 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Question? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/19/2003 9:48 PM (GMT -6) |   | Brandon said:
The homosexuality prohibition is not tied to mere ceremonial impurity. This is shown through the death penalty that is invoked.
Semeia:
Let's look at a few other prohibitions in which the death penalty is invoked:
Leviticus 20:9: For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him.
Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death.
Since Jesus said clearly that divorce and remarriage for anything but the unchastity of the wife was adultery - and adultery is a prohibition that invoked the death penalty - shouldn't we be stopping people from getting remarried to prevent this terrible sin? If we are consistent, and follow the hermeneutics that you suggest? Clearly adultery is a sexual sin of the most serious kind.
Starkman and A_Theist earlier tried to say that divorced and remarried people can repent and be forgiven, but that does not change the reality that they are living in ongoing sin. When Jesus says that divorce will "cause the woman to commit adultery" - he is saying in effect that the remarriage is not a sanctioned marriage. Adultery is sex outside a sanctioned marriage. The adultery that happens takes place every time the remarried person has sex, not merely the first time. So it is not a one-time deal that someone can repent and go on. Every time a remarried person has sex it is, according to Jesus, adulterous. So divorced and remarried people are living in sin. But Jesus did not therefore make divorce illegal, or make this distinction in order to condemn. He made this distinction to make people stop pointing the finger at each other while thinking that their own legalistic rationalizations of the law were any less sinful than the sins of those whom they would accuse. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes it clear that everyone is filled with sin: lust in the heart is the same as adultery; saying “thou fool” to your brother is the same as murder. (Both of these prohibitions invoked the death penalty in the Old Testament.) Given this, what possible platform does any Christian have to point out the speck in someone else’s eye – don’t we have to be without sin to cast the first stone? (And by “cast the first stone” I mean accuse.)
If we are to look at homosexuality with special severity because it “invoked” the “death penalty” – why would we not look at disobedient children and adulterous remarriage with the same severity? Is it perhaps because we are liable to be guilty of the one sin and not the other?
Isn’t asking the question of whether or not someone else’s behavior is “sinful” the very essence of our fallen nature? The question itself presupposes that the knowledge of good and evil is ours for the taking and having.
On the other hand, when we see that someone is dominated by a particular behavior that is quickly leading toward death, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, violence, pedophilia, or any type of criminal behavior in which someone is getting victimized, then we are called to action by love, and we do what we can to intervene and help. Non-promiscuous homosexuality, however, does not fall into that category. There is no evidence that monogamous homosexuality is in any way destructive to the people involved. We have plenty of evidence of the destructiveness of divorce, and the unhealthy result of obesity (over half of all marriages end in divorce, over sixty percent of the population is overweight), and yet there is little to no effort by conservative Christians to stamp out these rampant sins. Why not? Is it because we are all well aware of the complexities involved in most failed marriages, and the complexities involved in eating disorders and genetic and biological and environmental causes of overweight and obesity? Is it because we have compassion for people who suffer with the same struggles we suffer with? Is it because we have deep prejudices against people who are different from us?
There is no biblical foundation whatsoever for considering homosexuality to be some special kind of sin, separate from divorce, remarriage, or angry words. Jesus said:
Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
One can conclude from this that one must be perfect in order to enter the kingdom of God – by force of their own righteousness – but then of course we would have to admit that not one of us qualifies, if the standard is that not one stroke of a letter in the law will be dropped.
Or we can conclude that the law convicts us all, no matter what legalistic loopholes we can find to justify our own behavior – since we all have lustful thoughts and angry thoughts and careless words and moment by moment we fail to love our brother as ourselves – and even so, God’s judgment is mercy, and He came not to condemn but to save.
And if in fact lust in one’s heart is the same as adultery, and saying “thou fool” to one’s brother puts one in danger of hell fire, how can any of us compare our own sins to anyone else’s? And why would we?
Scripture itself has no life in it. Thinking that it had life, power, force, is what allowed the Pharisees to fail to recognize God when he was standing right in front of them. Thinking that scripture is more powerful than the Spirit of God in the gay Christian in front of us is the Pharisaical blindness of our age.
John 5:39
”You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept glory from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe when you accept glory from another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
So, live by the Law, die by the Law (pinning our hopes on achieving perfection), be judged by the Law –
Or, love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as our self (the fulfillment of the law), be forgiven and receive eternal life.
