Is Pro-gay OK for Church?

[S***@yahoo.com]

Sound off your opinion n my blog. I have been going to a very open
and
accepting liberal church where some people are openly gay. Do you
think
this is right or wrong? Drop by and express yourself.

www.SavvySingleChristian.blogspot.com

PS I am straight and find myself not agreeing.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <AswLk.2813$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
***@yahoo.com says...
>
>Sound off your opinion n my blog. I have been going to a very open
>and
>accepting liberal church where some people are openly gay. Do you
>think
>this is right or wrong? Drop by and express yourself.
>
>www.SavvySingleChristian.blogspot.com
>
>PS I am straight and find myself not agreeing.

I am glad that you disagree with them. After all, Paul was crystal clear:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual
perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers
will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1Co 6:9-10 RSVA)

It is only some translations, whose editors/publishers have caved in to pressure
from the "politically correct" that make this obscure, insisting on some
mistranslation of "sexual perverts" (Grk: MALAKOI OUTE ASENOKOITAI).

>
>

[A Browne]

>>Sound off your opinion n my blog. I have been going to a very open
>>and
>>accepting liberal church where some people are openly gay. Do you
>>think
>>this is right or wrong?
>>
>>
>>PS I am straight and find myself not agreeing.
>
> I am glad that you disagree with them. After all, Paul was crystal clear:
>
> Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
> Do not
> be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
> sexual
> perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
> robbers
> will inherit the kingdom of God.
> (1Co 6:9-10 RSVA)

So, yes, you can be gay, as long as you are not immorral, unrighteous, an
idolator, adulterer, pervert, theif, greedy, drunkard, revilers or robber.

A gay person can indeed be Christian as long as he stays away from these
things.

However, I don't think the poster was looking for responses, as much as she
wants people to go to her website.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Oct 21, 9:44=A0pm, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> Sound off your opinion n my blog. =A0I have been going to a very open
> and
> accepting liberal church where some people are openly gay. =A0Do you
> think
> this is right or wrong? =A0Drop by and express yourself.
>
> www.SavvySingleChristian.blogspot.com
>
> PS =A0I am straight and find myself not agreeing.

There is more to this than a simple yes or no. From a normal reading
of scripture, even a deeply exegetical exposition, homosexuality is
contrary to the forms established and revealed by God.

This life style is anything but "gay." Having worked in that
community
as far back at the late '60 in an Atlanta medical ward dealing with
men
who had something which only later came to called, AIDs, I've seen
first hand the deep unhappiness of that life style. Sure, sin has its
season of fun, we all know that. But it is a deception and it is in-
satiable. Just two months ago my wife's brother revealed his affair
with another man. It has eaten him up inside. So understand that
to attend an assembly that is so accepting of this life style, will
suffer the same as illustrated repeatedly by the OT account of
Israel. That when it ran off and played with physical adultery, it
in turn led to spiritual adultery. This IS the chronology of events
unless repentance is sought. Rom 1:24, 26, 28 "gave them
over" is flow of occurrence when sinfulness is not dealt with,
both corporately as well as individually.

Personally, I would not attend such an assembly because it is
obviously unconcerned with the Biblical teaching, God's own
revelation on the subject. I would not attend and have indeed
chosen to leave assemblies where an elder or a pastor was
living in unconfessed sin (adultery).

The question you must ask yourself is what Paul exhorts in
2 Cor 13:5. No one but you can answer it. My prayer for you
is verses 7 and 8.

[shegeek72]

On Oct 23, 7:50 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

> There is more to this than a simple yes or no. From a normal reading
> of scripture, even a deeply exegetical exposition, homosexuality is
> contrary to the forms established and revealed by God.

It is not clear this is so. Though yours is a deep-seated belief, when
reading the Bible where 'homosexual' is used the most likely
interpretation is homosexual rape (of captors by their enemies) and
prostitution (in churches), not today's loving, longterm
relationships.

> This life style is anything but "gay." Having worked in that
> community
> as far back at the late '60 in an Atlanta medical ward dealing with
> men
> who had something which only later came to called, AIDs, I've seen
> first hand the deep unhappiness of that life style.

AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease that currently affects more
heterosexuals than gays.

