required to have authority for what we say and do. In Matt. 21:23-27 Jesus clearly provides the two sources of authority. Notice the language of Acts 4:7, "By what power or by what name have you done this?" In this context, the Sanhedrin is asking Peter and John who authorized them to be teaching the people.



I tried, but could not connect to the web address you gave. For about 15 years I studied solely from the King James version, but have since branched out in the past 14 years to other credible translations. I thought that it might help you to see how separate groups of translators sought to relay the meanings of the various words in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Tell me, what do you think of the other things listed in these verses? Do you seek to justify them also?



Look at 1 Cor. 6:8. It seems that you did not grasp this verse when you explained your prior studies in this chapter. The Christians at Corinth were doing wrong and defrauding their brethren. Paul clearly tells them the consequences of unrighteousness actions. Paul lists a wide variety of sinful activities that the Corinthians need to be aware of - - and not deceived into thinking that these activities are acceptable or unnoticed by God (vs. 9-10).

I am not clear exactly what distinction you are trying to make between the terms "sexual inversion" vs. "sexual perversion." I understand that any sexual activity other than between a man and woman that are married to each other is not acceptable in God's eyes. I believe that this is what Paul understood and taught. I don't see the automatic connection that you make between homosexual activity and idolatry. Look closely at 1 Cor. 6:9. Aren't fornication, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, and sodomy all listed separately? Consider fornication? Is fornication only wrong when associated with idolatry, or is fornication wrong just by itself? I'll let you work on this for awhile. I think you know the right answer, but it is very hard for you to accept.

I am not sure what you are alluding to in regard to what we know today. I really hope you are not trying to suggest that God made homosexuals the way that they are.



No, I have not had the need to read in detail of such activities. I understand that pagans also sacrificed their children during these periods of "worship." I believe that I understand just how low a person will sink when they turn their back to God and everything that has a speck of decency about it from studying the Scriptures.

I also understand from studying the Scriptures how hard it is sometimes to see something that we don't really want to see. Those who do not have a love for truth can be blinded by their desire to pursue whatever has their attention. There is a sense in which the focus of their attention becomes an idol to them. This desire can become so strong within a person that God will send them a "strong delusion" to believe what they desire so strongly to believe (see Col. 3:5 and 2 Thess. 2:10-12).

. . . Denny

dra: I don't believe that is it at all. What I see as conflicting is two totally different lines of reasoning. First, you attempt to say that the teaching of Paul is ambiguous. Therefore, you cannot determine exactly what is against nature.

me: Ambiguous means being able to see something in more than one way.

dra: I agree that the gospel in Romans 1:16 is extended to homosexuals just as it is to heterosexuals. Why can we not agree that certain activities must be stopped when one desires to follow the Lord...?

me: I agree that certain activities must be stopped when one desires to follow the Lord, but the activities that Paul is referring to in Romans 1 are not perceived by you and I in the same manner, thus our differences.

dra:...specifically, why can we not agree on 1 Cor. 6:9-11?

me: Because your bible has 'homosexuals' included in this verse while mine does not. When I look up the definitions of the terms in question in this verse, 'homosexual' does not come up. Bible translators are human too, you know!

dra: I still reject your reasoning on Romans 1. You would have us conclude that homosexuality is wrong just because it is associated with idolatry.

me: The homosexuality that I believe Paul was aware of in his day and time had nothing to do with any godly characteristics: love, monogamy, commitment, etc. All same sex acts were the opposite of these in their contexts. Same sex acts are rightly condemned in the bible because, well, look at their contexts. You can't tell me that context does not matter. You could, but I would disagree. If you were a man in bible days who thought that all humans were created heterosexual, though you would not be aware of that term, and you knew of males being with males via prostitution and orgies in association with idolatry, wouldn't you think that those males were going against nature? They would have to be, right, because since they are naturally inclined physically towards women yet they are engaging in sex with males, one would have to go against one's nature to engage in such acts, right?

dra: Let's follow through with your logic. What about the list of sins in verses 29-31? Are they only wrong because they are associated with idolatry? Now, I don't know about you, but I can clearly see where such reasoning leads.