If we seek to love we will naturally fulfill the law. If we seek to fulfill the law we will fail to love, which was the only meaning of the law to begin with. Jesus came to fulfill the law by taking on our sin in sacrificial love. He took the law out of the realm of the knowledge of good and evil by placing his own body between sin and judgment for all time. Life is now found only in and through Christ. We cannot use the law against our brother without denying Christ himself, which then leaves us in the dark with our own sins, heaped against us with all the fervor of our own judgments.
But when we see the world through Christ, freed utterly from judgment, freed utterly to love, suddenly the gratitude of God’s great mercy, abundance, and love beyond measure wraps around our heart, and in every person’s eyes we see the eyes of Christ.
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/20/2003 1:36 AM (GMT -6) | | "(God) …designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body".
Semeia: There is no evidence that monogamous homosexuality is in any way destructive to the people involved.
Homosexuals also continue to contract and spread other diseases at rates significantly higher that the community at large. These include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever (David G. Ostrow, Terry Alan Sandholzer, and Yehudi M. Felman, eds., Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men; see also, Sevgi O. Aral and King K. Holmes, "Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the AIDS Era," Scientific American). This is because rectal intercourse or sodomy, typically practiced by homosexuals, is one of the most efficient methods of transmitting disease. Why? Because nature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream. The chances for infection increases further when multiple partners are involved, as is frequently the case: Surveys indicate that American male homosexuals average between 10 and 110 sex partners per year (L. Corey and K. K. Holmes, "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine; and, Paul Cameron et al., "Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease," Nebraska Medical Journal).
Not surprisingly, these diseases shorten life expectancy. Social psychologist Paul Cameron compared over 6,200 obituaries from homosexual magazines and tabloids to a comparable number of obituaries from major American Newspapers. He found that while the median age of death of married American males was 75, for sexually active homosexual American males it is 42. For homosexual males infected with the AIDS virus, it was 39. While 80 percent of married American men lived to 65 or older, less than two percent of the homosexual men covered in the survey lived as long (Omega Study and Social Origins of Sexuality Study). To add to this problem of health, monogamous homosexual men tend to die earlier. Why? They feel that the exchange of fluids is the most compassionate act in the relationship. Ironically, this is the same act – (unprotected sex) – that infects their partner at a higher rate than "single" counterpart. The exact opposite is true for heterosexual men who are single. They tend to average 57 years old. But the monogamous American male, as stated above, lives a much healthier life.
Semeia: There is no biblical foundation whatsoever for considering homosexuality to be some special kind of sin, separate from divorce, remarriage, or angry words (, etc.).
Rom 4:7 [Saying], Blessed [are] they whose iniquities 458 are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities 458 will I remember no more.
Nevertheless,
Rom 6:19 …for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity 458 unto iniquity 458; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
Semeia: Scripture (law?) itself has no life in it.
Jhn 6:63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
2Cr 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
Phl 3:9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father…
Edited by - Tim on 02/20/2003 06:39:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/20/2003 1:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia said:
But when we see the world through Christ, freed utterly from judgment, freed utterly to love, suddenly the gratitude of God’s great mercy, abundance, and love beyond measure wraps around our heart, and in every person’s eyes we see the eyes of Christ.
Tim said:
"(God) …designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body".
Semeia:
That pretty much sums up the difference in our points of view.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 2/20/2003 2:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Gosh, as a spectator I find myself going back and forth between the two arguments. But then...
Romans 12:3-9 "For by grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Just as each of us has one body with many members, and the many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. (speaking truth in love) If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage, if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully. (having compassion and trying to extend outrageous love to all) LOVE must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."
It seems as though the whole basis of this ongoing debate and argument is that some are operating out of their function of prophecy (speaking truth in love) while others are operating out of the function for mercy (extending love and tolerance toward all) YET neither of these is necessarily off. I am beginning to think people will interpret the bible, and things will stand out to us from the bible according to our place within the body BUT this doesn't make one a "Pharisee" and the other a "liberal" as much as it makes up the body of Christ.
