[quote]forlife wrote:
Perhaps believers, if they are honest at least, would do well to consider this article and what it means for their convictions against homosexuality. [/quote]
Doesn’t matter what the Bible says. This gay stuff is horrible!
How in the world could anyone even think of abusing their penis or their butthole for such goings on? Got to be a mental illness to explain gay things.
I used to believe in equal rights or gay people but now I realize they are deranged.
Horrible!
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,
“How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?”
To use an O.T.commandment, you have given the opening to use all of the O.T.'s commandments as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.[/quote]
I’m fine with that, just like I’m fine with HoustonGuy’s position. At least you’re being consistent.
Which is the point of this thread. It’s not about the bible or Christianity per se, it’s about deriving internally consistent conclusions within that belief system. If the bible is god’s word as Christians claim, they should follow all of it, not just the parts that they like.[/quote]
You and God couldn’t agree more.
Revelation 3:15-16 ESV
â??â??I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
Preach!
Stated,
“…Paul is in fact the only person in the entire new testament to even mention homosexuality. Jesus, and every other apostle, said not a word…”
Mark 7:21-23 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed…fornications…lasciviousness…All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
“Fornications” (Gk. porneia) denotes “unchastity, illicit sexual relations” of any kind.
“Lasciviousness” (Gk. aselgeia) is noted as one of the most heinous and ugliest word in the list of N.T. sins, characterized as “shameless greediness,” “bestial pleasure,” and “pure self-enjoyment.”
Those under the control of this sin do not care what others say or think, as long as they can satisfy their desires. It is said that the inhabitants of Sodom spoke openly of their sin (Isa. 3:9). Thus aselgeia denotes open licentiousness and shameless sin.
Thus we see that though Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, he did condemn fornication and lasciviousness which covers all sexual sins which defile mankind, excluding them from the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).
Forlife seriously…
The Bible is not (and never was) a legal codex, and you know that.
if the only argument of the chrstians was “hey look, it’s written here, in this verse”, you would have a point, and you could very well say “hey look, you can’t have long hair too and women should have their head covered, it’s written here, in this verse”.
But it’s not their only argument, and it’s not even their main argument. And you know that too.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Perhaps believers, if they are honest at least, would do well to consider this article and what it means for their convictions against homosexuality. [/quote]
Doesn’t matter what the Bible says. This gay stuff is horrible!
How in the world could anyone even think of abusing their penis or their butthole for such goings on? Got to be a mental illness to explain gay things.
I used to believe in equal rights or gay people but now I realize they are deranged.
Horrible![/quote]
Just think about these things objectively:
Putting your penis in another guy’s gaping arsehole and fucking him.
Sucking another guy’s dick.
Rubbing your dick with another guy’s dick(frot).
Now imagine doing those things. Are you picturing it in your mind? Now see how normal it seems when you really think about it?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Perhaps believers, if they are honest at least, would do well to consider this article and what it means for their convictions against homosexuality. [/quote]
Doesn’t matter what the Bible says. This gay stuff is horrible!
How in the world could anyone even think of abusing their penis or their butthole for such goings on? Got to be a mental illness to explain gay things.
I used to believe in equal rights or gay people but now I realize they are deranged.
Horrible![/quote]
Just think about these things objectively:
Putting your penis in another guy’s gaping arsehole and fucking him.
Sucking another guy’s dick.
Rubbing your dick with another guy’s dick(frot).
Now imagine doing those things. Are you picturing it in your mind? Now see how normal it seems when you really think about it?[/quote]
It seems like something that men in a mental hospital, seriously ill men, would do. Intellectually I know men do stuff like that but the emotional part of me sees that stuff as outside the realm of thought. Why would ANYONE do such things, unless they were very, very sick?
Really, how horrible!
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,
“How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?”
To use an O.T.commandment, you have given the opening to use all of the O.T.'s commandments as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.[/quote]
I’m fine with that, just like I’m fine with HoustonGuy’s position. At least you’re being consistent.
Which is the point of this thread. It’s not about the bible or Christianity per se, it’s about deriving internally consistent conclusions within that belief system. If the bible is god’s word as Christians claim, they should follow all of it, not just the parts that they like.[/quote]
You and God couldn’t agree more.
Revelation 3:15-16 ESV
â??â??I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
Preach!
[/quote]
Again, kudos on your consistency. I respect that you take everything in the bible seriously, including the injunctions against women praying with their head uncovered, men having long hair, divorce except in cases of infidelity, etc.
The point of this thread was not to criticize Christianity. I am not a Christian, but I know many good people who are. I have little respect for smorgasbord Christians, particularly those who cherry pick scriptures to condemn others, while ignoring scriptures that would condemn themselves.
