- Joined
- Jul 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 1,066
- Location
- Mmm. Bacon.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I recommend "For the Bible Tells Me So."
No. Sin created it. That's what I've been telling you.
We're all this way, in one way or another. Not all the same way, of course, but every last one of us is subject to temptation to do different evils. Some of us may be more subject to the temptation to steal, or to cheat on our wives, or to abuse our children, or whatever.
It is absurdly simplistic to say that God is evil for creating us with free will, and to leave us subject to temptation; and such a position demonstrates massive ignorance of God's plan and purpose for us. We were not created as mere puppets or pets, for God's own amusement; we are literally his children, his heirs. We could never hope to fulfill the potential that he intends for us, without the ability to experience both good and evil, to make choices in accordance thereof, to experience the consequences of our choices, and to learn and grow therefrom. Each of us has a different set of challenges that we must face and overcome. An inclination to homosexuality is just one such challenge, that a few of us have, and most of us do not.
A movie about erroneous biblical interpretations against homosexuality didn't have any real reason to point out any other errors; it was concise and to the point of the "gay gospel", not the, "Most Christians don't read the bible right or at all" gospel.
Does not god design each of us individually? If so, then he's specifically designing some of us to be gay; no sin there, although most Christians agree with that. They typically have come to the conclusion that a homosexual orientation is fine, just not the physical act of homosexual sex. Semantics.
Yeah...Polygamous marriage isn't ever discouraged in the bible, despite examples of it. There's no translation issue there.
There is more than enough evidence to support that the translation between the Hebrew and Greek bible was chock full of errors.
From the experts I've heard from on biblical transliteration for this issue, it comes down to whether the modern translation of "wife" refers to "woman" or just "helper".
But, it's all a moot point; if I absolutely proved that it just meant "helper", it wouldn't actually change anyone's mind.
Plus, it's still the Old Testament, Christians aren't held to it as scriptural law.
Although it's repeated in the New Testament, it's sort of a "go figure" moment…
…Jewish people quoting Jewish laws for a Jewish book. They were Christians in the sense that they followed Jesus, but they were still Jews; how could they have followed a book they hadn't written yet? Since Jesus never spoke on the issue, it's no different than a recap of the Old Testament, which isn't binding to Christians.
No, it hits the nail on the head; there are several period accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah and they all say the same thing; they mistreated the poor, tortured children to death, and turned away strangers as a rule. Contemporary accounts state that they did homosexually rape strangers, a practice that is still practiced in some ghettos of South Africa; it's an intimidation tactic, not a sexual preference. When those cities were burned, it was due to "not even 10 good people living there", and they don't explain much more.
The sin of Sodom is never specifically defined in the Christian bible…
The Orthodox view, which was intertwined with our cultural and linguistic development, defined it as the Homosexual act, or any non-reproductive sex act. Many modern day Christians have defined it as Inhospitality, which is the most overt sin that Sodom is associated with in period references. Most Jewish scholars have defined the sin of Sodom as Selfishness, mostly because they go into much further detail in the story than the other Abrahamic religions.
Islam specifically defines it as Homosexual sex.
To frame the story a little better, ask the Jews. They mention the Sodomites torturing children, in graphic detail. They mention a "trick" they'd play on the poor; write their names on money, give it to the poor, and then have them thrown out of stores (Presumably, to be arrested as thieves) for bearing money with the givers' name on it. There are plenty of examples of their inhospitality, greed, and inhumanity; if you didn't get it by now, the Sodomites weren't very nice people. There practice of homosexually raping strangers is relatively small compared to everything else they did, and doesn't explain the burning of Gomorrah, Admah, or Zeboiim, which were all burned for the same reason on the same day. All of these cities were associated with inhospitality and aligning themselves against Elam during the battle of Saddim.
So, to say that we're noting some strange new revelation of a problem in the Christian interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, that's a no; the Jews had this "revelation" before the Christian bible was even written. But, in either case, millions of people thought the earth was flat for thousands of years; it's no biggie, we're human.
