Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 15:01:29 GMT -5
Are you angling at some sort of victimless crime logic here? No offense = no sin? The term "victimless crime" is practically an oxymoron is it not? There are some laws on the books which can be broken without victims involved but in my view there are very few of them, and even fewer of them fall under criminal law. "Victimless offense" is definitely an oxymoron, it cannot exist. God defined sins and offenses, and subsequently laws so that people could live together in harmony and peace, in harmony and peace with God and at peace with oneself. Those are the results of the Two Great Commandments which fulfill the whole law. Now we are getting closer to the "overarching principles" that I promised on this subject........
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 8, 2007 15:28:31 GMT -5
I disagree with this kind of reasoning. God created man with many charactor flaws that if fed or allowed to grow, are unacceptable to him. The ability to commit adultery and murder to name two. Isn't this why we need God's power and help? To overcome our own weaknesses? Where would it end- if one took this reasoning to it's logical conclusion? I could justify all wrong behavior because "That's the way God created me". Peace, HFA Some faulty reasoning here of your own to think about. You automatically leap to the conclusion that homosexuality is a "character flaw", a "weakness", or some such leap to conclusion. This is what hung me up on this issue all my life, I couldn't get past my own prejudice because homosexual behavior is so foreign, and disgusting in my own eyes.. You really have to think about what sin really is, what offenses really are and then look at it from that point of view. There is no slippery slope here as you intimate, because for two consenting adults, there is no offense, there is no defiance of nature, no going after "strange flesh". On the contrary, a homosexual in an opposite sex marriage is going against nature, against God's creation, against the unsuspecting spouse. It is an offense. Similarly, there is a long list of sexual sins that will always be recognized as sins, as there are offenses attached to every one of them. Examples are: heterosexuals involved in homosexual acts, homosexuals involved in heterosexual acts, any sex act against the will of another, any sex act perpetrated against a minor person. Even unbelievers can understand the concept of sin and offense in these cases even though they don't call it sin. The offenses are clear. The reality is that between two consenting homosexual adults, there is no offense to each other or against their natures. And, as I mentioned, science will soon confirm or deny that homosexuality is congenital or a learned behaviour. If science confirms it is strictly a learned behaviour, I will gladly condemn any form of homosexual behaviour. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say here then. It appears to me that the jist of your logic here is that homosexual acts between consenting adults do not constitute an offense, therefore they are not sin. Am I understanding this correctly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 16:33:03 GMT -5
Some faulty reasoning here of your own to think about. You automatically leap to the conclusion that homosexuality is a "character flaw", a "weakness", or some such leap to conclusion. This is what hung me up on this issue all my life, I couldn't get past my own prejudice because homosexual behavior is so foreign, and disgusting in my own eyes.. You really have to think about what sin really is, what offenses really are and then look at it from that point of view. There is no slippery slope here as you intimate, because for two consenting adults, there is no offense, there is no defiance of nature, no going after "strange flesh". On the contrary, a homosexual in an opposite sex marriage is going against nature, against God's creation, against the unsuspecting spouse. It is an offense. Similarly, there is a long list of sexual sins that will always be recognized as sins, as there are offenses attached to every one of them. Examples are: heterosexuals involved in homosexual acts, homosexuals involved in heterosexual acts, any sex act against the will of another, any sex act perpetrated against a minor person. Even unbelievers can understand the concept of sin and offense in these cases even though they don't call it sin. The offenses are clear. The reality is that between two consenting homosexual adults, there is no offense to each other or against their natures. And, as I mentioned, science will soon confirm or deny that homosexuality is congenital or a learned behaviour. If science confirms it is strictly a learned behaviour, I will gladly condemn any form of homosexual behaviour. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say here then. It appears to me that the jist of your logic here is that homosexual acts between consenting adults do not constitute an offense, therefore they are not sin. Am I understanding this correctly? Not exactly. What I am saying is that the possibility exists that homosexual acts between committed consenting homosexual people may not be a sin. Homosexual acts by heterosexual people are clearly an offense to one's personal well being. It is possible that it is homosexual acts by heterosexuals only that is rightly prohibited by the Bible. I am hedging here because for me, the "jury is still out". As I have said before, I think science will bring my understanding to a new level in due time.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 8, 2007 17:51:38 GMT -5
And with that, I really don't know what else I can add to this thread. It is a sad day indeed when we look to science to discredit God and his written Word.
