 |
Bible-Discussion.com Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
VikingMan44 Goldfish
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Colorado Springs
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will say though, that from the standpoint of grace, to those who struggle with homosexuality and believe in Christ as their Savior and Lord, RevJP's point of view has some merit.
They should live a-sexually while they seek God and possibly some therapy. I think that would be an excellent example of taking up your cross and following him.
And for heaven's sake, ditch their "boyfriends". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Ben Chalfant German Shepherd
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 332 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could be wrong, but it sounds as if you believe I struggle with homosexuality? If you do not mean that, that is great. If you do though, I want to say that there is no struggle in me about homosexuality at all. I am strong in my beliefs that it is wrong, as I have noticed you believe as well, correct? No struggle here, lol. The bible is rather clear about it. Elementary my dear Vike.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
VikingMan44 Goldfish
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 60 Location: Colorado Springs
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | I could be wrong, but it sounds as if you believe I struggle with homosexuality? If you do not mean that, that is great. If you do though, I want to say that there is no struggle in me about homosexuality at all. I am strong in my beliefs that it is wrong, as I have noticed you believe as well, correct? No struggle here, lol. The bible is rather clear about it. Elementary my dear Vike.  |
No, no. Not at all. The OP does, though I don't think he's been around for quite some time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
   Posts: 5845 Location: Memphis
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | The idea of an ad hominem would only be applicable if something was actually being argued. |
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | And I'm sorry, but I wouldn't trust anything FFT had to say on the subject as he has a vested interest in anything written in the Word of God being proved false. | Do you not see the argument within this sentence?
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | My statement is that you guys are asking anyone reading to rely on your word, that the NIV was based on more than just the original texts it is claimed to be a "translation" for(I don't care either way, I love the translation, and will continue to use it regardless of what you say), without any substantive proofs(which you apparently can't provide). That's crap. |
| FFT wrote: | | I'll grant that perhaps it is, in fact, an actual translation, but it is most assuredly not a good one. | I retracted my accusation, at least to the point that I'm not accusing the NIV of simply being a "version" in the manner that the KJV is.
So while RevJP may still be guilty of this, I'd kindly appreciate it if you'd stop accusing me of it. I never asked you to just "take my word for it." You challenged me on it, I did some research, I dropped the accusation.
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | I simply don't care what you've got to say on the subject, because your only self professed motive for being here is the entertainment to be had in watching Christians waffle about trying to defend the Word of God against your arguments. You are not interested in truth, just in being a stumbling block to others of faith. | I also have an appreciation for correct knowledge of scripture. And many of the people here will no doubt inform you that I have, in fact, strengthened their faith. Not to mention corrected them on scriptural points.
See, in my opinion, a faith untested isn't really faith at all. And absolutely I get entertainment out of people whose faith has never really been tested. So?
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | And so I said so to preemptively say that your opinion taken in conjunction with RevJP's was not enough to be convincing, because you had ulterior motives for making the statement. | Ulterior motives? What? I've done a lot of research on the KJV. It is not a translation, it is a compilation from older English texts revised to fit Protestant doctrine. I've compared the NIV and the KJV on a line-by-line basis, and they're highly similar throughout.
But I abandoned my claim that it is not a translation.
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | Caveat Emptor... let the buyer beware. Believing anything you've got to say is dangerous as you are not interested in what can only be spiritually discerned. You are only interested in bringing others to your fallen point of view. | My "fallen point of view" is as scripturally correct as I can manage. True, I don't believe it, but I could argue just as easily about other books in which the events are fiction.
| VikingMan44 wrote: | 1 Corinthians 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -NIV  | There are several of these convenient passages throughout scripture. They're pretty inconsequential, seeing as I can't count the number of times I've corrected people and after actually thinking about it, they accept it. True, I've yet to change anyone's ideas about homosexuality, but I believe this speaks more of the biases inherent in such a view than about a lack in scriptural correctness.
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | And so really, if it comes to that, it's foolishness to try to convince you of anything, as you simply do not have the ability to see it. | I can just as easily turn that right back on you; insisting that you're simply too closed to external information to change your mind about anything. See, when you're having a discussion or debate, such tactics are what we call "childish."
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | I must admit I am close minded on the subject of Homosexuality. Why is that? God hates it! GOD HATES HOMOSEXUALITY! IT'S NOT OK! | Scriptural justification that God hates homosexuality? Or is this just projection? Who knows?
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | What does cars and computers have to do with anything? He created a man and a woman, because this is how he intended it to be. It is as simple as that! | Yes, quite simple. A world without cars or computers, that's what He intended.
Do you believe that this means God hates cars and computers, or that they are abominations?
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | We should love all mankind, but hate their sin. I just wanted to make sure you all knew that, before you attacked me. | You'd have to show that homosexual activity is a sin before claiming that you're just hating the sin.
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | It's FFT's argument that since God did not invent cars and computers, but is okay with their use, that he is also okay with homosexuality which he also didn't invent. It's a VERY thin argument. | Thin, true. I could come up with something much more persuasive but I simply don't feel like taking the time. If this thread keeps it up I'll be convinced, but for now, well. We'll see.
