 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| It seems that this new topic has exposed several pro-homosexual "Christians". Soon it will be that the only ones that continue to agree with God that such practices are abominable will be the Catholics, the Orthodox, and a faithful remnant of Protestants. (I know many Protestants that will never deviate from the truth) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 598
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmike wrote: | | Why does the attack dog suddenly have his tail between his legs? |
How so? I have never hidden how I felt about homosexuality.
Hekkler,
Here you go. This is the scripture you're talking about. Paul makes it clear that he is saying this out of concession. That it's not a command. B/C he knows human nature.
From 1 Cor 7: 1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
All he says is that they should be together (sexually I assume) b/c of their lack of self control. And why do their bodies belong to each other? B/C they took vows before God right?
| Hekkler wrote: | | But a married couple having anal sex, is nothing at all like a homosexual pair of men having it. ewww |
Anal sex is anal sex. I don't see any difference. The way you say, ewww about the picture of two men being together is the exact same way that a homosexual male says when he pictures himself w/a woman. These are called natural instincts. One is natural for you. The other is natural for him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
"it's ok to be gay" FTT said:
| Quote: | saintmichaeldefendthem wrote:
World history is replete with examples of cultures that lost sound sexual ethic.
| Quote: | | You mean like the Greeks, or at least how you'd define them? From which Western culture as a whole is almost entirely derived? |
|
Oh, so it's ok that they buggered little boys at parties, as long as they gave us the alphabet?
*Man's Man* defender wrote:
| Quote: | saintmichaeldefendthem wrote:
Because depravity always seeks lower ground (hell is never satisfied), pederasty always followed societal acceptance of homosexuality, and pederasty targets children in general, but boys exclusively.
| Quote: | | Why hey there mister slippery slope, it's only been a few days since the last time I saw you. |
|
A lack of understanding of the nature of evil will ensure it's successful metastisization.
| Quote: | saintmichaeldefendthem wrote:
The angels told Lot that God would destroy the cities because of the outcry of their neighbors.
| Quote: | | Do please explain how this justifies your out-of-nowhere assertion of homosexual gangs roving the countryside. |
|
It's clearly spelled out in Scripture, there were homosexual gangs in Sodom, the countryside was being oppressed, so I guess you think it was Martians, not these homosexual gangs that were doing the oppressing. I bet that you, like Evee, just wished the Bible didn't say all those mean and terrible things about homosexuals.
Brokeback Mountain wrote:
| Quote: | saintmichaeldefendthem wrote:
But if there be any doubt as to which reason was first and foremost, I think St. Jude would be the tie-breaker:Quote:
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
| Quote: | | It's not fornication if you're married. |
|
Oh, so when God said it's an abomination for a man to lay with another man, he meant to slip in an acception for "married" men, but accidentally omitted it. How clumbsy of Him! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Evee said:
[quote]saintmike wrote:
Why does the attack dog suddenly have his tail between his legs?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | How so? I have never hidden how I felt about homosexuality. |
|
Um, I was talking to Seldom. He's afraid of you, it seems.
| Quote: | | All he says is that they should be together (sexually I assume) b/c of their lack of self control. And why do their bodies belong to each other? B/C they took vows before God right? |
I think Paul spoke specifically of heterosexual marriages. You're taking liberties extending his remarks to homosexuals. Paul had nothing flattering to say about homosexuals.
| Quote: | | Anal sex is anal sex. I don't see any difference. The way you say, ewww about the picture of two men being together is the exact same way that a homosexual male says when he pictures himself w/a woman. These are called natural instincts. One is natural for you. The other is natural for him. |
According to Catholic teaching, any sexual act that is not within the natural design, or lacks the ability to produce life, is a sin. This would include homosexuality, masturbation, anal or oral sex, or contraceptives. I don't see a difference either, Evee, anal sex is sinful no matter who does it.
Last edited by saintmichaeldefendthem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5880
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | "it's ok to be gay" FTT said:
*Man's Man* defender wrote:
Brokeback Mountain wrote: |
Seriously? You've descended into namecalling? You think this makes people think you know what you're talking about?
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | A lack of understanding of the nature of evil will ensure it's successful metastisization. |
Perhaps, but none of the homosexuals I know have any interest in minors.
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | It's clearly spelled out in Scripture |
Well, no. Not how you're reading into it.
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | there were homosexual gangs in Sodom |
Everyone in Sodom = homosexuals gangs in Sodom?
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | the countryside was being oppressed |
You're reading this into the text when it is not present. Roving gangs of homosexuals raping the countryside isn't required for neighbors of a city to complain.