What's next? Murder might be OK, but only if committed by someone with a genetic predispostion to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 18:34:54 GMT -5
And with that, I really don't know what else I can add to this thread. It is a sad day indeed when we look to science to discredit God and his written Word. What's next? Murder might be OK, but only if committed by someone with a genetic predispostion to it. Again, at the risk of sounding repetitive, if one does not understand what sin and offense means, then one will never understand the book they claim to follow and obey. I really don't believe you have seriously examined the sin of homosexual acts. If you can explain to me the offense of homosexual behaviour, please do so. To say, "God says no", or to say "well, murder is the next thing to be ok", indicates you have never understood what is wrong with homosexual behaviour and resort to diversionary reasoning. I think you could easily explain to me why murder is wrong but cannot explain what is wrong is homosexual behaviour. If I am wrong, please explain it to me, I sincerely want to understand it the way you do.
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 8, 2007 19:44:25 GMT -5
And with that, I really don't know what else I can add to this thread. It is a sad day indeed when we look to science to discredit God and his written Word. What's next? Murder might be OK, but only if committed by someone with a genetic predispostion to it. Again, at the risk of sounding repetitive, if one does not understand what sin and offense means, then one will never understand the book they claim to follow and obey. I really don't believe you have seriously examined the sin of homosexual acts. If you can explain to me the offense of homosexual behaviour, please do so. To say, "God says no", or to say "well, murder is the next thing to be ok", indicates you have never understood what is wrong with homosexual behaviour and resort to diversionary reasoning. I think you could easily explain to me why murder is wrong but cannot explain what is wrong is homosexual behaviour. If I am wrong, please explain it to me, I sincerely want to understand it the way you do. YIKES!!! I submit that you really have no desire to accept God's word on the matter- instead willing to waffle because "the jury is still out" and resorting to scientific evidence? How can anyone possibly read verses like these in the Bible to mean anything else but what they say: 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: 27And 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. You don't need to wait for the scientific studies to come in AND I don't need someone to spell out in graphic terms what this is saying. Peace, HFA
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 8, 2007 21:54:39 GMT -5
Paul seems to have been against people "burning in their lusts" for any reason - this was the rationale for his rather lukewarm acceptance of marriage. And I'm sure any married person on this board would concede that few things dampen one's sex drive more than marriage. So if Paul as an unmarried person was right about that, he must have been right about whatever it is he is talking about in the verses above, and we need not examine the issue further.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2007 23:42:32 GMT -5
Again, at the risk of sounding repetitive, if one does not understand what sin and offense means, then one will never understand the book they claim to follow and obey. I really don't believe you have seriously examined the sin of homosexual acts. If you can explain to me the offense of homosexual behaviour, please do so. To say, "God says no", or to say "well, murder is the next thing to be ok", indicates you have never understood what is wrong with homosexual behaviour and resort to diversionary reasoning. I think you could easily explain to me why murder is wrong but cannot explain what is wrong is homosexual behaviour. If I am wrong, please explain it to me, I sincerely want to understand it the way you do. YIKES!!! I submit that you really have no desire to accept God's word on the matter- instead willing to waffle because "the jury is still out" and resorting to scientific evidence? How can anyone possibly read verses like these in the Bible to mean anything else but what they say: 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: 27And 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. You don't need to wait for the scientific studies to come in AND I don't need someone to spell out in graphic terms what this is saying. Peace, HFA Good to see a little passion there HFA. You are conclusion leaping here by not only prematurely castigating my respect for scripture, but also by leaping to claim exclusive understanding of the clobber verses you employ to justify bigotry. But hey, that's the fun of discussion boards! You are normally a very thoughtful poster and I was hoping for a good explanation of how consensual homosexual behavior is an offense. Understanding those verses is not difficult at all, you just have to read them slowly and give it a little meditation. Those verses clearly refer to women and men changing "natural use" against their nature. This is speaking against heterosexual people choosing to engage in homosexual acts. I respect those verses and accept them wholeheartedly. If you read the whole passage, you will see that Paul is referring to a specific group of people who, it appears, left the church and converted back to some form of paganism. One scholar writes "pagans engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural activity. Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual). Presumably this would condemn heterosexual behavior by gays and lesbians -- activity which is equally against their nature. 2 For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. One can interpret Paul's writing as stating that, for the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities." As C. Ann Shepherd writes: "When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals." I have become convinced that persecution of peaceful law abiding homosexuals is against God and heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activity need no persecution from me, they will already be tortured souls. The science, as I mentioned and which you seem to despise, will simply raise my understanding and provide confirmation that homosexuals are not acting "against their nature" and perverting their God given inclinations. If science or some other understanding proves me wrong, I will gladly reconsider my position. Hope this helps, Hope for All. Peace for all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 10:11:40 GMT -5
To Clearday: You are a nice guy ;D and I know you're very compassionate person. What is your interpretation or understanding of these two verses below.