My point can be summed up in Ephesians 4:1-3 "As a prisoner of the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO KEEP THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT THROUGH THE BOND OF PEACE." AND Ephesians 4:16 "From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work"
Is it possible that the biggest barrier on this topic, or any other topic for that matter, comes not from one party not seeking God but rather what part of the Word and their definition for loving others?
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/20/2003 3:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Dictionary.com:
proph·e·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf-s)
v. proph·e·sied, (-sd) proph·e·sy·ing, (-sng) proph·e·sies (-sz)
v. tr.
To reveal by divine inspiration.
To predict with certainty as if by divine inspiration. See Synonyms at foretell.
To prefigure; foreshow.
v. intr.
To reveal the will or message of God.
To predict the future as if by divine inspiration.
To speak as a prophet.
Trosie, I'm a little bit confused about how you are using "prophesy" here as synonymous with "speaking the truth in love."
Are you saying that the people who read scriptures a certain way (against homosexuality) are "divinely inspired"?
What does this discussion have to do with the gift of prophesying? Making assessments of someone else's sinfulness based on one's interpretation of scripture has nothing to do with prophesying as a gift of the spirit.
Where is prophesying defined as "speaking the truth in love"? And how is highlighting certain sins (homosexuality) while downplaying others (divorce, remarriage, disobeying parents, angry words, careless words, lust, etc.) considered to be "speaking the truth in love" to begin with? Perhaps highlighting certain sins over others is neither truthful nor loving?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/20/2003 3:34 AM (GMT -6) | | John Earp: Amazing how much energy someone will expend to deny the obvious. Also amazing how that virtually every English translation of the Bible is in error, according to you.
Doc: After all the homework Iconocast did, one might have expected a bit more probing interaction than this. It would make things more interesting if someone would pick up Iconocast’s gauntlet and interact with the arguments presented. I hear statements like JE’s as implicitly conceding defeat while explicitly denying it.
Tim: "(God) …designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body".
Doc: Just thinking out loud here: would you say God designed the human mouth for a single purpose: to take food into the body?
An Puzzelling Observation: We're primarily talking about how to interpret two words and three passages in the Bible, and thus talking about whether the orientation and behavior of a small percentage of people is inherently sinful or not. It's a fine topic.
But I've sometimes been puzzelled by the anger exhibited by some who insist that the passages rule out all forms of homosexuality. I would like to hope it is fueled by a loving desire to help homosexuals (viz. believing that those who don't see it as inherently sinful are harming them): but I confess the anger sometimes seems disproportionate to the cause. I've never seen this sort of anger towards those who dispute issues surrounding (say) greed or gluttony or self-righteousness.
Consider this: If an evangelical pastor disagreed with a congregant about greed or gluttony, for example, I doubt the congregant would leave the congregation. But if they disagreed about homosexuality, I suspect many if not most evangelical congregants would leave. However one lands on this topic, this phenomenon is odd, and may suggest OTHER THINGS are going on in this debate. Why can't Christians agree to disagree agreeably about THIS issue?
Another Observation: Whether one thinks all forms of homosexuality are sinful or not, don't we need to make a distinction between "married" gay people (e.g. involved in a covenant for life; as "married" as the culture permits them to be), on the one hand, and promiscuous homosexuality, on the other? Whatever one thinks about the inherent morality of gay relationships, it is the latter that are physically and emotionally damaging -- as damaging as heterosexuality promiscuity -- not the former. In my experience, the difference between married gay people and promiscuous gay people is as great as the difference between married heterosexual people and promiscuous heterosexual people. Yet, it seems that some heterosexual people tend to lump all gays in the same pile: its all perverted sexual self-gratification driven behavior.
My point is: even if one concludes for theological reasons that homosexuality as such "misses the mark," shouldn't they say that married homosexual behavior misses the mark far LESS than promiscuous homosexual behavior? There's the all-important quality of covenantal love in marriage that is lacking in promiscuity. Don't we think in these graded terms on most other issues? And don't we help people by encouraging them to hit closer to the mark rather than farther? Why this all-or-nothing mindset regarding homosexuality?
Just thinking out loud. Thats' what the board is for.
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 2/20/2003 3:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia, thanks for asking for clarification of what I am saying. I got my definition of prophecy from the book What Does The Bible Say About ... The Ultimate A toZ Resource
What it had to say about prophecy is that besides prophecy being about predictions about the future, it also is to show that God is God and to proclaim God's Word. "The point of these revelations is not merely to inform, but to declare what is true, and then to tell people how they should live in light of what is true."