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | so I guess you think it was Martians, not these homosexual gangs that were doing the oppressing. |
Since the Bible doesn't in any way state that the outcry was "can't you see them oppressing us!?" you're making things up.
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | I bet that you, like Evee, just wished the Bible didn't say all those mean and terrible things about homosexuals. |
I don't have to wish, I know it doesn't.
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | | Oh, so when God said it's an abomination for a man to lay with another man, he meant to slip in an acception for "married" men, but accidentally omitted it. How clumbsy of Him! |
It's talking about ritual homosexual sex. Temple prostitution. It has nothing to do with homosexuality as it is "practiced" today.
The only way in which the Bible legitimately condemns homosexuality as practiced today is the fact that in most countries it can only be fornication. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="saintmichaeldefendthem"]Evee said:
| Quote: | | Quote: | saintmike wrote:
Why does the attack dog suddenly have his tail between his legs? |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | How so? I have never hidden how I felt about homosexuality. |
|
Um, I was talking to Seldom. He's afraid of you, it seems.
|
 ....no... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Right, Seldom
Well it seems that you have been cowarded by political correctness. You're a firebrand on many other issues, but on this one you're docile, evasive....even though you know that the Bible exclaims it's condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. Since when are you so afraid to belt the truth out there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmichaeldefendthem wrote: | Right, Seldom
Well it seems that you have been cowarded by political correctness. You're a firebrand on many other issues, but on this one you're docile, evasive....even though you know that the Bible exclaims it's condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. Since when are you so afraid to belt the truth out there? |
tell me friend...did you miss this post of mine to you..or just ignored it?...
| tss in the mary thread to mikie wrote: | mikie...i personally think homosex is a sin...that is how i read scripture and my personal interpretation of it....
now on to something that is not just my personal views....
.....................................................................
whether hetro or homo...anal sex is not healthy...and there is NO safe way to receive it...
so there..people can rail all they wish...call me whatever phobe they want...but there is enough evidence to show that is not the case...
i am just telling the truth.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | saintmichaeldefendthem wrote:
A lack of understanding of the nature of evil will ensure it's successful metastisization.
Perhaps, but none of the homosexuals I know have any interest in minors. |
Perhaps you're missing the larger picture. Depravity has no boundries. A society willing to accept sexual deviancy will eventually capitulate to all manner of it. NAMBLA, having learned from the gay movement, is already using the same arguments:
Why do you judge a person because of who he loves?
Love is always good, regardless of where it's found.
Etc. There used to be laws against adultery and homosexuality. They either don't exist anymore or are no longer enforceable. Today there are laws against adults having sex with minors. How long do you think that will last in a society that says "Anything goes"?
I can say with certainty that when homosexuality has been fully normalized, the boys are the next target. World history will infallibly repeat itself.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
TSS,
Yes, I did read that post, and that's why I said what I said. On every other issue, you will boldly say, "This is what the Bible says!" But on this issue you wimp out, saying, "I think homosexuality is a sin, that's my own interpretation". That's called intellectual cowardice. The Bible speaks clearly and unambiguously about homosexuality, and it's not subject to individual interpretation. And what's more, you know that!
So please, speak boldly and unapologetically on this issue. I'm the only one here speaking the audacious truth of Scripture, and I thought you would too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
well mikie perhaps since you only have a low post count and have not been here for very long...you have not seen the countless debates on the issue like i have, or participated in them...
we can go fifteen or twenty pages...round and round...you and i showing what we see...
only to see others explain it the way they do...and on and on we go....
maybe i have often...debated the subject...maybe i like to see others do so for a while....
maybe i have been here and seen the issue discussed enough to know...if one chooses to accept homosex...
there is nothing any can do to change their minds on it...
and if one refuses to accept it...the same thing...
i am one of the latter....so...with that said...and the scriptures quoted and refered to...
what else is there to say mikie?...i mean, really?... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 598
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmike wrote: | | Um, I was talking to Seldom. He's afraid of you, it seems. |
Okay I apologize.
| saintmike wrote: | | I think Paul spoke specifically of heterosexual marriages. You're taking liberties extending his remarks to homosexuals. Paul had nothing flattering to say about homosexuals. |
I have no doubt that he was talking about heterosexual couples. I never said he wasn't. What I did say was what I thought the message he was trying to get across was. Did you know that the word homosexual wasn't even in existance until the 19th century I believe? Do you also not agree that we can learn from others who have studied languages & what words mean? Here is an excerpt from a website, among many that I had found:
"Malakos" (literally "soft") was not commonly used by Greek speakers of Paul's time in sexual contexts (nor is it today). In Paul's usage, it may be suggestive of some kind of effeminacy or weakness, but it is not a word which other speakers and writers of Greek used to refer to homosexual behavior or practitioners. "Malakos," indeed, is used in several other places in the New Testament in ways that have nothing to do with sex (e.g., Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25). The word's usage overall is uncommon.