1) I Cor. 6:9,10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God? Be NOT deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor Adulterers, nor effeminate (male prostitute), nor abuser of themselves with mankind (homosexual offenders),
Nor thieves, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanders, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such WERE! some of you but ye are WASHED! but ye are sanctified, but ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
2) Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and sleeper mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake of fire which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the Second! death.
~~~ What's your understanding or interpretation on the two verses above? I'd like to hear your explanation if you don't mind. Thanks. Nathan, this isn't about compassion or mercy, nor am I a particularly compassionate person, or an unusually "nice guy.". In fact, I take a hard line on sexual offenses. If it were up to me, sexual offenses against a child would result in a life sentence of hard labor with no parole until age 85, rape would yield a 25 year mandatory minimum. What this is really all about is coming to an understanding of homosexuality and what God's mind is on the subject. With respect to your request for my view of the meaning of those verses, I'm glad to share them. I don't know why you injected your personal interpretations in 1Cor6:9, but I am guessing it could be a reflection of how deep your prejudice runs on this subject. So I don't anticipate a fair hearing on this as I believe you have never given this verse a fair reading. The 1Cor6:9 condemnations include two categories in the KJV, the "effeminate" and the "abusers of themselves with mankind". The more difficult of the two to explain is the "effeminate''. First of all, looking at that word in modern English it means a male having female characteristics. Us heterosexuals tend to jump on that characteristic in men as indentifying homosexuals. How wrong we are! Most male homosexuals are not effeminate. Plus, not all effeminate men are homosexuals. Surely this verse is not saying the non-effeminate homosexuals are ok while the effeminate ones are not ok. Surely the verse is not condemning effeminate heterosexuals. Although "effeminate" commonly translates to "homosexual", it is almost certain to be inaccurate: If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. Rather, he used the word "malakoi". "Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. There are sexual connotations to the word "malakoi" other than "male prostitute" as you suggest. Other meanings are "catamite", boy kept for homosexual relations, or a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness. With regard to " abusers of themselves with mankind", it's quite straightforward, it is about sexual abuse. Again, if Paul wanted to convey the word homosexual, he would have used the word "paiderasste", but he didn't, he used "arsenokoitai". This word is most commonly associated with "wh_remongers", ie pimps, and in this case, pimps for child male prostitutes. Some interpreters look at both of these together. The "effeminate" meaning the catamite boys, and the "abusers", the ones who use those boys for homosexual pleasure and prostitution. In this view, we can easily see the horrific offense that this verse is talking about. Rev21:8 is talking about wh_remongers. I don't want to supress discussion of this verse, but it is outside of the scope of this discussion of homosexuals. Do some serious study into this Nathan, and try to peel back your prejudices (I have them too) and traditions. Close study of 1Cor6:9 will reveal the truly grievous sins that the verse is talking about. I should add a note about Jesus. It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it a sin, or that he viewed it as a minor sin not worth mentioning, or that the author of Matthew did not fully record all of Jesus' categories.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 9, 2007 11:27:56 GMT -5
clearday, while I am not yet convinced, (I still unfortunately see the writings of Paul as quite anti-gay), I applaud your efforts. I believe in compassionate understanding and tolerance, yet I love the Bible, and so I'm happy to see the disparity between the two narrowing. I hope your interpretations somehow overtake mine to become the consensus viewpoint; life on earth would be better for it.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Aug 9, 2007 11:59:27 GMT -5
diet coke,
I don't know who you are but I like you. I rather like your thought envoking comments, and your rounded attitude. Please continue posting, as I think I am better for it. The same goes for you Clearday. Keep it up.