As for unhappiness, I regularly attend an affirming church where the
congregation shares their experiences and the overwhelming unhappiness
is at the hands of disapproving parents and churches. Lives have
literally been ruined by these homophobes. Being gay is no more a
lifestyle than being heterosexual.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 3, 8:08=A0pm, shegeek72 <***@2die4.com> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 7:50 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > There is more to this than a simple yes or no. =A0From a normal reading
> > of scripture, even a deeply exegetical exposition, homosexuality is
> > contrary to the forms established and revealed by God.
>
> It is not clear this is so.
>
It is not clear to two types of people. 1) those who have not
the Spirit, i.e. remain in their sins. 2) those who have the Spirit
but yet live in sin. After Pentecost, those who have been
regenerated by the Spirit, have the Spirit indwelling them and
offering what Christ employed, leading and illumination. In
Lk 2:52 (?) it states that Jesus "grew in stature and wisdom."
In Phil 2, it states that Christ cloaked His divine consciousness
by humbling Himself to be tested in every way even as we.
That means that He experiences chronology. We are called
to have the same mind as Christ, one that yields to the Spirit
and follows His leading. But the sinning believer clouds or
eclipses the Spirit's offer. To live in sin is to live in darkness.
This is why you, personally, do not understand Rom 1 or
other clearly taught passages.

What is clear is that God did not create them Adam and
Steve. He did not create humanity such that procreation
could be achieved by natural means other than the male/
female union. It is clear from the opening pages of scripture
that there is both an order and a prescription. The order is
that woman is placed under the male and that marriage,
as accepted by God, is between one man and one woman.

>
>Though yours is a deep-seated belief,
>
based on verifiable evidence. If you have no sure
means to know True Truth, that is God's sovereign
will, then you are truly lost. Like qqquito, you
reveal the fact that you presume that words can
exactly convey your thoughts and reasonings by
this reply. It is not hard to read what you've
written to gain an adequate understanding of
what you mean to express. Why then would you
place God in a box by espousing that what He
expresses in vague and open to interpretation?
Is His arm too short to inspire His appointed
writers to write what He intends to express? And
is HIs arm also too short to have what is written
to be plainly understood? Certainly there are
"hard sayings" in scripture. One has to drill and
mine deep for gold and precious stone. He
rewards those who take the time and put forth
the effort to know His will rather than look for
some way of buttressing their already preconceived
notions.
>
> when
> reading the Bible where 'homosexual' is used the most likely
> interpretation is homosexual rape (of captors by their enemies) and
> prostitution (in churches), not today's loving, longterm
> relationships.
>
Revisionism. I have several very lengthy scholarly inquisitions
into the very opposition that you have raised. I have asked you
repeatedly to search back through old posts here in SRC where
they have been posted. One of these posts is 20 pages long,
["Source of arsenokoitai"] exploring each word and the key
homosexual apologists and their arguments. It is quite complete
and sufficient in answering your objections. But even faced
with all the necessary expositional evidences, it will have no
effect on you or your belief system because you have closed
the door.
>
> > This life style is anything but "gay." =A0Having worked in that
> > community
> > as far back at the late '60 in an Atlanta medical ward dealing with
> > men
> > who had something which only later came to called, AIDs, I've seen
> > first hand the deep unhappiness of that life style.
>
> AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease that currently affects more
> heterosexuals than gays.
>
It does not affect husband/wife heterosexuals who remain in God's
will, waiting until they are married and then "drinking only from
their
own cistern."

Besides, your point is moot.
>
> As for unhappiness, I regularly attend an affirming church where the
> congregation shares their experiences and the overwhelming unhappiness
> is at the hands of disapproving parents and churches. Lives have
> literally been ruined by these homophobes. Being gay is no more a
> lifestyle than being heterosexual.
>
You think we ruin your party! Good lord child, what until you have
to stand in front of God. "And every mouth will be stopped!" "For
they are without excuse!" WHy are they without excuse, because
God's will has been clearly revealed and yet you refuse to abide.

Is it worth it? Is it worth it to live in your own chosen lifestyle
for
a few miserable years all the while laying up for yourself an eternity
of whoa, darkness, torment and destruction? Have you no
conscience left you to recognize your stubborness?

[shegeek72]

On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

You hold an old-school, fundamentalist flavor of Christianity and are
obviously set in your ways and will not be swayed by another
viewpoint. That's sad, as it can lead to unhappiness, depression and
even murder/suicide of your GLBT brothers and sisters.

> > It is not clear this is so.
>
> It is not clear to two types of people. 1) those who have not
> the Spirit, i.e. remain in their sins. 2) those who have the Spirit
> but yet live in sin.