When "malakos" or similar words are used by other Greek speakers and writers, they are never unambiguous references to sex between males. There were plenty of other words in ancient Greek language -- "erastes," "eromenos," "paedika," "paederastes" and others -- which Paul would have had at his command. If Paul intended unequivocally to condemn all manner of sex between males, it is extremely puzzling that he didn't use words which his Greek-speaking audience would find familiar and unambiguous.
Oddest of all, "arsenokoitai" is a coinage attributed to Paul, having been found by scholars nowhere else in any pre-Pauline Greek writing, and being found after Paul only in discussions of and attempts to decipher his usage.
I don't come to my conclusions lightly. I was also a firm believer that homosexuality was a sin as well. I shouted it from the rooftops (not literally, but you know what I mean I hope). However, after careful study, & asking God to guide me, I came to a different conclusion. I was looking for God to prove me right & here He proved me wrong. Who'd have thunk?
| saintmike wrote: | | Perhaps you're missing the larger picture. Depravity has no boundries. A society willing to accept sexual deviancy will eventually capitulate to all manner of it. NAMBLA, having learned from the gay movement, is already using the same arguments: |
It's ironic that you mention NAMBLA b/c after studying the texts, it's obvious that this is exactly what Paul was referring to. This practice was dominant in Greece & Rome back then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saintmichaeldefendthem
Big Lion
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 979
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evee,
Sorry, linguistic inflection can shed some light on what the speaker wished to convey, but not to the degree that it delivers the exact opposite message than what's translated. All the translators have the same access to the same Greek manuscripts, but all seem to translate Paul's words as a strong condemnation of homosexuality, and I doubt they were all mistaken, as you seem to be implying.
Paul said that men burned in their lust for one another and committed shameful acts. I'm sorry, but you don't get to reinterpret this as "It's ok to be gay" by putting your own spin on the Greek. As far as the Holy Spirit, I'm glad He has patience with the debates we drag Him into. But there's absolutely no way that God showed you that homosexuality is ok. God doesn't contradict himself, nor has he led Christians astray for 2000 years while secretly giving you "the truth".
You were right when you stood in Biblical opposition to the perversity of homosexuality. Seeking the Holy Spirit to see of homosexuality is really ok is like the Mormons telling people to seek the Holy Spirit to see if the Book of Mormon is true. If one has already entertained the error in their mind, it's amazing how they get the Holy Spirit to agree with them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 598
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saintmike wrote: | | Sorry, linguistic inflection can shed some light on what the speaker wished to convey, but not to the degree that it delivers the exact opposite message than what's translated. All the translators have the same access to the same Greek manuscripts, but all seem to translate Paul's words as a strong condemnation of homosexuality, and I doubt they were all mistaken, as you seem to be implying. |
Then why invent a word? You don't suppose it is possible that translators brought their own preconceived ideas into translating texts?
| saintmike wrote: | | Paul said that men burned in their lust for one another and committed shameful acts |
.
He also was talking about people who turned away from the one true God & worshipped other gods. What did these other gods require from their followers? Sex in front of the altar. Men dressing up as women & pretending to be something or someone they weren't. Why isn't worshipping practices of these cultures discussed? Why is it ignored when interpreting these passages? Cultural background needs to be explored. We weren't there. The people Paul was speaking to knew exactly what was going on around them. So they knew exactly what he was saying. We are left w/studying the cultural background in order to understand just what type of people Paul was talking to & just what type of people Paul was speaking out against. Shouldn't that be considered? Why is it ok to just look at a passage & say, Well, it says this so that's that? Don't we want to understand God's word better? Get at His true intentions instead of just assuming that is what He meant?
Paul had no idea that he was writing "scripture" when he wrote these epistles. He was a preacher writing to his congregation to uplift them, to correct them, to settle disputes among them, much like a pastor would do for his/her congregation today.
| saintmike wrote: | | God doesn't contradict himself, nor has he led Christians astray for 2000 years while secretly giving you "the truth". |
No He doesn't. But He does guide people to the truth when they think they know everything & they really don't. You make light of my experience, but it is very real to me & it was very humbling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6342
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
and I'm not making light of homosexuality here..but if that was the worse thing going on then I think Paul would have addressed such as he did here:
1Cr 5:1 It is reported commonly [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
seems this was more unseemly than what we think should be most unseemly..
Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
going after strange flesh...
Deu 6:14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which [are] round about you;
Deu 11:28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Exd 34:15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and [one] call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
2Cr 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Cr 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
2Cr 10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
