Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/13/2006 2:31:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 2:31:58 PM EDT by FLAL1A]
My views on homosexuality are in the minority, perhaps in all Christendom, but certainly on this board. I would not have voted for Gene Robinson as bishop for two main reasons: 1) he's divorced, and I believe the NT forbids that for bishops and 2) his elevation would create (duh!) a division in the Body of Christ. Later, I learned that the guy isn't even Christian. He's apparently (and I may be wrong here) a Spongite heretic. Anyhow, he seems to be hell-bent on screwing up the church and the chances for gay people in it.

I give you Gene Robinson, gay divorced alcoholic Bishop of New Hampshire
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 2:37:39 PM EDT
when you say Spongite? do you mean he agreed with Bishop (ret) Shelby Spong?

just curious
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 2:39:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
when you say Spongite? do you mean he agreed with Bishop (ret) Shelby Spong?

just curious



Yeah. Spongite (which may not be a real word) refers to JS Spong.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 2:40:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2006 2:41:06 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dino:
when you say Spongite? do you mean he agreed with Bishop (ret) Shelby Spong?

just curious



Yeah. Spongite (which may not be a real word) refers to JS Spong.



thought so but wanted to make sure hehehe

What didn't you like about his views? I have read most if not all of his books and find his take on things refreshing. Why don't you consider him a Christian?



Link Posted: 2/13/2006 4:24:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Dino:
when you say Spongite? do you mean he agreed with Bishop (ret) Shelby Spong?

just curious



Yeah. Spongite (which may not be a real word) refers to JS Spong.



thought so but wanted to make sure hehehe

What didn't you like about his views? I have read most if not all of his books and find his take on things refreshing. Why don't you consider him a Christian?



Gee. Where to start? He rejects almost of every belief underlying orthodox Biblical Christianity. He could not honestly recite the creed of any known Christian church. While his 12 Theses (quoted below) are subject to criticism on a number of grounds including ignorance of the precepts of the Christianity he claims must change or die, the unspeakably risible sophopmorism of his a priori pronouncements, and the gross logical flaws exhibited in the theses, no criticism is necessary to identify his beliefs as non-Christian. He is a Christian only is the same sense that Joshua Norton was emperor of the United States.



1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post--Darwinian nonsense.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.

7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for cither rejection or discrimination.

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 5:12:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
My views on homosexuality are in the minority, perhaps in all Christendom, but certainly on this board. I would not have voted for Gene Robinson as bishop for two main reasons: 1) he's divorced, and I believe the NT forbids that for bishops and 2) his elevation would create (duh!) a division in the Body of Christ. Later, I learned that the guy isn't even Christian. He's apparently (and I may be wrong here) a Spongite heretic. Anyhow, he seems to be hell-bent on screwing up the church and the chances for gay people in it.

I give you Gene Robinson, gay divorced alcoholic Bishop of New Hampshire




You mean other than the fact he's gay.......and the last time I checked the Bible still has homosexuality on the sin list
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 6:03:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

You mean other than the fact he's gay.......and the last time I checked the Bible still has homosexuality on the sin list



[typinginawe]Stoner, I do believe that you are the one and only gay person I have ever heard admit that.[/typinginawe]

Ever converse with other gays about that? (not to hijack)

I am just curious how much resistance you get. Reason is most gays (the ones I have talked to) always fall back on saying that the Bible would be different if written today and somehow because of that God would not consider it a sin. -OR- Sodom and Gomorrah was about a gang rape only and that of course is a sin, but not the homosexual part. I have heard a few..some were good, wrong but easily believable to a non-well read man.

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 6:05:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
My views on homosexuality are in the minority, perhaps in all Christendom, but certainly on this board. I would not have voted for Gene Robinson as bishop for two main reasons: 1) he's divorced, and I believe the NT forbids that for bishops and 2) his elevation would create (duh!) a division in the Body of Christ. Later, I learned that the guy isn't even Christian. He's apparently (and I may be wrong here) a Spongite heretic. Anyhow, he seems to be hell-bent on screwing up the church and the chances for gay people in it.

I give you Gene Robinson, gay divorced alcoholic Bishop of New Hampshire




You mean other than the fact he's gay.......and the last time I checked the Bible still has homosexuality on the sin list



I don't know that I'm competent to lay it all out, but even without reading Greek & Hebrew, there's more (or maybe it's "less") to Biblical commentary on homosexuality than is inferred by people who would be hostile to homosexuals regardless of what the Bible says. IOW, there's IMO a sound and uncontorted case to be made for the proposition that God has little or nothing to say about the behavior of people who are homosexual to the core, and a lot to say about heterosexuals who dabble in homosexual behavior for titllation or other purposes contrary to their nature.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 6:08:59 PM EDT
Don't remind me.
This guy is tearing the Anglican Communion apart.
He doesn't care about the welfare of the church, he is a selfish man.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 6:21:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

You mean other than the fact he's gay.......and the last time I checked the Bible still has homosexuality on the sin list



[typinginawe]Stoner, I do believe that you are the one and only gay person I have ever heard admit that.[/typinginawe]

Ever converse with other gays about that? (not to hijack)

I am just curious how much resistance you get. Reason is most gays (the ones I have talked to) always fall back on saying that the Bible would be different if written today and somehow because of that God would not consider it a sin. -OR- Sodom and Gomorrah was about a gang rape only and that of course is a sin, but not the homosexual part. I have heard a few..some were good, wrong but easily believable to a non-well read man.




I have a friend who is a priest that tells me that I'm wrong and that the Bible is being misinterpreted.... and he maybe right [he knows a lot more about the Bible then I do.] But based on the Bible I'm reading now and about 19 yrs of Christian upbringing [parents] I have to say that it does. But I'm not a Christain so I really don't have a "dog in the fight".

I'll now stop hijacking FLAL1A's thread......if you want more info on the subject we will have to start another thread.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 1:47:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 1:55:38 AM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
I don't know that I'm competent to lay it all out, but even without reading Greek & Hebrew, there's more (or maybe it's "less") to Biblical commentary on homosexuality than is inferred by people who would be hostile to homosexuals regardless of what the Bible says

There is more or less to Biblical commentary on homosexuality than what the Bible says?
Huh?

there's IMO a sound and uncontorted case to be made for the proposition that God has little or nothing to say about the behavior of people who are homosexual to the core, and a lot to say about heterosexuals who dabble in homosexual behavior for titllation or other purposes contrary to their nature.
Since there is no Biblical foundation for this, and is in fact contrary to every verse in the Bible on the matter, it begs the question as to whether or not you are simply making this up as you go.

www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 1:55:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

I have a friend who is a priest that tells me that I'm wrong and that the Bible is being misinterpreted.... and he maybe right [he knows a lot more about the Bible then I do.] But based on the Bible I'm reading now and about 19 yrs of Christian upbringing [parents] I have to say that it does. But I'm not a Christain so I really don't have a "dog in the fight".




Is he a Catholic priest or Episcopalian?
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 5:56:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 5:58:45 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

You mean other than the fact he's gay.......and the last time I checked the Bible still has homosexuality on the sin list



[typinginawe]Stoner, I do believe that you are the one and only gay person I have ever heard admit that.[/typinginawe]

Ever converse with other gays about that? (not to hijack)

I am just curious how much resistance you get. Reason is most gays (the ones I have talked to) always fall back on saying that the Bible would be different if written today and somehow because of that God would not consider it a sin. -OR- Sodom and Gomorrah was about a gang rape only and that of course is a sin, but not the homosexual part. I have heard a few..some were good, wrong but easily believable to a non-well read man.




actually the sin in Sodom and Gomorrah was transgressing the cultural requirement of hospitality. The main statements against homosexuality are in Leviticus and the letters of St. Paul.


eta: Stonerstudent, I don't see how you can get around the statements in the books I mentioned. Does he say why he believes that?