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 9, 2007 12:08:09 GMT -5
YIKES!!! I submit that you really have no desire to accept God's word on the matter- instead willing to waffle because "the jury is still out" and resorting to scientific evidence? How can anyone possibly read verses like these in the Bible to mean anything else but what they say: 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: 27And 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. You don't need to wait for the scientific studies to come in AND I don't need someone to spell out in graphic terms what this is saying. Peace, HFA Good to see a little passion there HFA. You are conclusion leaping here by not only prematurely castigating my respect for scripture, but also by leaping to claim exclusive understanding of the clobber verses you employ to justify bigotry. But hey, that's the fun of discussion boards! You are normally a very thoughtful poster and I was hoping for a good explanation of how consensual homosexual behavior is an offense. Understanding those verses is not difficult at all, you just have to read them slowly and give it a little meditation. Those verses clearly refer to women and men changing "natural use" against their nature. This is speaking against heterosexual people choosing to engage in homosexual acts. I respect those verses and accept them wholeheartedly. If you read the whole passage, you will see that Paul is referring to a specific group of people who, it appears, left the church and converted back to some form of paganism. One scholar writes "pagans engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural activity. Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual). Presumably this would condemn heterosexual behavior by gays and lesbians -- activity which is equally against their nature. 2 For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. One can interpret Paul's writing as stating that, for the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities." As C. Ann Shepherd writes: "When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals." I have become convinced that persecution of peaceful law abiding homosexuals is against God and heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activity need no persecution from me, they will already be tortured souls. The science, as I mentioned and which you seem to despise, will simply raise my understanding and provide confirmation that homosexuals are not acting "against their nature" and perverting their God given inclinations. If science or some other understanding proves me wrong, I will gladly reconsider my position. Hope this helps, Hope for All. Peace for all. Question: I understand exactly what these verses are saying. They fit in totally with the spirit of what many many orther verses in scripture right from Gen 19 to Leviticus to Paul's letters say about homosexuality. That men and women turning from the "normal" usage of thier body parts and orifaces to deviant usage (whether with the same sex or opposite sex) is an abomination to God. Period. Throwing out all sorts of smoke screens just doesn't change the basic simple truth about this issue. And FWIW I find it offensive that people who understand this are portrayed as "ignorant about science" or "lacking compassion" or "homophobic". I previously stated that compassion IS WHAT we all need to practice. But why is that people automatically assume that because I believe homosexuality to be wrong, that I am somehow in favour of "gaybashing" or "anti gay legislation" or anything related to it?? I AM NOT!! BUT- please don't twist scripture into saying something opposite to what every true Christian believer for the past 2000 years has understood completely. Have a nice day. HFA
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 9, 2007 12:09:58 GMT -5
Sorry- ignore the "Question:" at the begining of the last post. I forgot to delete that word. HFA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 12:21:33 GMT -5
clearday, while I am not yet convinced, (I still unfortunately see the writings of Paul as quite anti-gay), I applaud your efforts. I believe in compassionate understanding and tolerance, yet I love the Bible, and so I'm happy to see the disparity between the two narrowing. I hope your interpretations somehow overtake mine to become the consensus viewpoint; life on earth would be better for it. dc, while I was also once convinced that Paul was anti-gay, I am now in the category of "not convinced", and can't imagine ever categorizing him as pro-gay. At the same time, I don't hesitate to categorize him as pro-slavery, anti-marriage, and pro-supression of women. Yet I don't condemn him for any of it, it all makes sense when we begin to understand where he is coming from in all this, and the cultures and audiences he is speaking to. I have profound admiration for the man, but feel it is necessary to peel back the layers of language and prejudicial translation to get to not only what he was really thinking, but to wonder first and foremost what God is thinking about all this.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 9, 2007 15:54:51 GMT -5
HFA, it appears that you believe oral sex between a husband and wife to be an abomination on the same order as homosexual behavior. Am I understanding you correctly?