No, most Christians don't know that, or atleast don't acknowledge it.
If the Old Testament doesn't matter, stop using it…
…if you're going to use any of it, you should use all of it, or you're just cherry picking.
I have a deep respect for the Amish, because of their true dedication and adherence to Old Testament laws; I'd respect them for quoting it. For every other Christian, if Jesus didn't tell you to do it, it's not your law. Every mention of Homosexuality in the New Testament is from a Jew; in the absence of new knowledge, they quoted the Old Testament.
1 is an exact contradiction of 2a. Paul was a guy living in the bronze age, he wouldn't know scientific biological studies if it bit him; it's a moot point.
2b, no; we've documented specimens that prefer same sex mates, repeatedly. There's plenty of evidence, you just don't want to accept it. To refute evidence solely for the sake of not changing your mind is illogical, and you know it. It's no different than flat earthers or lunar landing conspiracy theorists, and we respect you more than that. (I really, REALLY, hope your not like that.)
No complaints here, Spong is just a shock jock.
That's still understood by most Christians to be interpreted that the attraction is not the sin, the act is.
He was more than likely referring to temple prostitutes.
But, using the Greek to back up modern English is ridiculous; we know there were many problems in translating from Hebrew to Greek. That's bad on the movie, too, they should have known better.
Amen, from an atheist. (Although I don't get saved, no heaven for me)
1, yeah sure; we can only assume that plenty of the New Testament was lost during the first century of editing and copying the bible.
2, Well, there are plenty of Polygamous marriages that aren't called out as sinful.
That's not consistency if you ask me. That aside, yes the bible is fairly clear that sex is meant for reproduction. Of course, it still comes down to Christianity in practice; why is homosexuality such a "big" debate when there are dozens of other sins that have a much higher prevalence in our society (theft, adultery, lying, etc.) per capita, and are barely even mentioned in these debates.
Even when these sins are against the 10 commandments, or other-wise more significant, they don't seem to get as much attention as homosexuality. That's not due to scripture, it's just cultural.
I didn't say I liked it; it was too touchy-feely for my taste. But, the "gay-gospel" doesn't fail on their argument; plenty of Christians agree with them. If it didn't change your mind, so be it, you can't win them all. I'll admit they did use some loosey-goosey bible arguments (plenty of strawmen), but they also did address some legitimate points. They didn't twist the bible any more than any Republican, Social-Conservative, or Fundamentalist Hate group; I think we're about 1 to 1,000,000,000 on the bible twisting scoreboard.
Here are five:Then you won’t have any problem providing examples to support your rather spurious comment.Douglas said:There is more than enough evidence to support that the translation between the Hebrew and Greek bible was chock full of errors.
Christians are held to the Old Testament covenant of the Mosaic / Levitical law. The design for marriage was established prior to the establishment of “the law”.
...
So I would expect them to know that the Old Testament law was done away with by the New Testament covenant of grace.
So another poster recommended I watch a film called A Fish Out of Water and said they would be interested in my thoughts on the film. The film documents a young woman’s journey of discovering exactly what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality. It is a subject very close to her as she is a lesbian, herself.
The film employs a number of biblical “scholars” including Bishop John Shelby Spong who is the author of The Sins of Scripture which is a book about the hateful verses in the Bible and its impact on the environment, over breeding, sexism, birth control and, of course, homosexuality, etc. His views are those of a lunatic and don’t resemble anything biblical, much less, Christian. Among his baseless claims in the book is that the Apostle Paul was a self-loathing and repressed homosexual.
For “balance”, the film utilizes Fred Phelps to represent the traditional “Christian” view of homosexuality. For those who don’t know, Fred Phelps is a hateful, hate-filled, gerbil-headed butt-nugget whose views--like those of Spong--are neither biblical nor Christian.