Link Posted: 2/14/2006 5:59:27 AM EDT
This is something of a hijack, but . . .
Let's take a look at Spong's statements and see how they square with Christianity.


1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.

Momentarily ignoring the "dwelling above the sky" straw man, theologians have discussed ad infinitium the difficulties of finite beings understanding an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being. Their conclusions indicate that it is imposible to define (i.e. set limits) on a being (or in Spong's views substance or force) that is infinite. Therefore, all "God talk" must be either metaphor or negation. That is, God is like this or he is not that. This is not new and logically cannot be changed. Interestingly enough that is how Scripture describes God. He is our Father (metaphor). He does not sin (negation). Also some philosophers and theologians have recognized that it is impossible for finite beings to discover accurate metaphors and negations on our own. If we are to understand God at all, HE must reveal Himself to us. Again it is interesting that this is exactly what the Bible claims.

In any event after 2,000 years of Christian theology for Spong to come along and assert that everyone else has got it wrong, is the height of hubris. I would liken it to someone coming on these boards and saying that our language of balistics, rate of fire, muzzle velocity, minute-of-angle accuracy, functional reliability etc. is meaningless to describe AR's only to then find out that individual was calling a rose petal an AR.


2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

This is a very clear and logical statement. IF his first statement is correct, then the second follows. That said, there is no Christology other than the Christology of the ages. While Catholics and Protestants may disagree over many things, neither would deny that Christ is the Son of the Living God. If there is no Christology how can Spong call himself a Christian.

3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post--Darwinian nonsense.

Don't have time (bandwidth?) to go into this here. But, I would recommend reading Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Richard Dawkins. This evolutionist shows clearer than anyone else exactly where Darwinian thought ultimately leads.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.

I don't see how the virgin birth, in itself, makes the divinity of Christ impossible. But from Spong's persective I would think the virgin birth would be irrellevent since he has already determined the divinity of Christ is impossible (see point #2 above). That said, he's free to believe it, but again the diety/divinity of Christ is a central teaching of Christ and Christianity.


5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

If I understand Spong correctly he is simply saying that belief in miracles is the result of a primitive unscientific society. I think the theological term for that is Horse$#@!. As C.S. Lewis in Miracles has pointed out, the evidentiary value of miracles is dependant on a basic understanding of nature/science. Come on, how much did Newton really contribute to our understanding that dead people don't come back to life? But my personal views on this aside, the issue is that a large part of the ministry of Christ centered around miracles. If you remove Christ's practice of miracles and his teaching about them you discard a great deal of the New Testament.

6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.

I guess the concepts of holiness, righteousness, justice and unconditioinal sacrificial love must be barbarian. In any event, the point is that the view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is central to Christianity.

7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

This would be a huge surprise to the Apostle Paul.

8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for cither rejection or discrimination.



It's a free country and Spong has the right to believe what he wants, BUT anyone who asserts that the Christian Church is wrong on nearly every important doctrine cannot then turn around and claim to be a Christian.

If we deny the virgin birth, the miracles, the divinity of Christ, the sacrificial death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the accension of Christ, the authority of the teachings of Christ as recorded by His followers, the miracles and authority of His disciples, the possibility and practice of prayer and the hope of heaven, and even the existence of a personal diety in what sense can we still call ourselves a Christian. There is nothing left!

Spong claims in his last point that all human beings bear God's image. How in Christianity do we get that image? We are created in it (Genesis 1:26-27) But Spong denies creation.

Would any other group tolerate this kind of nonsense? Could I claim to be a follower of Islam and deny that "there is one God and Mohammed is His prophet?" Could I claim to be a Mormon and deny that Joseph Smith was a prophet and deny the existence of the golden tablets? Could I claim to be a Jew and deny "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one!"? Could I claim to be an Atheist and then insist that everyone who does not follow Jesus Christ is going to hell?

Spong's points are provocative and possibly worthy of discussion, but by their very nature they prove that he is not a Christian. In fact, "This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." I John 2:22.

Link Posted: 2/14/2006 6:51:09 AM EDT
Now more on topic:

Here's what the Bible says about homosexuality in a nutshell:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

Homosexuality=fornication=idolatry=adultery=stealing=coveting=reviling=swindling=sin.

I do not think any person should be involved in ministry that is practicing an unrepentant lifestyle. If they constantly are insulting others (i.e. reviling) they need to repent or step down. If they are swindling (hello, tv evangelists) they need to repent or step down. If they are coveting the bigger church down the street they need to repent or step down. If they are single and sleeping around (fornication) or married and sleeping around (adultery) they need to repent or step down. If they are practicing homosexuality as the pitcher (homosexuality) or the catcher (effiminate) they need to repent or step down. In some of the above circumstances the answer might in true ARFCOM fashion be both: they need to repent and step down. That depends on the congregation and how much damage their sin has done to the church.

I personally believe that the Church errs when we make homosexuality a worse sin than, for example, gossip. I also believe that we err when we excuse any sin including homosexuality. I also think we err when we label people based on past sins.

I love the hope in the verse I quoted. Such WERE some of you, BUT . . . Whatever sin we struggle with, God accepts us and helps us to become better.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 6:57:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
I don't know that I'm competent to lay it all out, but even without reading Greek & Hebrew, there's more (or maybe it's "less") to Biblical commentary on homosexuality than is inferred by people who would be hostile to homosexuals regardless of what the Bible says

There is more or less to Biblical commentary on homosexuality than what the Bible says?
Huh?

there's IMO a sound and uncontorted case to be made for the proposition that God has little or nothing to say about the behavior of people who are homosexual to the core, and a lot to say about heterosexuals who dabble in homosexual behavior for titllation or other purposes contrary to their nature.
Since there is no Biblical foundation for this, and is in fact contrary to every verse in the Bible on the matter, it begs the question as to whether or not you are simply making this up as you go.

www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html



I am supposed to be working right now. I'll come back and explain myself this evening.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 7:17:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wdsman:
This is something of a hijack, but . . .
Let's take a look at Spong's statements and see how they square with Christianity.

and I will give a different take on the same subjects


1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.

Momentarily ignoring the "dwelling above the sky" straw man, theologians have discussed ad infinitium the difficulties of finite beings understanding an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal being. Their conclusions indicate that it is imposible to define (i.e. set limits) on a being (or in Spong's views substance or force) that is infinite. Therefore, all "God talk" must be either metaphor or negation. That is, God is like this or he is not that. This is not new and logically cannot be changed. Interestingly enough that is how Scripture describes God. He is our Father (metaphor). He does not sin (negation). Also some philosophers and theologians have recognized that it is impossible for finite beings to discover accurate metaphors and negations on our own. If we are to understand God at all, HE must reveal Himself to us. Again it is interesting that this is exactly what the Bible claims.

In any event after 2,000 years of Christian theology for Spong to come along and assert that everyone else has got it wrong, is the height of hubris. I would liken it to someone coming on these boards and saying that our language of balistics, rate of fire, muzzle velocity, minute-of-angle accuracy, functional reliability etc. is meaningless to describe AR's only to then find out that individual was calling a rose petal an AR.


actually he is asserting the same thing you are. The concept of God as a bearded man in the sky is no different than the old concept of Zeus. We have moved beyond that, but many people still insist on seeing God as that man in the sky . You don't seem to have that view and neither do philosopher's and theologians. Perhaps this is why we are forbidden to make graven images...
in other words he is speaking out against anthropomorphism (holding that God has human form), which has been considered heresy since the 4th century


2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

This is a very clear and logical statement. IF his first statement is correct, then the second follows. That said, there is no Christology other than the Christology of the ages. While Catholics and Protestants may disagree over many things, neither would deny that Christ is the Son of the Living God. If there is no Christology how can Spong call himself a Christian.

