It is a sad thing when people worry more about the sins, errors, abominations, and other fancy word we use for pointing fingers at acts that we do not like than living the love of God
dear roy, i think i need to provide a little context for my comments on this thread... this is not a matter of "worrying" about sins, errors, etc.... it is a doctrinal discussion on what the bible says about homosexuality... this first came up on the "God bless CA" thread wherein i stated that the homosexual act was wrong according to the bible, and eyesopen disagreed with me... i asked for the reasons why she disagreed... that is why i am on this thread... i am not here to "point fingers"... i am here to discuss biblical doctrine...
When did one sin, one error, one abomination. and other fancy word we use for pointing fingers at acts we do not like get any greater than any other
again, this has nothing to do with "not liking somebody"... i used the word "abomination" because i was quoting the bible...
noone is saying they are right to do but no one is saying your sins, errors, abominations, or whatever are right either
yes, roy, there are people on this thread who are saying that the homosexual act is right (or not wrong)... there are people who are claiming that the bible does not say that the homosexual act is wrong... that is why we are in the doctrinal section; to discuss whether the bible says homosexuality is right or wrong...
this is not about people!... i've said this a couple of times and i'll say it again: i do not hate homosexuals... God does not hate homosexuals... God loves all people!... this thread was set up to discuss one issue (not all sins) but instead to discuss the one issue of homosexuality from a biblical perspective...
nowhere have i said that the "sin" of the homosexual act is greater than other sins... nor have i seen anyone else say that on any of the 3 threads concerning this topic... nor have i seen anyone say that it is "not forgivable"... roy, you are getting upset over things that no one has said...
my sole reason for being on this thread is to discuss what the bible says about homosexuality...
some people flat out reject the bible... and i don't have a problem with that; that is their right...
but some people say that the bible approves of homosexuality... and i do have a problem with that, because i think they are twisting the meaning of the scriptures to say something they'd like it to say... so that is why i have made posts on this thread...
but just because i have made posts on this thread in support of the plain meaning of the scriptures does not mean that i hate anybody...
The whole doctrine of homosexuals are sinful or perverted or vile--lesser in value
and i also wanted to respond to this...
all people are sinful... this is nothing new!
i admit that i am a sinful person...
and that is why i needed a savior!
the word "vile" was not applied to people in the bible...
the bible described certain "affections" as "vile" (atimia: dishonorable), i.e. the vile affections referenced in romans 1:26...
also, i know of nowhere in the bible where it says that homosexuals are "lesser in value" than any other people...
the 'it's a choice' people have to cloak it in a complicated mess of influences and weaknsses, demons, possession
i also want to make it clear that i do not think every homosexual is "possessed"... i'm assuming this idea comes from twi which thought that everybody (and their grandmother) was "possessed"... but people who think "it's a choice" don't think in terms of "possession" because possession is the opposite of choice...
eyes says that she is a christian,
and i believe her;
so therefore she is my sister in Christ, and obviously we are of equal value as members of the one body of Christ...
i just have a hard time following her logic (and train of thought) on this topic...
so therefore she is my sister in Christ, and obviously we are of equal value as members of the one body of Christ...
i just have a hard time following her logic (and train of thought) on this topic...
jen-o
Come here little kittie and let me see if you've been "fixed"! Why don't you give Jolie Eyes a break and just buy the the little gay book? She could probably use the extra cash and then you might follow whatever potentially flawed biblical verse snatching, 3 years of research and revelation has provided.
And then maybe there will be "peace" between the two sisters? :unsure:
I was interested to see if there were Biblical doctrinal explanations allowing that homosexual acts were Okie Dokie, as some suggested, but I don't see that at all.
As far as I see, the Bible says homosexual acts are wrong ... I don't know about the "sin" part.
TWI is hardly a standard of how most Christians treat homosexuals. Though depending how you look at TWI, it may be they are very accepting. What does Rosie say?
But as accepting of homosexuals as most Christians may be, it seems they can still hold to their beliefs of what the bible says about the homosexual act.
It certainly does not seem normal ... the gay sex act does not seem the least bit normal. I'm thinking most (normal?) people cringe at the idea of doing that thang. Even joking about it, that is the reaction I've seen. The Howard Stern crowd may claim it is wonderful (for heterosexuals), but the general response seems to be eeeewwwww.
Christian or not, most people find that unseemly, so maybe there is wide agreement with the bible on this subject after all. It doesn't mean they want to put sodomists in prison or control them or mistreat the people that do those acts.
I just don't see the point in trying to rewrite the Bible.
With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says (as I have done with many things since leaving TWI) from my new perspective. I was somewhat surprised with what I read.
I've read different sources on this one, down the years, and most of them were convinced that
the opposing point of view (and they disagreed completely) was held by fools who didn't know how to read,
and that the verses totally supported their point of view.
So far, I haven't seen anything new yet except different people holding them forth.
However, if something new comes up, I reserve the right to be surprised.
So, what are your views of homosexuality and what are the verses you use to back up that view?
Ok, I was ASKED. Normally, I keep my verses-and opinions-out of other peoples' lives and discussions,
but I was ASKED.
Eyes has written a book in which her research has lead her to believe it is not a sin.
I don't expect her to discuss this too much given she has a book out (which is understandable) but I think I may have come to the same conclusion (biblically speaking).
[sarcasm]
Glad to see none of us have already made up our minds before we fully explore this subject....
[/sarcasm]
I obviously expect to see things on abominations and Romans 1, but maybe some of you have much more.
Anyways, I thought a discussion on this is timely... so lets do it.
