The Gay Shall Inherit the Church?

Since: Feb 09

1,140

AquariusNSF wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, Matthew 19 is about divorce. It is NOT about who can get married and what their genders MUST be.
Eunuchs were NOT forbidden to have sex OR to get married (just that they did not marry women). Not ALL eunuchs would have been incapable of having sex. Homosexuals could with the same sex, and Jesus did NOT forbid it.
Fornication comes from the Greek word, pornos, and it has to do with prostitution. It has nothing to do with homosexuality per se, nor does it have to anything to do with sex outside of marriage.

You are quite wrong about fornication. So, why don't you find me one piece of historical evidence that eunuchs married men.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

Judged:

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
How is it different, your site, compared to the site I gave a link to or the quote from the JBC. I and you have presented references to the interpretation that we choose to believe. So, tell me, which of us has the absolute truth about what Scripture says?

If you read every word of my site, you would see that it points out the fallacies in your site.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

AquariusNSF wrote:

<quoted text>
You left out the most important part. Any passage which starts with a "therefore" required the preceding passage to give its true meaning.
Romans 1:21 For although they knew G-d, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal G-d for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
So there it is. Paul has made it very clear he is speaking of idol worship. Notice, it is in the past tense, therefore, he is speaking about a very specific example of idol worship from Biblical history. Most think it has to do with the Canaanites but quite possibly refers to Egyptian temple worship as well.

I agree, the people put other things before God. They did not make God the primary motivation for their lives. Other things became more important. So God gave them over.

While we do not tend to have little stone carvings that we think are so great today, look how many other things are given high importance: rock stars, sports figures, fancy cars, etc., to name the material things. However, I think the greatest idols of all to modern day man is the SELF. We are encouraged from a very early age to worship ourselves. Self-esteem is deemed the greatest attribute to have, and frankly, some people have it in such heavy doses that it has morphed into rampant narcissism. Along with that we are encouraged to be young, young, young. The old (and even a little older) are treated like yesterday's trash, instead of being regarded for their wisdom as man used to do. People endlessly exercise, look for the newest be-young products, and try to be cool like the latest stars. Because of all this, I think self if the modern-day idol, so God looked down and saw all those narcissistic people who are intentionally arresting their own development and "gave them over to shameful lusts."

Akfbks

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
If you read every word of my site, you would see that it points out the fallacies in your site.

Hi DustyShadow, Yes that is exactily what your site does. Problem, I don't agree your sites hermeneutics. Problem is the conclusion just does not fit God's plan.

Akfbks

Dave wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. No reasonable person can argue these facts. But flyboy will most likely try. His reaching, false, defensive propoganda really is predictabld and quite sad to watch.

"Lev. 18:22 is part of the Holiness Code concerning ritual and cultic purity. The list of sexual infractions is framed by a sermon teaching people to separate themselves from neighbouring peoples and their practices.(17) It is not concerned with distinctions of moral or spiritual purity but things to'evah,'unclean', which are seen as distinctive features of the ways of the Canaanites. Within the narrative it relates to the time prior to the conquest of Canaan during the Exodus from Egypt. However the text dates from the post-exilic time (fifth century BCE), during which the community sought to separate itself from neighbouring peoples to establish a Jewish distinctiveness. It is to that purpose that the Code is directed. It defines accepted behaviours, in comparison to the otherness of Canaanite culture which is designated to'evah, delimiting one culture against another. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, the Hebrew words chata', chatta'ah or chet' would have been used."

http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html#lev18

There are two sides to Christian thought, the interpretation of the Bible. Here, you either condemn homosexuality or you do not find homosexuality as a sin. You make the discussion a question of whose Christian thought is correct.

I look forward to the day the Supreme Court addresses the issue of homosexuality. That day is coming if the Supreme Court sees fit to address it. If they do, they will either deny evidence of or against homosexuality as others may testify or they will accept such evidence. Accepting Biblical evidence will force Supreme Court Judges to choose which interpretation they will follow. That will cause a theocracy to be established. Now, tell me that you would accept following someone else's belief?

I do not deny your belief or faith. You must not deny mine.

Akfbks

Judged:

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
As "homosexual" was not a word until the late 1800s. I think you are absolutely correct that some prefer to make up their own rules for translating the Bible.

Everyone that has anything to do with interpreting the Bible has something to do with picking and choosing the rules they will follow. The references I site are following the tools of hermeneutics that has been established for all. If you took the time you would see the commonality of Genesis through Revelation of a relational mankind. Condemning homosexuality just isn't an issue.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd venture that the text should have always, no it has always been about the relational aspect of our being created in the image of God. Animals, biological. Humans, biological with the difference of being relational beings. New Age has nothing to do with this interpretation. It instead is your, Old Time Religion, emphasis on being moralistic. All that the link talks about is verified by Scripture. Scripture continuously talks about the relational aspect of mankind. Whether you are reading the OT or the NT. They did not get it then and you certainly do not get it now.