Essentially the film is another regurgitation of the “gay gospel”. The message of the “gay gospel” is effectively that the Bible has been interpreted incorrectly over the last several thousand years with regard to homosexuality and it’s only been in the last decade or so that people have only properly understood these verses which, when understood correctly, do not condemn homosexuality.
What new revelations that have led to this “correct” understanding of these Scriptures are never addressed. Nor is it ever discussed why only the verses on homosexuality are the only verses that have been interpreted incorrectly? What about the rest of them?
The film examines seven verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and discuss why the traditional interpretations of these verses are wrong. I will provide their arguments and explain why they are wrong.
Genesis 1
The “Christian position” as presented by the film is that homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals can’t procreate. The pro-gay scholars in the film then explain that the logic of argument is wrong as any heterosexual union would be considered sinful if they (the heterosexual couples) failed to procreate.
This is a straw-man argument. While I’ve seen posters here at DP adopt this position, this has never been the complaint in any serious discussion. The Christian position of Genesis 1 is one of God’s created design…not procreation.
Genesis (Chapters 2 & 3)
The “Christian position” presented by the film is that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. The scholars in the film state that the error with this view is one of translation. The claim of the scholars is that while Adam was, if fact, presented with a woman (wife), the Scriptures--when originally written--used the words “ezer kenegdo” which literally means “suitable helper”. A woman was a “suitable helper” to Adam but argue that a “suitable helper” for a gay man or woman would be someone of the same sex. Since the Scriptures don’t specifically state that it has to be an opposite sex partner then there is no sin.
And the film is correct. The Christian position does state that Genesis defines marriage as being between one man and one woman as this is God’s design. This position originates with God in Genesis 1:27 is reiterated by Christ in Matthew 19:4-6 and reinforced by Paul in Romans 1: 26-27.
By the way, Genesis 1:27 & Matthew 19 are Scriptures the film ignores.
Genesis 19 (Sodom & Gomorrah)
The scholars of the film state that the “sin” of Sodom & Gomorrah was not that of homosexuality but one of inhospitality.
The film goes on to say that as all of the men of the city came down to rape the angels in Lot’s care, Lot came forward and offered to let the crowd rape his two virgin daughters who he--later in the story--got pregnant and that is the real sin of this story.
And their position is--in part--true. The wickedness of Sodom included many things and was not limited to homosexuality but homosexuality was a part of it as evidenced by 2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 and Jude 1:7-8.
Once again, the film ignores these Scriptures, as well.
It also ignores the fact that their rather recent “revelation” of the story of Sodom & Gomorrah not having anything to do with homosexuality means that literally millions of people over the course of thousands of years have been wrong in their interpretations of these Scriptures which are being properly understood for the very first time right now.
Yeah, right.
Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
The argument from the pro-gay scholars is that while these Scriptures prohibit homosexual sex, they also prohibit the eating of shellfish and wearing of garments made from different fibers. As such, modern Christians are simply “picking and choosing” the laws they wish to follow.
What these “scholars” don’t seem to know is that the Old Testament law was done away with by the New Testament covenant of grace. Modern day Christians aren’t picking and choosing anything. The Scriptures call homosexual sex an “abomination”. And since God does not change (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17) we can be confident that His views on the subject have not changed.
The Scholars also go on to claim that the verses do not prohibit all homosexual sex and explain that men used to have sex with women because they were the property of men. They explain that all these Scriptures prohibit is men having sex with other men who are their “property” (slaves, war prisoners, etc.).
The problem is that their claims are simply not supported by the Scriptures themselves which explicitly condemns all homosexual sex between men.
Romans 1:26-27
The argument here is that Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation and so “his” prohibition against homosexual sex is a “cultural” view and not a “natural” view as we can see homosexuality displayed in nature.
1) Paul’s language is rather specific and emphasizes biology. He is saying that homosexual sex is biologically unnatural.