[milder sarcasm]
Obviously, some of us consider discussing "abominations" or discussing Romans 1 to be either off-topic,
or perhaps behind-the-times, a fossil of doctrine about local beliefs thousands of years ago,
or otherwise inappropriate, or something else along those lines.
[/milder sarcasm]
No matter what perspective that reflected, it's one where it doesn't look like the verses are particularly WELCOME,
especially if they're NOT used to draw the same conclusion- "biblically speaking".
However, I was ASKED.
===============
Since the verses that actually directly address the discussion seem to be viewed with some sort of negative,
tired and trite light, I'll bring in something I noticed on my own time that will NOT be part of the cliche festival
that some might be expecting....
(I felt the need to address all that. Now, some "steak" to match all the "sizzle"...)
There's several words translated "wicked" in the KJV.
Each seems to relate to a different concept, all translated "wicked."
Concerning the Greek...
"Poneros" seems to come closest to what most of us would think of as "Evil" with the capital "E."
It's malignance, malevolence, the intent and action to cause harm to others.
"Athesmos" seems to refer to the violation of the established rules and ordinances,
hearing "thou shalt not" and going to do it anyway.
"Kakos" seems to refer to "bad" in the sense of "worthless", something that adds nothing.
The word I, personally, find interesting is "anomos".
Bullinger renders it as
"without law, not subject to law, lawless; then a violator of natural law."
The roots of the word are "a-" meaning "no" or "not",
and "nom" or "name".
Those of you who've studied Sociology will be familiar with the term "anomie". Emile Durkheim was quite
concerned with the concept, and coined the term for the concept from this Greek. In Sociology, it means
"NORMLESSNESS", a state where there is no way to determine what is "right", what is "wrong".
Durkheim coined the term when he discovered SUICIDE RATES went up during periods of anomie,
when there was no standard, no rule, for determining what is "right" or what is "wrong."
He was concerned with events contemporary to him, but they were hardly unique. Throughout history,
different people in different places and times have faced societies when there were no rules common,
where everyone did what was right in his OWN eyes, which, of course, may be completely WRONG,
or outright INSANE. However, when a culture is in a state of "anomie", the only thing that is "wrong"
is to actually say something is "wrong."
I see the concept as being nearly identical to the word "anomos" in the New Testament Greek,
where there is NO law, NO rule where one can say "THIS is all right, but THAT should not be done."
Personally, I was more concerned with this concept as it related to II Thessalonians 2:8, since few verses
give a lot of information. However, once the subject is understood, it can be seen in use in different places
in Scripture-some where the word "anomos" is used, some where it is NOT.
As I see it, this "discussion" was already determined before it BEGAN. It was framed as a matter of
"well, saying Scripture calls Subject A 'wrong' is 'wrong', but let's discuss it."
Perhaps I'm not seeing what others mean to say. Perhaps I misunderstand them.
However, I HAVE waited and given the discussion a few days and waited, to see if my opinion of what's
been said changed. No, I believe this IS what was meant.
If someone wishes to say "I do not believe the Bible" or "I disagree with the Bible", I say they have the
freedom to determine their own opinions and convictions. I see no reason to intrude where someone does not
WISH me to intrude. All of you are adults. If you WANT me to help you change your opinion, you know how to ask.
I disagree whenever anyone is prepared to determine what the Bible says, and then does whatever is necessary
to change the meaning of verses and chapters, in order to make it appear to say what they WANT it to say.
I disagree with that on moral grounds, no matter WHAT doctrine is being squeezed out of it-
which means I will object when someone AGREES with me and tortures a verse to "support" it.
(We've seen vpw do this, we've seen lcm do this, we've seen people outside of twi and in twi does this.
I don't like ANY of it. I find it intellectually dishonest.)
========
So, others have had their say, in part. I've had my say, in part. I even skipped the verses someone didn't want addressed.
Each poster, each reader, has the choice of blowing us both off, or of vilifying one or dismissing one.
Or, preferably, disagree respectfully with at least one.
The only value I see in doctrine is how it is applied among people. If the best researched doctrine in all of Christianity leaves vulnerable people in even worse circumstance...what good is it?
We may all be sinners(not my personal doctrine, but i am familiar with it), but homosexual sinners are worse--they are not allowed to legally marry, while hetero couples, while still sinners, can marry.
As far as perverted sexual practices, heteros can do them, too. Assuming you know what others, homosexual or heterosexual, are doing in their bedrooms is useless and hard to judge.
I know a RC adoptive gay mom( I taught her kid preschool), who has a long time girlfriend who lives in another state. They meet several times a year for vacations. They don't go 'below the waist'.(Yes, she actually came straight out and told me this, probably neede to confide in someone.) But when they go on vacation somewhere, I'll bet people speculate as to their wild lesbian sex life.
Sirguessalot...no worries, life happens. Take care of yours and be at peace.
Jen-o I answered your question on the other thread, but you did not answer mine. What did I admit to?
Rhino, the victors write the history. From your view it is not normal and in fact it is quite repulsive (I would guess) But from the other side of the coin, your are the one that is not normal and your sex life repulses them. I just see no point in relying on a document that has been flawed by many hands just like the soup. In this administration (if you want to call it that) the rule is Love not hate. So how can an organization that promotes a hateful doctrine be the authority. Do we listen to the Al quida? Their doctrins also promote hate.
Cman, that is an interesting point of view. I had never thought of it quite that way but I think with that input I can understanding a bit more about the ancient Celts and the two-spirit people.
As far as perverted sexual practices, heteros can do them, too.