me: I wonder if you are a bible fundamentalist or literalist. If so, being such could lead one to similar types of conclusions based on literal, fundamentalist reasonings. However, I do not claim nor have I stated that just because something is wrong inside an idolatrous context that something is okay outside of it. You've applied that assumption to me. God, at one time, prohibited anything that was associated to idolatry. Whether it was wrong in and of itself or only wrong because of its association with serving another god, it was abomination (ie. idolatry). Are the fruits of the Spirit being produced in any one of the things in verses 29-31? I do believe these are characteristics of idolators, as seen by Paul, who would know having experienced living around them. Idolatry involved origies, prostitution, and using another sexually for selfish gain. This is vile and unseemly.

dra: The phrase "in the name of the Lord" expresses the need for the authority of the Lord. We are not required to say "in the name of the Lord" everytime we say or do something, but we are required to have authority for what we say and do. In Matt. 21:23-27 Jesus clearly provides the two sources of authority. Notice the language of Acts 4:7, "By what power or by what name have you done this?" In this context, the Sanhedrin is asking Peter and John who authorized them to be teaching the people.

me: Maybe I missed something in Mattew 21:23-27. Jesus does not mention by what authority He did his works. He refused to mention. "In the name of the Lord", to me, means that as a believer, I am to know my identitiy is in Christ. It means that I can come boldy to the throne because I have accepted Christ and I am accepted by faith. And yes, typing this out, I see that it means that I have authority in His name when what I say or what I do honors His name. However, just because you find homosexuality to be a sin does not mean I should see it the same way as you do. Some people don't do this or that because of their faith and they thank God while others do engage in some things that others abstain from because of their faith and they too give thanks to God. Everyone has a reason for believing what they believe.



dra: I tried, but could not connect to the web address you gave. For about 15 years I studied solely from the King James version, but have since branched out in the past 14 years to other credible translations. I thought that it might help you to see how separate groups of translators sought to relay the meanings of the various words in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Tell me, what do you think of the other things listed in these verses? Do you seek to justify them also?

me: Credible translations are fine, but don't forget, translators are human too!! For years, I have been told that a sodomite is a homosexual and vice versa. I discovered that this is not true. You have come to the table of discussion believing that 1Corinthians 6:9 has a condemnation of homosexuality in general included in it. I suppose a bible translation that has 'homosexuals' in it leaves no room for doubt. However, a bible that does not have 'homosexual' written in it does leave doubt. Hopefully, you can connect to the link. Try it one more time:

Another thought about this verse is if the kingdom of God is rigtheousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14:17), is this then really talking about the actual place called heaven or characteristics of those who follow God and what they will gain when they place faith in God the Creator and walk in the Spirit?



dra: Look at 1 Cor. 6:8. It seems that you did not grasp this verse when you explained your prior studies in this chapter. The Christians at Corinth were doing wrong and defrauding their brethren. Paul clearly tells them the consequences of unrighteousness actions. Paul lists a wide variety of sinful activities that the Corinthians need to be aware of - - and not deceived into thinking that these activities are acceptable or unnoticed by God (vs. 9-10).

me: Again, the link: http://christianforums.com/t64687

 

[leecappella]

Part two:

I don't believe that is it at all. What I see as conflicting is two totally different lines of reasoning. First, you attempt to say that the teaching of Paul is ambiguous. Therefore, you cannot determine exactly what is against nature. Then, you wish to challenge the apostle Paul's teaching - - your charge is that he is expressing his own ideas and culture - - and is not speaking from God. I personally don't find what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26-27 to be that hard to figure out. Deep down, I also suspect that you can what I see. That is why you feel the need to downplay or discredit Paul's teaching.



I agree that the gospel in Romans 1:16 is extended to homosexuals just as it is to heterosexuals. Why can we not agree that certain activities must be stopped when one desires to follow the Lord - specifically, why can we not agree on 1 Cor. 6:9-11?

I still reject your reasoning on Romans 1. You would have us conclude that homosexuality is wrong just because it is associated with idolatry. Let's follow through with your logic. What about the list of sins in verses 29-31? Are they only wrong because they are associated with idolatry? Now, I don't know about you, but I can clearly see where such reasoning leads.




The phrase "in the name of the Lord" expresses the need for the authority of the Lord. We are not required to say "in the name of the Lord" everytime we say or do something, but we are required to have authority for what we say and do. In Matt. 21:23-27 Jesus clearly provides the two sources of authority. Notice the language of Acts 4:7, "By what power or by what name have you done this?" In this context, the Sanhedrin is asking Peter and John who authorized them to be teaching the people.



I tried, but could not connect to the web address you gave. For about 15 years I studied solely from the King James version, but have since branched out in the past 14 years to other credible translations. I thought that it might help you to see how separate groups of translators sought to relay the meanings of the various words in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Tell me, what do you think of the other things listed in these verses? Do you seek to justify them also?