Now, I realize that the problem is that you and others interpret the Word to be saying something different from what A_Theist and others but since he started this particular thread to discuss sexual preferences ... this is what people are debating here. The interpretation of the verses that speak on sexual preferences have been posed by both sides according to what criteria they function out of. Some are trying to proclaim the truth from what the bible has to say on the issue of sexual preference while others want to extend mercy by emphasizing how Jesus was about love and extending grace to all. What I felt as I read the scripture verses I mentioned in my last post is that it appears that each side has a presupposition that those who don't see it my way are "off". One side wants to call those who are functioning out of speaking right from the scripture as being "Pharisees"; while the other side wants to label those who don't agree and hence challenge this by calling them "liberals" BUT in doing this we are ALL missing the mark of bringing about unity in the Spirit.
In MY opinion I think all involved in this debate (for I know a few of you) are seeking after Christ and wanting to live out the gospel. What I interpret is that both sides are operating according to their "map" of what is important from the bible. We will each attend to the information that stands out and supports our view. We will delete, distort, and generealize the information that doesn't fit. However, in the end, God makes it quite clear that what He desires is that we LOVE one another and are patient with one another. Afterall, we are ALL one body with many different gifts and functions.
Did this help clarify what I was trying to express?
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 02/20/2003 08:57:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 2/20/2003 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc: After all the homework Iconocast did, one might have expected a bit more probing interaction than this. It would make things more interesting if someone would pick up Iconocast’s gauntlet and interact with the arguments presented.
I was just thinking about the above comment... Iconoclast, I just assume that because of your intelligence and brilliance the stuff you post is a natural. I can't pick up the gauntlet and interact because I am choosing not to argue on this thread but I do want to express my appreciation to you and all those that put so much time and thought into their posts, just like SeanG did on his thread "Homosexuality and the Natural Law"! All the passion and work people put into their posts help others to learn and grow -- I for one am VERY grateful!
At any rate, I am glad to see you and Semeia back on the discussion board. You are always so respectful in your responses! You both seem to put a lot of thought and time into what you contribute.
Thank you!
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/20/2003 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie said:
BUT in doing this we are ALL missing the mark of bringing about unity in the Spirit.
Semeia:
Can you share how you think we can bring about unity in the Spirit on this issue? To me, unity in the Spirit includes homosexual Christians. If one group of Christians calls into question the very Christianity of gays (see the first page of this thread) by calling them "self-professed Christians," "so-called Christians," and "those who claim Christ" - how can we achieve unity in the Spirit without questioning the analysis that results in this rejection from the body of this particular group?
Unity of the body is not merely about conservatives and liberals agreeing or disagreeing - it is about actually including ALL Christians IN the body. Highlighting certain sins and suggesting that particular sins preclude one from being a "real" Christian divides the body and relegates certain groups of people to the fringe of "suspect" Christians. This is exactly how divorced people were treated by the church for a very long time - in most cases a divorced person could no longer take the eucharist, or serve as an elder or leader in a church. Only the most rigid, divisive church would take such a stand today. But most churches think nothing of treating gays as a different class of sinner than the rest, which of course prevents unity of the body of Christ.
So I don't agree with how you lay out the division, as some argument between conservatives and liberals. The division is about a group of people actually being excluded - or being seen as excluded and treated as excluded - from the body of Christ.
I liken it to a situation in which you have a club with a Whites-Only policy. Do "liberals" and blacks attain unity by "getting along with" and "being patient with" the Whites-Only club? Or do liberals and blacks attain unity by addressing the basic inequality, inhumanity, and lack of love underlying the misguided policy?
I agree with you that all should be done in love.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/20/2003 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Semia,
If homosexuality isn't a sin, can you explain to me how homosexual deliverance ministries work, or why they should even be in existence if this (homosexuality) is something God wants from them?
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/20/2003 10:25:09 AM
Edited by - A_Theist on 02/20/2003 10:25:50 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/20/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc: Please! All biblical translations are wrong, all those scolars are all anti-gay, which they are all hateful to gays, which means they don't love others, which calls into question their faith, considering they intentionally translated a word because of their hate toward a certain segment of society? I think John is right. So much energy denying the obvious. There are never those so blind as those who claim to see. If the blind lead the blind into a pit, how will they be rescued? Oh, and thanks for continuing Semeia's tendency (or habit) of not staying on the subject.