I just thought that little line deserved another look see.
Rhino, the victors write the history. From your view it is not normal and in fact it is quite repulsive (I would guess) But from the other side of the coin, your are the one that is not normal and your sex life repulses them. I just see no point in relying on a document that has been flawed by many hands just like the soup. In this administration (if you want to call it that) the rule is Love not hate. So how can an organization that promotes a hateful doctrine be the authority. Do we listen to the Al quida? Their doctrins also promote hate.
OK ... this would make your opinion clearer ... IF you are talking about the Bible... is that the hateful doctrine you are referring to? If it is, then it seems you would have no reason to bother trying to interpret what the Bible really means ... you are just saying the Bible, at least as we have it, is hateful and flawed.
Come here little kittie and let me see if you've been "fixed"! Why don't you give Jolie Eyes a break and just buy the the little gay book? She could probably use the extra cash and then you might follow whatever potentially flawed biblical verse snatching, 3 years of research and revelation has provided.
And then maybe there will be "peace" between the two sisters?
huh?
not sure what you're trying to say here, el bumpo...
i hope this isn't a serious suggestion... because i'm not about to buy this book...
i have checked out the foreword and 1st chapter, and have already found serious flaws...
and what kind of "peace" is that to nod in assent about something that has not been clearly defined...
imo, because it cannot be clearly defined...
the only way to say that the bible approves of homosexual acts is to ignore the plain meaning and look to outside sources...
in an attempt to cloud the real meaning of the straightforward verses...
I just see no point in relying on a document that has been flawed
eyes, if you see no point in relying on the flawed document (i.e. the bible), then why bother to write a book about the biblical perspective on homosexuality??... why not just cut to the chase and write a book about how you think the bible is flawed and back up your opinion that homosexuality is not wrong based on outside sources... that's more honest than trying to change the meaning of the biblical verses... why use the bible at all if you think it's flawed?
Some folks ideas of "doctrine" are quite different then others.
cman, i think we are talking about biblical doctrine here...
and the question is: are homosexual acts right or wrong according to the bible?
With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says (as I have done with many things since leaving TWI) from my new perspective. I was somewhat surprised with what I read.
So, what are your views of homosexuality and what are the verses you use to back up that view?
Whether homosexuality is a sin in the Christian doctrinal world or not matters very little to me.
The only value I see in doctrine is how it is applied among people.
Congratulations.
Why, then, participate in a discussion about THE BIBLE, whose purpose was to ask
"WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ON THIS?"
I mean, how many posts does it take to say
"I'm posting on this thread to say I don't care about its subject".
(That's effectively what you said. Lindy asked "what does it say" and you posted "I don't care.")
If it was a discussion, say, of Starhawk's books and I had no interest in it, it would be unlikely
I'd even spend ONE post saying "I'm disinterested in this subject"-I'd let those who wanted
to discuss her Doctrine continue to do so without distraction.
I hold the word(s) of God in high esteem.
Rhino, the victors write the history.
I just see no point in relying on a document that has been flawed by many hands just like the soup.
So, "holding the word(s) of God in high esteem" is compatible with considering
the Bible a "history" written by the winners,
a "flawed" document "flawed by many hands."
Without more information, I don't see how those statements harmonize.
It also looks like you're saying you don't think much of the Bible,
but have no problem declaring you understand it on subjects well enough
to write a book on it and recommend it to Christians.
======
Frankly, other than rhetoric and "the Bible is wrong", I haven't seen anyone put
forth any case for saying "the Bible says homosexuality is perfectly all right,
not error, not a problem, totally copacetic" with any rationale deeper than
"because I say so" on this thread.
I don't know if Lindy got what he was looking for, but I also haven't been greatly
surprised as to thread content, either.
(I am, however, surprised that nobody's accused me of being a closeminded,
reactionary knuckle-dragger, which is a pleasant surprise. The dialogue hasn't
descended into the Soap Opera forum-yet.)
I think I'm done on this thread. I don't see much I can add, and I don't see that
anyone wants what little I CAN add, and I don't see much to warrant me following
along any further. So I'll probably step out of it before I break something.
I think that discussing how a doctrine helps or hinders real people in the real world is a valid point of discussion, WW. As far as the Bible doctrine--there will be no definitive answer, there never is. Christian doctrine is all over the map and all based on the Bible. This discussion will end up in 'camps' like thay all do. But maybe some people will read it and think.
WW I been enjoying your debate as I been loving everybody debates
but for me I believe we all know it is against natural design for mankind like
part "A" was design to fit in part "B" to fit together not part "A" in part "D" or part "E" nor part "B" in part "E" or part "E" in part "D" or whatever the fix
when part "A" and "B" come together we get fruit of mankind - children
when we get down to the true doctrine of love it opens how do we teach against so much old Wayish hate and teach to love people no matter what error they are living with
Labels can be a bad things and people can be label who are not and so on
I been known to write on forms the d word when I never been married because of what some people seem to think about you if you never got married but it was not from trying get married now you see I feel I need to add that last line
it is only human not to want people to think bad of you
how can we teach it just a error that is better not done without the yeiling or whatever
WW and Jen-o, Hmmm....somehow you are missing what I am saying...I hold the Word of God in high esteem, is the Bible the actual Word of God? I think that it contains the words of God but because of many hands throughout the years has become flawed. Does that mean that I do not hold the Bible in high esteem? Perhaps or perhaps not. But I no longer believe what twi taught about it being completely infalable, and perhaps you still do or you believe something similar. I thought that the reason for studying the Bible was because there were things that we didnt understand. Am I wrong?
what kind of "peace" is that to nod in assent about something that has not been clearly defined...
imo, because it cannot be clearly defined...