Look at 1 Cor. 6:8. It seems that you did not grasp this verse when you explained your prior studies in this chapter. The Christians at Corinth were doing wrong and defrauding their brethren. Paul clearly tells them the consequences of unrighteousness actions. Paul lists a wide variety of sinful activities that the Corinthians need to be aware of - - and not deceived into thinking that these activities are acceptable or unnoticed by God (vs. 9-10).

I am not clear exactly what distinction you are trying to make between the terms "sexual inversion" vs. "sexual perversion." I understand that any sexual activity other than between a man and woman that are married to each other is not acceptable in God's eyes. I believe that this is what Paul understood and taught. I don't see the automatic connection that you make between homosexual activity and idolatry. Look closely at 1 Cor. 6:9. Aren't fornication, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, and sodomy all listed separately? Consider fornication? Is fornication only wrong when associated with idolatry, or is fornication wrong just by itself? I'll let you work on this for awhile. I think you know the right answer, but it is very hard for you to accept.

I am not sure what you are alluding to in regard to what we know today. I really hope you are not trying to suggest that God made homosexuals the way that they are.



No, I have not had the need to read in detail of such activities. I understand that pagans also sacrificed their children during these periods of "worship." I believe that I understand just how low a person will sink when they turn their back to God and everything that has a speck of decency about it from studying the Scriptures.

I also understand from studying the Scriptures how hard it is sometimes to see something that we don't really want to see. Those who do not have a love for truth can be blinded by their desire to pursue whatever has their attention. There is a sense in which the focus of their attention becomes an idol to them. This desire can become so strong within a person that God will send them a "strong delusion" to believe what they desire so strongly to believe (see Col. 3:5 and 2 Thess. 2:10-12).

. . . Denny

dra: I am not clear exactly what distinction you are trying to make between the terms "sexual inversion" vs. "sexual perversion." I understand that any sexual activity other than between a man and woman that are married to each other is not acceptable in God's eyes. I believe that this is what Paul understood and taught.

me: Inversion is a concept I doubt Paul was aware of. Perversion, he was. Perversion involves a conscious choice to take part in sexual activity that is opposed to the person's natural instincts, which is what 'nature' in the greek means. Inversion is the sexual orientation one discovers in themselves apart from any conscious choice. It is a basic, integrated aspect of a person's selfhood and identitly. This identity is what I believe Paul deemed all humans to have, though heterosexual. In our day and time, we know more about inversion than those who came before us. A homosexual is not someone who has denied God altogether and because of denying relationship with God, all other relationships are distorted and life becomes all about lust and self, self, self!!! That could be a heterosexual as well. That is a description of idolators.

dra: I don't see the automatic connection that you make between homosexual activity and idolatry. Look closely at 1 Cor. 6:9. Aren't fornication, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, and sodomy all listed separately? Consider fornication? Is fornication only wrong when associated with idolatry, or is fornication wrong just by itself? I'll let you work on this for awhile. I think you know the right answer, but it is very hard for you to accept.

me: Leviticus 18:24 tells us that God is going to cast out the nations that are defiled that do all the things mentioned beforehand. In this 18th chapter is the verse that many people like to quote, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind". Also in this chapter, verse 21, Molech, a false god or idol is mentioned alongside verse 22. As stated to you before, the bible was not originally written with verse numbers and such to divide its contents. It is not absurd to believe that a reference to homosexual acts is connected to a reference to Molech. Molech was known for being served and worshipped sexually. Leviticus prohibits Israel from 'whoring after Molech'. No Israelite is to become a devotee (ie. a prostitute) of Molechs nor are any Isrealite children to be sacrificed to Molech. I see a connection here between male/male prostitution (verse 21) and that prostitution being a part of an idolatrous context (ie. Molech). In 1Kings 14:24, the bible tells us that sodomites were in the land. As stated previously, I have been taught that sodomites are homosexuals. It is no wonder that some bible translations have translated 1Kings 14:24 as , 'there was homosexuality in the land'. If you've connected to my link, you would know by now that a sodomite is a male cult prostitute devoted to licentious idolatry via prostitution. This is not a homosexual, so where does the homosexual connection come in? These sodomites or prostitutes serviced worshippers sexually. The devotees of Molech and Ashtoreth were known to have male prostitutes that dressed up in women's clothing to resemble the deity Ashtoreth and they serviced the males that came to worship their god or goddess. These are the abominations that were done according to 1Kings 14:24 by the sodomites. Abomination is a term, when connected to idolatry, that means idolatry or an idol itself. It also means abhorence, which is how God felt about idolatry. Some idols in the bible are called abominations. Molech, the abomination of the Canaanites (my example). Translation: the idol of the Canaanites. 1Kings 14:24 tells us that God has completed the task of casting the nations out that He had said He would cast out in Leviticus 18:24, in relation to the male/male acts that were mentioned in verse 22. The male/male acts were acts of idolatrous prostitution.

