techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Well, this ought to be interesting. I thought about explaining it to him, then realized I already did, and I'm not even sure I'm being included in the "homophobe" category anyway, so what the heck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 techboy, I don't include you in that category. You don't think it's right in God's eyes, does not equate to homophobic to me. You have every right to feel the way you do. To me homophobia is 'the guys who beat me up in highschool'. Homophobia is when people tried to run me over in highschool. Homophobia is when I chose not to hold my girlfriends hand in the mall for fear of physical assualt. Homophobia is firing or not hiring someone b/c they are gay....Homophobia is telling your gay kid they are no longer welcome in your home. I served proudly in the military and kept quiet until I met a dozen other gay people(mostly guys) at the same base. I don't "come out" unless someone asks me. Work is work, home life is home life. Hell I hardly ever talk to my parents about my personal life. Being gay doesn't define me....my character defines me. PS, g'night~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 It is possible to take the Bible literally without being hyper-literal. One can, for instance, believe that Jesus literally rode a donkey into Jerusalem, yet not believe that he was literally a door.The correct approach is to read the literal parts literally, the metaphorical parts metaphorically, and the parables, uh, parabolically (math meets theology ). Who decides what is to be taken literally though? Its not straight forward as you say in many parts. Since the bible is left up to interpretation... Deuteronomy 22:13-22 It says in there that if a woman is found to not be a virgin on her wedding night that she should be killed 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die Now tell me how that is up for interpretation? Here's another one: If a man takes the lords name in vain he is to be killed Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. How can you take that up for interpretation? I can go on and on but I've made my point. Wait, are you asking me if there are passages in the Bible that condemn adultery? Your presuming that the definition of adultery meant the same as it did back then which it clearly didn't. I've already made my point that adultery in those days didn't include men when discussing it. All of your examples simply say that adultery was considered wrong. None of them show that they applied to married men as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Why is homosexuality singled out for so much attention? It's ok to support war, greed, and pride but homosexuality is somehow a bigger deal? I don't buy it. Homosexuality is a safe sin to talk about. Non-gays are in no danger of it and thus can rant about it all day if they like with no fear of falling into it themselves. Good question. I think its mostly due to fear and ignorance. There was a time in my life when homosexuals scared me because I had two guy friends profess there love to me (we were under the influence) and I wasn't mature enough to appreciate the advance. I thought it was wrong and stopped being friends with them when the advances continued (the cat was out of the bag and I initially laughed it off but men are jerks when they want someone). After I met some gay guys who weren't interested in me like that I started to see that hey these guys are awesome, as long as they don't come onto me who the hell cares who they have sex with? Today I have a much greater understanding for homosexual men then I did when I was younger and call them friends. As long as they respect my heterosexuality which 99.9% do. They shouldn't be objects of ridicule or separated from enjoying love like everyone else does and it pisses me off that people want to deny them rights to marry because that's bull**** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Your presuming that the definition of adultery meant the same as it did back then which it clearly didn't. I've already made my point that adultery in those days didn't include men when discussing it. All of your examples simply say that adultery was considered wrong. None of them show that they applied to married men as wellThe Apostle Paul disagrees I think.In his letter to the Corinthians he is addressing the question of whether it is good to be chaste. Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Now why would he address that to both men and women if he thought adultery only applied to women and fornication wasn't a sin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Why is homosexuality singled out for so much attention? It's ok to support war, greed, and pride but homosexuality is somehow a bigger deal? I don't buy it. Homosexuality is a safe sin to talk about. Non-gays are in no danger of it and thus can rant about it all day if they like with no fear of falling into it themselves. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.Jesus was pretty straight forward about the qualifications:It is not about who is gay, who believes, or any of that bull****. You aren't just called to pay lip service and go to church. You are called to HELP PEOPLE IN NEED. Not march against gays, not march against muslims, not anything negative at all. You believe in Christ Jesus? Help your fellow man. Love god and love your fellow man. That's the point. All the legalism BS arguments in the world are great but Jesus in his own words spoke clearly as to who gets in and who doesn't. No man is free of sin but some sinful unworthy ****s find it in their hearts to help others at great cost to themselves. They are the righteous. You are also called to be a light to a dark world. This includes standing up for what is right and good, which homosexuality is not.Not to mention the parts of the NT where Paul states twice that those who are still enslaved to sin will not inherit God's kingdom: Galatians 5:16-24 ESV 16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Listen to what the Apostle John has to say about it: 1 John 1:5-10 ESV 5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. This is where Techboy hit the ball out of the park when he stated that those who do not take the bible as