Questions Regarding the Creation Story

[- DRA -]

I can determine from these definitions that your view is that it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be with females and vice versa. That it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be sexually attracted to females and vice versa. That it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be relationship oriented towards females and vice versa. Atleast, based on the definitions and how they are used in the text of Romans 1. If this is how you see what Romans 1 is saying, then we agree. However, we disagree after the fact because I do not believe that it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be with females or vice versa. Obviously, hetrosexuality is the predominant orientation, but it is not the orientation shared by all because it is not an inborn, natural instinct for all. I should know! I am aware that God knows me and my heart. This is most comforting to me. He knows my conscience as well. I must follow my heart and conscience regardless of the voices of others. If I forsook my beliefs for what you believe, I would be living your faith and your views. I would kind of be seeking your approval. No doubt, if I saw things as you did, you would approve. Sure, you would probably say it was only your desire that I see it God's way, and that may be well and true, but it also implies that the way you see the bible and what it does and does not say is God's way and all others that contradict your view of the bible are not God's way. It sounds so much like the Jews trying to get the Gentiles not to be Gentiles anymore in order to be accepted by God. You have the right to search the scriptures with your heart and soul and to come to conclusions that do not sear your heart or your conscience. I have that right as well. There are people who will agree with your conclusions and there are those who will disagree, but if you feel at peace with your conclusions, no matter what anyone else says to you, I bet you stay with your beliefs, don't you? I think I will start posting less as usual. One thing I've learned here is that debating as much as we have been is futile. It can go on forever and ever, can it not? It sure can and it has! All I know is that I love God and I live my life every day with Him on my mind and I do for others with the love of God in my heart. God will not turn me away, knowing my heart. Sure, there are those who will be turned away, but it will be because their works and intentions behind their works are not pure. Christ's law is to love God and neighbor. One can do good works towards God and neighbor with ungodly intentions. This is a violation of the law (of Christ). Thanks for your words and time. Look for me when you can. I love you and God bless.

Lee,

I am not asking you to live my faith. I have been very careful to post Scripture and the reasoning behind everything that I teach. That is what I want you to learn to do.

Let me offer a few words of exhortation. I know very little about you. I have been impressed with your level of knowledge on occassion i.e. Matt. 19. At other times, I am amazed by the weakness of your reasoning i.e. cats. You remind me of a defense lawyer in our present day judicial system. You attempt to cast doubt about a person's guilt, but never show how the one you are defending is innocent. Instead, the accused is "innocent" because they cannot be proven guilty with 100% certainty. This rationale simply is NOT applicable to the way God says things work. Why do you think that God wants us to base our faith on His word (Romans 10:17)? Why do you think He wants us to speak as He speaks (1 Pet. 4:11a)? Why are we encouraged to imitate the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11). The answer to all these questions can be found in James 1:21, . . . "Receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." That is my desire for you. Nothing more . . . nothing less. I am not attempting to persuade you to adapt to my lifestyle. Rather, I am attempting to help you see the necessity of rendering obedience to the Lord in the deeds that you do (Col. 3:17).

Yes, at this point I am compelled to view homosexuality no different than I did before we started studying this issue. I have found that in many respects you have shown indications of being a very, very good Bible student, but have used very poor and weak reasoning when attempting to justify the homosexual lifestyle. Your strengths in other areas compared to your weaknesses in this area show how much you desire to continue and justify this lifestyle. I am deeply concerned for your physical, as well as your spiritual well-being. I have changed my understanding of Bible issues before, and may change more in the future. Necessity demands that each change be based on sound, biblical reasoning. That is what I look for. That is what I think the Lord demands of me, and in my efforts to teach others. In turn, I expect the same from you. I greatly desire this for you. I make no apologies for that. Although I cannot consent to the lifestyle you have chosen, I am speaking from the heart when I say that I ultimately wish the very best for you - - that being an eternal home in heaven. That is why I have labored so diligently these past few weeks. I pray that you continue to study the Holy Word and adapt your life to His will.