Old Time Religion as in Biblical times? Moralistic - having to do with morality. Morality definition:

mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

If you don't think the Bible contains rules or lessons in moral conduct, if you don't think it describes what is right and good conduct and what happens if you aren't right and good, then either you haven't read it or YOU do not get it. Certainly it is about our relationship with God (I assume that's what you mean by "relational," which, quite honestly, is not a word I have ever seen to describe the Bible before), and it is how God transforms our relationships with others. Those relationships are transformed by the morality that God teaches us in the Bible. To make it not at all about our morality is about as New Age as it gets.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd venture that the text should have always, no it has always been about the relational aspect of our being created in the image of God. Animals, biological. Humans, biological with the difference of being relational beings. New Age has nothing to do with this interpretation. It instead is your, Old Time Religion, emphasis on being moralistic. All that the link talks about is verified by Scripture. Scripture continuously talks about the relational aspect of mankind. Whether you are reading the OT or the NT. They did not get it then and you certainly do not get it now.

Or maybe you are reading one of those "new age" bibles - try googling it.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
"Lev. 18:22 is part of the Holiness Code concerning ritual and cultic purity. The list of sexual infractions is framed by a sermon teaching people to separate themselves from neighbouring peoples and their practices.(17) It is not concerned with distinctions of moral or spiritual purity but things to'evah,'unclean', which are seen as distinctive features of the ways of the Canaanites. Within the narrative it relates to the time prior to the conquest of Canaan during the Exodus from Egypt. However the text dates from the post-exilic time (fifth century BCE), during which the community sought to separate itself from neighbouring peoples to establish a Jewish distinctiveness. It is to that purpose that the Code is directed. It defines accepted behaviours, in comparison to the otherness of Canaanite culture which is designated to'evah, delimiting one culture against another. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, the Hebrew words chata', chatta'ah or chet' would have been used."
http://fou.uniting.com.au/texts.html#lev18
There are two sides to Christian thought, the interpretation of the Bible. Here, you either condemn homosexuality or you do not find homosexuality as a sin. You make the discussion a question of whose Christian thought is correct.
I look forward to the day the Supreme Court addresses the issue of homosexuality. That day is coming if the Supreme Court sees fit to address it. If they do, they will either deny evidence of or against homosexuality as others may testify or they will accept such evidence. Accepting Biblical evidence will force Supreme Court Judges to choose which interpretation they will follow. That will cause a theocracy to be established. Now, tell me that you would accept following someone else's belief?
I do not deny your belief or faith. You must not deny mine.

That material is copyrighted by the Friends of Unity.

http://fou.uniting.com.au/disclaimer.html

"FoU is not an official organisation of the Uniting Church in Australia.

FoU supports Unity, which is a State group participating with Uniting Network.

Unity participates as a State group with Uniting Network, the national network for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, their families, friends and supporters across the Uniting Church in Australia."

http://www.unitingnetworkaustralia.org.au/

Uniting Network Australia is the national network for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, their families, friends and supporters within the Uniting Church in Australia. We proudly participate in helping the Church wrestle with issues of faith, sexuality and membership and work for greater inclusivity within the Church.

Now, forgive me for being a little skeptical, but I think that this isn't too vastly different from the "gay and lesbian bible." They both skew things to make it look good for gays and lesbians, no matter what the original Bible had to say about it.

Quite frankly, anybody who does such a thing is responsible for possibly damning gays and lesbians for eternity.

Akfbks

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
That material is copyrighted by the Friends of Unity.
http://fou.uniting.com.au/disclaimer.html
"FoU is not an official organisation of the Uniting Church in Australia.
FoU supports Unity, which is a State group participating with Uniting Network.
Unity participates as a State group with Uniting Network, the national network for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, their families, friends and supporters across the Uniting Church in Australia."
http://www.unitingnetworkaustralia.org.au/
Uniting Network Australia is the national network for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, their families, friends and supporters within the Uniting Church in Australia. We proudly participate in helping the Church wrestle with issues of faith, sexuality and membership and work for greater inclusivity within the Church.
Now, forgive me for being a little skeptical, but I think that this isn't too vastly different from the "gay and lesbian bible." They both skew things to make it look good for gays and lesbians, no matter what the original Bible had to say about it.
Quite frankly, anybody who does such a thing is responsible for possibly damning gays and lesbians for eternity.

DustyShadow, it is good that you looked into this site. Now, as for what they interpret, I've been seeing the same thing in my research on the Bible. As for whether they are accurate, I have found similar interpretations from others. It is not at all misleading because they are a national network for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. Although the Catholic Church states that homosexuality is a sin, the Jerome Bible Commentary supports their interpretation on issues that would not support homosexuality as a sin.