2a) You will also find in nature animals eating their young and killing their mate after sex. Are we to justify these behaviors in humans as well? After all, they are found in nature. Obviously not! We do not judge human behavior based upon the behavior of wild animals. We judge human behavior based upon moral and societal standards like those set forth in the Bible.
2b) Just because an animal tries to hump something of the same sex does not mean that animal has a homosexual orientation. The animal may be trying to show it dominance or simply relieve its most base urges. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any animal has a homosexual orientation.
Bishop Spong goes on to say that Paul is saying that homosexuality is a punishment from God and he’s only saying that because Paul himself is a repressed, self-loathing homosexual. However, there is simply no evidence to support his claims…at all.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Here the scholars claim that the term used by Paul, “arsenokotai”, does not condemn homosexuality. It’s a simple matter of a mis-translation. Paul could not have known about anything about homosexual orientation. He would have known about male temple prostitution and that is what he was condemning.
Actually Paul is referring back to the Holiness Code in Leviticus 20:13 which, in the Greek, reads, “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos”.
For the record “arsenokotai” is the literal translation from the Hebrew “mishkav zakur” which basically means “lying with a male” which is how they used to refer to homosexuality back in the day. But the film won’t tell you that!
1 Corinthians 6:9
The film complains that this is the verse that Christians use to say that Homosexuals are going to burn in Hell. To the best of my knowledge the only “Christians” saying that are Fred Phelps and his band of misfit, back-water, in-bred, hate-spewing, non-Christian, unbiblical, bone-headed losers and this film quotes Phelps often.
And this film simply ignores what is probably the best know Bible verse today known to both Christians and non-Christians--John 3:16. And it states that “everyone” that believes in Christ will be saved. Period!
Jesus Was Silent
Another claim of the movie is one that I hear all the time here at DP. The claim? Jesus was silent about homosexuality so obviously he didn’t have a problem with it.
1. As the last few verses of John’s gospel makes clear, the gospels are not exhaustive. We simply don’t know all of the things that Jesus said and did so we don’t know what Jesus said about homosexuality, if anything.
2. The only sexual relationship that Christ did endorse was that between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). In fact, that is the only relationship in which sex is allowed throughout the whole Bible. It’s consistently is noteworthy.
In summary, Fish Out of Water is simply an unintelligent film that appeals more to emotion than facts. The gay-gospel fails here for the same reason it fails as an argument anytime it’s used. And that is because it attempts to make the Bible say what it does not while trying to convince you that it doesn’t say what it clearly does.
Romans 1:26-27
The argument here is that Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation and so “his” prohibition against homosexual sex is a “cultural” view and not a “natural” view as we can see homosexuality displayed in nature.
1) Paul’s language is rather specific and emphasizes biology. He is saying that homosexual sex is biologically unnatural.
2a) You will also find in nature animals eating their young and killing their mate after sex. Are we to justify these behaviors in humans as well? After all, they are found in nature. Obviously not! We do not judge human behavior based upon the behavior of wild animals. We judge human behavior based upon moral and societal standards like those set forth in the Bible.
2b) Just because an animal tries to hump something of the same sex does not mean that animal has a homosexual orientation. The animal may be trying to show it dominance or simply relieve its most base urges. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any animal has a homosexual orientation.
1. For example, I have a niece that at the ripe old age of 15 was raped. Having never been with a man before she got pregnant and had an abortion. The baggage that this poor child is going to end-up with is simply overwhelming. However this rape / abortion ends-up manifesting itself in her life is the result of sin. It's just not her sin that created all of this. Such is the nature of sin.
2. The argument for years has been that people are born gay due to genes or hormones or whatever the junk-science is claiming at the moment. However, there has never been any proof of it. Any claims that people are "born gay" have been discredited.
God did not create sin. And if sin is the origin of homosexuality then He is not the author of it.
For those interested, I recommended the film. I am glad that you watched it.
I didn't really have a problem with Spong, but I had a BIG problem with what he said about Paul. Idiotic and hateful, it caused me to pretty much negate anything he said in the film.