And there it is in a nutshell. The way I read this is "Eyes you can 'explain' your position until you are blue in the face and you will always be wrong, because what I see is 'clearly stated'."
So I ask you...why should I bother? According to you there cannot be peace between us and I dont want to fight and you say the same thing so why are we here?
Also I am still waiting for you to tell me what I admitted to? Did you misread something that I posted...is it possible that you did not understand something that was written? Please tell me what I supposively said.
Cman, I agree with you 100%. I am tired of the changing field and being the a target. And I also believe that this topic has so many little things that influence it just from the Bible itself, which is why I asked to not be drawn into a long drawn out discussion on a board such as this. There is just so much information and only so much space that Paw should pay for.
And finally, Rhino, you seem like an intelligent man...so I'm going to address you as such. Your comment about the Bible and flawed doctrine is ridiculous. You know as well as I that the doctrine of thousands of organizations are not based upon the Bible. Now many may say that their doctrine is in fact based on the Bible but it is not. So please dont act stupid to try to take a cheap shot at me. It demeans both of us.
And finally, Rhino, you seem like an intelligent man...so I'm going to address you as such. Your comment about the Bible and flawed doctrine is ridiculous. You know as well as I that the doctrine of thousands of organizations are not based upon the Bible. Now many may say that their doctrine is in fact based on the Bible but it is not. So please dont act stupid to try to take a cheap shot at me. It demeans both of us.
I'm not sure you meant this to be humorous ... but it is ... I'm intelligent but ridiculous and "acting stupid"?
People (most of Christendom?) that believe differently have a strong Biblical basis for what they believe on this issue. You seem to have none, and yet try to claim some biblical backing for what you say. Now at the same time you say people that seem to have a very clear backing from the Bible for what they say ... are not based on the Bible.
It is not a cheap shot ... you have no doctrinal backing, yet you claim the Bible before it became flawed and hateful ... agreed with you. So those original texts you speak of ... are nothing like what we ended up with ... that makes no sense.
Why not just say your beliefs are NOT based on the Bible ... because what we do have in the bible does not agree with what you think God would say on this issue. Isn't that more honest?
I'm not sure you meant this to be humorous ... but it is ... I'm intelligent but ridiculous and "acting stupid"?
People (most of Christendom?) that believe differently have a strong Biblical basis for what they believe on this issue. You seem to have none, and yet try to claim some biblical backing for what you say. Now at the same time you say people that seem to have a very clear backing from the Bible for what they say ... are not based on the Bible.
It is not a cheap shot ... you have no doctrinal backing, yet you claim the Bible before it became flawed and hateful ... agreed with you. So those original texts you speak of ... are nothing like what we ended up with ... that makes no sense.
Why not just say your beliefs are NOT based on the Bible ... because what we do have in the bible does not agree with what you think God would say on this issue. Isn't that more honest?
You have no idea what I've got and that is the real crux of your problem. The rest is your opinion based upon a belief that you have. You do not wish to be moved but you seem to act like what I might say could possibly cause you to reconsider. BS, you just want to know what I wrote in my book.
You have no idea what I've got and that is the real crux of your problem. The rest is your opinion based upon a belief that you have. You do not wish to be moved but you seem to act like what I might say could possibly cause you to reconsider. BS, you just want to know what I wrote in my book.
I guess I didn't realize you were trying to sell your book by claiming it contained some special insight, that you would not reveal here. You gave some verses already, and your interpretation made no sense to me, so I don't think it gets any better.
But again, if you say the Bible we are working from is flawed and hateful, why even bother trying to use it?
I guess it is like Piffle and like you said in your book thread, if you have questions AFTER you read my book ...
The answer is "take the class" "buy my book".
I still think you would be better off if you paraded your credentials on the Amazon site ...
I still think you would be better off if you paraded your credentials on the Amazon site ...
I'll take it into consideration.
And please do not buy my book....unlike vp, I dont give a rats tail if you do or not...but wait I think I've said that several times. Sorry didnt mean to repeat myself.
Whether you believe the Bible as we know it today is letter for letter the literal word of God, a book that has error but also contains the word of God, a history book, or even a book of fiction - it is the most influencial book in the history of mankind. It is a book that has to some degree or another influenced nearly every culture on our planet today.
Scholars have debated the meaning of probably almost every passage for centuries and not reached a concensus. I doubt we are going to solve any big mystery here at the cafe.
That being said, debate can be a great thing. It can be healthy, in can bring about new ideas, new thoughts, new beliefs. It can cause us to change our opinions and therefore even our lives.
Unfortunately, if no one is really willing to consider the other side's pov, it really pretty much becomes a bunch of kids flinging sand at each other and ceases to become productive.
I have considered the homosexuality is a sin side of things. I had it crammed down my throat while in TWI. I have also considered the other side - that maybe it isn't a sin, maybe those verses are really trying to convey a different message through figures of speech. In the end, I can only conclude that I don't know and that it really doesn't matter anyway. In the end, I don't believe I am going to change anyone, heal anyone, deliver anyone, but telling them they are sining. I don't believe it is my place to condemn anyone either. People are people and we are all screwed up in one way or another - or at least we have all made screwed up decisions at one time or another. If homosexuals want to marry, I say let them. It really has no effect on my life one way or another.
Rhino and Jeno, my overall impression in these discussions is that your minds are made up and you are not going to be persuaded to a different pov, regardless of what anyone says to you. That is why I stopped posting in the threads on this topic in the open forum. Basically, it was a waste of time, because I wasn't convincing or persuading anyone of anything, nor was I being convinced or persuaded of anything.