As for their work damning gay and lesbian folk. You have got to be kidding me. Please re-examine your understanding of what sin is and what the image of God means to you.

Akfbks

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Or maybe you are reading one of those "new age" bibles - try googling it.

Generally I use the NAB but I have many versions of the Bible. I use the Jerome Bible Commentary. Although I have the Jerusalem Bible I don't often open it.

Akfbks

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
Old Time Religion as in Biblical times? Moralistic - having to do with morality. Morality definition:
mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
If you don't think the Bible contains rules or lessons in moral conduct, if you don't think it describes what is right and good conduct and what happens if you aren't right and good, then either you haven't read it or YOU do not get it. Certainly it is about our relationship with God (I assume that's what you mean by "relational," which, quite honestly, is not a word I have ever seen to describe the Bible before), and it is how God transforms our relationships with others. Those relationships are transformed by the morality that God teaches us in the Bible. To make it not at all about our morality is about as New Age as it gets.

I'm getting a little tired of your insinuations. Quite honestly, if you had read the link you would know what I'm talking about. God forbid that you might just understand what I've said about the relational aspect of humans and God. And yes the Bible does have lessons in moral conduct. That is what I've been saying all along. In a matter of fact, I've said that is the message of the Bible. To judge someone is idolatry. And that is the sting that Paul set up in Romans. The Holiness Code is about setting Israel apart from other countries. We do not follow these rules of conduct anymore, unless you don't fit into the category of we. If you don't I expect you to follow every last one of the rules. The rules were to establish how Israel conducts themselves so that they stand apart from other nations. The rules, if you examine them is about the relational aspect of mankind with their God and themselves, as well as with other nations. That is all the prophets were about too. And the NT most certainly is about the "New Being" of Christ Jesus. And that, DustyShadow, was because the OT people just did not get it. Sounds as if you don't get it either.

The Old Time Religion is what existed in a time past. Literalist.

AquariusNSF

Since: Jan 09

1,479

San Francisco, CA

ISP: United States

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
You are quite wrong about fornication. So, why don't you find me one piece of historical evidence that eunuchs married men.

No! I'm not wrong about the meaning of fornication (as originally written in scripture) I'm quite correct. Why would you think otherwise???????

What difference does it make whether or not any eunuchs had sex? They were NOT forbidden to regardless. I do know that in Daniel the eunuch, Ashpanez, feel in love with Daniel. And, he certainly did not mind it (and, it was good thing for him that he didn't). But, we do not know what kind of eunuch Ashpenaz was. So, it is unclear as to whether or not they actually had sex. But, what difference does it really make? Love is much more than just sex.

AquariusNSF

Since: Jan 09

1,479

San Francisco, CA

ISP: United States

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree, the people put other things before God. They did not make God the primary motivation for their lives. Other things became more important. So God gave them over.
While we do not tend to have little stone carvings that we think are so great today, look how many other things are given high importance: rock stars, sports figures, fancy cars, etc., to name the material things. However, I think the greatest idols of all to modern day man is the SELF. We are encouraged from a very early age to worship ourselves. Self-esteem is deemed the greatest attribute to have, and frankly, some people have it in such heavy doses that it has morphed into rampant narcissism. Along with that we are encouraged to be young, young, young. The old (and even a little older) are treated like yesterday's trash, instead of being regarded for their wisdom as man used to do. People endlessly exercise, look for the newest be-young products, and try to be cool like the latest stars. Because of all this, I think self if the modern-day idol, so God looked down and saw all those narcissistic people who are intentionally arresting their own development and "gave them over to shameful lusts."

I agree with most of this ... perhaps not the last couple of sentences, however. Worshipping idols (even the ones you mention) does NOT turn someone gay or homosexual. Nevertheless, it's still idolatry.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
DustyShadow, it is good that you looked into this site. Now, as for what they interpret, I've been seeing the same thing in my research on the Bible. As for whether they are accurate, I have found similar interpretations from others. It is not at all misleading because they are a national network for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. Although the Catholic Church states that homosexuality is a sin, the Jerome Bible Commentary supports their interpretation on issues that would not support homosexuality as a sin.
As for their work damning gay and lesbian folk. You have got to be kidding me. Please re-examine your understanding of what sin is and what the image of God means to you.

Sin is the transgression of a moral code, especially when you have been told what the moral code is and you choose to violate it willfully, intentionally, and regardless of what the Bible says about it. I think that it is particularly egregious when one attempts to "rewrite" the code, either literally or in interpretation, to sidestep the code.

"Although the Catholic Church states that homosexuality is a sin, the Jerome Bible Commentary supports their interpretation on issues that would not support homosexuality as a sin."