In His service,
. . . Denny

 

[Fideist]

Your attempt at sarcasm uses flawed reasoning. Comparing cats and homosexuality is like comparing apples and oranges.

I did not read that he was comparing cats and homosexuality. He was pointing out that cats were not mentioned in the Bible.

 

[cbk]

Normally, it is man’s inherent desire to leave at peace within himself. However, to those of us who believe in a God and a Day of Judgement, a great conflict arises wherein the man must either choose to bring his fleshly desires into harmony with the Will of God or reject God, outright, and pursue his own desires. Sadly, both these choices are a burden that does not bring the total satisfaction that we, in the flesh, strive for – unless, of course, you are one of those individuals with desires that are in HARMONY with our Father.

One man desires to steal. Yet, he believes in God and a decision must be made.

One man desires to kill. Yet, he too believes in God, and a decision must be made.

One woman desires to commit adultery. Yet, she believes in God, and a decision must be made.

To choose God leads the individual to suffer the temptations of the sinful nature, and FULL peace is not found. To reject God leads the individual to suffer the fear and torment of a future day of judgement, and, once again, FULL peace is not found. Therefore, blessed is the one who possesses desires that are in harmony with our Father in Heaven. Peace is within his grasp. And few ever experience such pleasure while upon this earth.

But, man has another way to reconcile these differences between himself and God. Rather than choose self OR choose God, he can wrongfully choose both. Rather than changing to imitate Christ for one’s benefit, such an individual changes the image and desires of CHRIST for said individuals benefit. This second choice is, without a doubt, the easiest of choices, from a fleshly nature, but from a spiritual nature, it is wrong to the point of entertaining harsh, or eternal judgement.

We all must cast our lot in life. Do we serve God or ourselves? Do we change God or do we change ourselves? Sadly, from tarrying with many on these forums, it is apparent that many have cast in favor of changing God’s image to that of their own in an attempt to bring a sense of peace within themselves that is free from burden, free from sacrifice.

This is wrong, oh so wrong. I can safely state that I am not a righteous man. Hidden within me, I have the evil passions of the flesh that many Christians within my church would frown upon – yea, even cast stones upon. But, few Christians are different, although they may profess to be with their lips. We all have this struggle within us to reject that which God is opposed to – and live in harmony with the Spirit. And, too, we all have this struggle to do what we should not do – and live in harmony with the sinful desires of the flesh. What wretched creatures are we who suffer in this seemingly unending struggle between holiness and vile. But, this is the path that we, in the flesh, are called to walk.

This is one of our burdens. But, we have hope. And that hope is in Christ Jesus who died for our sins. And we have faith. The faith that God will fulfill his promises to those who ENDURE, by allowing us to be protected by the blood of his perfect sacrifice.

But, woe to we who, rather than face this struggle, opt instead to conform God into OUR likeness while we harbor the sinful passions of the flesh. Woe, to we, who justify our sins by changing the image of God. Who devise ways to circumvent his decrees of holiness. Who reject the words of his chosen ones. Who continue to live in sin with no repentance of heart.

I, too, have these passions that many who reject God harbor. Yet, there are differences. THIS flesh chooses to resist the temptations; the other, to succumb. THIS flesh groans and repents of shortcomings and weaknesses that occur; the other, justifies what it desires to pursue -- calling it good and Holy. This flesh desires that others will act in accordance to God’s written Will; the other, seeks to confuse the Word and lead others astray.

May God give us all the courage, desire, and endurance to walk in obedience to Christ and His decrees.

 

[leecappella]

I did not read that he was comparing cats and homosexuality. He was pointing out that cats were not mentioned in the Bible.

me: Thank you, Fideist. That was exactly my point and only point. I never once said that if something exists then it is acceptable to God. DRA simply implied that since same sex relationships are not mentioned in the bible or the creation story then there is no support for them. I took his reasoning of that and used cats in the same manner of reasoning that DRA used: If cats are not mentioned in the creation story or in scripture for that matter, then there is no support for their existence in some way. I do not believe this, obviously, but his reasoning begat my example which was used via the same reasoning. Thank you for seeing my intentions. That goes to show you what one persons sees or picks up on another person often times does not.

