Why debate Homosexuality?

[Der Alte]

The world says,

. . .
[SIZE=-1]My point is to literalist though really. They lead you to believe man that wrote the bible were infallible...no. GOD is infallible..man is not. Thru the definition alone, translation will cause error by no intention. It's just human nature and the reality of the situation.[/SIZE]

God says,

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.​

Some of us do not have to rely on translations and versions, we have studied the Biblical languages. Also there is absolutely no excuse for anyone using a computer, familiar with the internet, to say, "Thru the definition alone, translation will cause error by no intention." Virtually anyone can research the meaning of any word in either testament with a few clicks of the mouse. And virtually anyone can research the oldest most reliable evidence available the same way.

"We don't know," just don't cut it.

 

[R3quiem]

To clear some things up:

People seem to be using papal infallibility as a part of their argument without understanding it.

Papal infallability does NOT mean that the pope does not sin. He does sin and does go to confession for his sins because he is human and sinful.

Papal infallability does NOT mean that every thing that the pope says regarding the Church is infallible. He can say things that are wrong.

What papal infallability means is that when certain circumstances are met, what he speaks is infallible. Some of the conditions are: it must not contradict other infallible things, and the pope must DECLARE that he is speaking "ex cathedra" from the pope's position to be infallible. The pope only uses papal infallibility for very important things, and very rarely.

 

[calvins96]

Go do some reading about the early days of the gay rights movement. I am certain that you will recognize the same liberal rhetoric about sexual freedom.
The fact that AIDS is deadly is something homosexuals chose to ignore time and time again.

..and while we are reading up on the "gay rights movement", do us a favor and read up on the 60s/70s "free love" movement, that brought us to all the liberal laws, STDs, abortion rates..etc..that we have today. Oh, and please don't once again misrepresent the AIDs issue my friend. In the beginning, it was a disease that we knew NOTHING about. Once it was deteremined and how it could be avoided, it was NOT ignored by gay men, which is why it stablized and the number of deaths DECREASED from it's original outbreak. Sad that we can't say that for the heterosexual black female population in the US who now have the HIGHEST outbreak. Shall we talk about IGNORE now being that we know how to prevent it? Also, if I'm not mistaken...I believe you were "once gay" so i would assume you were part of that "gay movement". Well, maybe you weren't gay, and just participated in gay behavior...not sure how you spin that one so forgive me if i'm incorrect.

 

[calvins96]

The world says,


God says,

Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.​

Some of us do not have to rely on translations and versions, we have studied the Biblical languages. Also there is absolutely no excuse for anyone using a computer, familiar with the internet, to say, "Thru the definition alone, translation will cause error by no intention." Virtually anyone can research the meaning of any word in either testament with a few clicks of the mouse. And virtually anyone can research the oldest most reliable evidence available the same way.

"We don't know," just don't cut it.

You are absolutely right..so given that...why do you not accept the fact of some errors in translation? Why do you not accept the meaning behind words that are incorrectly used? Why do you not accept the fact that homosexuality is never used in the bible? Why do you not accept that fact that the terms you THINK are "homosexual references" are in fact not? Why don't you do this?? I would suggest it is probably because you will not believe what you will not accept. You will not accept what you have not been taught. I will go to all those references, and I will point and click to all the same places as you do..but will you then go to my resources and point and click to see what THEY say about it? Most likely not. Will you go to my bible study or to my church to hear how they translate? most likely not. Why? For the same reasons why I don't accept what you have to say. It's not a right/wrong..it is what you accept as your belief. ACCEPT THAT...and we're ok. Talk is if you KNOW and that's an issue b/c you don't.

 

[calvins96]

To clear some things up:

People seem to be using papal infallibility as a part of their argument without understanding it.

Papal infallability does NOT mean that the pope does not sin. He does sin and does go to confession for his sins because he is human and sinful.

Papal infallability does NOT mean that every thing that the pope says regarding the Church is infallible. He can say things that are wrong.