Semeia: I would suggest you not comment on things you don't understand. If you worked in medical profession, you wouldn't be making such ignorant comments. Homosexual behavior is extremely harmful to those who participate in it. There is more than enough statistics to confirm that. Your discussion with Tim does sum up the difference. You are more than willing to overlook anything destructive or contrary to your preconceived views, all in the name of "loving" gays. You are also unwilling to truly dialogue on the issue, instead diverting the issue with the side issue of how Christians treat homosexuals, as seen in your last couple posts.
As I said before Schmidt deals with this issue in his book. By the way he is fluently in both Greek and Hebrew.
Icon, try and take a moment to dialogue with those on the sites you are quoting. Uncovering their bias should be pretty easy.
Finally, I would suggest: take a moment and remember that God hates sin. Not sinners, but sin. Before a person is willing to disregard Old Testament passages in the name of "knowing better," or it not applying one should remember God's intolerance of sin that drove his son to the cross. God's love does not supersede his holiness. Some of you act as if God's love knowing no bounds means it allows no bounds. There is a difference.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/20/2003 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | By the way, thanks A Theist. The response to Wink is excellant. Wink's reply is also worth reading, if only for the entertainment value...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 2/20/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | You're Welcome
BTW: You were able to read it? When posting the link, part of a Christus-Victor-Message-Board-address attatched itself to it. So, it wouldn't link properly.
I am glad you got to read it.
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/20/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | A Theist,
I was able to get to it by www.dogpile.com I typed in the words, "Wink," "response."
I will read it later...and respond to others posts...great discussion one and all. 
Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/20/2003 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc: Just thinking out loud here: would you say God designed the human mouth for a single purpose: to take food into the body?
How about taking in WATER, talking, singing, and um, untying knots. Or maybe opening jars, breathing in and out of (if you have a stuffy nose), pulling out staples, kissing the kids, chewing gum, and sucking on mints, and... yup, that's IT right?
just trying to help 
selah
Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1
Edited by - Selah on 02/20/2003 4:03:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 2/20/2003 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia, in a previous post Greg said this: "Why can't Christians agree to disagree agreeably about THIS issue?"
What I was saying in my post was that there seems to be a division in how one interprets the scriptures. In my observation the division on this topic (just like with open theism...)seems to depend on which verses a person attends to and focuses on.
I totally agree with you that NO ONE who accepts Christ should be excluded or alienated from the body. We both agree that we are commanded and called to love ALL people. The word I received from the Lord a few weeks ago was so powerful regarding this. The one thing I had come to embrace is that IF a person is "saved," then the Holy Spirit will work on their hearts. I don't have the right to determine where someone is at with the Lord (to judge) and if I have concerns I can pray and leave it with Jesus. If I have the opportunity to speak into a life then I still need to first seek God's words and leading...
I believe some people are gifted and purposed to do different functions within the body thus some people will be more apt to pursue righteousness and, others will be more passionate about seeking and spreading mercy to the underdog and the hurting...
Maybe I don't understand something clearly: Do you think homosexuality is sin or not (missing the mark)? If you do then why should you have a problem with A_Theist starting a thread to discuss this? I agree with you that some wording could be refined... If you seek justice and fairness in order to not pick on one particular sin then maybe you could start a discussion on gluttony (since over 60% of us struggle with this) or another sin?
The main thing I hope you hear from me is that I DO NOT think that ANYONE should alienate nor exclude a person based on one particular area of their life. We are to embrace the entire body of Christ. We are to strive to live in peace and love as followers of Christ. This is what I took from what Doc posted as far as agreeing to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
Peace and love,
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 02/20/2003 4:46:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/20/2003 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman: Doc: Please! All biblical translations are wrong, all those scolars are all anti-gay, which they are all hateful to gays, which means they don't love others, which calls into question their faith, considering they intentionally translated a word because of their hate toward a certain segment of society? I think John is right. So much energy denying the obvious.