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 9, 2007 18:39:28 GMT -5
HFA, it appears that you believe oral sex between a husband and wife to be an abomination on the same order as homosexual behavior. Am I understanding you correctly? No I'm not saying that at all. Nice try though- just more smoke. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 10, 2007 7:36:52 GMT -5
Clearday,
I said I didn’t have anything else to offer to this discussion, and maybe I was right…. But one last thought came to me last night. Let’s play with a couple of hypothetical situations. Let’s say that you are correct, and that God does not see homosexual activity (in the manner in which you have described it) as a sin. This of course will mean that I am wrong to think it is a sin. What will my error have been? I will have treated someone kindly and compassionately in my effort to move he/she towards repentance of a sin that doesn’t really exist.
Now let’s say that my understanding of homosexual activity is correct and ANY homosexual activity is a sin and affront to God. You will have done nothing to move a brother/sister away from activity that could be of eternal detriment.
There is absolutely no question which choice I would make now in light of standing before my Savior some day.
I hope this helps you to see the magnitude and potential consequence of your position.
Regards,
Brother Schrock
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Aug 10, 2007 9:03:52 GMT -5
Brother Schrock:
You state (to clearday) that by condoning homosexuality, he would be doing nothing to help turn a brother or sister away from activity that could be of eternal detriment.
Gluttony is considered a sin. Does that mean you stand outside the entrance to McDonalds & Krispy Kreme & advise obese folks (and non obese, for that matter) to refrain from over eating? Or you stand outside taverns, casinos, adult bookstores, etc. in an attempt to keep mankind from sinning?
Of course you don't! But, gluttony is a sin.
Why does homosexuality (a perceived sin) get so much attention yet gluttony, speeding, gossip/slander, using company time for personal emails; all sins in the eyes of God, not get equal treatment.
Isn't a sin a sin?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 10, 2007 14:59:46 GMT -5
HFA, it appears that you believe oral sex between a husband and wife to be an abomination on the same order as homosexual behavior. Am I understanding you correctly? Today at 0:39, Hope For All wrote: Gene writes: Actually, it is not smoke at all. I was truly startled by your statement: Gene writes: If you wish to modify your statement I would certainly understand. As it stands, though, it seems to me that the conclusion to which I came is quite logical, unless one holds a somewhat liberal and subjective definition of the words "normal," "body parts", "orifices", and "deviant." However, I have no desire to degrade this thread to a public discussion about which parts of the human anatomy are "normal" for sex and which are not, so I am content to leave it at this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 15:55:41 GMT -5
Clearday, I said I didn’t have anything else to offer to this discussion, and maybe I was right…. But one last thought came to me last night. Let’s play with a couple of hypothetical situations. Let’s say that you are correct, and that God does not see homosexual activity (in the manner in which you have described it) as a sin. This of course will mean that I am wrong to think it is a sin. What will my error have been? I will have treated someone kindly and compassionately in my effort to move he/she towards repentance of a sin that doesn’t really exist. Now let’s say that my understanding of homosexual activity is correct and ANY homosexual activity is a sin and affront to God. You will have done nothing to move a brother/sister away from activity that could be of eternal detriment. There is absolutely no question which choice I would make now in light of standing before my Savior some day. I hope this helps you to see the magnitude and potential consequence of your position. Regards, Brother Schrock Good angle to look at it Brother Schrock. First your position. By taking a bible-literal position (ie following Levitial law as it is stated), your position will inevitably lead to the advocacy of homosexual killing. It sounds as though your position at this point is a hybrid one in which you accept part of the Levitical law, but refuse to accept all of it, which is capital punishment for gays. Thank goodness for where you are at right now, but I fear you may go the other way to judgment and capital punishment. Jesus advocated, "judge not and you will not be judged". I hope you can maintain that position for now, but I would not want to be where you are at not far from the precipice of, in my view, murder. This is what frightens me deeply of the bible-literalist position. As far as my position goes, I have great faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to convict men of sin. I am coming to a conviction on this matter myself, one that I would never have dreamed of a few years ago. I know where my heart is at with this issue, and I am at peace with God on it as it stands today. That alone speaks to me that the Lord will forgive me even if I am wrong. For me, the greater sin is that of the self righteous Pharisee, feeling that "I know all the rules and man, you had better obey them all!" Brother Schrock, may I ask if you know any homosexuals intimately?(not in a sexual way of course, bad choice of words perhaps) Have you ever had any open discussions with a homosexual and asked him/her questions about their lives and their sexuality?
|
|
|
Post by Brother Schrock on Aug 13, 2007 16:01:22 GMT -5
Are you serious? If I continue to believe that the Paul meant what he said when God inspired him to write what he did in Romans, this could lead to homocide? Inevitably??? You seriously undermine your credibility with a statement like this. Consider that the majority of Christians believe acting on homosexual urges is a sin. When was the last time you encounted one who advocated homosexual killing?