I am guessing that for those very same reasons, Eyes has no real interest in getting into a drawn out debate with the two of you on this topic and she has as much as said so. What I fail to understand is why the two of you insist on following her from thread to thread on this topic and hounding her, when she has already said she does not care to debate it with you? Do you think if you nag her enough she will give in??? Do you think you would like someone to follow you from thread to thread and hound you into engaging in a debate you have already said you have no desire to engage in???
People are free to express their opinions here. They are even free to express them and leave it at that, without debating them. There is no rule that says once you have expressed an opinion you are now bound to debate it until all parties have agreed the debate is over. In my opinion, your behavior is bording on harassment, and I fail to see how you are benefiting from it.
What I fail to understand is why the two of you insist on following her from thread to thread on this topic and hounding her, when she has already said she does not care to debate it with you?
You have it wrong ... she was on the other thread but would not support her position ... fine i guess ... but the book was brought up on that thread, and I referred to all I could find out about the book's authority, since it pertained to that thread.
Then eyes made a false accusation that she was attacked without being given a chance to respond. I didn't follow her there ... I responded to her false accusation. So since she made that attack, I responded. Before that, she could say whatever she wanted to sell her book on her thread.
Then there was the doctrinal thread ... except there was no doctrine. Eyes is not debating anything ... she thinks the Bible is flawed and hateful, and she won't discuss her book ... you have to buy it to debate her. That finally got cleared up.
Despite what her buddies are contributing ... she has been disingenuous. Most post on threads to discuss ... that has not happened ... just the "it's in my book, and I'm not tellin'" retort.
WW seemed to recognize that earlier and left earlier ... but I don't think he was accused of anything.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
17
16
Popular Days
Jun 11
47
Jun 9
16
Dec 22
14
Jun 10
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 15 posts
rhino 17 posts
cman 17 posts
DrWearWord 16 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
47 posts
Jun 9 2008
16 posts
Dec 22 2009
14 posts
Jun 10 2008
11 posts
Popular Posts
rhino
No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of applicat
rhino
It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forwar
rhino
I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
all people are sinful... this is nothing new!
i admit that i am a sinful person...
and that is why i needed a savior!
the word "vile" was not applied to people in the bible...
the bible described certain "affections" as "vile" (atimia: dishonorable), i.e. the vile affections referenced in romans 1:26...
also, i know of nowhere in the bible where it says that homosexuals are "lesser in value" than any other people...
i also want to make it clear that i do not think every homosexual is "possessed"... i'm assuming this idea comes from twi which thought that everybody (and their grandmother) was "possessed"... but people who think "it's a choice" don't think in terms of "possession" because possession is the opposite of choice...eyes says that she is a christian,
and i believe her;
so therefore she is my sister in Christ, and obviously we are of equal value as members of the one body of Christ...
i just have a hard time following her logic (and train of thought) on this topic...
peace to all,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Come here little kittie and let me see if you've been "fixed"! Why don't you give Jolie Eyes a break and just buy the the little gay book? She could probably use the extra cash and then you might follow whatever potentially flawed biblical verse snatching, 3 years of research and revelation has provided.
And then maybe there will be "peace" between the two sisters? :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I was interested to see if there were Biblical doctrinal explanations allowing that homosexual acts were Okie Dokie, as some suggested, but I don't see that at all.
As far as I see, the Bible says homosexual acts are wrong ... I don't know about the "sin" part.
TWI is hardly a standard of how most Christians treat homosexuals. Though depending how you look at TWI, it may be they are very accepting. What does Rosie say?
But as accepting of homosexuals as most Christians may be, it seems they can still hold to their beliefs of what the bible says about the homosexual act.
It certainly does not seem normal ... the gay sex act does not seem the least bit normal. I'm thinking most (normal?) people cringe at the idea of doing that thang. Even joking about it, that is the reaction I've seen. The Howard Stern crowd may claim it is wonderful (for heterosexuals), but the general response seems to be eeeewwwww.
Christian or not, most people find that unseemly, so maybe there is wide agreement with the bible on this subject after all. It doesn't mean they want to put sodomists in prison or control them or mistreat the people that do those acts.
I just don't see the point in trying to rewrite the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved jen-o
God loves you my dear friend
I did not write that tread to point at you or anyone and nothing got me upset
I was trying to point out we are all human in a round about way and homosexuality is a human shortcoming nothing more nothing less
I never wanted you to think I was pointing at you
peace
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I've read different sources on this one, down the years, and most of them were convinced that
the opposing point of view (and they disagreed completely) was held by fools who didn't know how to read,
and that the verses totally supported their point of view.
So far, I haven't seen anything new yet except different people holding them forth.
However, if something new comes up, I reserve the right to be surprised.
Ok, I was ASKED. Normally, I keep my verses-and opinions-out of other peoples' lives and discussions,but I was ASKED.
[sarcasm]
Glad to see none of us have already made up our minds before we fully explore this subject....
[/sarcasm]
[milder sarcasm]
Obviously, some of us consider discussing "abominations" or discussing Romans 1 to be either off-topic,
or perhaps behind-the-times, a fossil of doctrine about local beliefs thousands of years ago,
or otherwise inappropriate, or something else along those lines.
[/milder sarcasm]
No matter what perspective that reflected, it's one where it doesn't look like the verses are particularly WELCOME,
especially if they're NOT used to draw the same conclusion- "biblically speaking".
However, I was ASKED.