truth on these matters or twist and turn it are just not willing to give up something. We must walk in the light or we have no fellowship with God and Jesus and the Apostles clearly taught that homosexuality (and other sexual immoralities as well) are works of darkness. If you are not willing to crucify the sin, in this case (for this thread), homosexuality, then how can you follow Christ and inherit his Kingdom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I can go on and on but I've made my point. No, you really haven't. First, you're totally right. Those verses are meant to be taken 100% literally. Of course, they're also legal statutes of the Biblical state of Israel, which last I checked, I don't live in. And neither do you, for that matter. Second, you've ignored the larger point that even if we might err in our interpretation of Scripture, that has no bearing on its truth. For years, people thought that maggots grew out of rotting meat, spontaneously. Did their error mean that there wasn't a correct answer? Of course not, as Redi showed. Imperfect human understanding in no way has any bearing on factual truth. Your presuming that the definition of adultery meant the same as it did back then which it clearly didn't. I've already made my point that adultery in those days didn't include men when discussing it. No, you didn't. You cited Wikipedia, but you didn't bother to check the source for that claim, which is a group called "Liberated Christians" who say that We affirm that our sexuality is a natural gift from God. It should not be artificially restricted by regulation. God honors a free sexual expression that seeks the enjoyment and good of the each person, and the glory to God as He participates with us in this glorious aspect of living and loving others, ourselves and God. In our scriptural understanding, a New Testament biblical argument cannot be made against most cases of consensual sexual pleasure sharing, whether premarital, marital, or postmarital. And they have no source at all. Quoting from a biased source (yet another group trying to find justification for clearly Biblically prohibited behavior, including all forms of adultery) that has no backing is not what I would call "making your point". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Wait, are you asking me if there are passages in the Bible that condemn adultery? It's the definition of adultery I'm referring to. Perhaps you should read my post a little closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Exodus 20:14"Thou shall not committ adultry" However during the time the bible was written this rule only applied to a married woman having sex with another man, not that the man couldn't do it with another woman. At the time men who had sex with another man's woman were condemded but as long as a married man was having intercourse with a non married woman it was not considered adultry. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 It's the definition of adultery I'm referring to. Perhaps you should read my post a little closer. Technically, this is correct Old Testament style (though rabbinic rulings decry married men and single women). Jesus, though, expanded the definition of adultery to include married men. Matthew 19 (English Standard Version) 3And Pharisees came up to him and(E) tested him by asking,(F) "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" 4He answered, (G) "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said,(H) 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and(I) the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh.(J) What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7They said to him,(K) "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8He said to them, "Because of your(L) hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9(M) And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."[a] Married man? Check. Adultery? Check. *EDIT*Oh... forgot to mention. In the New Testament, the Greek word used for adultery is moichos, which Denotes one "who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another," Lu. 18:11; 1Co. 6:9; Heb. 13:4. As to Jas. 4:4, see below. The Greek Paul and the Gospel writers use make no distinction for particular spouses. Your Methodist friend is not off the hook, to say nothing of the fornication problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Though I love theology I have yet to read anything in this thread that tells me its my business what another person does in their bedroom. Can someone explain to me why they think same sex marriage should not be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Can someone explain to me why they think same sex marriage should not be allowed? Was that the topic? I didn't actually read the thread this spun off from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Was that the topic? I didn't actually read the thread this spun off from. heh. It was started because of what Sean Penn said about prop 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 heh. It was started because of what Sean Penn said about prop 8. Oh. Well, I guess the answer is that since government decided that they were going to stick their noses into marriage, they can pretty much define it for legal purposes however they'd like. Personally, I'd advocate removing all governmental involvement in marriage, period, but I'm just a crazy liberterian. If, though, the government decides that it just must intervene, because somehow there's a "compelling state interest" in encouraging a particluar arrangement of people's private lives, then there's no particular reason they have to set it up a certain way, or allow or deny any particular person or group from participating with any particular person or group. I guess it all depends on what it is that the government is trying to encourage. Bleh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Technically, this is correct Old Testament style (though rabbinic rulings decry married men and single women). Jesus, though, expanded the definition of adultery to include married men.Married man? Check. Adultery? Check.. No, he never states that married men cannot have sex with other women. He is not vague. He is not ambiguous. He is very deliberate. He spends a lot of time on it. Married men who sleep with married women - adulterers. Married women who sleep with anyone besides their husbands - adulterers Women who get a divorce and remarry - adulterers. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, does Jesus even so much as hint that it is adultery for a married man to have sex outside of the marriage (with an unmarried woman). And when taken in the context of the day, it's especially revealing. For the record, in the interest of proving my co-worker wrong (b/c I think his actions are deplorable), I scoured the Gospels- it's simply not there. One might refer to the writings of the converted Saul- but what he writes in his letters are his opinions & interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 And so, as I said, regardless of one's exact position on the relationship between works and faith, it is clear that it is faith in Jesus that saves, and to ignore that is to ignore Scripture. I'm very familiar with the poor interpretations that lead to the faith over works argument. We couldn't save ourselves. It is by grace that we are saved because all the works in the world wouldn't have birthed a savior. That is not however how each of us meet Jesus' command. That is met with works.... because as I quoted, even demons believe in him. Faith and belief are not enough unless God decides otherwise. There are examples where this takes place, the theif on the cross for instance. Those examples seem limited to those that don't have the chance for works. Also I don't belive the nonsense argument that belief leads to works. Sins exist in believers and non believers alike. No man is free from sin. Greed and sloth are sins that could lead a man to leave the poor man to starve, leave a prisoner to solitude, and leave a naked man wanting for clothes. The idea that belief and faith in a world where the faithful sin all the time is a poor one. Jesus was very straight forward in how he split the two groups, and nothing that you quoted disputes that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Bleh. So... techboy for same sex marriage, gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 No, he never states that married men cannot have sex with other women.For the record, in the interest of proving my co-worker wrong (b/c I think his actions are deplorable), I scoured the Gospels- it's simply not there. One might refer to the writings of the converted Saul- but what he writes in his letters are his opinions & interpretations. Scour again. Matthew 19 specifically says that a married man that divorces his wife and marries woman another commits adultery. Which means that men can commit adultery. Jesus expanded the legal definition to men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IONTOP Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 This thread has changed me!!!! I am no longer attracted to men!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Scour again. Matthew 19 specifically says that a married man that divorces his wife and marries woman another commits adultery. Which means that men can commit adultery. Jesus expanded the legal definition to men. My co-worker isn't divorced. Try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 My co-worker isn't divorced. Try again Sometimes I get a sense of the surreal reading tailgate threads that is relatable only to my watching Rod Serling's Twilight Zone when I was a very bright six year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 My co-worker isn't divorced. Try again Are you kidding me? His entire case is that men can't commit adultery, which is demonstrably false. Are you seriously suggesting that if a man gets divorced, he commits adultery, but if he stays married, it's fine? That's ludicrous. Further, as I mentioned, the Greek used in the Gospels and other texts of the New Testament makes no distinction between which spouse. If they didn't want that meaning, they wouldn't have used that word. Koine Greek made up new words for new concepts when needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 But I'd assume it's helpful for some to know the Biblical limitations advised, and ramifications thereof, of stimulating packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Are you kidding me? His entire case is that men can't commit adultery, which is demonstrably false. No. His entire case is that HE isn't committing adultery. Which, again, is impossible to disprove when you weigh his actions against the Gospels and OT. At least I couldn't find it. Are you seriously suggesting that if a man gets divorced, he commits adultery, but if he stays married, it's fine? That's ludicrous. That's not what I'm saying, that's what the Gospel says. And Old Testament. Like I said, scour away. You will find very specific information on the subject of adultery, but nothing to disprove. And again, if you choose to view the writings in the context of the day, the absence of any specificity is especially revealing. Or you can continue to just make up an arbitrary definition of adultery b/c that's what you've been taught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Jesus was very straight forward in how he split the two groups, and nothing that you quoted disputes that. Destino, you are proof-texting. You are fixating on one verse, out of the context of all of Scripture. The Bible, including other parts of the Gospels, as well as the writings of the Apostles, indicates that salvation is by faith. The one quote I provided by Jesus himself says that those who do not believe in him will die in their sins. Your position requires ignoring other words of Jesus himself, as well as John, Paul and others. You just have to throw those out the window, especially Paul. Sometimes people like to do that with Paul, but what you are telling me, then, is that you, 2000 years later, know more about what Jesus meant than Paul, who was around at the very beginning, and who coordinated his message with James, Peter, and the other apostles. You know more than John, who was the Apostle probably the closest to Jesus. Come on. You're wrong. Even your own church, the Catholic Church, despite disagreeing with Protestants on the role of works in salvation, doesn't take the extreme view you're taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.