[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,
“…Paul is in fact the only person in the entire new testament to even mention homosexuality. Jesus, and every other apostle, said not a word…”
Mark 7:21-23 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed…fornications…lasciviousness…All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
“Fornications” (Gk. porneia) denotes “unchastity, illicit sexual relations” of any kind.
“Lasciviousness” (Gk. aselgeia) is noted as one of the most heinous and ugliest word in the list of N.T. sins, characterized as “shameless greediness,” “bestial pleasure,” and “pure self-enjoyment.”
Those under the control of this sin do not care what others say or think, as long as they can satisfy their desires. It is said that the inhabitants of Sodom spoke openly of their sin (Isa. 3:9). Thus aselgeia denotes open licentiousness and shameless sin.
Thus we see that though Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, he did condemn fornication and lasciviousness which covers all sexual sins which defile mankind, excluding them from the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21). [/quote]
However, Jesus never said homosexuality was fornication and lasciviousness, particularly in cases of committed, loving, monogamous same sex relationships.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,
“How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?”
To use an O.T.commandment, you have given the opening to use all of the O.T.'s commandments as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.[/quote]
I’m fine with that, just like I’m fine with HoustonGuy’s position. At least you’re being consistent.
Which is the point of this thread. It’s not about the bible or Christianity per se, it’s about deriving internally consistent conclusions within that belief system. If the bible is god’s word as Christians claim, they should follow all of it, not just the parts that they like.[/quote]
You and God couldn’t agree more.
Revelation 3:15-16 ESV
�¢??�¢??I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
Preach!
[/quote]
Again, kudos on your consistency. I respect that you take everything in the bible seriously, including the injunctions against women praying with their head uncovered, men having long hair, divorce except in cases of infidelity, etc.
The point of this thread was not to criticize Christianity. I am not a Christian, but I know many good people who are. I have little respect for smorgasbord Christians, particularly those who cherry pick scriptures to condemn others, while ignoring scriptures that would condemn themselves.
[/quote]
Yet, regardless of their alleged “moral code” you are guilty of the same thing they are, and you are baiting it. So don’t get self righteous on your own soap box. It doesn’t lend well to your credibility either. If you can’t take it don’t give it, pure common sense although the Bible and specifically Jesus do teach on the Golden Rule…
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,
“However, Jesus never said homosexuality was fornication and lasciviousness, particularly in cases of committed, loving, monogamous same sex relationships.”[/quote]
Fornication describes any sexual act beween unmarried couples which as of recenly has been illegal. Even though some states now allow homosexual marriages it seems appearant they are not blessed by God. God said in Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”. It’s pretty black and white when referring to the Bible.
I don’t understand what the arguement is here. Christians disapprove of homosexuality as much as they disapprove of sex outside of marriage, adultery, murder, stealing, and commiting blasmephy against God as well as numerous other sins. The problem with homosexuality is they continue to do it and openly rebel against the Christian belief. We would (or should0 have the same response if someone repeatedly cheated on their wife and continued to defend themselves by mis-quoting the Bible.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, you didn’t. It’s a question specifically about divorce, which obviously only entailed men and women since gays didn’t marry back then. And in any case, it says absolutely nothing about sex in the passage.
[/quote]
Dude, we’re talking about Christianity, remember? Marriage is sanctioned by God. God created man and women to leave their mother and fathers and be with those of the opposite sex. And really, now I have to defend the anti-fornication and adultery teachings of Christianity? I thought you were at least aware enough of the bible and Christianity, so I could at least skip having to back up those topics.
[/quote]
We’re talking about what Jesus actually said, remember? You said that he condemned sex between people of the same gender. He didn’t. He only talked about divorce between men and women.[/quote]
As a Catholic, Sloth believes that Jesus is the Church. What the Church teaches, Jesus as well teaches. To make an arbitrary division between what Jesus said and what the Apostles (including their successors) say goes against what Jesus himself said, “who receives you, receives me. Who rejects you, rejects me.”[/quote]
Sorry dude, Paul was a recovering Pharisee, Peter vehemently disagreed with him on some of his teachings, and he was notorious for being difficult to understand. It’s hardly surprising that Jesus chose Peter to be the rock, rather than him.[/quote]
Didn’t Paul die as a Pharisee? I thought he was arrested and martyred in the process of some Jewish rituals?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
So all those women praying in Catholic churches with their heads uncovered are sinning? Yes or no?[/quote]
Why do you think it is sinning for a woman to enter the presence of God with her head uncovered?
1 Corinthians 11: 13-16
[quote]How about the clear biblical commandment for the brothers of a widow’s deceased husband to take turns inseminating her until she becomes pregnant? Do you follow this today, yes or no?