===============
Since the verses that actually directly address the discussion seem to be viewed with some sort of negative,
tired and trite light, I'll bring in something I noticed on my own time that will NOT be part of the cliche festival
that some might be expecting....
(I felt the need to address all that. Now, some "steak" to match all the "sizzle"...)
There's several words translated "wicked" in the KJV.
Each seems to relate to a different concept, all translated "wicked."
Concerning the Greek...
"Poneros" seems to come closest to what most of us would think of as "Evil" with the capital "E."
It's malignance, malevolence, the intent and action to cause harm to others.
"Athesmos" seems to refer to the violation of the established rules and ordinances,
hearing "thou shalt not" and going to do it anyway.
"Kakos" seems to refer to "bad" in the sense of "worthless", something that adds nothing.
The word I, personally, find interesting is "anomos".
Bullinger renders it as
"without law, not subject to law, lawless; then a violator of natural law."
The roots of the word are "a-" meaning "no" or "not",
and "nom" or "name".
Those of you who've studied Sociology will be familiar with the term "anomie". Emile Durkheim was quite
concerned with the concept, and coined the term for the concept from this Greek. In Sociology, it means
"NORMLESSNESS", a state where there is no way to determine what is "right", what is "wrong".
Durkheim coined the term when he discovered SUICIDE RATES went up during periods of anomie,
when there was no standard, no rule, for determining what is "right" or what is "wrong."
He was concerned with events contemporary to him, but they were hardly unique. Throughout history,
different people in different places and times have faced societies when there were no rules common,
where everyone did what was right in his OWN eyes, which, of course, may be completely WRONG,
or outright INSANE. However, when a culture is in a state of "anomie", the only thing that is "wrong"
is to actually say something is "wrong."
I see the concept as being nearly identical to the word "anomos" in the New Testament Greek,
where there is NO law, NO rule where one can say "THIS is all right, but THAT should not be done."
Personally, I was more concerned with this concept as it related to II Thessalonians 2:8, since few verses
give a lot of information. However, once the subject is understood, it can be seen in use in different places
in Scripture-some where the word "anomos" is used, some where it is NOT.
As I see it, this "discussion" was already determined before it BEGAN. It was framed as a matter of
"well, saying Scripture calls Subject A 'wrong' is 'wrong', but let's discuss it."
Perhaps I'm not seeing what others mean to say. Perhaps I misunderstand them.
However, I HAVE waited and given the discussion a few days and waited, to see if my opinion of what's
been said changed. No, I believe this IS what was meant.
If someone wishes to say "I do not believe the Bible" or "I disagree with the Bible", I say they have the
freedom to determine their own opinions and convictions. I see no reason to intrude where someone does not
WISH me to intrude. All of you are adults. If you WANT me to help you change your opinion, you know how to ask.
I disagree whenever anyone is prepared to determine what the Bible says, and then does whatever is necessary
to change the meaning of verses and chapters, in order to make it appear to say what they WANT it to say.
I disagree with that on moral grounds, no matter WHAT doctrine is being squeezed out of it-
which means I will object when someone AGREES with me and tortures a verse to "support" it.
(We've seen vpw do this, we've seen lcm do this, we've seen people outside of twi and in twi does this.
I don't like ANY of it. I find it intellectually dishonest.)
========
So, others have had their say, in part. I've had my say, in part. I even skipped the verses someone didn't want addressed.
Each poster, each reader, has the choice of blowing us both off, or of vilifying one or dismissing one.
Or, preferably, disagree respectfully with at least one.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
(double post)
.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You know....
Some folks ideas of "doctrine" are quite different then others.
If it's an discussion of what the bible means.
There is only one to open it's treasures.
If it's about what some person thinks it means,
I care not for it. If they insist on me believing it.
Been there, not going again.
I can reflect on the thoughts of others without them being mine.
But taking them into consideration.
The final vote is never final.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
The only value I see in doctrine is how it is applied among people. If the best researched doctrine in all of Christianity leaves vulnerable people in even worse circumstance...what good is it?
We may all be sinners(not my personal doctrine, but i am familiar with it), but homosexual sinners are worse--they are not allowed to legally marry, while hetero couples, while still sinners, can marry.
As far as perverted sexual practices, heteros can do them, too. Assuming you know what others, homosexual or heterosexual, are doing in their bedrooms is useless and hard to judge.
I know a RC adoptive gay mom( I taught her kid preschool), who has a long time girlfriend who lives in another state. They meet several times a year for vacations. They don't go 'below the waist'.(Yes, she actually came straight out and told me this, probably neede to confide in someone.) But when they go on vacation somewhere, I'll bet people speculate as to their wild lesbian sex life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Sirguessalot...no worries, life happens. Take care of yours and be at peace.
Jen-o I answered your question on the other thread, but you did not answer mine. What did I admit to?
Rhino, the victors write the history. From your view it is not normal and in fact it is quite repulsive (I would guess) But from the other side of the coin, your are the one that is not normal and your sex life repulses them. I just see no point in relying on a document that has been flawed by many hands just like the soup. In this administration (if you want to call it that) the rule is Love not hate. So how can an organization that promotes a hateful doctrine be the authority. Do we listen to the Al quida? Their doctrins also promote hate.
Cman, that is an interesting point of view. I had never thought of it quite that way but I think with that input I can understanding a bit more about the ancient Celts and the two-spirit people.
I just thought that little line deserved another look see.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
OK ... this would make your opinion clearer ... IF you are talking about the Bible... is that the hateful doctrine you are referring to? If it is, then it seems you would have no reason to bother trying to interpret what the Bible really means ... you are just saying the Bible, at least as we have it, is hateful and flawed.
