The Glade 4.0

Diamondeye:

That's better. I don't agree with everything you said, but at least you made a reasonable argument. So, without addressing each and every point (which considering how I type would take far too long) I'll say just a few things.

1) If God declares that both partners in a homosexual relationship be put to death, how can that be merely a prohibition against rape? You think we should execute rape victims? (rhetorical, I know you don't)

2) Yes, Paul did say that all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. But he also said that if you are led by the Spirit, you are no longer under the law. He immediately followed that with a list of the deeds of the flesh that will prevent people from inheriting the kingdom of God. It was not an all-inclusive list. "and the like". Paul is expounding a principle, not necessarily making a laundry list. So, what is sexual immorality? Is it not any sex outside of marriage? Example after example in the lives of the patriarchs bears this out. God punished David for his dealing with Bathsheba. (This did not include loss of salvation, God forgave David as soon as he confessed his sin). Then you have to know what a marriage is, according to the nature of God. OT, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they two shall become one flesh. NT, Christ re-affirmed that definition. So, any sex outside that bond is sexual immorality. It's a principle that is gender-less.

3) You argue that there is no NT example of God destroying a nation because of sin, but there does not need to be any. The principle is laid in the foundation of the OT. God does not change. As an example of the principle still being in effect, though, I give you Rev 2:4-5. After words of praise for the church at Ephesus, Christ says the following: "Nevertheless, I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place-unless you repent."

The word is repent, Diamondeye. Used twice in Rev 2:5. Spoken to a church. Punishment promised if they disobeyed and did not repent. Same principle that was laid down in the OT. Ask yourself. If salvation is by grace alone and obedience to the expectation of God is not required, why this? "Remember from where you have fallen". The specific sin mentioned is that they left their first love, I know that. But the principle applies across the board. How large would the volumes have to be if God included every specific sin at every turn in the Scriptures? No, He did not have to. He laid down principles and gave us specific examples so that we could use our minds to discover what He desires and expects of us.

Does that mean that I believe God will destroy the U.S. because of sin? Not necessarily. Punishment does not have to be destruction. God may very well continue to allow us to grow weaker and weaker. But the principle remains: To enjoy the blessings of God, do things God's way.

Diamondeye, I implore you. Examine these things. Examine yourself. Try to look at the situation from the perspective of God, rather than the perspective of men and the world. God has revealed his nature to us in the Scriptures, and laid down principles that lead to life. Do not take my word for it, look for yourself.

Wow, is that a leap of logic.

The solution, of course: teaching robots! Which will slowly gain sentience and collectively stop teaching our students select information, thereby weakening through the generations human knowledge of how to stop them.

And that's when the Cylons take over.

This would solve nothing. Someone initially must program them.

The purpose of it is to deter rape. I already explained how it does this. I also already explained why rape victims would not be executed.



Paul was expounding upon those sins as examples of things people end up putting before God. People who were unrepentant. No, Paul does not give an all-inclusive list because it doesn't matter - everyone is on the list of people who won't enter God's kingdom based on their behavior. What he is pointing out is that just because the law no longer applies does not mean there is no sin; we all still need to repent.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "marriage according to the nature of God". You're begging the question there. The places where it refers to leaving ones parents and joining one's spouse is not a definition of marriage at all. It describes what people are to do when they marry, not what is and isn't marriage.

Moreover, sex outside of marriage is not always immoral, in the OT people are specifically commanded to impregnate their brothers' wife if he dies with no son, and in one case a man is struck dead for disobeying God's command to do so. So no, the answer to "what is sexual immorality?" is not "any sex outside of marriage."

As for Bathsheba, I would point out that David had her husband murdered. It's adultery to sleep with the spouse of another regardless of gender, and certainly murder is a sin regardless. It does not bear on homosexuality at all.

3) You argue that there is no NT example of God destroying a nation because of sin, but there does not need to be any. The principle is laid in the foundation of the OT. God does not change. As an example of the principle still being in effect, though, I give you Rev 2:4-5. After words of praise for the church at Ephesus, Christ says the following: "Nevertheless, I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place-unless you repent."[/quote]

You're talking about a church here, not a nation.