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | What he fails to see is that on the one hand, God is completely silent on the subject, on the other, he is not. | According to translations not supported by 1. the original language or 2. historical context.
| VikingMan44 wrote: | | I don't think God has a problem with computers and cars because they came from his own creation's ability to create, to be creative, which he gave them, and which I think he takes a tremendous amount of pleasure in. Homosexuality came from man's perverted alignment to Satan's distortions. | Interesting. You believe that homosexuality is something Satan was involved in beginning?
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | I could be wrong, but it sounds as if you believe I struggle with homosexuality? If you do not mean that, that is great. If you do though, I want to say that there is no struggle in me about homosexuality at all. I am strong in my beliefs that it is wrong, as I have noticed you believe as well, correct? No struggle here, lol. The bible is rather clear about it. Elementary my dear Vike.  | Methinks he doth protest too much
It's quite funny to watch, actually. All of these figures of power that have been outed lately were big in the anti-homosexual scene beforehand. Something about believing something to be horrific sin but seeing that other people don't think of it the same way and are actually happy much inspire amazing amounts of jealousy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ben Chalfant German Shepherd
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 332 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This scripture mentions the effiminate.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Definition taken from miriam webster online.
Main Entry: 1ef·fem·i·nate
Pronunciation: \-nət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin effeminatus, from past participle of effeminare to make effeminate, from ex- + femina woman — more at feminine
Date: 15th century
1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
2 : marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement <effeminate art> <an effeminate civilization |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
   Posts: 5845 Location: Memphis
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | This scripture mentions the effiminate.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Definition taken from miriam webster online. | The Greek word (μαλακοι) simply means "soft" or "weak." "Effeminate" is incorrect.
Care to try again? Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at the phrase that follows it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ben Chalfant German Shepherd
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 332 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I showed the definition of effeminate in the dictionary. Homosexuals are known to be effeminate in their dress, the way they walk, and most common, in the way they talk. Why are you defending homosexuality anyway? Are you homosexual? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
james Bear Cub
Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Posts: 625
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just a thought, but does not in Romans 1:18-32 verses 26-28 speak against homosexuality - "burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemingly (shameful)" ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
   Posts: 5845 Location: Memphis
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | I showed the definition of effeminate in the dictionary. | Which is completely irrelevant because "effeminate" is not a correct translation of μαλακοι.
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | Homosexuals are known to be effeminate in their dress, the way they walk, and most common, in the way they talk. | A portion of them. So?
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | Why are you defending homosexuality anyway? | I'm not so much defending homosexuality as teaching you why you're wrong about it.
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | Are you homosexual? | No. Do you believe that I might be just because I'm talking about the subject?
| james wrote: | | Just a thought, but does not in Romans 1:18-32 verses 26-28 speak against homosexuality - "burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemingly (shameful)" ??? | In a sense, but it doesn't make homosexuality out as a sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ben Chalfant German Shepherd
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 332 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT, I was merely asking a question. You have said no, and so I accept that. James, yes, I agree with you. Those verses are another example of why homosexuality is a sin. The bible mentions homosexuality as being wrong in the OT, and in the NT. It is shameful, and unseemly. It even says it is unnatural affection, speaking about both men and women. So it is wrong to be Gay or Lesbian. This is not natural.
(Romans 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
(Romans 1:19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
(Romans 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Romans 1:22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
(Romans 1:23) And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
(Romans 1:24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
(Romans 1:25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(Romans 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:
(Romans 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 recompense of their error which was meet.
(Romans 1:28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(Romans 1:29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
(Romans 1:30) Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(Romans 1:31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
(Romans 1:32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
   Posts: 5845 Location: Memphis
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | FFT, I was merely asking a question. You have said no, and so I accept that. James, yes, I agree with you. Those verses are another example of why homosexuality is a sin. The bible mentions homosexuality as being wrong in the OT, and in the NT. It is shameful, and unseemly. It even says it is unnatural affection, speaking about both men and women. So it is wrong to be Gay or Lesbian. This is not natural. | I'd like to see your thought process as you interpret "unnatural" to mean "wrong" or "sin." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ben Chalfant German Shepherd
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 332 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Very well. I will make it clear to you, then. Natural being right. unnatural being wrong. God created the Heaven and the Earth. He created nature. If something be natural, it is of God. If something be unnatural, it is not of God. If it is not of God, it can only be one thing. Wrong. Sin is wrong. So if it is not of God, it is sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FFT Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
   Posts: 5845 Location: Memphis
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | If something be natural, it is of God. If something be unnatural, it is not of God. If it is not of God, it can only be one thing. Wrong. | Then we're back to my flimsy argument. Cars are neither natural nor created by God. Are they "wrong?"
| Ben Chalfant wrote: | | Sin is wrong. So if it is not of God, it is sin. | If dogs are animals and cats are animals, are cats dogs? This is the fallacy you're using here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ben Chalfant German Shepherd
Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 332 Location: Kansas
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fallacy here is you thinking that animals has anything to do with right and wrong. As far as cars and computers go, remember this: They are created from natural minerals that we harvested from the earth, that God created.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
theseldomscene Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
   Posts: 7817
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fft wrote: | | Cars are neither natural nor created by God. Are they "wrong?" |
only the slow ones ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|