Doc: Are we reading the same posts dude? I don’t know how you got all THAT from Icon’s postings. As to all biblical translations being wrong, again, check out Icon’s homework. (Better yet, refute it). Clearly not all modern translations agree on the translations and historically there’s been significant disagreement in the translations (the malakoi = masterbation one was really interesting!). So, they can’t all be right, and hence can’t all be wrong if Icon is right.
Honorman: There are never those so blind as those who claim to see.
Doc: So…. you’re admitting here that you don’t claim to see?
Honorman: If the blind lead the blind into a pit, how will they be rescued? Oh, and thanks for continuing Semeia's tendency (or habit) of not staying on the subject.
Doc: For my life I can’t see how any of Semeia’s postings were off track, so I can’t take credit for continuing her "tendency". But thanks anyway.
Honorman: Semeia, I would suggest you not comment on things you don't understand.
Doc: Oh, this ought to be good.
Honorman: If you worked in medical profession, you wouldn't be making such ignorant comments.
Doc: Its better than I thought! This explains why all medical professionals (and psychiatric professions -- who, presumably, are even MORE "on the know") are against all forms of homosexuality. They are, aren't they?
Honorman: Homosexual behavior is extremely harmful to those who participate in it. There is more than enough statistics to confirm that.
Doc: I don’t hear anyone saying promiscuous sex, whether gay or heterosexual, is beneficial. But are you saying gay monogomous marriage covenanted relationships are intrinsically harmful? (Psychologically? Physically?)
Honorman: Your discussion with Tim does sum up the difference. You are more than willing to overlook anything destructive or contrary to your preconceived views, all in the name of "loving" gays. You are also unwilling to truly dialogue on the issue, instead diverting the issue with the side issue of how Christians treat homosexuals, as seen in your last couple posts.
Doc: Breath long deep breaths Semeia. In…Out…In…Out…
Honorman: Before a person is willing to disregard Old Testament passages in the name of "knowing better," or it not applying one should remember God's intolerance of sin that drove his son to the cross.
Doc: Honorman, you don’t "disregard Old Testament passages in the name of "knowing better"? You still stone kids sassing back to their parents? You still stay away the required distance from women when their "unclean"? You still refrain from wearing wool and cottan together?
Selah: [On the function of the mouth being to intake food]. How about taking in WATER, talking, singing, and um, untying knots. Or maybe opening jars, breathing in and out of (if you have a stuffy nose), pulling out staples, kissing the kids, chewing gum, and sucking on mints, and... yup, that's IT right?
Doc: Okay, grant it, the mouth can be used for taking in food, water, talking, singing, untying knots, opening jars, breathing, pulling out staples, kissing kids, chewing gum, suck on mints.. and, well, whistling, biting people, making funny faces, breaking string, and (one of my favorites) destroying pens. But that’s it! That’s the ONLY function of the mouth. Nothing MORE, and I mean it!!! Certainly it has no sexual function. YIK. I mean, kissing and, well…. Nothing of THAT sort of thing, for sure.
later ya'll
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/20/2003 3:11 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc: Okay, grant it, the mouth can be used for taking in food, water, talking, singing, untying knots, opening jars, breathing, pulling out staples, kissing kids, chewing gum, suck on mints.. and, well, whistling, biting people, making funny faces, breaking string, and (one of my favorites) destroying pens. But that’s it! That’s the ONLY function of the mouth. Nothing MORE, and I mean it!!! Certainly it has no sexual function. YIK. I mean, kissing and, well…. Nothing of THAT sort of thing, for sure.
Opps! You forgot one. Opening beer bottles! 
Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation
Edited by - BBBCanada on 02/20/2003 8:12:19 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/20/2003 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
Icon, try and take a moment to dialogue with those on the sites you are quoting. Uncovering their bias should be pretty easy.
Iconoclast
Sounds good. Maybe you can help.
The first argument that we need to get the bias out of is that “The meaning of a word is not determined by its derivation but by its usage.”
One proof point given for this assertion is that the word “lady-killer” cannot be accurately understood by its derivation. By derivation alone it could mean someone who kills ladies or it could mean a lady who kills. In fact, we all know that it means neither. How do we know this? By common understanding based on its usage. We call that sort of thing an idiom.
Honorman, do you agree with this assertion? If not, why not?