If I have ever approached this topic in any way but in acknowledgement of my own standing as a sinner, I am sorry.
Yes, and yes. References available upon request. I'd encourage you to ask either of them if they have ever feared any imminent homocidal acts in my presence or ever felt as though I treated them as if I were a Pharisee.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Aug 13, 2007 16:37:20 GMT -5
I'd encourage you to ask either of them if they have ever feared any eminent homocidal acts in my presence or ever felt as though I treated them like a Pharisee. lol...thanks brother, I seldom find anything to chuckle about on these boards anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Answerman on Aug 13, 2007 17:17:04 GMT -5
Brother Schrock: You state (to clearday) that by condoning homosexuality, he would be doing nothing to help turn a brother or sister away from activity that could be of eternal detriment. Gluttony is considered a sin. Does that mean you stand outside the entrance to McDonalds & Krispy Kreme & advise obese folks (and non obese, for that matter) to refrain from over eating? Or you stand outside taverns, casinos, adult bookstores, etc. in an attempt to keep mankind from sinning? Of course you don't! But, gluttony is a sin. Why does homosexuality (a perceived sin) get so much attention yet gluttony, speeding, gossip/slander, using company time for personal emails; all sins in the eyes of God, not get equal treatment. Isn't a sin a sin? When people teach that sin isn't sin, people suffer greatly. God does not bless sin or sinful behavior. I would want God to be able to bless all my relationships. He has given the homosexuals over to a reprobate mind. Unable to know him and his holyness. Only able to feed as their lust leads them to.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Parish on Aug 27, 2007 1:54:47 GMT -5
I want to respond to Clearday’s post some time back where he talks about fundamentalists and offers what he seems to think is a expose of the OT law. You know, we can always label people and present a caricature of what they might really believe and practice. I could do the same in return, but it wouldn’t really advance understanding. So...let’s stop labels and name calling.
Without Clearday coming right out and saying where fundamentalists fall down on the issue at hand, we don’t really know what he is saying. He characterizes fundamentalists as those who won’t take all of the scriptures, but pick and choose what they will believe. He doesn’t elaborate on what he is saying...maybe Clearday is a fundamentalist himself as he clearly wants to throw away the OT and only rely on some portion of the NT. He is vague.
Perhaps Clearday is identifying that fundamentalists won’t stand up and be counted as really believing the whole scriptures. Well, he might be right. At least liberals come right out and say it. I think I know what he is getting at though. He is tying together the Levitical identification of men lying with men as an abomination to God and the Levitical command to put such people to death. He is wondering why fundamentalists don’t just go out and start killing sodomites. If that is what he is referring to, he fails to understand that the Law of God was based on law and order, and due process through a civil magistrate for the protection of the innocent. Vigilantism is never presented as a way of dealing with any sin (Lev. 19:18). That is why the letter to Dr. Laura is so utterly ludicrous and twists the Law of God.
The Law of God does prescribe that such people have committed a capital offense and should be put to death. Our society, coming out of the English, was solidly based upon English common law, which was solidly founded on the OT Law of God. And that is where our liberty, at least what we have left of it, comes from...the OT Law of God. We now live in a society which has backed away from God’s Law and thus no longer considers men lying with men to be a capital offense. Punishment is meted out only by the civil magistrate and not by private individuals, thus those who defile themselves with mankind are now not considered to be criminals. But that does not give private individuals license to take the law into their own hands.
Clearday speaks of the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law and seems to separate the two, but they can’t be so separated. The spirit of the law doesn’t say “oh...this really isn’t wrong” when the letter of the law says, “...this is wrong.” A better application would be that the spirit of the law says “the commandment against adultery is also broken when you lust after women in your heart, even though you haven’t actually committed the deed” ,when a person looking only at the letter of the law would say, “...oh, I haven’t actually done the deed, therefore I haven’t broken the law.”