Who are you to judge or discern who is in the Spirit? Perhaps you need
to re-read Christ's admonishment of those "living in glass houses."

> What is clear is that God did not create them Adam and
> Steve.

We're not even sure God created Adam and Eve (literally), since the
story in Genesis is, in essence, a folk tale written in terms that the
Israelites could understand.

> He did not create humanity such that procreation
> could be achieved by natural means other than the male/
> female union.

And look what this procreation has created: over-population and
starvation.

> The order is
> that woman is placed under the male and that marriage,
> as accepted by God, is between one man and one woman.

Of course, males are superior to females! And this has lead to
thousands of years of suppression and oppression of women.

> >Though yours is a deep-seated belief,
>
> based on verifiable evidence.

No, it is not verifiable. It's based on the interpretation of the
original Greek and Hebrew, which there isn't agreement on.

> > when
> > reading the Bible where 'homosexual' is used the most likely
> > interpretation is homosexual rape (of captors by their enemies) and
> > prostitution (in churches), not today's loving, longterm
> > relationships.
>
> Revisionism. I have several very lengthy scholarly inquisitions
> into the very opposition that you have raised.

And I have read them, but do not agree. However, we DO know that there
was homosexual rape of captor's enemies and homosexual prostitution in
churches.

> > AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease that currently affects more
> > heterosexuals than gays.
>
> It does not affect husband/wife heterosexuals who remain in God's
> will, waiting until they are married and then "drinking only from
> their
> own cistern."

It does effect a husband/wife if one, or both, are intravenous drug
users.

> > As for unhappiness, I regularly attend an affirming church where the
> > congregation shares their experiences and the overwhelming unhappiness
> > is at the hands of disapproving parents and churches. Lives have
> > literally been ruined by these homophobes. Being gay is no more a
> > lifestyle than being heterosexual.
>
> You think we ruin your party!

Absolutely!

If you could see the tears, the pain and suffering that GLBT people go
through at the hands of Christians, and misguided Christian teachings,
perhaps you'd have a change of heart.

> Is it worth it? Is it worth it to live in your own chosen lifestyle
> for
> a few miserable years all the while laying up for yourself an eternity
> of whoa, darkness, torment and destruction? Have you no
> conscience left you to recognize your stubborness?

Miserable? Hardly. I've never been happier since I met my partner.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 5, 8:13=A0pm, shegeek72 <***@2die4.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You hold an old-school, fundamentalist flavor of Christianity and are
> obviously set in your ways and will not be swayed by another
> viewpoint.

You presumptive thought here is that to be such, I am ignorant and
that God's truth changes over time. Look, I've never made the
claim that fundamentalism (do you even know what that is?) is
inerrant. No system of theology is. However, based upon the
normative, the historic/grammatic interpretation of God's revealed
Word, it best understands and interprets. How can one be so
bold to make this assertion? The same way one recognizes what
is false- either it works consistently with what is or it does not.

On the other hand, your system of "truth" can't even get beyond
being consistent biologically, let alone theologically. Nature itself
denies your view of the world. As I have often illustrated, put
a man and a woman on an island and come back 100 years later
and what can you expect to find? A family. But put two men or
two women on that same island and you will only come back to
an empty island. It does not conform to the universe which was
designed by God.