me: I am not sure what you are alluding to in regard to what we know today. I really hope that you are not trying to suggest that God made you that way.

me: Why do you hope that?



dra: I also understand from studying the Scriptures how hard it is sometimes to see something that we don't really want to see. Those who do not have a love for truth can be blinded by their desire to pursue whatever has their attention. There is a sense in which the focus of their attention becomes an idol to them. This desire can become so strong within a person that God will send them a "strong delusion" to believe what they desire so strongly (see Col. 3:5 and 2 Thess. 2:10-12).

me: If you knew me, you would know me that I have a love for the truth. So glad that God knows me and my heart and motives behind my life. So glad that the one I worship is not Denny.

 

[- DRA -]

me: Admittedly, my relationship with God and my faith are a work in progress. As a believer, I am forever learning. I only seek to understand, like the rest of us. I find it valid to have questions. I am not opposed to my view changing, but as it stands now it has not. 1Samuel 16:7 sounds more like God's character than 1Corinthians 11:14. At first glance, they are contradictory. What am I missing here? What is the point of 1Corinthians 11:14? What are your views on this? Matthew 6 does not contradict 1Samuels 16:7 because Jesus is talking about an outward action, but his emphasis is on the inward heartfelt intent/motive concerning the outward action: the heart.

Everybody that confesses the Lord should be a work in progress.

How do you know what God's character is like? Wouldn't that mean that you have to put trust in the accuracy of the word of God? Do you put this kind of trust in what mere, infallible men have written - - using a good dose of their own opinions and cultures - - rather than recording what God tells them to write? See where your reasoning leads you? How do you pick and choose which things are accurate, and which are not?

In I Corinthians 2-16, Paul is clearing up a misunderstanding around subjection. He gives the order of subjection in vs. 3 - - God, Christ, man, woman (in that order). While a man does not have to cover his head when he prays or prophesies, a woman must do so (vs. 4-6). Why? He lists 5 reasons:
1.) man is in the image and glory of God; woman is the glory of man (vs. 7)
2.) man is from woman; woman is from man (vs. 8)
3.) man was not created for the woman; woman was created for the man (vs. 9)
4.) because of the angels (see Jude 6)
5.) because of nature - - men have shorter hair, women have longer hair (vs. 14-15). Note: vs. 10 - this symbol of authority is a "natural covering - - a natural sign of subjection"
Paul is reasoning that a woman needs to be covered when she prays or prophesies (exercises a spiritual gift- see chapter 14) to show her subjection to man. While this is a concise version of the text, I hope you can get the general meaning.

I do not see this verse and 1 Sam. 16:7 as being contradictory. Just as in Matt. 6, the verses call for some appropriate outward behavior, but that behavior is driven by the way we think inside.

 

[leecappella]

dra: Everybody that confesses the Lord should be a work in progress.

me: You see, we can agree on something

dra:How do you know what God's character is like? Wouldn't that mean that you have to put trust in the accuracy of the word of God? Do you put this kind of trust in what mere, infallible men have written - - using a good dose of their own opinions and cultures - - rather than recording what God tells them to write?

me: God's character is revealed in Christ and how He treated others and how He commands us to treat our neighbor. No, I do not have to trust in the accuracy of the bible in order to know this. Something or someone does not have to be perfectly infallible in order to place trust in it. If it did, perfection would be expected from our pastors, preachers, and anyone who preached the things of the Lord. People don't trust other people because they are perfect, because they are not, but people trust other people because of a person's ability to honestly communicate and act upon the truth as he or she is able to perceive it. I consider the Word of God to be Jesus, not scripture. The Spirit did move upon the hearts and minds of the biblical authors, but the bible is, in my opinion, a product of human response to the Spirit's leading. At the source (ie. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit) the inspiration is perfect and infallible, but the receiver (ie. we humans) are not. John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. It did not become a book! This does not mean we cannot learn from the bible, for we can and have. Christ, however, should be our focus.