Care to elaborate on the above? That statement makes no sense.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
Generally I use the NAB but I have many versions of the Bible. I use the Jerome Bible Commentary. Although I have the Jerusalem Bible I don't often open it.

You must be Catholic, as you use the NAB and the Jerome Bible Commentary.

You might find the following interesting:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...

" Re: Who wrote the Jerome Bible Commentary?
This is an odd question. If you think it is an excellent commentary, you must have a copy or access to one. If so, it says who contributed to it right on the book.

I don't share your enthusiasm for this commentary, which I own. It is useful in some places, but it gets to be a chore plowing through the modernism and anti-supernaturalist prejudices of the editors."
__________

"Concur 1,000%. If you love Jesus and believe in Him, and trust in His sacred heart, this 'commentary' will only insult your faith, engender doubts about things long settled, and give you an education on pagan mythology that you were not seeking.

Stay pure, stay humble and credulous, and stay close to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
Reply With Quote"

"It's generally edited by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, and Roland Murphy. The inside articles are written by various authors.

That said, STAY AWAY FROM IT!!!!!!!! "

And here is an article called "Destroying the Bible" about the Jerome Biblical Commentary.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...

Since: Feb 09

1,140

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm getting a little tired of your insinuations. Quite honestly, if you had read the link you would know what I'm talking about. God forbid that you might just understand what I've said about the relational aspect of humans and God. And yes the Bible does have lessons in moral conduct. That is what I've been saying all along. In a matter of fact, I've said that is the message of the Bible. To judge someone is idolatry. And that is the sting that Paul set up in Romans. The Holiness Code is about setting Israel apart from other countries. We do not follow these rules of conduct anymore, unless you don't fit into the category of we. If you don't I expect you to follow every last one of the rules. The rules were to establish how Israel conducts themselves so that they stand apart from other nations. The rules, if you examine them is about the relational aspect of mankind with their God and themselves, as well as with other nations. That is all the prophets were about too. And the NT most certainly is about the "New Being" of Christ Jesus. And that, DustyShadow, was because the OT people just did not get it. Sounds as if you don't get it either.
The Old Time Religion is what existed in a time past. Literalist.

The rules were given to the Jews. When Jesus came, He said that He came to uphold the laws, with the exception of the rules of ritual. Many of those rules had to do with the sacrifices people had to make. Jesus became the ultimate, once and for all sacrifice, the blood of the Lamb. Now we do not have to follow those rules any more. Rules of conduct in our daily lives, however, still stand. As the rules regarding same-sex behavior are listed along with many other rules that we still uphold today, such as rules about incest, then I and many other Christians believe that they still stand.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

AquariusNSF wrote:

<quoted text>
No! I'm not wrong about the meaning of fornication (as originally written in scripture) I'm quite correct. Why would you think otherwise???????
What difference does it make whether or not any eunuchs had sex? They were NOT forbidden to regardless. I do know that in Daniel the eunuch, Ashpanez, feel in love with Daniel. And, he certainly did not mind it (and, it was good thing for him that he didn't). But, we do not know what kind of eunuch Ashpenaz was. So, it is unclear as to whether or not they actually had sex. But, what difference does it really make? Love is much more than just sex.

It all hinges on the true definition of fornication, which is expressly forbidden throughout the Bible.

Here is a very detailed thesis on the subject.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/docu...

I stand by my belief that fornication is any sex outside of marriage, including same-gender sex. God does not forbid love between any people. He does, however, forbid sex except between a man and a woman who are married to each other. To try to make fornication mean something else is one of those egregious sins I spoke of earlier.

Since: Feb 09

1,140

DustyShadow wrote:

<quoted text>
You must be Catholic, as you use the NAB and the Jerome Bible Commentary.
You might find the following interesting:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...
" Re: Who wrote the Jerome Bible Commentary?
This is an odd question. If you think it is an excellent commentary, you must have a copy or access to one. If so, it says who contributed to it right on the book.
I don't share your enthusiasm for this commentary, which I own. It is useful in some places, but it gets to be a chore plowing through the modernism and anti-supernaturalist prejudices of the editors."
__________
"Concur 1,000%. If you love Jesus and believe in Him, and trust in His sacred heart, this 'commentary' will only insult your faith, engender doubts about things long settled, and give you an education on pagan mythology that you were not seeking.
Stay pure, stay humble and credulous, and stay close to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.
Reply With Quote"
"It's generally edited by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, and Roland Murphy. The inside articles are written by various authors.
That said, STAY AWAY FROM IT!!!!!!!! "
And here is an article called "Destroying the Bible" about the Jerome Biblical Commentary.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...

I failed to give you the right link for "Destroying the Bible." Here it is:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DESTBIB....

Akfbks