Is that right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Hi Eyesopen.
There are many things missing from these homosexual discussions.
I wouldn't know where to start.
Perhaps the 7 days of Genesis or when the man leaves his father and mother to be one with his wife. Also in Genesis.
Or the many references to man and woman that are not referring to two separate individuals.
But then I'd be telling what I've come to know and continue in learning.
When the answers are hidden in plain sight.
I do not want to give answers, just get some real thinking going.
And a person can see when shown, not by men or women.
But from within your own selves as well as that which we breathe.
A suggestion-
Don't be drawn into a battle where the framework keeps changing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
not sure what you're trying to say here, el bumpo...
i hope this isn't a serious suggestion... because i'm not about to buy this book...
i have checked out the foreword and 1st chapter, and have already found serious flaws...
and what kind of "peace" is that to nod in assent about something that has not been clearly defined...
imo, because it cannot be clearly defined...
the only way to say that the bible approves of homosexual acts is to ignore the plain meaning and look to outside sources...
in an attempt to cloud the real meaning of the straightforward verses...
eyes, if you see no point in relying on the flawed document (i.e. the bible), then why bother to write a book about the biblical perspective on homosexuality??... why not just cut to the chase and write a book about how you think the bible is flawed and back up your opinion that homosexuality is not wrong based on outside sources... that's more honest than trying to change the meaning of the biblical verses... why use the bible at all if you think it's flawed? cman, i think we are talking about biblical doctrine here...and the question is: are homosexual acts right or wrong according to the bible?
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Congratulations.
Why, then, participate in a discussion about THE BIBLE, whose purpose was to ask
"WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ON THIS?"
I mean, how many posts does it take to say
"I'm posting on this thread to say I don't care about its subject".
(That's effectively what you said. Lindy asked "what does it say" and you posted "I don't care.")
If it was a discussion, say, of Starhawk's books and I had no interest in it, it would be unlikely
I'd even spend ONE post saying "I'm disinterested in this subject"-I'd let those who wanted
to discuss her Doctrine continue to do so without distraction.
So, "holding the word(s) of God in high esteem" is compatible with considering
the Bible a "history" written by the winners,
a "flawed" document "flawed by many hands."
Without more information, I don't see how those statements harmonize.
It also looks like you're saying you don't think much of the Bible,
but have no problem declaring you understand it on subjects well enough
to write a book on it and recommend it to Christians.
======
Frankly, other than rhetoric and "the Bible is wrong", I haven't seen anyone put
forth any case for saying "the Bible says homosexuality is perfectly all right,
not error, not a problem, totally copacetic" with any rationale deeper than
"because I say so" on this thread.
I don't know if Lindy got what he was looking for, but I also haven't been greatly
surprised as to thread content, either.
(I am, however, surprised that nobody's accused me of being a closeminded,
reactionary knuckle-dragger, which is a pleasant surprise. The dialogue hasn't
descended into the Soap Opera forum-yet.)
I think I'm done on this thread. I don't see much I can add, and I don't see that
anyone wants what little I CAN add, and I don't see much to warrant me following
along any further. So I'll probably step out of it before I break something.
Carry on, ladies and gentlemen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I think that discussing how a doctrine helps or hinders real people in the real world is a valid point of discussion, WW. As far as the Bible doctrine--there will be no definitive answer, there never is. Christian doctrine is all over the map and all based on the Bible. This discussion will end up in 'camps' like thay all do. But maybe some people will read it and think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved all
God loves you all my dear friends
WW I been enjoying your debate as I been loving everybody debates
but for me I believe we all know it is against natural design for mankind like
part "A" was design to fit in part "B" to fit together not part "A" in part "D" or part "E" nor part "B" in part "E" or part "E" in part "D" or whatever the fix
when part "A" and "B" come together we get fruit of mankind - children
when we get down to the true doctrine of love it opens how do we teach against so much old Wayish hate and teach to love people no matter what error they are living with
Labels can be a bad things and people can be label who are not and so on
I been known to write on forms the d word when I never been married because of what some people seem to think about you if you never got married but it was not from trying get married now you see I feel I need to add that last line
it is only human not to want people to think bad of you
how can we teach it just a error that is better not done without the yeiling or whatever
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
WW and Jen-o, Hmmm....somehow you are missing what I am saying...I hold the Word of God in high esteem, is the Bible the actual Word of God? I think that it contains the words of God but because of many hands throughout the years has become flawed. Does that mean that I do not hold the Bible in high esteem? Perhaps or perhaps not. But I no longer believe what twi taught about it being completely infalable, and perhaps you still do or you believe something similar. I thought that the reason for studying the Bible was because there were things that we didnt understand. Am I wrong?
And there it is in a nutshell. The way I read this is "Eyes you can 'explain' your position until you are blue in the face and you will always be wrong, because what I see is 'clearly stated'."
So I ask you...why should I bother? According to you there cannot be peace between us and I dont want to fight and you say the same thing so why are we here?
Also I am still waiting for you to tell me what I admitted to? Did you misread something that I posted...is it possible that you did not understand something that was written? Please tell me what I supposively said.
Cman, I agree with you 100%. I am tired of the changing field and being the a target. And I also believe that this topic has so many little things that influence it just from the Bible itself, which is why I asked to not be drawn into a long drawn out discussion on a board such as this. There is just so much information and only so much space that Paw should pay for.