No, that is NOT why the film used Phelps. The film used Phelps to show an EXTREME and completely absurd position, but how something like that could be taken from the anti-gay rhetoric that is presented by folks who claim to know the bible. In no way did I see that Phelps was being presented as "mainstream".
No, the film does exactly what I have been doing. Showing accurate and contextual interpretations and translations of the bible, interpretations and translations that have been been ignored for a long time for many reasons, both scientific and social.
Actually, I'd imagine that many things in the bible have been misinterpreted. However, the focus for this film was on homosexuality.
Further, since it is folks on your side who overfocus on the biblical implications of these passages, trying to use them to shape CURRENT social policy, it is appropriate to solely focus on this issue. Also, your comments above echo the comments that my side makes towards yours on why you all don't support slavery, the subjugation of women and many other things that the bible supports. You only focus on homosexuality.
No, the position that the film takes is accurate. I have seen SCORES of posters at this site take the position that because homosexual coupling cannot procreate, homosexual unions is sinful. I can link you to many, many posts that say this.
And as you said, since we know that procreation is not the position here, using it... which MANY do, is inaccurate. As I said, the film is correct.
This further supports the position laid out in Genesis 1. Again, the film is on target.
The film is right on target with this one. The issue in the story of Sodom and Gommorah is as it said. I have treated this myself in posts. It is about hospitality and intimidation. And yes, this has been misinterpreted for thousands of years, mostly for social reasons.
Again, you are incorrect. Firstly, it is picking and choosing and since I do not recognize the NT as scripture, I ignore anything from there. Further, as we have discussed, this part of Leviticus is about purity codes; the bible discusses acts that pagans do that God does not want the Hebrews to do. It discusses non-consensual sex acts with men or ritualistic sex acts. NOT consensual sex acts. These non-consensual acts would be about prisoners, property, etc...
So again, the film nailed it.
Didn't really attend to these as they are not in my book.
The film nailed it and demonstrated precisely how many of the so-called "clobber" verses have been inaccurately translated and/or interpreted for centuries. It shows how what folks have claimed that the bible says is NOT what it actually says. Homosexuality and homosexual consensual sex is not prohibited in the OT.
Now, for my next project. To find out why the Church would misinterpret/mistranslate these verses. My guess is that religion reflected the human reaction to the statistical strangeness of homosexuality, and the lack of scientific enlightenment of the time. I'll do some looking into this, though.
Oh, the irony.
Think about the opposite scenario, what if they did? If they picked apart the bible until it's practically just historical parables, would they even still be Christian? A certain amount of faith is required to be a Christian, including faith that the majority of the text is infallible. I'm a bit of a buff on religious studies, but I'm an atheist; I have no faith in the scriptures and they are all suspect in my eyes, that being the main reason I'm an Atheist and not a Christian. The gay gospel can only exist if they don't go after the entire scripture; if they did, they'd probably be Atheists, like me.My observation that the film didn’t explain why only the verses on homosexuality in the Bible are wrong and not the rest of them is hardly limited to the film. This is true of every publication I have seen in which the “gay gospel” is promoted.
The way I've always understood Original sin, god makes everyone a sinner at birth. Not everyone believes in Original sin, and it's falling out of style for most denominations. But, whether you do or don't agree with the concept of being born with Original sin, we still have a consensus that Homosexuality is not a choice. Whether it's actually at or before birth, or due to subliminal messages during the formative years, it's all a moot point; there's no valid reason to think anyone would "choose" to be gay, in a society that has this many problems with it. In context of "God's design", I'd say god creates all people with flaws and tendencies to sin, as a test of faith.Of course God designs us. We are made in His image. But to say that who we are as individuals is limited only to God’s design in to ignore our experiences, education, religious beliefs, culture, environment, etc. And to state that God designs some of us to be gay to is to state that God designs some of us to sin and that is simply not true.