So I’m going to throw out a few musings in response to Clearday’s Dr. Laura expose; and since Clearday posted them and seems to agree that they are valid (he didn’t qualify himself) I’m going to pretend that he wrote them:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 1. Yes, the Law of God does speak to slavery...but also to the treatment of slaves. Masters were not above the Law. The whole must be taken as describing the spirit of the law, and not just the letter. To suggest then that the practice of slavery as we knew it in our recent past (blacks selling blacks to whites, whites selling blacks to whites, blacks selling blacks to blacks, blacks selling whites to blacks, blacks and whites treating their slaves as less than animals) would be ludicrous. Listen to the spirit of the law...Lev. 25:4 speaks to treating animals in a humane manner. Proverbs 12:10 illuminates the spirit of such laws by stating that a righteous man has regard for the life of his animal but the compassion of the wicked is cruel. Therefore, if a righteous man treated his animals with regard, how much more another man made in the image of God.
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 2. This comment shows a complete unfamiliarity with history. Yes, a man could sell his sons and daughters into indentured servitude, which is what this is referring to. Normally it was the poor who has to take this route in extreme circumstances to provide for their children. In such servitude, they had room and board and learned skills which would serve them well in life. The actual verse quoted reflects a protection to young women, who were not to be put out of the house they served in like the men at the end of the seventh year, thereby eliminating the potential for a young woman to be cast into the street as destitute. This is a protection. Of course, righteous men would never do that to a servant girl and wouldn’t have to be told that. Clearday doesn’t seem to be able to see the spirit of the law here and is reading only the letter.
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness-- Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 3. This is a stupid comment as any man would know when that is happening with his wife. This law presupposes that sexual activity is only occurring within marriage. Clearday’s comment here seems to mock God’s Law and accept sexual activity outside of marriage as being okay.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 4. The sacrifices in question were occurring a certain prescribed place - not at a private home - and performed by the priests - not by individuals. This is not instructions for personal sacrifices or barbeques in the backyard. Clearday’s comment here is a twisting of God’s Law out of context. No command for smiting a man in such a case exists, and as Jesus clearly said, the spirit of the Law of God was not for personal vengeance. Clearday here is falling into the same trap as the Pharisees in Jesus’ day when they were using civil law to justify personal vengeance. Punishment of violations of the Law were to be done by the civil magistrate. The eye-for-eye statement was a sentencing guideline - not an open door for vengeance, stating the recommended and maximum punishment allowed to be applied by the judge.
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 5. Yes, God has commanded men to rest on the Sabbath day hasn’t he. He has also commanded men not to make their servants and animals work either. Hmmm...what would the spirit of that law be aimed at?? Working on the Sabbath day is stated to be a serious offense to God. Again, a twisting of God’s Law is occurring in a failure to understand the spirit of the Law and in the very attitude that Jesus condemned in Matthew 5 when he condemned those who were using the law as a justification for personal vengeance...see comment 4 above.
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 6. Read the original languages. Two entirely different words are used but translated as the same word in English. Lev. 11:10 speaks to something as being filthy and dirty...not healthy to eat. Lev. 18:22 speaks to an activity that is morally disgusting and abhorrent to God. Again, a twisting and a mocking of the Law of God...a failure to understand both the letter and the spirit.
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 7. Again, a twisting and mocking of the Law of God and a failure to actually read the context. This passage refers to the priests only, which were a prefigure (albeit an imperfect one) of Christ himself, who had no blemish or spot. I wonder if Clearday protests against the requirement for pilots to have good vision? This verse does not limit private individuals from approaching the altar, whatever their condition.
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 8. Again, a twisting and mocking of God’s Law and a failure to understand the context. This passage is referring to pagan ritual practices that the Lord God forbad duplicating. We may not clearly understand what kind of hairdo is being referred to, but as Clearday is so fond of saying, the spirit of the Law should come through readily enough. Personal vengeance and vigilantism is nowhere allowed. Why does he attach a death sentence with the Lord God did not?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 9. Clearday seems to fail to understand simple issues of health and cooking as it relates to certain animals (and dead carcasses) and the purpose for such laws. Twisting and mocking the Law of God again, in an attempt to show it to be absurd.