That is the orthodox Christology, but it is far from the only Christology. Arianism, Audianism, Catharism, Mandaeism, and Manichaeism are but a few of the many heretical views on Christ. If you look up and you have gone down a wrong path, it doesn't mean your destination doesn't exist, it means you need to find a new route and/or retrace your path


3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post--Darwinian nonsense.

Don't have time (bandwidth?) to go into this here. But, I would recommend reading Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Richard Dawkins. This evolutionist shows clearer than anyone else exactly where Darwinian thought ultimately leads.

Dawkins is a brilliant mind when it comes to his specialty, he has become famous for making unscientific claims based on his scientific knowledge. He's the scientific version of Pat Robertson. As far as Spong's statement, it is no different than the belief that many Christians have that Genesis is either partly or wholly allegorical.

4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes the divinity of Christ, as traditionally understood, impossible.

I don't see how the virgin birth, in itself, makes the divinity of Christ impossible. But from Spong's persective I would think the virgin birth would be irrellevent since he has already determined the divinity of Christ is impossible (see point #2 above). That said, he's free to believe it, but again the diety/divinity of Christ is a central teaching of Christ and Christianity.

the problem is the virgin birth is used as evidence that Jesus was a God-man in the pagan mold (with the heretical notion of God in human form). He is just rejecting all aspects of the primitive pagan view of Godhead.

5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.

If I understand Spong correctly he is simply saying that belief in miracles is the result of a primitive unscientific society. I think the theological term for that is Horse$#@!. As C.S. Lewis in Miracles has pointed out, the evidentiary value of miracles is dependant on a basic understanding of nature/science. Come on, how much did Newton really contribute to our understanding that dead people don't come back to life? But my personal views on this aside, the issue is that a large part of the ministry of Christ centered around miracles. If you remove Christ's practice of miracles and his teaching about them you discard a great deal of the New Testament.

so Jesus raizing Lazarus is less important than the Sermon on the Mount? I would have to disagree. Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you as well. The Jefferson Bible has no miracles, just the ethical teachings of Jesus


6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God that must be dismissed.

I guess the concepts of holiness, righteousness, justice and unconditioinal sacrificial love must be barbarian. In any event, the point is that the view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is central to Christianity.

I would debate the idea that God requires sacrifice to forgive being holy, righteous, or loving. I agree that the cross is central to Christanity, but Spong's thesis is Christianity must change.


7. Resurrection is an action of God, who raised Jesus into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.

This would be a huge surprise to the Apostle Paul.

actually Paul never places the resurrection in a historical context. His Christology is not as fully developed as later generations. Many view the resurrection Paul speaks of as occurring on higher plain, seperate from the physical world. Its a prime piece of evidence that the "Jesus is ahistorical" people use when putting forth their ideas

8. The story of the ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.

9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in Scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.

10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior-control mentality of reward and punishment. The church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for cither rejection or discrimination.



It's a free country and Spong has the right to believe what he wants, BUT anyone who asserts that the Christian Church is wrong on nearly every important doctrine cannot then turn around and claim to be a Christian.

If we deny the virgin birth, the miracles, the divinity of Christ , the sacrificial death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the accension of Christ, the authority of the teachings of Christ as recorded by His followers, the miracles and authority of His disciples, the possibility and practice of prayer and the hope of heaven, and even the existence of a personal diety in what sense can we still call ourselves a Christian. There is nothing left!

He doesn't reject the divinity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the ascension of Christ, and most especially the teachings of Christ. He rejects the traditional reasons for the divnity of Christ, the historical basis of the resurrection, and the ascension as described from the primitive 3rd century worldview.

Spong claims in his last point that all human beings bear God's image. How in Christianity do we get that image? We are created in it (Genesis 1:26-27) But Spong denies creation.

Would any other group tolerate this kind of nonsense? Could I claim to be a follower of Islam and deny that "there is one God and Mohammed is His prophet?" Could I claim to be a Mormon and deny that Joseph Smith was a prophet and deny the existence of the golden tablets? Could I claim to be a Jew and deny "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one!"? Could I claim to be an Atheist and then insist that everyone who does not follow Jesus Christ is going to hell?

Spong's points are provocative and possibly worthy of discussion, but by their very nature they prove that he is not a Christian. In fact, "This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son." I John 2:22.




In his books he discusses his faith and his belief that Jesus is his saviour and how he has reconciled his faith with the 12 points.

He is not a Christian in the sense of traditional Christianity. He considers himself a Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Link Posted: 2/14/2006 7:42:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 7:42:47 AM EDT by Belloc]

Originally Posted By Dino:

actually the sin in Sodom and Gomorrah was transgressing the cultural requirement of hospitality. The main statements against homosexuality are in Leviticus and the letters of St. Paul.





The Destruction of Sodom
Genesis 19:4-9

Before they [the angels visiting Lot to judge the wickedness of Sodom and determine whether or not to spare it] had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them [lit., 'so we may know them']." Lot went outside to meet them... and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men... ." ...And they said, "We'll treat you worse than them."

Traditional Position:

The men of Sodom were attempting homosexual contact with Lot's visitors. Sodom was subsequently destroyed for its great wickedness, homosexuality playing a major role in its destruction.

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Professor John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1980), supports this view, basing it on two assumptions: first, that Lot was violating Sodom's custom by entertaining guests without the permission of the city's elders,[75] thus prompting the demand to bring the men out "so we may know them"; second, that the word "to know" did not necessarily have a sexual connotation.

The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times. The argument, then, is that the men of Sodom had no sexual intentions towards Lot's visitors.

Response:

The argument makes no sense in light of Lot's responses. His first response, "Don't do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests. His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters- another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged-Lots', or Sodom's citizens?

The theory raises more questions than it answers. While Boswell and Bailey are correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in Biblical times, inhospitality alone cannot account for the severity of Lot's response to the men, or for the judgment that soon followed.

Pro-Gay Argument #2:

Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.

This argument is more common; it is proposed by lesbian author Virginia Mollenkott and others, and is far more plausible than the "inhospitality" theory.

"Violence-forcing sexual activity upon another- is the real point of this story," Mollenkott explains.[76] Accordingly, homosexuality had nothing to do with Sodom's destruction; had the attempted rape been heterosexual in nature, judgment would have fallen just the same. Violence, not homosexuality, was being punished when Sodom fell.

Response:

The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old," homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. Mollenkott makes a persuasive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies,[77] but her argument is weakened by Professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]

Pro-Gay Argument #3:

The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Response:

Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part-or symptom-of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). The sexual nature of these "detestable" things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

If he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men...

And again in Jude 7:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites."[79]

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 7:45:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 7:46:39 AM EDT by Belloc]

Originally Posted By Wdsman:
I personally believe that the Church errs when we make homosexuality a worse sin than, for example, gossip. I also believe that we err when we excuse any sin including homosexuality. I also think we err when we label people based on past sins.
.



"We" don't make it worse, God considers it so. It would be a very strange God indeed to destroy two of the largest trading cities on the planet because of gossip.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 8:31:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

I have a friend who is a priest that tells me that I'm wrong and that the Bible is being misinterpreted.... and he maybe right [he knows a lot more about the Bible then I do.] But based on the Bible I'm reading now and about 19 yrs of Christian upbringing [parents] I have to say that it does. But I'm not a Christain so I really don't have a "dog in the fight".