I'm fairly certain that incest isn't considered a problem in the bible. That aside, sure I have few problems with that. In practice, I only ask that Christians understand that not everyone believes in all the laws of the bible, especially "victim-less" ones; although you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone in support of any of those particular sins, most Americans have no problem with same-sex marriage. 52% for vs. 43% against a law to legalize it in all 50 states according to recent Gallup polls In U.S., 52% Back Law to Legalize Gay Marriage in 50 States . When even a small minority of Christians support laws to enforce a biblical brand of morality, it really makes you guys look like tyrants (not a personal jab, or to all Christians, mostly a jab at guys like Fred Phelps).The Bible documents many things simply because they happened and not because they are endorsed by God. Examples of this include lying, murder, rape, incest, bestiality, idolatry, child-sacrifice, etc. God gave us a design for marriage and anything contrary to that is simply not what God intended.
A couple posters already provided some good links, but I'd also post something so simple as this question; how many times does the word "hell" appear in the bible? Depending on which translation you use and how much it draws from the Hebrew or the Greek, it's as high as 54 for the King James or as low as 0 for every translation that predominantly used the Hebrew. 16. Hebrew and Greek words mistranslated to mean HellThen you won’t have any problem providing examples to support your rather spurious comment.
If it said helper, it meant helper; there were words for "woman", they could have been more specific. But, I'm not of the opinion that it means anything other than the traditional understanding; one man, one woman. Of course, I'm still against the Christian view itself, so it's a moot point in practice. I'm not a supporter of putting any moral code above any others, or legislating morality. If you're not hurting me or mine, it's none of my business.Let me help you out, here. The original Hebrew says “helper”. And that “helper” was a woman / wife for the man.
Probably having something to do with the fact that the “suitable helper” for the man was a woman.
Not every Christian agrees with you on this; what is binding to Christians depends on which one you ask. Again, I'm not really against you that much on this, but it's no more strange for a sect of Christianity to support Same-sex Marriage than any of the other different things you guys fight over. It's small potatoes if you ask me, I think you're all wrong.Not exactly. Christians are held to the Old Testament covenant of the Mosaic / Levitical law. The design for marriage was established prior to the establishment of “the law”. The New Testament covenant of grace did not abolish God’s design for marriage. A design, point of fact, that was reiterated by Christ, Himself.
Christianity means to follow the ways of Christ. I'd say that nothing except the teachings of Christ as reiterated by the Apostles or through his own words, is actually binding. I've always understood the Old Testament to be completely unbinding, used only as a contrast to accentuate what Jesus had changed or ended. The local Church gives out free bibles, but only the New Testament.So--according to you--nothing in the Bible is binding?
That's not what I said, you might want to re-read that; I only accentuated that this is not Homosexuality as we now know it. Also, he didn't just pick on Sodom, he burned them all. Four cities were burned that day, all for being judged as wicked. There isn't much known about the other 3 cities but, they are only referred to as wicked, never as practicing rape like the Sodomites. That doesn't specifically mean that they didn't, but it seems like a big thing to leave out.So if normally heterosexual people used to go around raping people of the same-sex all of the time then why did God only pick on Sodom? Why not the rest of the cities?
Neither of those passages actually define the sin they're referring to. Jude 1:7 comes closest, by referring to it as going after strange flesh. That is what Orthodox Christianity has always used to connect Sodomy with Homosexuality, but it's only a circular argument; the term "strange flesh" isn't defined much further. Many theologians believe "strange flesh" literally meant knowing the flesh of strange people, illicit sex with strangers.Yea, it does. But since the story, itself, isn’t enough to convince you read 2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 and Jude 1:7-8.
"mishkav zakur", is never associated with the Sodom story. I'm not trying to refute that Homosexual sex is a sin in the bible, it is, but Sodomy is never connected with the passages referring to men lying with men as women. They're separate sins, referring to separate acts. When it comes to an Old Testament story, I'm going to trust the Jews on knowing the meaning, and they say the sin of Sodomy is that of selfishness.Except that the literal translation from the Hebrew “mishkav zakur” means “lying with a male” which is how they used to refer to homosexuality back in the day and is where we get our modern day translation of the passage.