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) 10. Here a mocking of God’s Law again occurs. Just because we may not understand today does not make the prescription absurd. I don’t understand these verses either...many think it has to do, again, with pagan ritual practices and beliefs. And further, no mention of stoning appears here as it relates to Lev. 19:19. And yes, blasphemy is a serious thing. I think Clearday would be very careful in Muslim or Hindu countries to speak respectfully of their gods. Actually, all people take the blasphemy of their closely held beliefs seriously, even Clearday. Clearday seems to be saying that the LORD’s words here are absurd.
Clearday also seems to mock the prohibitions against sexual relations with any except a person’s spouse. Instead of hearing the spirit of the Law (sexual sin is deadly serious with the LORD), he sees only the letter and applies modern sexual mores and claims the LORD is absurd.
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal, unchanging and inerrant. This letter shows an amazing lack of study and simple understanding. I wonder if Clearday takes any time to understand the law of the land he lives in.
Ah well....
What is astounding is that over and over in the book of Leviticus the Lord God states that they were to obey because, as he says, “I am the LORD”. So if you reject these writings, both the letter and the spirit of them, you reject not man but the LORD himself.
But Robb actually laid his finger on the real problem. Clearday has a different standard by which to judge such things. He hasn’t said what that standard is, except maybe science. But he should know that even science won’t support him. Why? Because science hasn’t proven that rape (whatever the age, so I include “child molesting” within the category of rape) is uniformly viewed as a bad thing by all the victims and therefore isn’t uniformly “an offense” or detrimental to the person’s life. Does that make rape okay. God forbid - NO!! But that is only because God has set the standard - not man. He is the only creator and law giver.
Just because I have a proclivity for something doesn’t mean that I should indulge it. A bibliophile is someone with an excessive attraction to books. But that doesn’t justify him stealing books from the library. A pedophile is someone with an excessive attraction to children, but that doesn’t justify him raping them. Such people demonstrate not a sickness but a lack of moral agency. Of course in Canada, the legal age of consent is lowered to 14 years of age, so it appears that even the definition of raping children is slowly eroding away.
Notice that God’s Law doesn’t, by letter, condemn homosexual urges or thoughts or heterosexual adulterous urges or thoughts. But Jesus illuminated the spirit of the letter by showing that deeds aren’t necessary to violate the Law, wrong thoughts violate the law as well. That means that man has crossed the line far before he ever acts upon the thoughts.
Now to those who would condemn me as a self-righteous Pharisee, let me clearly state that we are all worthy of death because we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, me included. I may not have thoughts or acts of sodomy to my name, but I have other thoughts and acts to my name which have violated God’s Law. That is not the point of this discussion. The point is that we affirm what God has spoken...
Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Rom 1:32 ...and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Scott Parish
|
|
|
Post by Scott Parish on Aug 27, 2007 2:00:21 GMT -5
Someone wrote: I believe many of my friends have realized that we have no right, no right whatsoever to push our religious beliefs on another, if we really even think that it is wrong at all.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement. The assertion that homosexuality/sodomy is not wrong is a religious statement - just the same as the assertion that homosexuality/sodomy is a sin. It can't be escaped.
What has happened is that in Canada, and now is now happening in the US, is that the sodomites are pushing their religious beliefs on others, instead of, as the person said above, realizing that they have no right to push their religious beliefs on anybody.
Scott Parish
|
|
|
Post by Scott Parish on Aug 27, 2007 2:09:10 GMT -5
Clearday, I'm not sure where you get your information, but the Greek word used in I Corinthians 6:9, which is translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV, is not "malakoi" as you suggest.
The Greek word is arsenokoítēs; masc. noun, from ársēn (G730), a male, and koítē (G2845), a bed. Definition: A man who lies in bed with another male, a homosexual (1Co 6:9; 1Ti 1:10 [cf. Lev 18:22; Rom. 1:27]).
Check it out. That kind of kills your argument doesn't it? As in English, there can be more than one Greek word used to describe the same thing.
Scott Parish
|
|
3
Senior Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by 3 on Aug 27, 2007 10:04:11 GMT -5
Scott:
Although I am not Christian, I appreciate the time and effort you put into your posts. I do love a good, lively, well substantiated debate!
|
|