The second argument that we need to get the bias out of is that arsenokoites literally means male-bed and that bed here had the common usage meaning of copulate thus a more accurate transliteration is male-copulator. This leads us to an ambiguous transliteration meaning of a male who copulates with others or someone who copulates with males.
Do you agree with this assertion? If not, why not?
The next part of this argument is that it could of course be an idiom like “lady-killer” and mean something entirely different. Unfortunately we seem to have no other texts written at the same general time period where this idiom was used in some clear context. One of the authors of the articles I posted had the following to say regarding the actual usage of this word:
quote:
So the best thing to do would be to examine the uses of the word. It is found 73 times outside of Paul's letter. In almost every one of these occurrences the word appears in a vice list so it is impossible to tell what they mean. The few times it does not appear in a vice list give us a better insight.
In the Apology of Arisites 13, Fragmenta 12,9-13.5.4 "arsenokoitai" refers to the sins of the Greek Gods. In the context it referred to the time Zeus abducted and raped a boy named Ganymede.
In Apology of Aristides, written 100 years after 1Corinthians, the word appears to be used for molestation of boys by men.
Another occurrence is in an ancient legend where the Snake in the Garden of Eden becomes a satanic being named Naas. Naas uses several tactics (including sexually pleasuring both Adam and Eve) to gain power over and destroy Adam and Eve. Naas is said to have "had Adam like a boy". Naas' sins were called arsenokoitai. This suggests arsenoskoitai refers to a male using superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another.
Honorman, do you have any evidence of bias or unfactual data in this part of the argument?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/20/2003 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim
"(God) …designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body".
Iconoclast
Are you suggesting that it is not OK to use the human rectum for suppositories or taking an infant's temperature? Now I would totally agree with you about that prostate cancer checking bit - THAT is an outrage!
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/20/2003 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | This is because rectal intercourse or sodomy, typically practiced by homosexuals, is one of the most efficient methods of transmitting disease. Why? Because nature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract.
I copied the phrase out of this context and substituted God for the word nature; you’re correct, the human rectum can be used for more than a single purpose , although God did indeed design it for, ‘expelling waste from the body’.
Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream.
God is Love,
Tim
1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father… | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 2/20/2003 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Psa 103 A Psalm of David.
Bless the LORD, O my soul:
And all that is within me, [bless] his holy name.
Bless the LORD, O my soul,
And forget not all his benefits:
Who forgiveth all thine iniquities;
Who healeth all thy diseases;
Who redeemeth thy life from destruction;
Who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies;
Who satisfieth thy mouth with good [things;
So that] thy youth is renewed like the eagle's.
The LORD executeth righteousness
And judgment for all that are oppressed.
He made known his ways unto Moses,
His acts unto the children of Israel.
The LORD [is] merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
He will not always chide:
Neither will he keep [his anger] for ever.
He hath not dealt with us after our sins;
Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.
For as the heaven is high above the earth,
[So] great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
As far as the east is from the west,
[So] far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
Like as a father pitieth [his] children,
[So] the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
For he knoweth our frame;
He remembereth that we [are] dust.
[As for] man, his days [are] as grass:
As a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.
For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone;
And the place thereof shall know it no more.
But the mercy of the LORD [is] from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him,
And his righteousness unto children's children;
To such as keep his covenant,
And to those that remember his commandments to do them.
The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens;
And his kingdom ruleth over all.
Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength,
That do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
Bless ye the LORD, all [ye] his hosts;
[Ye] ministers of his, that do his pleasure.
Bless the LORD, all his works in all places of his dominion:
Bless the LORD, O my soul.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/20/2003 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tim
"(God) …designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body".
Iconoclast
Are you suggesting that it is not OK to use the human rectum for suppositories or taking an infant's temperature?
We need to distinguish between three ways of being related to the purpose of something:
1. Being (part of) the purpose of something
2. Being consistent with (but not part of) the purpose of something
3. Being contrary to the purpose of something
With respect to the rectum:
Expulsion of waste falls into category (1).
Responsible use of rectal thermometers (RTs) and suppositories falls into category (2).
And anal sex falls into category (3).
--Why this category? Because anal sex harms the rectal tissues and in the long term will degrade the ability of the organ to perform its proper function, the expulsion of waste. RTs, on the other hand, do not inflict any harm (assuming, that is, that one isn't doing something really stupid with them).