Is he a Catholic priest or Episcopalian?




Episcopalian...big surprise
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 8:40:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

You mean other than the fact he's gay.......and the last time I checked the Bible still has homosexuality on the sin list



[typinginawe]Stoner, I do believe that you are the one and only gay person I have ever heard admit that.[/typinginawe]

Ever converse with other gays about that? (not to hijack)

I am just curious how much resistance you get. Reason is most gays (the ones I have talked to) always fall back on saying that the Bible would be different if written today and somehow because of that God would not consider it a sin. -OR- Sodom and Gomorrah was about a gang rape only and that of course is a sin, but not the homosexual part. I have heard a few..some were good, wrong but easily believable to a non-well read man.




actually the sin in Sodom and Gomorrah was transgressing the cultural requirement of hospitality. The main statements against homosexuality are in Leviticus and the letters of St. Paul.


eta: Stonerstudent, I don't see how you can get around the statements in the books I mentioned. Does he say why he believes that?





He does and actually gives a bible study class on the subject. But I have not gone to the class so I'm not versed in his arguement.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 8:52:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By Dino:

actually the sin in Sodom and Gomorrah was transgressing the cultural requirement of hospitality. The main statements against homosexuality are in Leviticus and the letters of St. Paul.





The Destruction of Sodom
Genesis 19:4-9

Before they [the angels visiting Lot to judge the wickedness of Sodom and determine whether or not to spare it] had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them [lit., 'so we may know them']." Lot went outside to meet them... and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men... ." ...And they said, "We'll treat you worse than them."

Traditional Position:

The men of Sodom were attempting homosexual contact with Lot's visitors. Sodom was subsequently destroyed for its great wickedness, homosexuality playing a major role in its destruction.

Pro-Gay Argument #1:

Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens, not because of homosexuality.

Professor John Boswell, in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1980), supports this view, basing it on two assumptions: first, that Lot was violating Sodom's custom by entertaining guests without the permission of the city's elders,[75] thus prompting the demand to bring the men out "so we may know them"; second, that the word "to know" did not necessarily have a sexual connotation.

The Hebrew word yada appears 943 times in the Old Testament; it carries a sexual meaning perhaps 10 of those 943 times. The argument, then, is that the men of Sodom had no sexual intentions towards Lot's visitors.

Response:

The argument makes no sense in light of Lot's responses. His first response, "Don't do this wicked thing," could hardly apply to a simple request to "get to know" his guests. His second response is especially telling: he answered their demands by offering his two virgin daughters- another senseless gesture if the men wanted only a social knowledge of his guests. And why, if these men had innocent intentions, was the city destroyed for inhospitality? Whose rudeness was being judged-Lots', or Sodom's citizens?

The theory raises more questions than it answers. While Boswell and Bailey are correct in pointing out the seriousness of inhospitality in Biblical times, inhospitality alone cannot account for the severity of Lot's response to the men, or for the judgment that soon followed.

Pro-Gay Argument #2:

Sodom was destroyed for attempted rape, not homosexuality.

This argument is more common; it is proposed by lesbian author Virginia Mollenkott and others, and is far more plausible than the "inhospitality" theory.

"Violence-forcing sexual activity upon another- is the real point of this story," Mollenkott explains.[76] Accordingly, homosexuality had nothing to do with Sodom's destruction; had the attempted rape been heterosexual in nature, judgment would have fallen just the same. Violence, not homosexuality, was being punished when Sodom fell.

Response:

The argument is partially true; the men of Sodom certainly were proposing rape. But for such an event to include "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old," homosexuality must have been commonly practiced. Mollenkott makes a persuasive case for the event being much like a prison rape, or the kind of assaults conquering armies would commit against vanquished enemies,[77] but her argument is weakened by Professor Thomas Schmidt's cited evidence in early literature connecting Sodom with more general homosexual practices:

The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]

Pro-Gay Argument #3:

The real sins of Sodom, according to Ezekiel 16:49, were that it was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." These have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Response:

Again, the argument is partially true. When Sodom was destroyed, homosexuality was only a part-or symptom-of its wickedness. Romans Chapter One gives a similar illustration, describing the generally corrupt condition of humanity, while citing homosexuality as a symptom of that corruption. But Ezekiel also says of the Sodomites: "They were haughty and did detestable things before me" (16:50). The sexual nature of these "detestable" things is suggested in 2 Peter 2:6-7:

If he [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men...

And again in Jude 7:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Dr. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary mentions other references to Sodom's sexual immorality in 3 Maccabees 2:5: "the people of Sodom who acted arrogantly, who were notorious for their vices." And again in Jubilees 16:6: "the uncleanness of the Sodomites."[79]

The pro-gay interpretation of Sodom's destruction has some merit: homosexual rape was attempted, and the Sodomites were certainly guilty of sins other than homosexuality. But in light of the number of men willing to join in the rape, and the many other references, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, to Sodom's sexual sins, it is likely homosexuality was widely practiced among the Sodomites. It is also likely that the sin for which they are named was one of many reasons judgment finally fell on them.



That seems to support the idea that it wasn't soley or even primarily homosexuality that caused the destruction of S&G.

I've always found that story fascination due to the actions of Lot. He offers his daughters to the men outside to avoid the rape of guests in his house. There is a huge cultural gap between those times and ours.

I don't thing the story of S&G is useful other than demonstrating that it was considered a sin in the OT (which a flat reading of Leviticus will tell you as well). I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians though. Its hard to get around the words of Paul when trying to justify the existence of homosexual Christians though.

Link Posted: 2/14/2006 9:59:45 AM EDT
I oppose it for one reason.

Most churches agree that homosexuality is a sin, or at the least that is the consensus. If you don't agree with the beliefs of a religion, you probably shouldn't join that religion. God forbid a church take a stand on one of their significant beliefs.

The whole thing reminds me of a Dave Chapelle comedy skit, and if you've seen it, you know the one I mean.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:19:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
I don't thing the story of S&G is useful other than demonstrating that it was considered a sin in the OT (which a flat reading of Leviticus will tell you as well). I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians though. Its hard to get around the words of Paul when trying to justify the existence of homosexual Christians though.



The problem is that you have been misled into thinking that 'homosexual' is an ontological existence. It is not. It is no harder to explain that there are Christians who engage in homosexual sodomy than it is to explain the fact that there are Christians who engage in adultery. Those who make the choice to engage in homosexual sodomy, or sleep with their neighbors wife, or molest children, or do drugs, or abandon their children, be they "christian" or not, will always try to justify it, both to others and to themselves.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 1:13:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I don't thing the story of S&G is useful other than demonstrating that it was considered a sin in the OT (which a flat reading of Leviticus will tell you as well). I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians though. Its hard to get around the words of Paul when trying to justify the existence of homosexual Christians though.



The problem is that you have been misled into thinking that 'homosexual' is an ontological existence. It is not. It is no harder to explain that there are Christians who engage in homosexual sodomy than it is to explain the fact that there are Christians who engage in adultery. Those who make the choice to engage in homosexual sodomy, or sleep with their neighbors wife, or molest children, or do drugs, or abandon their children, be they "christian" or not, will always try to justify it, both to others and to themselves.



That's a pretty profound statement. I've found it to be true in many of my experiences with people.

Interesting enough, I find God's laws regarding virtue and chastity to be the same for both people with heterosexual tendencies and homosexual tendencies. For example: I have to cope with my raging sexdrive every day. When I meet an attractive woman is there a carnal impulse to have sexual relations with her? Of course.