This doesn't have anything to do with the issue. No one is dicussing whether or not it is important to avoid sin or repent when one does. The issue is whether homosexual activity is indeed sinful in the first place. Saying "well God didn't list every convceivable sin" doesn't establish that anything is or isn't sinful.



There is no such principle. God frequently allows those who ignore His teachings to prosper and those who follow them to suffer.



I already have looked for myself Bery, and I find your viewpoints wanting. AS for "looking at it from God's perspective" no one can do that. If you think that you are looking at it from God's perspective... I can think of no way to describe that.

Spend more time examining yourself and less time telling others to.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, I tried. DE, you know very well that in the midst of trials, those whom the Lord is pleased with can be happy and content even in the middle of horrible circumstances; God can and does bless us when we follow Him even if our circumstances appear bleak. Consider Joseph. Thrown into prison unjustly, but following God anyway and God restored him and lifted him up. Contrast that with the Israelites when Babylon invaded.

Nice way to twist things, too. Homosexuality is listed as a sin in both the OT and NT, but you say because women are left out, that alters things. But I point out to you that God does not have to specifically include women because the principle is there and homosexuality is specifically listed as sin.

It seems to me, DE, that you are a man who wants to put one foot in the door of Christ's Church and keep the rest of yourself in the world, to follow the ways of the world. Good luck with that. Straddling the fence will get you intense pain in parts of your body you do not want hurt. "Let not the double-minded man expect that he will receive anything." It seems to me, DE, that a man of God would be embracing the Scriptures, not trying to explain them away with the arguments of the non-believer. I say this to your shame, Diamondeye.

There's no leap of logic here at all. The political views of college professors directly affect the political views of their students, and there's a demonstrable and documented correlation in the voting habits of the two groups in the United States. It ceases to be an individual performance problem at that point.

_________________

Can you point me to these studies?

Way to move the goalposts. Now it's "Even though Bad circumstances happen, God can still be pleased with people and eventually lift them out of it." No kidding. I did not say such things never happen. You previously stated however that: "But the principle remains: To enjoy the blessings of God, do things God's way." and you stated that in reference to nations. A cursory examination fo the world, however, reveals that God does not tie obediance to him to material prosperity. In fact I would argue that thinking He does is somewhat blasphemous since we should not be overly concerned with material prosperity in the first place.



It is not listed as a sin in either Testament. Without the inclusion of women, it cannot be, unless you argue that Paul's purpose was to expand the law, not proclaim freedom from it. Since female homosexuality is not listed as sinful in the OT it cnnot become such in the NT without being a special case somehow and there is no reason to think it is. Paul must therefore be talking about something other than homosexuality in general, and it is not clear he is even using a word that can be translated that way.



Well, fortunately it really makes no difference how it seems to you Bery. Since I am accepting the Scriptures, you're the double-minded man here, not me. You claim to care for the salvation of others but you really are just about your own pride and self-righteousness.

My arguments are those of a believer Bery. Yours aren't. Believers understand how little they know, they don't spend their time proclaiming how right and good they are to everyone else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Diamondeye, what exactly is an abomination? As much as I dislike doing so, I am going to quote Scripture and bold certain words.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Make all the foolish arguments of the world you want to, Diamondeye. The plain meaning of that passage is that homosexuality is an abomination before God. It is named a sin in the OT, one so serious that both men get the death penalty. I don't care what foolishness you come up with next. Convince others if you must, but I can read and understand what I read; whether you can or not is up for debate.

Aizle:

Are you going to go to your local research/university library and request them?

_________________

Gays and.... shrimp?



Sounds awesome! Sign me up!

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Well, I will at least try and see if there is any online information that I can find on them. I don't really have easy access to a university library these days.

Aizle:

Alright, I'll get you citations when I'm at work tomorrow.

_________________

As has been pointed out, shellfish are also an "abomination".

I have already explained why both men get the death penalty: The rapist cannot defend himself by claiming that the sex was consenual.