What papal infallability means is that when certain circumstances are met, what he speaks is infallible. Some of the conditions are: it must not contradict other infallible things, and the pope must DECLARE that he is speaking "ex cathedra" from the pope's position to be infallible. The pope only uses papal infallibility for very important things, and very rarely.

Assuming you are Catholic..u would know and understand this..so thanks for sharing. For those that are not, they are not as educated as you, so perhaps don't know and it can be totally misunderstood. having been brought up a Catholic, I do know that most think of the pope as God. They will kiss his hand, and pray to him, and follow him, etc... I guess it is ok..there is no harm intended...But again, from the outside looking in...u can probably see while some may have a problem with the way the pope is perceived. I have no issues with the pope whatsoever. I don't take direction from him, but @ the same time, I don't believe him to cause any harm. He should be respected by anyone..Protestant and Catholic alike. He is a Christian of the highest order, with much knowledge, study, and dedication to following Christ.

 

[R3quiem]

Assuming you are Catholic..u would know and understand this..so thanks for sharing. For those that are not, they are not as educated as you, so perhaps don't know and it can be totally misunderstood. having been brought up a Catholic, I do know that most think of the pope as God. They will kiss his hand, and pray to him, and follow him, etc... I guess it is ok..there is no harm intended...But again, from the outside looking in...u can probably see while some may have a problem with the way the pope is perceived. I have no issues with the pope whatsoever. I don't take direction from him, but @ the same time, I don't believe him to cause any harm. He should be respected by anyone..Protestant and Catholic alike. He is a Christian of the highest order, with much knowledge, study, and dedication to following Christ.

Yes, I am a Catholic. I wouldn't say I'm "well educated" on Catholicism, there are many Catholics who know MUCH more than me about it. There is just so much to know -_-`.

Anyway, a lot of people like you said do misunderstand papal infallability. (This includes some Catholics.) Thats why I tried to clear it up, because it was wrongly being used in arguments.

As for what you said about the pope, I have to point out that Catholics don't think "he is God". He is a man. He sins. The pope goes to confession just like any other catholic. It is true that Catholics kiss the hand of, bless, and pray for the pope. It's not that we think "he is God", but that he is quite holy and represents the Church that is blessed by God basically.

Now that it's cleared up, I'll stop going off topic now

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]You are absolutely right..so given that...why do you not accept the fact of some errors in translation? Why do you not accept the meaning behind words that are incorrectly used? [size=+1][Please read my post. Translations are irrelevant to me!][/size] Why do you not accept the fact that homosexuality is never used in the bible? [size=+1][Why do you not accept the fact that you have been taught a lie, about this? See references below!][/size] Why do you not accept that fact that the terms you THINK are "homosexual references" are in fact not? [size=+1][The terms I KNOW are references to homosexual acts according to Biblical scholars from the time of Moses!][/size] Why don't you do this?? I would suggest it is probably because you will not believe what you will not accept. You will not accept what you have not been taught. [size=+1][You will NOT accept the fact that you have been falsely taught by people who know no more about it than you do!][/size] I will go to all those references, and I will point and click to all the same places as you do..but will you then go to my resources and point and click to see what THEY say about it? [size=+1][I will check any credible, verifiable historical evidence! You got any?][/size] Most likely not. Will you go to my bible study or to my church to hear how they translate? [size=+1][See note below!][/size] most likely not. Why? For the same reasons why I don't accept what you have to say. It's not a right/wrong..it is what you accept as your belief. ACCEPT THAT...and we're ok. Talk is if you KNOW and that's an issue b/c you don't.[/SIZE]

Oh my young friend, I do in fact know. I studied both Biblical languages, at the graduate level, more than 2 decades ago and read both languages.

Why should I go to your church unless you have someone there who has at least the qualifications I have? Why should I check your "resources" unless they have equivalent qualifications?

It is not a matter of me accepting what anyone "says." I want to see credible, verifiable, hisotorical, or grammatical or lexical evidence. And I have never seen anyone on that side of the argument present any.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence, rabbinical rulings dating from 1200 BC, copied directly from the Soncino Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, portfolio 54, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

Evidence copied directly from the writings of early church fathers, dating between 50 AD and 258 AD, Link