[/quote]
Which clear biblical commandment are you referring to?[/quote]
Mark 12: 18-27
[/quote]
Ah, so you’re point to Deut 25:5-6, “When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother: And the first son he shall have of her, he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel.”
Mosaic law, partially. Jews historically stopped this in general after leaving Babylon because there was no longer any inheritance. Not being Semitic by heritage, but only spiritual Semitics this law would obviously not apply to us because 1) it is Mosaic law, 2) Jews do not have their original inheritance, 3) most Christians are not racially Semites. 
The Catholic church could not survive in its current form if it explicitly banned gay priests. They can’t get any now, as it is.
Got that from the pastor at a local private catholic college.
Blacksheep as usual has some very solid posts. There is plenty of intentionally legalistic ceremonial ritualistic practice in the OT that has been declared fulfilled in Christ. Both directly as in Peter’s vision in acts for instance and by applying that principle to other like injunctions. Also, hermeneutics 101. Cultural form and trans-cultural principle. For instance.
I remember reading (been a while) that the male temple prostitutes at Corinth were known for their long hair and effeminate manner. That’s the cultural form. The trans-cultural principle is that men are not to present themselves in a way that is either effeminate or might associate them with known sin. The hair is incidental and the comment about nature is addressing the homosexual aspect of it. A kilt, which is considered manly in Scotland (or used to) would be a dress here. The biblical principle might be applied differently in different cultures.
That’s why I subscribe to the historico-exegetical method of all written communication actually, but especially the bible. Historical research and systematic treatment is necessary for the proper understanding of what the bible says. It always means first what it meant tot he people it was originally written to which varies WIDELY throughout.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
The Catholic church could not survive in its current form if it explicitly banned gay priests. They can’t get any now, as it is.[/quote]
Really? Because we have banned open homosexuals from entering the seminary (about six years ago) and so far we’re bigger than we have ever been in the history of the world. We also have more priests than we have ever had. Comparatively, we are one of the largest growing religions. And, a good chunk of our seminaries are two and three-fold over stuffed with seminarians trying to become priests (meaning the rooms/studies are made for one or two people, and they have had to put two and three tiered bunk beds to accommodate all the seminarians until they build new residence).
And, the Catholic Church wouldn’t ban gay priests, because that would mean they are already priests, you can’t un-priest a priest, he is marked indelibly. And, unless he’s unfit for public ministry he won’t be touched. I think you mean banning homosexuals from entering the seminary to become priests, that we have already done.
…lol. I love when a “pastor” of the Catholic Church somehow is more credible than bishops and the Pope, especially an unnamed pastor. The fact that he’s at a college I am going to be uncharitable (kidding, I know he is from his comment) and assume that he’s one of the old dusty fellows who is part of the modernistic homosexual agenda driven liberals that gets a big pay check to teach heresy at such sewage dumps as “Catholic Colleges.” I just wish some bishops would have the damn gumption to yank their Catholic titles already.
I suggest you study the data from the John Jay Report (funded by the Bishops conference). The increase of sex with minors (not limited to pedophilia as pedophilia is only a small amount of cases, but sex with minors is about 85-90% of the actual cases) by Catholic Clergy is directly correlated with the increase of open homosexuals entering the seminary.
If anything, if the Catholic Church wants to leave the past (sex abuse cases, modernism, &c.) and somewhat current form it will continue to ban open homosexuals from entering the seminary.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
historico-exegetical method [/quote]
No wonder you are so confused. I have an encyclical for you, I’ll send you a link to it.
Thanks a bunch. I jist can’t wait =]
[quote]steve124 wrote:<<< I don’t understand what the arguement is here. Christians disapprove of homosexuality as much as they disapprove of sex outside of marriage, adultery, murder, stealing, and commiting blasmephy against God as well as numerous other sins. The problem with homosexuality is they continue to do it and openly rebel against the Christian belief. We would (or should have the same response if someone repeatedly cheated on their wife and continued to defend themselves by mis-quoting the Bible.[/quote]I’m pretty sure we have a dual (or more) identity here boys n girls. I suspect a devout disciple of Ayn Rand is demonstrating his ability to assimilate traditional biblical Christian positions on morality. Not bad man, the post I mean, but your personality still shines through. (I think).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Thanks a bunch. I jist can’t wait =][/quote]
Dei Verbum - Dei verbum
We should take this to another thread Chris, but my plate is pretty full trying to keep up with the many questions thrown my way already. Right now Cortes has priority and you’re next in line with the division in protestant land and unity in Rome thing. There are other major responses I wanted to give that have fallen be the wayside because unlike God, I can only be in one place and one moment at a time. I do the best I can.