 

[Fideist]

me: Thank you, Fideist.

Sure! But all I did was to point out what you said.

That goes to show you what one persons sees or picks up on another person often times does not.

Sometimes it is all about perception. I doubt I percieve you the way DRA does.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: Fideist

I did not read that he was comparing cats and homosexuality. He was pointing out that cats were not mentioned in the Bible.

me: Thank you, Fideist. That was exactly my point and only point. I never once said that if something exists then it is acceptable to God. DRA simply implied that since same sex relationships are not mentioned in the bible or the creation story then there is no support for them. I took his reasoning of that and used cats in the same manner of reasoning that DRA used: If cats are not mentioned in the creation story or in scripture for that matter, then there is no support for their existence in some way. I do not believe this, obviously, but his reasoning begat my example which was used via the same reasoning. Thank you for seeing my intentions. That goes to show you what one persons sees or picks up on another person often times does not.

Lee,

I hope you don't mind if I chime in while you and Fideist are discussing my previous posts.

You misrepresent my reasoning. Col. 3:17 teaches that we must have authority from the Lord for what you say or do. I never said that specific authority is necessary. Neither does this verse. But authority is necessary. Consider Jesus' command for His apostles to "go" (Mark 16:15). He did not specify any certain mode of travel; therefore, they were free to choose from the various means available in the first-century - - walking, sailing, riding in a cart or wagon, etc. This is an example of generic, or general authority. On the other hand, what the apostles were to preach is specified in Mark 16:15 - - the "gospel." Thus, from this one passage, both ways that authority can be given - - generally, or specifically - - are illustrated.

I am looking for your authority - - either generic or specific - - that allows for homosexuality - - either in the creation account or the entire account of God's word. That is what I have yet to receive. When I asked how you read homosexuality into Genesis chapters 1 & 2, your response was that cats are not specifically mentioned in the story of creation, so there is no Scriptural support for their existence. I pointed out that there is. Gen. 1:24-25 offers a general description of God's creation of land animals. While not specifically mentioning the thousands upon thousands of animals this includes, this general description is the basis for the creation of cats. So, I am left to wonder how the "cat story" is supposed to support homosexuality. Cats are in existence today, but are not mentioned in the creation story - - this was your reasoning to justify homosexuality. It was only AFTER you were shown how flawed this reasoning is i.e. pedophiles, wife-beaters, & child abuser also exist, that you started claiming that your point was misrepresented. The fact is simply this: your comparison of homosexuality to cats in the garden is comparing apples to oranges. Cats are a part of God's creation, and homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that God condemns (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9); the two things have nothing in common.

Now, I want to go back to what you NOW say your point was about the cats. You now say that it was just to point out a flaw in my reasoning - - because cats were not specifically mentioned in the creation story, this proves my reasoning is wrong. So, where is your justification for homosexuality? I pointed out before that it cannot be based on the silence of the Scriptures, because the writer of Hebrews addresses that very topic in Heb. 7:14 - - Jesus was a priest; not a Levitical priest, because he was of the tribe of Judah, a tribe which God had said NOTHING about being priests. The writer then gives us the correct way to view the silence of the Scriptures in Heb. 8:4 - - Jesus could not have been a Levitical priest - - he was of the wrong tribe. Therefore, the conclusion is this: silence does not authorize - - it prohibits.

Jesus relates to the coming together of the first man and first woman as the basis for marriage today (Matt. 19). The only references that I find where sexual desires can be satisfied is in marriage - - between a wife and her husband, and vice-versa i.e. 1 Cor. 7:1-5. Where is the passage (or passages) that say that sexual pleasure can be obtained outside of marriage, and between those of the same sex?