And finally, Rhino, you seem like an intelligent man...so I'm going to address you as such. Your comment about the Bible and flawed doctrine is ridiculous. You know as well as I that the doctrine of thousands of organizations are not based upon the Bible. Now many may say that their doctrine is in fact based on the Bible but it is not. So please dont act stupid to try to take a cheap shot at me. It demeans both of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I'm not sure you meant this to be humorous ... but it is ... I'm intelligent but ridiculous and "acting stupid"?
People (most of Christendom?) that believe differently have a strong Biblical basis for what they believe on this issue. You seem to have none, and yet try to claim some biblical backing for what you say. Now at the same time you say people that seem to have a very clear backing from the Bible for what they say ... are not based on the Bible.
It is not a cheap shot ... you have no doctrinal backing, yet you claim the Bible before it became flawed and hateful ... agreed with you. So those original texts you speak of ... are nothing like what we ended up with ... that makes no sense.
Why not just say your beliefs are NOT based on the Bible ... because what we do have in the bible does not agree with what you think God would say on this issue. Isn't that more honest?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You have no idea what I've got and that is the real crux of your problem. The rest is your opinion based upon a belief that you have. You do not wish to be moved but you seem to act like what I might say could possibly cause you to reconsider. BS, you just want to know what I wrote in my book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I guess I didn't realize you were trying to sell your book by claiming it contained some special insight, that you would not reveal here. You gave some verses already, and your interpretation made no sense to me, so I don't think it gets any better.
But again, if you say the Bible we are working from is flawed and hateful, why even bother trying to use it?
I guess it is like Piffle and like you said in your book thread, if you have questions AFTER you read my book ...
The answer is "take the class" "buy my book".
I still think you would be better off if you paraded your credentials on the Amazon site ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I'll take it into consideration.
And please do not buy my book....unlike vp, I dont give a rats tail if you do or not...but wait I think I've said that several times. Sorry didnt mean to repeat myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Whether you believe the Bible as we know it today is letter for letter the literal word of God, a book that has error but also contains the word of God, a history book, or even a book of fiction - it is the most influencial book in the history of mankind. It is a book that has to some degree or another influenced nearly every culture on our planet today.
Scholars have debated the meaning of probably almost every passage for centuries and not reached a concensus. I doubt we are going to solve any big mystery here at the cafe.
That being said, debate can be a great thing. It can be healthy, in can bring about new ideas, new thoughts, new beliefs. It can cause us to change our opinions and therefore even our lives.
Unfortunately, if no one is really willing to consider the other side's pov, it really pretty much becomes a bunch of kids flinging sand at each other and ceases to become productive.
I have considered the homosexuality is a sin side of things. I had it crammed down my throat while in TWI. I have also considered the other side - that maybe it isn't a sin, maybe those verses are really trying to convey a different message through figures of speech. In the end, I can only conclude that I don't know and that it really doesn't matter anyway. In the end, I don't believe I am going to change anyone, heal anyone, deliver anyone, but telling them they are sining. I don't believe it is my place to condemn anyone either. People are people and we are all screwed up in one way or another - or at least we have all made screwed up decisions at one time or another. If homosexuals want to marry, I say let them. It really has no effect on my life one way or another.
Rhino and Jeno, my overall impression in these discussions is that your minds are made up and you are not going to be persuaded to a different pov, regardless of what anyone says to you. That is why I stopped posting in the threads on this topic in the open forum. Basically, it was a waste of time, because I wasn't convincing or persuading anyone of anything, nor was I being convinced or persuaded of anything.
I am guessing that for those very same reasons, Eyes has no real interest in getting into a drawn out debate with the two of you on this topic and she has as much as said so. What I fail to understand is why the two of you insist on following her from thread to thread on this topic and hounding her, when she has already said she does not care to debate it with you? Do you think if you nag her enough she will give in??? Do you think you would like someone to follow you from thread to thread and hound you into engaging in a debate you have already said you have no desire to engage in???
People are free to express their opinions here. They are even free to express them and leave it at that, without debating them. There is no rule that says once you have expressed an opinion you are now bound to debate it until all parties have agreed the debate is over. In my opinion, your behavior is bording on harassment, and I fail to see how you are benefiting from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
You have it wrong ... she was on the other thread but would not support her position ... fine i guess ... but the book was brought up on that thread, and I referred to all I could find out about the book's authority, since it pertained to that thread.
Then eyes made a false accusation that she was attacked without being given a chance to respond. I didn't follow her there ... I responded to her false accusation. So since she made that attack, I responded. Before that, she could say whatever she wanted to sell her book on her thread.
Then there was the doctrinal thread ... except there was no doctrine. Eyes is not debating anything ... she thinks the Bible is flawed and hateful, and she won't discuss her book ... you have to buy it to debate her. That finally got cleared up.
Despite what her buddies are contributing ... she has been disingenuous. Most post on threads to discuss ... that has not happened ... just the "it's in my book, and I'm not tellin'" retort.
WW seemed to recognize that earlier and left earlier ... but I don't think he was accused of anything.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
It's an addiction to always be right or appear right in any subject.
And this doesn't just come from places like twi.
But it really pertains to the subject at hand.
It's a domination masculine men with men conquering thing.
Only held in check by the feminne nature of the person.
There's your "homo" men with men crap right here in this thread holding a gun to someone's head. And YEAh I've done it too.
Not apologetic or kind or tender,
along with the masculine drive
to know-conquer others instead of their own selves
which is our design in part.
The natural role of the masculine is to conquer yourself.
While the feminine keeps the love coming.
This is the way it should be in short.
But it has been perverted.
Wars start like this-Murders....Suicides.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.