However, God's law is that I shall have no sexual relations except with my spouse (of the opposite sex) to whom I am legally and lawfully wedded. Therefor I must control my impulses and reserve those sexual acts for my wonderful wife.

What about a person with homosexual impulses? As far as God's law is concerned, the application is the same. The person must control those impulses and reserve sexual activities for one's spouse (of the opposite sex).

Link Posted: 2/14/2006 1:52:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I don't thing the story of S&G is useful other than demonstrating that it was considered a sin in the OT (which a flat reading of Leviticus will tell you as well). I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians though. Its hard to get around the words of Paul when trying to justify the existence of homosexual Christians though.



The problem is that you have been misled into thinking that 'homosexual' is an ontological existence. It is not. It is no harder to explain that there are Christians who engage in homosexual sodomy than it is to explain the fact that there are Christians who engage in adultery. Those who make the choice to engage in homosexual sodomy, or sleep with their neighbors wife, or molest children, or do drugs, or abandon their children, be they "christian" or not, will always try to justify it, both to others and to themselves.



My statement has nothing to do with my view on the ontological existence (or lack thereof) of homosexuality. (although I am curious as to how you justify your statement, but that discussion might be better off in another thread)

It has to do with the fact that I believed as a Christian, and still believe now, that Christians are not bound by the Levitical laws. If the Levitical statements about homosexuality are valid, then all of Leviticus is binding on Christians. I did not and do not believe that to be the case.

I believe homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of St. Paul, which means most mainstream Christian denominations will view it as a sin.


Link Posted: 2/14/2006 2:30:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I don't thing the story of S&G is useful other than demonstrating that it was considered a sin in the OT (which a flat reading of Leviticus will tell you as well). I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians though. Its hard to get around the words of Paul when trying to justify the existence of homosexual Christians though.



The problem is that you have been misled into thinking that 'homosexual' is an ontological existence. It is not. It is no harder to explain that there are Christians who engage in homosexual sodomy than it is to explain the fact that there are Christians who engage in adultery. Those who make the choice to engage in homosexual sodomy, or sleep with their neighbors wife, or molest children, or do drugs, or abandon their children, be they "christian" or not, will always try to justify it, both to others and to themselves.



My statement has nothing to do with my view on the ontological existence (or lack thereof) of homosexuality. (although I am curious as to how you justify your statement, but that discussion might be better off in another thread)

It has to do with the fact that I believed as a Christian, and still believe now, that Christians are not bound by the Levitical laws. If the Levitical statements about homosexuality are valid, then all of Leviticus is binding on Christians. I did not and do not believe that to be the case.

I believe homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of St. Paul, which means most mainstream Christian denominations will view it as a sin.





Many of the practices of Leviticus are no longer necessary because of Jesus' atonement. The principles taught by those observances in Leviticus are still valid. As is evidenced when Paul clearly indicated that homosexual practices are still an abomination.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 3:09:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 3:09:51 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By Dino:
I don't thing the story of S&G is useful other than demonstrating that it was considered a sin in the OT (which a flat reading of Leviticus will tell you as well). I don't believe that Leviticus is binding on Christians though. Its hard to get around the words of Paul when trying to justify the existence of homosexual Christians though.



The problem is that you have been misled into thinking that 'homosexual' is an ontological existence. It is not. It is no harder to explain that there are Christians who engage in homosexual sodomy than it is to explain the fact that there are Christians who engage in adultery. Those who make the choice to engage in homosexual sodomy, or sleep with their neighbors wife, or molest children, or do drugs, or abandon their children, be they "christian" or not, will always try to justify it, both to others and to themselves.



My statement has nothing to do with my view on the ontological existence (or lack thereof) of homosexuality. (although I am curious as to how you justify your statement, but that discussion might be better off in another thread)

It has to do with the fact that I believed as a Christian, and still believe now, that Christians are not bound by the Levitical laws. If the Levitical statements about homosexuality are valid, then all of Leviticus is binding on Christians. I did not and do not believe that to be the case.

I believe homosexuality is incompatible with the teachings of St. Paul, which means most mainstream Christian denominations will view it as a sin.





Many of the practices of Leviticus are no longer necessary because of Jesus' atonement. The principles taught by those observances in Leviticus are still valid. As is evidenced when Paul clearly indicated that homosexual practices are still an abomination.



My understanding is that Leviticus is not binding on Christians. Paul was a prophet of God in the time of the new covenant, so his word is authoritative for all Christians. I was taught that if Jesus or the Apostles didn't say, it isn't binding on Christians. The Catholic Church takes a much different view, but I was raised Church of Christ and that is what I was taught.

If the observances in Leviticus are still valid, how do you feel about Christians eating pork?



Link Posted: 2/14/2006 4:03:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Shane333:
That's a pretty profound statement. I've found it to be true in many of my experiences with people.
Interesting enough, I find God's laws regarding virtue and chastity to be the same for both people with heterosexual tendencies and homosexual tendencies.

Hetersexuality is not a "tendency". No supportable foundation can be given to define it as one. I have read that there are really sick people to like to experience asphyxiation during intercourse. They have a tendency to something disturbed. But it does not follow that those who do not do this, do not do it because they have a "tendency" to breath during intercourse.
Homosexual deviency is no more the opposite of hetersexuality than pederasty is, or playing golf, or being chinese.


What about a person with homosexual impulses? As far as God's law is concerned, the application is the same. The person must control those impulses and reserve sexual activities for one's spouse (of the opposite sex).

All disordered passions, in fact all passions, are, by God's command and for our own good fortunes, to be subordinate to our reason.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 5:00:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 5:04:53 PM EDT by Aerospace_Engineer]
What's up with the "Sodom and Gomorrah" interpretations and the "Homosexuality=fornication=idolatry=adultery=stealing=coveting=reviling=swindling=sin" analysis!?


Tha Bible very bluntly says that homosexuality is a sin --and in several places! We are all equipped with a moral compass to guide us. We all know what is right and what is wrong. We all sin. As Christians we continue to sin. THAT is why God sent us Jesus Christ. We cannot escape our sin by ourselves. Anyone who thinks once you are a Christian, that you will stop sinning isn't honest with themselves.

God tells us we are accountable for even THINKING about sexual (homo or hetero) sin!!
WE ARE ALL SINNERS! As we continue to sin, even though we have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal savior, we get CONVICTED and even more aware of our sin, which compels us to continue to repent and continue to ask forgiveness from God.

We are SOOOOO unworthy to receive God's gift of salvation. Do not be deceived by the evil one! He will try to get you to JUSTIFY your sins! The best thing you can do when you know you are sinning and you feel convicted is drop to your knees and accept Jesus, ask for his forgiveness --and you will be set free!

And trying to justify homosexuality through some weird interpretation of limited sections of the Bible seems very dangerous. Regardless of your denomination, sexual sin is sin like any other.

Flamesuit is on.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 5:37:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:
What's up with the "Sodom and Gomorrah" interpretations and the "Homosexuality=fornication=idolatry=adultery=stealing=coveting=reviling=swindling=sin" analysis!?


Tha Bible very bluntly says that homosexuality is a sin --and in several places! We are all equipped with a moral compass to guide us. We all know what is right and what is wrong. We all sin. As Christians we continue to sin. THAT is why God sent us Jesus Christ. We cannot escape our sin by ourselves. Anyone who thinks once you are a Christian, that you will stop sinning isn't honest with themselves.