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

me: Thank you, Fideist. That was exactly my point and only point. I never once said that if something exists then it is acceptable to God. DRA simply implied that since same sex relationships are not mentioned in the bible or the creation story then there is no support for them. I took his reasoning of that and used cats in the same manner of reasoning that DRA used: If cats are not mentioned in the creation story or in scripture for that matter, then there is no support for their existence in some way. I do not believe this, obviously, but his reasoning begat my example which was used via the same reasoning. Thank you for seeing my intentions. That goes to show you what one persons sees or picks up on another person often times does not.

Just thought that I'd point out the obvious. If your point . . . and your only point . . . was to prove me wrong, then when are you going to show how homosexuality is acceptable to God? Proving another person wrong does not necessarily mean that your point is correct.

 

[Fideist]

I am looking for your authority - - either generic or specific - - that allows for homosexuality - - either in the creation account or the entire account of God's word. That is what I have yet to receive.

Okay, enough. Lee was not referring to cats as much as he was attempting to get you to see that just because the Bible doesn't specifically mention something does not mean it does not or did not, exist. That would also apply to other things besides cats.

When I asked how you read homosexuality into Genesis chapters 1 & 2, your response was that cats are not specifically mentioned in the story of creation, so there is no Scriptural support for their existence.

Right, no specific indisputable identification of cats.

I pointed out that there is. Gen. 1:24-25 offers a general description of God's creation of land animals. While not specifically mentioning the thousands upon thousands of animals this includes, this general description is the basis for the creation of cats.

Meaning you have interpreted the passage to include cats? Or can you point out where the text specifically mentions cats, showing that it is not an interpretation on your part?

So, I am left to wonder how the "cat story" is supposed to support homosexuality.

Its not. That is an unwarranted assumption on your part and not something that Lee said. The cat idea was supposed to demonstrate the difference between deduction and induction. Deduction in logic has mathematical precision because all the necessary elements are in place for everyone to see and/or measure. Induction, in logic states pretty much: “I've experienced something, and based on that experience, I believe or have a reasonable conviction that something is so.”

Cats are in existence today, but are not mentioned in the creation story - - this was your reasoning to justify homosexuality.

Nope, it was to demonstrate to you that your reasoning was inductive and therefore personal and therefore not objective (in plain sight for everyone to see and measure, not just a belief or conviction).

It was only AFTER you were shown how flawed this reasoning is i.e. pedophiles, wife-beaters, & child abuser also exist, that you started claiming that your point was misrepresented.

If there is any flaw in reasoning, it is yours. You have assumed that Homosexuality is in itself, a sin. And that it is comparable to both pedophilia and spousal abuse. But that is what remains for you to show. You have asserted (said) it, but you have not shown it to Lee. Therefore your reasoning appears to be circular. To show that your reasoning is not circular, you’re going to have to demonstrate your contention with mathematical precision.

The fact is simply this: your comparison of homosexuality to cats in the garden is comparing apples to oranges.

He did not compare cats to homosexuality. If he did, I'm sure that you can copy and paste the exact text you are referring to. He compared information missing from the Bible to other information missing from the Bible.

Cats are a part of God's creation, and homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that God condemns (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9); the two things have nothing in common.

First of all, Romans was written by Paul. That God wrote it through Paul is an assumption on your part, not a fact clearly in evidence. Secondly, you need to show that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you are interpreting it to mean. Thirdly, cats in the common usage of the term means a very small DOMESTIC carnivore, many of which have been bred in order to exhibit specific traits. So, while wild cats may be part of God’s creation, to say that cats are, requires some sort of objective support.

 

[- DRA -]

[/b][/color][/font][/size]

Okay, enough. Lee was not referring to cats as much as he was attempting to get you to see that just because the Bible doesn't specifically mention something does not mean it does not or did not, exist. That would also apply to other things besides cats.

[/b]

Right, no specific indisputable identification of cats.