Male-on-male rape is an unfortunately common occurance in situatins where young men, and even older ones, are confined together without access to women. It is common in prisons today. It was common on sailing ships in the past and in many other situations. In fact, even men who are not otherwise inclined to engage in homosexual activity when women are around will frequently do so in such situations simply to satisfy their sex drive.

Because of that, it takes a very strong deterrent to prevent rape, and certain death certainly is one. The victim is in the clear; he has not laid down with a man; he has been forced.

The fact is Bery that you ar not capable of understanding what you read. You can't show that female homosexuality is sinful, and without that you cannot condemn homosexuality as inherently sinful any more than eating shellfish. The death penalty is not indoctive of how serious a sin homosexuality might be; it's indictive of how sinful rape is.

Of course, you claimed you "Don't care what foolishness I come up with next, but I seem to recall that earlier in this thread you were going to proceed as if you were wrong and I was right. I haven't seen you even try to do so. You'r not even addressing my points; you're just parroting back the same things over and over. You don't have even the slightest intention of trying to question your own ideas; as I pointed out earlier it was nothing more than a less-than-clever attempt to grant yourself the right to examine my ideas without subjecting yours to the same treatment.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Your answer ignores the fact that they both shall surely be put to death. Women not being specified in this is immaterial. You continue to try to dismiss Scripture because it does not say what you want it to say. So type more gobbledegook if you must, Diamondeye. The Scriptures prove that you are wrong. If you are truly a believer as you claim, I suggest you understand what Scripture says, rather than trying to twist it to mean what you want it to mean. The meaning of Lev. 20:13 is clear, and plain. I've seen similar arguments you make from the non-believers on this board. That fact alone should be enough to give you pause, if you are truly a believer.

But enough of this. People can read what the Scripture says and they can read the contortions you go through to dismiss Scripture, and they can make up their own minds. God will work, and I am content.

In other words, you can't respond to my points, so you'll just pretend I didn't make them.

The only one twisting here Bery is you. The fact that you can call your own interpretation "clear and plain" of a passage that is anything but is telling. You have no understanding, and no desire for any. I find it educational to look back over history and see what a theological disaster schism has wrought.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm the one twisting. How? Did I misquote the Scripture? How am I twisting that which I quoted accurately? I responded to your points, you just don't like the answers, nor do you want to stand on Scriptural truth. But whatever. People can read and decide for themselves. I'm just glad I didn't need you in order for me to come to Christ.

No Bery, you have not responded to my points. Simply repeating your original position is not responding to my points, nor is dismissing them (as you did with the unalterable fact that female homosexual behavior cannot be a sin).

You're twisting because you're taking a line that proscribes a specific behavior in a command given to one particular nation at one particular time and place and claiming it's a command to all others at all other times. You're doing this despite the fact that this one command is the only one of many that seems to hold such status in your mind.

Idolatry, Bery, is, to the degree that sins can be said to be more or less severe than others, the worst of all, as it breaks both Jesus's command to love God with all of one's heart, mind, and soul, and the First Commandment to have no other Gods before the Lord. Yet Paul in 1Cor excuses people for eating food offered to idols; never mind the consequences to Israel (the national punishment of which you are so fond) when they made the golden calf.

If the eating of food offered to idols has been excused by Paul, what basis is there for thinking homosexual acts are still sinful? (This is not to excuse homoseual promiscuity; I am referring to monogamous, committed couples) They enjoy some special status? Why? And why only males?

You are putting up stumbling blocks, Bery, and you are doing it because your faith is brittle and cannot withstand challanges or examinations of hard questions. It's no different than when people point out the contradictions between a literal reading of Genesis and our observations. You scream and yell that it must be literal because if it isn't that somehow impeaches the rest of the Bible. Perhaps if your faith were not so based on literal, simplistic readings you would be able to resolve observation and Scripture without having to throw yourself into a panic.