God tells us we are accountable for even THINKING about sexual (homo or hetero) sin!!
WE ARE ALL SINNERS! As we continue to sin, even though we have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal savior, we get CONVICTED and even more aware of our sin, which compels us to continue to repent and continue to ask forgiveness from God.

We are SOOOOO unworthy to receive God's gift of salvation. Do not be deceived by the evil one! He will try to get you to JUSTIFY your sins! The best thing you can do when you know you are sinning and you feel convicted is drop to your knees and accept Jesus, ask for his forgiveness --and you will be set free!

And trying to justify homosexuality through some weird interpretation of limited sections of the Bible seems very dangerous. Regardless of your denomination, sexual sin is sin like any other.

Flamesuit is on.



I don't beleive anybody is trying to use the Bible to justify homosexuality....as a matter of fact "WE" are all pretty much in agreement that the bible speaks against it....of course in my case it doesn't change anything, but it is nice to have a civil discourse on the subject.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:03:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:
What's up with the "Sodom and Gomorrah" interpretations and the "Homosexuality=fornication=idolatry=adultery=stealing=coveting=reviling=swindling=sin" analysis!?


Tha Bible very bluntly says that homosexuality is a sin --and in several places! We are all equipped with a moral compass to guide us. We all know what is right and what is wrong. We all sin. As Christians we continue to sin. THAT is why God sent us Jesus Christ. We cannot escape our sin by ourselves. Anyone who thinks once you are a Christian, that you will stop sinning isn't honest with themselves.

God tells us we are accountable for even THINKING about sexual (homo or hetero) sin!!
WE ARE ALL SINNERS! As we continue to sin, even though we have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal savior, we get CONVICTED and even more aware of our sin, which compels us to continue to repent and continue to ask forgiveness from God.

We are SOOOOO unworthy to receive God's gift of salvation. Do not be deceived by the evil one! He will try to get you to JUSTIFY your sins! The best thing you can do when you know you are sinning and you feel convicted is drop to your knees and accept Jesus, ask for his forgiveness --and you will be set free!

And trying to justify homosexuality through some weird interpretation of limited sections of the Bible seems very dangerous. Regardless of your denomination, sexual sin is sin like any other.

Flamesuit is on.



I can't speak for those in the Sodom and Gommorah discussion, but as the author of the post that says "Homosexuality=fornication=idolatry=adultery=stealing=coveting=reviling=swindling=sin" I have not stated that homosexuality is not a sin. In fact, what I stated was the opposite. I am just pointing out that the modern churches response to homosexuality is inconsistent at both extremes.

We don't see churches breaking off and arguing that God made them liars and that God loves liars so they are going to ordain practicing liars as ministers and that all the Bible's teaching against liars is mere cultural bias.

We also don't see people picketing funerals and other events with signs that say "God hates liars" Though, the more I think about it, the idea of taking some of those signs to Washington, DC is growing on me.

IMO, one of the great failings of our modern pluralistic society is that it is very easy for us to find a church that scratches where we itch and leaves us alone where we don't want to listen. IMO it seems that compassion and grace often get preached where Jesus would teach the need for commitment and holiness and commitment and holiness often get preached where we need to hear compassion and grace.

And in response to Belloc, while it might be strange for God to destroy a city because of Gossip.

1. He would be justified in doing so because gossip is just as much a sin as homosexuality and the wages of sin is death.
2. While I've never seen God destroy a city because of gossip, I've seen Satan destroy churches, families and lives through gossip!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:28:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wdsman:

I can't speak for those in the Sodom and Gommorah discussion, but as the author of the post that says "Homosexuality=fornication=idolatry=adultery=stealing=coveting=reviling=swindling=sin" I have not stated that homosexuality is not a sin. In fact, what I stated was the opposite. I am just pointing out that the modern churches response to homosexuality is inconsistent at both extremes.

We don't see churches breaking off and arguing that God made them liars and that God loves liars so they are going to ordain practicing liars as ministers and that all the Bible's teaching against liars is mere cultural bias.

We also don't see people picketing funerals and other events with signs that say "God hates liars" Though, the more I think about it, the idea of taking some of those signs to Washington, DC is growing on me.

IMO, one of the great failings of our modern pluralistic society is that it is very easy for us to find a church that scratches where we itch and leaves us alone where we don't want to listen. IMO it seems that compassion and grace often get preached where Jesus would teach the need for commitment and holiness and commitment and holiness often get preached where we need to hear compassion and grace.

And in response to Belloc, while it might be strange for God to destroy a city because of Gossip.

1. He would be justified in doing so because gossip is just as much a sin as homosexuality and the wages of sin is death.
2. While I've never seen God destroy a city because of gossip, I've seen Satan destroy churches, families and lives through gossip!




Wdsman, your observation and analysis is right on. I absolutely agree with every point you made.

About the big "equal sign statement" thing, I understand it was used to say homosexuality was a sin. My point was that you don't need to link a whole bunch of "classes" of sins to figure out that it is a sin, because the Bible just simply says homosexuality is a sin. Sorry if I confused you on that point. If you reread my statement, I think you will see my point.

Picketing funerals or whatever and holding up signs that say "God hates f*gs" or "God hates gays" or "God hates liars" is not helpful and I condemn those acts completely. The point is that God hates the sin and loves the sinner, as we SHOULD! ...and we are ALL guilty of lying.

As far as the churches go. Yes, it is unfortunate that there are such liberal churches and church leaders who permit sinful behavior to go unconfronted and, in some cases, completely supported within their congregations. "Gay Bishop" is an oxymoron, but no more or less than "Lying Christian" is an oxymoron. When you hear the word "Bishop" and "Christian", you should think of someone honorable, humble, and fearful of God. However, we all far short and that is why we need to accept Jesus, cause only he can atone for our sins. We cannot escape sin by ourselves.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:48:20 AM EDT
I can't quote it exact but "in the last days men will call good evil and evil good" and heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears."

Christians against Christ I call them, an old Sam Kinistin phrase.

And the New Test says a bishop should have one wife. Sorry don't recall the verse but it is there.

Homosexuality is a sin like adultery/fornication, and celebcy. from Gen " multiply and replenish" Celebcy and homosexuality violate that.

My 2cents.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:58:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Wdsman:
We don't see churches breaking off and arguing that God made them liars and that God loves liars so they are going to ordain practicing liars as ministers and that all the Bible's teaching against liars is mere cultural bias.

We also don't see people picketing funerals and other events with signs that say "God hates liars" Though, the more I think about it, the idea of taking some of those signs to Washington, DC is growing on me.
It is a safe bet that the reason you don't see the one IS because you do not see the other. For every cause a reaction.


And in response to Belloc, while it might be strange for God to destroy a city because of Gossip.

1. He would be justified in doing so because gossip is just as much a sin as homosexuality and the wages of sin is death.
2. While I've never seen God destroy a city because of gossip, I've seen Satan destroy churches, families and lives through gossip!

No. It would be strange because God Himself said that not all sin is fatal. Gossip can be one of those sins. It can be either mortal or venial. If someone is speaking with someone and without thinking about it or any premeditation begins to gossip, they have not committed a deadly sin. If they however go to a friends house for the sole purpose of gossiping about someone, then that is a greater sin. The Church has always believed that some sins are worse than others. Lying is not as great a sin as raping and murdering a child. In regards to homosexual acts being "high in the catalog of grave sins" (E.W.) one of the reasons is because it is an evil that is planned ahead of time. It has full premedition and consent of the will.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:02:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 8:21:57 AM EDT by Belloc]

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:
the Bible just simply says homosexuality is a sin.