[/b]

Meaning you have interpreted the passage to include cats? Or can you point out where the text specifically mentions cats, showing that it is not an interpretation on your part?

[/b]

Its not. That is an unwarranted assumption on your part and not something that Lee said. The cat idea was supposed to demonstrate the difference between deduction and induction. Deduction in logic has mathematical precision because all the necessary elements are in place for everyone to see and/or measure. Induction, in logic states pretty much: “I've experienced something, and based on that experience, I believe or have a reasonable conviction that something is so.”

[/b]

Nope, it was to demonstrate to you that your reasoning was inductive and therefore personal and therefore not objective (in plain sight for everyone to see and measure, not just a belief or conviction).

[/b]

If there is any flaw in reasoning, it is yours. You have assumed that Homosexuality is in itself, a sin. And that it is comparable to both pedophilia and spousal abuse. But that is what remains for you to show. You have asserted (said) it, but you have not shown it to Lee. Therefore your reasoning appears to be circular. To show that your reasoning is not circular, you’re going to have to demonstrate your contention with mathematical precision.

[/b]

He did not compare cats to homosexuality. If he did, I'm sure that you can copy and paste the exact text you are referring to. He compared information missing from the Bible to other information missing from the Bible.

[/b]

First of all, Romans was written by Paul. That God wrote it through Paul is an assumption on your part, not a fact clearly in evidence. Secondly, you need to show that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you are interpreting it to mean. Thirdly, cats in the common usage of the term means a very small DOMESTIC carnivore, many of which have been bred in order to exhibit specific traits. So, while wild cats may be part of God’s creation, to say that cats are, requires some sort of objective support. [/color]

Your show of support for Lee is obvious. Do you desire to study the Scriptures, or to just show your support for Lee?

 

[Fideist]

Your show of support for Lee is obvious. Do you desire to study the Scriptures, or to just show your support for Lee?

This is the extent of your response? I've studied the Bible, thanks. If you want to discuss the Bible, I'm game. But first I want you to respond to what I wrote.

 

[leecappella]

Just thought that I'd point out the obvious. If your point . . . and your only point . . . was to prove me wrong, then when are you going to show how homosexuality is acceptable to God? Proving another person wrong does not necessarily mean that your point is correct.

My point was not to prove you wrong, but to show you that your reasoning in regards to the silence of same sex relationships in scripture can give birth to other examples using that same reasoning and the result be just as absurd. We know that just because cats are not mentioned in scripture, specifically, that they do exist. Sure, God created all animals and that includes cats. Sure, God created all humans and that includes homosexuals as well. You do not agree with that? That is fine. You have to say what will support your view as not to contradict it. I understand. I have to do that as well. We all pretty much do that. As you can see, just because something is not specifically mentioned in scripture does not render it unsupported by God. I have nothing to prove to you, personally though. If you want proof, I would suggest you study eunuchs and natural eunuchs in particular, as opposed to man-made eunuchs and those who become eunuchs by choice. As I stated earlier, I am cutting back on my time spent posting on the forum. There's good to be done in the world. Debating who's right about what and such can hinder one's focus. But, I will be on now and then, so if you ask me a question, don't get disappointed if I don't answer at all or as soon as I normally have. Love and blessings.

 

[- DRA -]

First of all, Romans was written by Paul. That God wrote it through Paul is an assumption on your part,

Did you happen to notice Rom. 16:22? Talking about assumptions . . .

not a fact clearly in evidence. Secondly, you need to show that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you are interpreting it to mean. Thirdly, cats in the common usage of the term means a very small DOMESTIC carnivore, many of which have been bred in order to exhibit specific traits. So, while wild cats may be part of God’s creation, to say that cats are, requires some sort of objective support.

I am not sure that I follow your train of thought. Isn't the book of Romans included in "all Scripture" is given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim. 3:16-17?Are you willing to put the whole book of Romans in question, or are you really just interested in undermining 1:26-27?

How would you explain Gal. 1:11-12? Was the gospel that Paul taught . . . whether spoken, written, or dictated . . . Paul's opinions, or the Lord's revelation?