The natural law case for the immorality of homosexuality rests on (3), not on (2). Moreover, what needs to be considered in this debate is not just the purposes of the rectum and other bodily organs, but also the purposes of gender, of sex, and of marriage. If the only purpose violated by (male) homosexuality is the misuse of the rectum, then I don't think it should count as a serious moral issue--no more serious, that is, than doing stupid things with RTs.
But clearly homosexual sex is contrary to the natural law in other ways as well. For example, men and women are obviously designed for sex with the opposite gender--the natural "fit" of the sex organs makes this clear. Men and women are designed to complement one another. Moreover, sex is designed exclusively for the marriage covenant--it is the "consummation" of a marriage, the full expression of a one-flesh union between man and woman, a union that naturally tends to the procreation of children, and an earthly reflection of God's relationship to his church. Homosexual sex, by its very nature, is therefore contrary to the teleology of our sexuality. It ain't the way God designed things to be. It is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, trying to obtain a "one flesh" union with someone who cannot be the kind of complement that God designed us for. In short, homosexual sex frustrates the very purpose of sex; it is not really "sex" but a distortion of it. As Paul says, it is "unnatural".
I say this as one who cares deeply about those who struggle with this sin. My roommate for the past 4½ years has strong temptations in this area. Talking and praying with him has shown me just how deep a struggle it can be for some. Nevertheless, it is a sin. As the Church it is our duty to proclaim the truth in love, to assist as best we can those who desire to do right, and to be bold ambassadors to the rest, in hopes of persuading them of a better way.
God bless,
Alan
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 02/21/2003 12:34:49 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/21/2003 3:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Man, I can't believe I forgot "biting people" ...
Icon: Hats off to you again. I really tried to think of uses for the rectum and couldn't come up with any. I was going to try to stretch it and suggest Jim Carrey's use in the Pet Detective--but that was REALLY not the rectum...was it
ok, I'm too visual to continue,
love
selah
Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1
Edited by - Selah on 02/21/2003 09:05:27 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/21/2003 4:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said: quote:
But I've sometimes been puzzelled by the anger exhibited by some who insist that the passages rule out all forms of homosexuality. I would like to hope it is fueled by a loving desire to help homosexuals (viz. believing that those who don't see it as inherently sinful are harming them): but I confess the anger sometimes seems disproportionate to the cause. I've never seen this sort of anger towards those who dispute issues surrounding (say) greed or gluttony or self-righteousness.
I have to confess that this kind of litmus test is heart breaking when we ought to consider so much more about a person/pastor/priest than merely their views on a few "hot topics." However, I too am guilty of using this litmus test for different reasons.
I have many homosexual friends who I believe God has called me to simply love unconditionally without words of condemnation or judgment whatsoever. In all truth, I have far too much sin in my own life to worry about anyone else's so maybe that's why. I have no idea honestly, what God has in mind for them or their future, all I know is that I believe I am called to shower them with unconditional acceptance and love. To shun that call would, for me, be a sin because whatever does not stem from faith is sin, as Paul teaches.
So I personally could not in good conscience bring a homosexual friend to a church where the pastor or priest was going to preach against the "sin" of homosexuality. I personally believe that such teachings often reflect a cultural bias against homosexuals that is often (though not always) rooted in the deeper evil of prejudice and homophobia and the twisting of Scripture to support that bias throughout the ages. (People have twisted Scripture to justify everything imagineable.) I have known too many homosexuals who have been so wounded by the church's teachings that they can no longer sense God's love or reach out anymore. Many homosexuals have killed themselves over such teachings because they couldn't "change" themselves and their prayers for change went unanswered. The suicide rate among homosexual persons has always been much higher than among heterosexuals. It doesn't seem to me merely an issue of theological disagreement, it has become an issue of life and death.
So no, I could not be a member of a church in which the pastor or priest preached against homosexuality because the effects are so potentially life threatening and destructive for those who struggle with their sexual identities.
I have even questioned whether I can participate on a board on which people speak against homosexuals and homosexuality because I fear the effects such words may have on a young girl or boy currently struggling with their sexual identities.
Words have the power to abuse and destroy utterly.
Jam 3:6: And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell.
1Jo 3:18: My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
| 264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|