Well, no actually, it says rather a bit more on the subject.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:53:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 7:55:23 AM EDT by Aerospace_Engineer]

Originally Posted By Belloc:

No. It would be strange because God Himself said that not all sin is fatal. Gossip can be one of those sins. It can be either mortal or venial. If someone is speaking with someone and without thinking about it or any premeditation begins to gossip, they have not committed a deadly sin. If they however go to a friends house for the sole purpose of gossiping about someone, then that is a greater sin. The Church has always believed that some sins are worse than others. Lying is not as great a sin as raping and murdering a child. In regards to homosexual acts being "high in the catalog of grave sins" (E.W.) one of the reasons is because it is an evil that is planned ahead of time. It has full premedition and consent of the will.

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:
the Bible just simply says homosexuality is a sin.
Well, no actually, it says rather a bit more on the subject.






I'd like to see your evidence of these statements:

1) God Himself said that not all sin is fatal
2) Lying is not as great a sin as raping and murdering a child
3) (homosexuality being a sin) Well, no actually, it says rather a bit more on the subject

Perhaps under the old testament laws, sins were treated as crimes with varied severity of punishments which men were required to carry-out against other guilty men and women. When Jesus Christ was sent to earth, the old testament laws were replaced by Him, and He made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that ALL sins are equally evil and punishable. That is why we need Him.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:20:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:
I'd like to see your evidence of these statements:

1) God Himself said that not all sin is fatal
2) Lying is not as great a sin as raping and murdering a child
3) (homosexuality being a sin) Well, no actually, it says rather a bit more on the subject

Perhaps under the old testament laws, sins were treated as crimes with varied severity of punishments which men were required to carry-out against other guilty men and women. When Jesus Christ was sent to earth, the old testament laws were replaced by Him, and He made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that ALL sins are equally evil and punishable. That is why we need Him.



"Not all sin is fatal."
1 John 5:17

The one sin that is worse than the others and will never be forgiven: Mark 3:28-29

You must remember that the view of protestants that there are no sins worse than others, i.e. that torturing a child to death is no worse than telling your parents you will be home by 10 when you know you will not be home before 11, is a view of sin that no protestant can demonstrate as one being older than protestantism itself.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:08:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 10:12:04 AM EDT by Aerospace_Engineer]

Originally Posted By Belloc:

"Not all sin is fatal."
1 John 5:17





You have removed this verse from its context. Please allow me to attempt to explain.

1 John 5 (KJV):

15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.


There are sins that do not lead to (physical) death. Verse 16 tells us that it is possible for Christians to commit certain sins that do not lead to death. 1 John 2:1-2 says the ideal is to "sin not." However, if a Christian sins (we all do), we have God to "help" us out. When we see other Christians being disobedient and sinning, we are to pray for them. God can choose to prolong the person's (physical) life. Not their eternal life, since that is determined by their own individual faith, which only God knows.

The decission of God to prolong their life is only when their sin does not lead to death. That is to say that the person has not "exceeded" God's patience for them. In verse 17, "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto (physical) death." So, there is a sin which does result in (physical) death, i.e. the "sin unto death". This is the death of a Christian in which they constantly and repeatedly sin the same over and over, intentionally. 1 Corinthians 5:5 says, "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So, God will allow them to be destroyed PHYSICALLY, so they are saved SPIRITUALLY!

We are not supposed to pray for this "death" sin, because God is ultimately the ONLY judge of this, not us! Only God knows a person's heart and if they truly believe. When we pray for God to intervene in the lives of other Christians, we are not supposed to come to any conclusions about what God's actual will was. We are not supposed to speculate if God allowed them to die to save their soul. That is only known to God.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:22:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 10:25:14 AM EDT by Aerospace_Engineer]

Originally Posted By Belloc:

The one sin that is worse than the others and will never be forgiven: Mark 3:28-29





In the context of the text it makes perfect sense what Jesus is saying:

22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.


The scribes were accusing Jesus of being of the Beelzebub (devil).
What could be a bigger insult, or blaspheme to Jesus Christ than saying that he was of the devil?
--and to his FACE!?


Jesus Christ was of the Holy Spirit, NOT the devil.
Lesson here: don't accuse Jesus Christ of being of the devil!
He WILL allow you to be destroyed!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 10:55:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

"Not all sin is fatal."
1 John 5:17





You have removed this verse from its context. Please allow me to attempt to explain.

1 John 5 (KJV):

15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.


There are sins that do not lead to (physical) death. Verse 16 tells us that it is possible for Christians to commit certain sins that do not lead to death. 1 John 2:1-2 says the ideal is to "sin not." However, if a Christian sins (we all do), we have God to "help" us out. When we see other Christians being disobedient and sinning, we are to pray for them. God can choose to prolong the person's (physical) life. Not their eternal life, since that is determined by their own individual faith, which only God knows.

The decission of God to prolong their life is only when their sin does not lead to death. That is to say that the person has not "exceeded" God's patience for them. In verse 17, "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto (physical) death." So, there is a sin which does result in (physical) death, i.e. the "sin unto death". This is the death of a Christian in which they constantly and repeatedly sin the same over and over, intentionally. 1 Corinthians 5:5 says, "To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So, God will allow them to be destroyed PHYSICALLY, so they are saved SPIRITUALLY!

We are not supposed to pray for this "death" sin, because God is ultimately the ONLY judge of this, not us! Only God knows a person's heart and if they truly believe. When we pray for God to intervene in the lives of other Christians, we are not supposed to come to any conclusions about what God's actual will was. We are not supposed to speculate if God allowed them to die to save their soul. That is only known to God.



Well, no actually. This is a reinterpretation by protestantism. Our Lord makes it clear time and time again that their concern should be about their spiritual life and death. The problem with protestantism is that IF there really is a difference between a teen telling a small fib to his parents and torturing a small child to death than protestantism itself absolutely breaks down. This is also the real reason Luther had to remove those 7 books from the Bible, because they proved he was wrong.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:52:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

The one sin that is worse than the others and will never be forgiven: Mark 3:28-29





In the context of the text it makes perfect sense what Jesus is saying:

22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.


The scribes were accusing Jesus of being of the Beelzebub (devil).
What could be a bigger insult, or blaspheme to Jesus Christ than saying that he was of the devil?
--and to his FACE!?


Jesus Christ was of the Holy Spirit, NOT the devil.
Lesson here: don't accuse Jesus Christ of being of the devil!
He WILL allow you to be destroyed!



Which demonstrates, in a way that cannot be denied of refuted, that some sins are worse than others.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 1:23:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 1:24:03 PM EDT by Aerospace_Engineer]

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Well, no actually. This is a reinterpretation by protestantism. Our Lord makes it clear time and time again that their concern should be about their spiritual life and death. The problem with protestantism is that IF there really is a difference between a teen telling a small fib to his parents and torturing a small child to death than protestantism itself absolutely breaks down. This is also the real reason Luther had to remove those 7 books from the Bible, because they proved he was wrong.




You clearly want to argue over some sort of theological doctrine about levels of sin. I no nothing about "protestantism". I am simply a Chirstian who believes Jesus and the Bible. I am of no "denomination" or sect of Christianity.

The bottom line is Jesus made it clear that all sin condemns us, that's all. If I kill somebody in cold blood or if I steal a pack of gum from a gas station, I have sinned and I am not worthy of God's Holiness. All that matters is that I believe in Jesus' sacrifice to wash away my sin, so I may enter heaven with God someday.

I do not know of these 7 Books you speak of, could you elaborate please?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 1:36:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 1:41:46 PM EDT by Aerospace_Engineer]

Originally Posted By Belloc:

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Which demonstrates, in a way that cannot be denied of refuted, that some sins are worse than others.