Who taught Paul about the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23a)? Was it not Jesus himself - - Paul was not even there when the Supper was instituted?

Look back through the posts. Why don't you show me where my understanding of what is being described in Romans 1:26-27 is flawed? For instance, if homosexuality is not being described in those verses, then you would be doing me a service by explaining what is being described.

You want Scriptural support to show that God created cats? Really? Do you doubt that He did? According to Gen. 1:24-25, God created all land animals on the sixth day. Do you wish to dispute this? I really don't think this is what you are trying to do. Why don't you just get right to the real point, if it is something different?

I am looking for Scriptural support to show that God accepts homosexuality. This is what I am interested in studying on this thread. Do you have the passage (or passages) that support it?

 

[- DRA -]

My point was not to prove you wrong, but to show you that your reasoning in regards to the silence of same sex relationships in scripture can give birth to other examples using that same reasoning and the result be just as absurd. We know that just because cats are not mentioned in scripture, specifically, that they do exist. Sure, God created all animals and that includes cats. Sure, God created all humans and that includes homosexuals as well.

How do you know God created homosexuals? Look at Romans 1:26-31. If God created homosexuals, which is what is being described in 1:26-27, then your logic also would suggest that God created all the other things described in the following verses, right? If not, why not?

You do not agree with that? That is fine. You have to say what will support your view as not to contradict it. I understand. I have to do that as well. We all pretty much do that. As you can see, just because something is not specifically mentioned in scripture does not render it unsupported by God.

I am not necessarily looking for specific authority for homosexuality; generic will do just fine. Where is it? Col. 3:17 says that you'd better have it.

I have nothing to prove to you, personally though. If you want proof, I would suggest you study eunuchs and natural eunuchs in particular, as opposed to man-made eunuchs and those who become eunuchs by choice. As I stated earlier, I am cutting back on my time spent posting on the forum. There's good to be done in the world. Debating who's right about what and such can hinder one's focus. But, I will be on now and then, so if you ask me a question, don't get disappointed if I don't answer at all or as soon as I normally have. Love and blessings.

I think I have a pretty good idea about eunuchs. But I would really like for you to explain how you read gays and lesbians into Matt. 19:12. I do not see how homosexual activity fits at all with what eunuchs could do (or rather, could NOT do).

How much time you spend on the Forum is up to you. As long as you continue to post messages in an open Forum, you are open to receive questions or comments about your posts.

 

[Fideist]

First of all, Romans was written by Paul. That God wrote it through Paul is an assumption on your part,



Did you happen to notice Rom. 16:22? Talking about assumptions . . .

And so the dance begins. What does this statement by a scribe have to do with your apparent assumption that God wrote Paul’s letters?

Originally Posted by: Fideist

not a fact clearly in evidence. Secondly, you need to show that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you are interpreting it to mean. Thirdly, cats in the common usage of the term means a very small DOMESTIC carnivore, many of which have been bred in order to exhibit specific traits. So, while wild cats may be part of God’s creation, to say that cats are, requires some sort of objective support.



I am not sure that I follow your train of thought. Isn't the book of Romans included in "all Scripture" is given by inspiration of God" in 2 Tim. 3:16-17?

“All scripture” refers to the OT. Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means? Why did you only respond to selected parts of my post?

Are you willing to put the whole book of Romans in question, or are you really just interested in undermining 1:26-27?

Nobody put the book of Romans "in question." Please paste the text showing where I did that. Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

How would you explain Gal. 1:11-12?

What does this have to do with my questions? Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

Was the gospel that Paul taught . . . whether spoken, written, or dictated . . . Paul's opinions, or the Lord's revelation?

Did God write it? Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

Who taught Paul about the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:23a)? Was it not Jesus himself - - Paul was not even there when the Supper was instituted?

Did God write 1 Cor? Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

Look back through the posts. Why don't you show me where my understanding of what is being described in Romans 1:26-27 is flawed?

Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

For instance, if homosexuality is not being described in those verses, then you would be doing me a service by explaining what is being described.

Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

You want Scriptural support to show that God created cats?

No. Are you incapable of dealing with actual questions and actual augments? Or do you always make up arguments for other people that they have not made? Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

I am looking for Scriptural support to show that God accepts homosexuality.

Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

This is what I am interested in studying on this thread. Do you have the passage (or passages) that support it?

Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

 

[leecappella]

I think I have a pretty good idea about eunuchs. But I would really like for you to explain how you read gays and lesbians into Matt. 19:12. I do not see how homosexual activity fits at all with what eunuchs could do (or rather, could NOT do).

How much time you spend on the Forum is up to you. As long as you continue to post messages in an open Forum, you are open to receive questions or comments about your posts.

Study them (eunuchs) some more, especially 'natural eunuchs'... I never said you couldn't send me questions or comments! I just might not be around to answer them.

 

[- DRA -]

Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

Fideist,

Your quote above (from post #94 on page 10) reminds me off a scratched 45 rpm record on the old phonograph players - - when they get stuck at a certain point and keep repeating themselves.

Your question tells me that you are aware that I have commented on the passage in question (Rom. 1:26-27), and that you do not agree with my understanding. If my understanding of the passage is wrong, then why not point out what the passage teaches?

I am not interested in doing any "dance" with you. My interest lies in studying the Scriptures. Unless you share my interest, we have nothing to work with.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

Meaning you have interpreted the passage to include cats? Or can you point out where the text specifically mentions cats, showing that it is not an interpretation on your part?

I don't know any other way to interpret Gen. 1:24-25, do you? What reason is there to understand that cats were not created by God when he created the land animals on the sixth day? Do you have other interpretations for the verse?

If there is any flaw in reasoning, it is yours. You have assumed that Homosexuality is in itself, a sin. And that it is comparable to both pedophilia and spousal abuse. But that is what remains for you to show. You have asserted (said) it, but you have not shown it to Lee. Therefore your reasoning appears to be circular. To show that your reasoning is not circular, you’re going to have to demonstrate your contention with mathematical precision.

Why would I assume homosexuality is a sin, when Rom. 1:26-27 and 1 Cor. 6:9 condemn the activity? I have pointed out those passages numerous times in previous posts. If my understanding of these passages is wrong, then, perhaps, you can show where my understanding is astray?

My comments about pedophiles and wife beaters are explained below.

He did not compare cats to homosexuality. If he did, I'm sure that you can copy and paste the exact text you are referring to. He compared information missing from the Bible to other information missing from the Bible.

I asked how he read homosexuality into the creation story. His response was to ask how I determined that cats were created in the creation story, since they are not specifically mentioned. I determine from the Scriptures that God created ALL land animals on the sixth day. Since a cat is a land animal, it is necessarily inferred that cats are included within the creation of God. Now, back to the homosexuality issue. Just because something is in existence today just not mean that God created it. God created ALL the land animals - - do you agree, or not? God did not create ALL the various behaviors and lifestyles that MAN may choose to follow. That was my point with the pedophiles, wife beaters, and child abusers. If Lee's comparison between homosexuals not being mentioned in the creation story is equal to cats not being mentioned in the creation story, he is assuming that God created cats (not specifically mentioned in the creation story), and that God created homosexuality (also not specifically mentioned in the creation story). I was just pointing out that this same reasoning could be used to justify pedophiles, wife beaters, and child abusers. If Lee's comparison between homosexuals not being mentioned in the creation story is NOT equal to cats not being mentioned in the creation story, then his reasoning (and your efforts to support him) are invalid. The latter scenario is what I see happening - - you and Lee are comparing an animal to a behavioral, or lifestyle choice. I simply pointed out where the logic takes you.