In fact, you actually have revealed an error I have made to me, inadvertantly. I have often considered my faith rather weak and aasked God to help me improve it. However, after reading what you have written here, I see that I have been in error; God has evidently already answered that prayer. I should have been thanking Him for doing so instead of continuing to ask Him to answer what He already had. I see that the faith He has provided me is much better able to deal with complex, chllanging issues of Scripture and how it applies to our lives than that of people who have sheltered their faith from any test for their entire life. I will have to hope that pointing this out is not braggadocio on my part. Perhaps I should ask forgiveness; I do not intend to be prideful here, but after all, I am a sinner and frequently err.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The fact that you cannot read Lev 20:13 and understand God's view of homosexuality tells me more about you than this post. It's kind of a curious thing. I would guess that where God says "Do not commit adultery" that you understand the plain language used there. Or where He says "You shall not murder", you understand that. But let God say, "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, they have committed an abomination." and your brain starts searching for any possible way to explain it away. You say it doesn't mean what it says because women are not mentioned, but then attribute it to rape. Why? Rape is not mentioned. You talk about promiscuous homosexual activity, but nothing in that verse says anything about that, nor does it make an exception for monogamous relationships. It doesn't matter what is actually said there; what you want it to say is all that really matters, apparently. I'm willing to reckon that any non-believer, who has no bias one way or the other, can read Lev. 20:13 and understand what is said just fine. But if you have an agenda of the world to push.....

So let us hope that your faith is placed where it should be. My final word to you in this thread, so go ahead, get the last word in.

Oh, one last thing: You talk about the disaster of schism, so what do you think of the schism going on in the Episcopalian Church over this very issue? Many congregations who were there want nothing to do with the sin, so they are leaving the denomination. People who think as you do are the cause of the schism.

IMO.... the reason the bible says male homosexuality is a nono, but does not specify two women as being a bad thing....

Even when the bible was written; people knew Lesbians were just hot!

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Bery, you're just begging the question. All you're doing is proclaiming that your view is God's view. The rest of this just illustrates that you simply do not comprehend what I am trying to say. I'm not going to repeat myself since I do not think it is possible to make it any more clear.

The fact that you can extend a passge that applies only to male homosexual acts to homosexuality (homosexual feelings) and to women indicates that you not only don't know what God's view is any better than I do, you also don't care what it actually says. All you're really concerned with doing is making sure that what you've learned in your church(es) over your lifetime isn't challenged.



If I were the sort to bet, and it were practical to do so, I'd be willing to wager five dollars that it's not your last word. In any case, I have little concern over my faith. Worry about your own.



I think that after 500, 1000, or almost 2,000 years of Schism depending on when you want to rekon it from, we're long past the point where opposing current ones really makes any difference. I dislike the schisms of the past but all of us living now simply have to deal with that; the horse has long since left the barn. I honestly think that the inclination of many Episcopalian congregations to rejoin the Roman Catholic, Orthodox or whatever denomination rather than remain independant and form yet more denominations is a step in the right direction in terms of ending schism, which, as far as I'm concerned, is vastly more important than any dispute over homosexuality. I would say that God is using this dispute to heal a division in His church regardless of who is correct.

I don't know precisely what issue the Episcopal church is in turmoil over, whether it's gay mariage, gay priests, or gay married priests or what. When I claim that I don't see homosexuality as sinful, that is to say I put it in the category of things that are permissible but not profitable. Regardless of whether you or I are correct on the issue, it is certianly true that the Bible has no praise for homosexuality either. I therefore don't support gay marriage in the church or allowing openly gay clergy (that is, clergy who openly practice homosexuality; I have no problem with a celibate homosexual preacher). If those are indeed the issues, then I side with those departing for other denominations.

However, I don't support castigating or ostracizing monogamous homosexual couples as regular parishoners, as long as they are not using that as a means of creating strife in the church, any more than anyone else should create strife. I also do not see any good reason to think that civil marriage between gays is a problem so long as the church is not forced to acknowledge it. If homosexual behavior between males is sinful (female homosexuality cannot be unless Paul is contradicting himself), then it is a matter between them and God so long as they do not act in a manner that makes it everyone else's buisness.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."