dra: See where your reasoning leads you? How do you pick and choose which things are accurate, and which are not?

me: If you are a biblical literalist, being such could lead you to some conclusions that are worthy of the same response from me. You imply that something is wrong with trusing fallible men. God trusts us enough to use us even though He knows we are capable of error. If you attend church, you are guilty of trusting mere men as well. If this is applicable, why can you do so, but I cannot? No matter what fallible person you listen to, you have to make a decision whether or not what they've said is true or not.

dra: In I Corinthians 2-16, Paul is clearing up a misunderstanding around subjection. He gives the order of subjection in vs. 3 - - God, Christ, man, woman (in that order). While a man does not have to cover his head when he prays or prophesies, a woman must do so (vs. 4-6). Why? He lists 5 reasons:
1.) man is in the image and glory of God; woman is the glory of man (vs. 7)
2.) man is from woman; woman is from man (vs. 8)
3.) man was not created for the woman; woman was created for the man (vs. 9)
4.) because of the angels (see Jude 6)
5.) because of nature - - men have shorter hair, women have longer hair (vs. 14-15). Note: vs. 10 - this symbol of authority is a "natural covering - - a natural sign of subjection"
Paul is reasoning that a woman needs to be covered when she prays or prophesies (exercises a spiritual gift- see chapter 14) to show her subjection to man. While this is a concise version of the text, I hope you can get the general meaning.

me: I do not believe God is concerned with the length of one's hair while praying or prophesying. I doubt that He blocks anyone out once He sees their hair is too long or too short.

dra: I do not see this verse and 1 Sam. 16:7 as being contradictory. Just as in Matt. 6, the verses call for some appropriate outward behavior, but that behavior is driven by the way we think inside.

me: If what matters to God is one's heart and its intention and motives, then one's hair lenghth is moot.

 

[- DRA -]

me: What do you mean by this?

Lee,

That quote was from this discussion on page 4 (post #39):

dra: I suggest you do just as the Corinthians did in 1 Cor. 6:11. Make such sinful activity a thing of the past.

me: I'm in agreement with you there, but just as some believers considered eating food that was offered to idols a sin while others, like Paul, did not, I don't consider homosexuality in all forms to be a sin.

dra: Contrary to what you say, we are not in agreement on 1 Cor. 6:11. This text discusses activities that God views as sinful, and will prohibit one from inheriting the eternal home. You attempt to slide homosexual acts from this category into the discussion of the eating of meats in chapter 8. Tell us, are you willing to slide other sins from 1 Cor. 6:11 into chapter 8's discussion, or is homosexuality really the only sin that you are interested in continuing?

My point was to help you understand that homosexuality is categorized with other sins in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. You have not displayed a willingness to justify any of the other actions in this list of things that are clearly presented as being totally unacceptable to God, but your methods of reasoning leave the door wide open to do such. I really don't know what your intent is? I don't know if you would use the same reasoning to justify the continuing practice of some of these other activities listed in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. You could. Or someone else could find comfort in your reasoning and use it. I want neither thing to occur, because I firmly believe that this reasoning is off-track. That is my point.

 

[leecappella]

dra: Contrary to what you say, we are not in agreement on 1 Cor. 6:11. This text discusses activities that God views as sinful, and will prohibit one from inheriting the eternal home. You attempt to slide homosexual acts from this category into the discussion of the eating of meats in chapter 8. Tell us, are you willing to slide other sins from 1 Cor. 6:11 into chapter 8's discussion, or is homosexuality really the only sin that you are interested in continuing?

dra: My point was to help you understand that homosexuality is categorized with other sins in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. You have not displayed a willingness to justify any of the other actions in this list of things that are clearly presented as being totally unacceptable to God, but your methods of reasoning leave the door wide open to do such. I really don't know what your intent is? I don't know if you would use the same reasoning to justify the continuing practice of some of these other activities listed in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. You could. Or someone else could find comfort in your reasoning and use it. I want neither thing to occur, because I firmly believe that this reasoning is off-track. That is my point.

me: Our views on 1Corinthians 6:9 are not the same. If you've read my other recent posts to you, you would know why I don't see this text as dealing with homosexulity in general. If you've connected to the link that I've provided (let me know if you have or have not), then you would see my view on this text in particular. You see it as referring to a general condemnation of homosexualty. I do not, based on my concordance's defintions of the two greek words in the text. Read what I have posted recently. You have really had me writing and typing lately