 

[- DRA -]

Original Post by Fideist:

First of all, Romans was written by Paul. That God wrote it through Paul is an assumption on your part, not a fact clearly in evidence. Secondly, you need to show that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you are interpreting it to mean. Thirdly, cats in the common usage of the term means a very small DOMESTIC carnivore, many of which have been bred in order to exhibit specific traits. So, while wild cats may be part of God’s creation, to say that cats are, requires some sort of objective support.

And so the dance begins. What does this statement by a scribe have to do with your apparent assumption that God wrote Paul’s letters?

This has to do with an assumption on your part - - one that you do not seem willing to acknowledge was wrong. Paul did not write the book of Romans. He addresses the church at Rome in the beginning of the epistle (Rom. 1:1,7), but did NOT actually write the book - - Tertius did (16:22).

Paul states that the gospel he preached was NOT according to man (Gal. 1:11-12). I don't have to assume that God was behind Paul's teaching, because God confirmed and bore witness that he was with Paul . . . and the other apostles (Heb. 2:2-4, Mk. 16:20).

“All scripture” refers to the OT. Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means? Why did you only respond to selected parts of my post?[/font][/size]

And where is your evidence that "all Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the O.T.? Does the O.T. solely furnish us with all that we need to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (vs. 17)? If so, what need was there for a new testament or covenant (Heb. 7:18-19; 8:6-13)?

Nobody put the book of Romans "in question." Please paste the text showing where I did that. Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

Your previous quote:
"First of all, Romans was written by Paul. That God wrote it through Paul is an assumption on your part, not a fact clearly in evidence."

Your statement not only puts the book of Romans "in question," but ALL of Paul's teachings and writings!

My evidence is that homosexuality is being described in Rom. 1:26-27. What reasoning have you offered to show that homosexuality is not being discussed . . . and condemned . . . in those verses?

Did God write 1 Cor? Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

You previously stated that "all Scripture" (2 Tim. 3:16) refers to the O.T. Did God write those books? How about Lev. 18:22 and 20:13? Did God write those passages, or was Moses freelancing?

 

[Fideist]

Fideist,

Your quote above (from post #94 on page 10) reminds me off a scratched 45 rpm record on the old phonograph players - - when they get stuck at a certain point and keep repeating themselves.

Why do you want so desperately to talk about me?

Your question tells me that you are aware that I have commented on the passage in question (Rom. 1:26-27), and that you do not agree with my understanding. If my understanding of the passage is wrong, then why not point out what the passage teaches?

Uh, huh. You know, people can see you when you're lurking on threads? You were lurking on this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1967035&postcount=1

I am not interested in doing any "dance" with you. My interest lies in studying the Scriptures. Unless you share my interest, we have nothing to work with.

. . . Denny

Uh, huh. Why did you only answer selected parts of my post? Why did you keep trying to change the subject?

 

[Fideist]

I don't know any other way to interpret Gen. 1:24-25, do you?

So, you have no specific quote and you interpreted the verse. Is that what you're saying?

What reason is there to understand that cats were not created by God when he created the land animals on the sixth day? Do you have other interpretations for the verse?

So, you have no specific text stating God created cats, you just interpret Genesis as saying so?

Why would I assume homosexuality is a sin, when Rom. 1:26-27 and 1 Cor. 6:9 condemn the activity? I have pointed out those passages numerous times in previous posts. If my understanding of these passages is wrong, then, perhaps, you can show where my understanding is astray?

This is all covered in the thread you were lurking on that I gave the URL for.

My comments about pedophiles and wife beaters are explained below.

You need to show, not just say, how pedophilia, spousal abuse and homosexuality are equivalent

I asked how he read homosexuality into the creation story.

Yeah, but that wasn't what I was calling you on. I was calling you on:

"I deny what you affirm. I deny that God created homosexuals any more that he created fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, or extortioners (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The consequences of all of these sins, including homosexuality, is clearly described in these same passages.
All of these actions are sins of choice. "

The above is from this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1877699&postcount=64

Again, you need to show that Romans, etc. says what you say it says and then you need to show how that homosexuality is a choice.