*So, don't commit the one sin that is unforgiveable! These verses SPEAK NOTHING to whether or not some sins are greater or less than other sins. He speaks specifically, saying that accusing Jesus of being of the devil and not of the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable. --That's it! There is no mention of a scale of sins, but simply that all sins can be forgiven, but for one! And that one is clearly identified!

Funny what happens when you just read the words, huh!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 1:50:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Well, no actually. This is a reinterpretation by protestantism. Our Lord makes it clear time and time again that their concern should be about their spiritual life and death. The problem with protestantism is that IF there really is a difference between a teen telling a small fib to his parents and torturing a small child to death than protestantism itself absolutely breaks down. This is also the real reason Luther had to remove those 7 books from the Bible, because they proved he was wrong.




You clearly want to argue over some sort of theological doctrine about levels of sin. I no nothing about "protestantism". I am simply a Chirstian who believes Jesus and the Bible. I am of no "denomination" or sect of Christianity.

The bottom line is Jesus made it clear that all sin condemns us, that's all. If I kill somebody in cold blood or if I steal a pack of gum from a gas station, I have sinned and I am not worthy of God's Holiness. All that matters is that I believe in Jesus' sacrifice to wash away my sin, so I may enter heaven with God someday.

I do not know of these 7 Books you speak of, could you elaborate please?



www.staycatholic.com/the_canon_of_scripture.htm
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 1:52:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aerospace_Engineer:

Originally Posted By Belloc:

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Which demonstrates, in a way that cannot be denied of refuted, that some sins are worse than others.





*So, don't commit the one sin that is unforgiveable! These verses SPEAK NOTHING to whether or not some sins are greater or less than other sins. He speaks specifically, saying that accusing Jesus of being of the devil and not of the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable. --That's it! There is no mention of a scale of sins, but simply that all sins can be forgiven, but for one! And that one is clearly identified!

Funny what happens when you just read the words, huh!



A God who did not treat equal things equally would not be a just God and therefore not God at all. Thus at the very least this passage proves that there is at least one sin worse than all the others.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 2:01:03 PM EDT
This is the most simple way of explaining the Church's teaching on sin:
www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/sinandvices.shtml
It's late here in Rome so I'm off. Good chating with you.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 3:13:10 PM EDT
My view. All citations/Quotations are KJV.

Leviticus 18:22

[Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.


What does this say to a man who doesn't lie with womankind? Nothing, IMO.

Romans 1: 22 - 27

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.



First, the conditions described are clearly a consequence of idolatry, and not a cause of anything.

Second, Paul speaks of people changing "the natural use into that which is against nature:
[] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "

While I as a heterosexual would certainly suffer participation in and later reflection on homosexual debauchery as a penalty (which is what is described here), for a genuine dyed-in-the-wool homosexual man, "the natural use of the woman" does not involve sex. That's just how it is. Women interest them sexually as much as Steven Seagal interests me - not at all. I don't see that this passage has anything to say to or about the sort of person we understand as "gay," "homosexual," or "queer."

I Tim. 1: 9 - 10

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


If a "murderer of fathers" may be distinguished from one who commits justifiable homicide, then a (for want of a better word) "constitutional" homosexual can be distinguished from "them that defile themselves with mankind' - even as lawful slavers must be different from "menstealers," since the Bible doesn't demand manumission. An ostensibly straight husband and father who slinks out for a little man meat at the park is a twist. He defiles himself with mankind. A man who from the first stirrings of desire in his body has had his head turned only by manly beauty is a different creature altogether, IMHO.

My position is a bit tenuous (largely because I don't read Greek or Hebrew), but I do not see the Biblical references to homosexuality as being aimed at the kind of people we today call homosexual. I think they refer to men who engaged the (still current, if Arabists are to be believed) Middle-Eastern custom of holding oneself out as a a faithful hetero husband and father while buggering every fishing buddy, prisoner, man-whore, and teenage boy you can bend over a hitching post.



Link Posted: 2/15/2006 4:05:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 4:07:27 PM EDT by Aerospace_Engineer]

Originally Posted By Belloc:

www.staycatholic.com/the_canon_of_scripture.htm




Funny how your website there states the following:

"In Revelation 22:19 the apostle John proclaims, "If any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." It's true that this verse refers to the book of Revelation. However, common sense tells us that the same principal should apply to all of Scripture. Certainly God would never be pleased with us tampering with any part of His word."


When, Luther, among others, identified the fact that the Catholic Curch itself ADDED these 7 books in the 1500's!

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Interesting Stuff...the 1500's seems pretty recent to be adding 7 books to the Bible compared to when Revelation was written...!!!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 4:29:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 6:31:31 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
My view. All citations/Quotations are KJV.



Leviticus 18:22[Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.


What does this say to a man who doesn't lie with womankind? Nothing, IMO.
But it does say that man SHALL NOT lie with man. Period. You cannot begin to interpret it any other way. I fail to see what point you are trying to make here.


Romans 1: 22 - 27 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


First, the conditions described are clearly a consequence of idolatry, and not a cause of anything.
That is correct in as much as nothing caused them to commit homosexual acts. They made the choice to offend God with both their spirit and their body of their own free will.



Second, Paul speaks of people changing "the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. "


While I as a heterosexual would certainly suffer participation in and later reflection on homosexual debauchery as a penalty (which is what is described here), for a genuine dyed-in-the-wool homosexual man, "the natural use of the woman" does not involve sex. That's just how it is. Women interest them sexually as much as Steven Seagal interests me - not at all. I don't see that this passage has anything to say to or about the sort of person we understand as "gay," "homosexual," or "queer."
This "person" who you (never us "we") "understand as gay" does not ontologically exist as being qua being anymore than a pederast or adulterer. You are saying that beating ones wife or molesting children is not wrong or sinfull for those who are 'truly' wife beaters or pederasts.


I Tim. 1: 9 - 10Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;


If a "murderer of fathers" may be distinguished from one who commits justifiable homicide, then a (for want of a better word) "constitutional" homosexual can be distinguished from "them that defile themselves with mankind' - even as lawful slavers must be different from "menstealers," since the Bible doesn't demand manumission. An ostensibly straight husband and father who slinks out for a little man meat at the park is a twist. He defiles himself with mankind. A man who from the first stirrings of desire in his body has had his head turned only by manly beauty is a different creature altogether, IMHO.
The writer Truman Capote once said that for as long as he could remember he was always attracted sexually to underage boys. That does not make him a "different creature" but a very disturbed one. By you logic there is nothing depraved about his sexual cravings because they were always there. That simply makes no sense. Only true homosexual sodomites can sodomize each other?


My position is a bit tenuous (largely because I don't read Greek or Hebrew), but I do not see the Biblical references to homosexuality as being aimed at the kind of people we today call homosexual. I think they refer to men who engaged the (still current, if Arabists are to be believed) Middle-Eastern custom of holding oneself out as a a faithful hetero husband and father while buggering every fishing buddy, prisoner, man-whore, and teenage boy you can bend over a hitching post.
You don't see the condemnation of homosexual acts "being aimed" as those who engage in homosexual acts? The simple fact is that there is no Biblical support for your "tenuous" view. What could possibly lead you to believe that "what we today call homosexual" is any different from what every generation in the history of the world has called homosexual?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:01:24 PM EDT
Dear Brother Belloc,

I had an answer to your last post nearly complete when I inadvertently hit a combination of keys which made it vanish.

Give me a day or so to recompose myself & my thoughts, and I will reply in full. My apologies for the delay.


FLA.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top