That's fine, but it's problematic when all the other stuff is put by the side. The story of Sodom should be used as a parable for the mandate to love thy neighbor, to give to the needy, and against sins such as lying or theft; to focus on the smallest flaw of the city is counter-productive. This is self-evident; the typical "lovey dubby" Christians accentuate the Wickedness of the Sodomites and counter it with the various virtues of loving thy neighbor and the like; the "You're going to Hell!" Christians take every chance they can to call Homosexuals "sodomites" and seem to forget all that Jesus-loves-you stuff.Nobody has argued that Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed solely for homosexuality. Far from it. But to deny that homosexuality didn’t play a part ignores the story as told in Genesis 19, as well as, 2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 and Jude 1:7-8.
Most flat-earthers use the bible to validate their claims. The bible isn't proving my interpretation of the bible wrong; if you've already decided that you're right, then why even read it?And all those who thought that the Earth was flat were proven wrong. It is no less than the Bible, itself, that is proving you wrong.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t argue that. However, the people presenting the gay gospel in the film were presented as learned theologians. Scholars. So I would expect them to know that the Old Testament law was done away with by the New Testament covenant of grace.
Now I'm confused, you say it's not binding but then say they're held to it? What's the difference?(snip)Christians are held to the Old Testament covenant of the Mosaic / Levitical law.(snip)
That's fine, but not everyone gives it the same weight. Most Christians I know give exceptionally little weight to it. Of course, I give no weight to it. But, in the context of the Old Testament, yes the physical act is an abomination.Nobody is claiming that the Old Testament doesn’t matter. It matters a great deal as it tells us much about God. Like how He views the homosexual sex act to be an abomination.
Oh, I didn't say the film didn't cherry pick, too. They were not a good reflection of the Orthodox, traditional, or literal view of the bible. But, I'm an atheist; I support their right to interpret the scriptures as they see fit, it's what everyone does.I am using all of it. If you’ll go back and re-read my original post you’ll see that the only one guilty of cherry-picking were the supposed “scholars” in the film.
I don't see it as quite a "conspiracy", but I'd like people to remember that they could only write what they knew; if Jesus didn't give them something new, then they'd repeat the old. That's not taking into account the possibilities that a major scripture is missing, possibly along the lines of, "and then Jesus said, the gays are ok." (Even I think that's pushing it, though)Be consistent. If you’re going to blame the New Testament on some kind of Jewish conspiracy then blame the Old Testament on them, too. Jews wrote all of it, as well.
You should debate more of them. Although I've conversed with others that think the way you do, plenty of Christians give essentially no weight to the Old Testament, and less weight to the apostles over Christ.And I really have no idea what “Christians” you’re talking about. As one, we look at the whole of the Scriptures. The things that Jesus said carry no more weight than other things in the Bible as we recognize that the whole of the Scriptures is inspired by God.
Dolphins Engage In Bisexuality And Even Homosexuality: Study(in the context of evidence for homosexual animals)I’m not. Post your evidence to support your claims. I’m glad to take a look at it.
I only post what I truly think; I'm seriously not trying to disagree with you.Holy Crap! We agree on something!
I'll give you a good ol' Atheist nothing.I’ll pray for you.
But, that's only complete if you define it as complete, essentially what "canon" means in context of the bible. Look up the Apocrypha gospels; the original New Testament gospels as recorded and indexed by 1st and 2nd century sources was many times longer than the current version. Most of these texts aren't lost, they just fell out of favor; you can find them online or at Christian libraries. Some of the indexed gospels aren't considered to be valid or truthful, mostly the lost ones. But, some of them were considered to be truthful eye-witness accounts of Jesus and his teachings, and yet have been lost. We've recovered many of them over the years, and it's completely possible that there are more to be found.Let’s see if I can remember all of this correctly…
There are about 25,000 known manuscripts (about 10,000 of those are in Greek) from which modern Bibles are translated today. Not only can we be confident about what the Bible says but confident that we have a “complete” Bible.
Uh... no. There was no debate because it was illegal to be Homosexual; how were there supposed to be a debate? Normalizing in this case means loving thy neighbor. God didn't say to just love people without sin, he said there was no such person and to love everyone as yourself. If you ask me, open acceptance of Homosexuality is the most Christian thing we've ever done. (Of course, Secular Humanism approves of loving thy neighbor. Just plugging my own system...)If you’ll remember (if you’re old enough to remember) there was no debate on this topic. This was a huge non-issue as everyone agreed that homosexuality was an aberration. Then there was AIDS and homosexuality and the “normalizing” of homosexuality in our culture (and, really, around the world) was pushed to the forefront.
Now everybody has an opinion.
Push all you like, it's your right. I'm not so certain that the gay gospel is trying to disprove that homosexuality is a sin, they're just trying to put it in perspective. The Bible absolutely does condemn the Homosexual act, but it doesn't make it any worse than any other sin. It goes back to my last post; Christians should start worrying about the self-evident wrongs, like murder, lying, and theft, instead of the gays. Which do you think I want to live next to, a Homosexual or an Axe-Murderer? (I live in a gay neighborhood, it's a moot point.) Of course, it'll just be my luck when I get killed by a gay Axe-Murderer.The 10 Commandments hold no more weight than any other commandment in the Bible. And I think the attention that it’s getting has to do with “push back”. For example, it never dawned on me that someone would actually read the Bible and believe that it doesn’t condemn homosexuality. But somebody did. They even made a movie about it.
And now I’m here pushing back.
1. Just because there are Christians that accept the gay gospel doesn’t mean the gay gospel doesn’t fail. It just means that some Christians are stupid.
2. What points did they address that you thought were “legitimate”.
I thought you were banned.
You should go back there.
Please explain the difference between the 'Old Testament covenant of the Mosaic/Levitical law', and the 'Old Testament law'.
You've lost another argument and can't respond. Got it.
Meanwhile, you've mistranslated "para physin" according to every Greek scholar. I guess you've been so rebutted you can't even pretend to argue anymore. I love that.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Here the scholars claim that the term used by Paul, “arsenokotai”, does not condemn homosexuality. It’s a simple matter of a mis-translation. Paul could not have known about anything about homosexual orientation. He would have known about male temple prostitution and that is what he was condemning.
Actually Paul is referring back to the Holiness Code in Leviticus 20:13 which, in the Greek, reads, “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos”.
For the record “arsenokotai” is the literal translation from the Hebrew “mishkav zakur” which basically means “lying with a male” which is how they used to refer to homosexuality back in the day. But the film won’t tell you that!
No, I'm just not interested in debating with you. You're simply too unpleasant.
that doesn't surprise me.
No, I'm just not interested in debating with you. You're simply too unpleasant.
The Old Mosaic / Levitical Law that brought the Jewish people into a covenant relationship with God was done away with by the New Testament Covenant of Grace. As such, we are no longer under the Old Mosaic Law.
God’s design for marriage was well established long before Moses ever came on to the scene. So when all of the Old Covenant Laws were done away with the design of marriage was never affected as it was never part of the Old Covenant Laws.
Does that help?
1. For example, I have a niece that at the ripe old age of 15 was raped. Having never been with a man before she got pregnant and had an abortion. The baggage that this poor child is going to end-up with is simply overwhelming. However this rape / abortion ends-up manifesting itself in her life is the result of sin. It's just not her sin that created all of this. Such is the nature of sin.
2. The argument for years has been that people are born gay due to genes or hormones or whatever the junk-science is claiming at the moment. However, there has never been any proof of it. Any claims that people are "born gay" have been discredited.