> That's sad, as it can lead to unhappiness, depression and
> even murder/suicide of your GLBT brothers and sisters.
>
The greatest part of humanity is going to end up unhappy,
depressed, dead in their sins for all eternity because, like you,
they have denied and refused the Truth given. God holds
people accountable because He created them responsible.
If you wish to cry in your beer, then do so before God. He
is the one you are arguing with, not me.
>
> > > It is not clear this is so.
>
> > It is not clear to two types of people. =A01) those who have not
> > the Spirit, i.e. remain in their sins. =A02) those who have the Spirit
> > but yet live in sin.
>
> Who are you to judge or discern who is in the Spirit? Perhaps you need
> to re-read Christ's admonishment of those "living in glass houses."
>
Judging and discerning are two different motifs. I don't judge you-
God does. Those who are spiritual are called to discern and to
exhort. Paul cast out of the assembly and turn the man over to
Satan to be rebuffed for his sexual sin. Elders are directly called
to discern the health and well being of fellow believers and further,
to test the spirits. Just because you don't like what you read, don't
go off half crocked defending your chosen actions by shooting
the one who stands by God's word without revision.
>
> > What is clear is that God did not create them Adam and
> > Steve.
>
> We're not even sure God created Adam and Eve (literally), since the
> story in Genesis is, in essence, a folk tale written in terms that the
> Israelites could understand.
>
Then you don't believe in GOD, capital G and you don't believe
in the inSpiration of scripture. My bibles states that ALL scripture
is the living word of God. And that God in unity, His word is
unchanging. He doesn't speak to us in riddles so that the wise
among us can figure it out but the simpletons are left to wallow
in the mire. He revealed HImself and His will and design for His
creation such that it could be understood. Jesus interpreted the
historical texts of the Hebrew canon literally. Paul clearly believed
and taught that Adam was real and that he was special in being
the head, the genesis of the human race. His argumentation
falters when you play lucy-goosy with opening chapters of Gen
even from the opening chapter.
>
> > He did not create humanity such that procreation
> > could be achieved by natural means other than the male/
> > female union.
>
> And look what this procreation has created: over-population and
> starvation.
>
You're still not giving answer to the proposition set before you.
You think this is football in which you can call an audible or
run an end around? You will, like all others, have to give an
account for your handling of His gift, the Word of God.
>
> > The order is
> > that woman is placed under the male and that marriage,
> > as accepted by God, is between one man and one woman.
>
> Of course, males are superior to females! And this has lead to
> thousands of years of suppression and oppression of women.
>
After the fall. See how you twist everything just to pretend that
you have a defense?
>
> > >Though yours is a deep-seated belief,
>
> > based on verifiable evidence.
>
> No, it is not verifiable. It's based on the interpretation of the
> original Greek and Hebrew, which there isn't agreement on.
>
That's why it's called the Majority Text. No, we don't have the
original autographs and for good reason. Because just like what
the RCchurch has historically exhibited so brazenly, if we did
have the original manuscripts, they would be worshipped and
enshrined instead of read and obeyed.

It is verifiable because the paradigm is that scripture and scripture
alone interprets scripture. NO doctrine is put forth that does not
reconcile itself to the whole of scripture. Nor does any doctrine
have to condescend into some allegorical mumbo-jumbo in
order to remain consistent with itself. You raise such an
objection because you either don't have the Spirit or you
refuse to listen to Him.
>
> > > when
> > > reading the Bible where 'homosexual' is used the most likely
> > > interpretation is homosexual rape (of captors by their enemies) and
> > > prostitution (in churches), not today's loving, longterm
> > > relationships.
>
> > Revisionism. =A0I have several very lengthy scholarly inquisitions
> > into the very opposition that you have raised.
>
> And I have read them, but do not agree.
>
Then you didn't read them carefully, IF indeed you read them.
>
> However, we DO know that there was homosexual rape of captor's enemies
>
What does that have anything to do with this discussion?
>
>and homosexual prostitution in churches.
>
??? Where do you come up with this? What "churches?" and
when?
>
> > > AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease that currently affects more
> > > heterosexuals than gays.
>
> > It does not affect husband/wife heterosexuals who remain in God's
> > will, waiting until they are married and then "drinking only from
> > their
> > own cistern."
>
> It does effect a husband/wife if one, or both, are intravenous drug
> users.
>
Again, you have to step outside of the bounds of the argument to
give answer. Just like my illustration above about the island, if
malaria was on the island, then, yes, the illustration fails. But
we are talking about design principles. Designs divinely established.
You are dishonest in your answers.
>
> > > As for unhappiness, I regularly attend an affirming church where the
> > > congregation shares their experiences and the overwhelming unhappines=
s
> > > is at the hands of disapproving parents and churches. Lives have
> > > literally been ruined by these homophobes. Being gay is no more a
> > > lifestyle than being heterosexual.
>
> > You think we ruin your party!
>
> Absolutely!
>
> If you could see the tears, the pain and suffering that GLBT people go
> through at the hands of Christians, and misguided Christian teachings,
> perhaps you'd have a change of heart.
>
Why did you snip the rest of what was written without including
a "SNIP"? People suffer all the time. But when that suffering is
because they are stupidly and stubbornly disobedient, who's
fault is that? Your logic is that it is really the employers fault
when he fires his employee for stealing. "Oh but he has a
wife and kids at home." The answer is, "Well he should have
taken responsibility for that family and not have stolen that
which did not belong to him."
>
> > Is it worth it? =A0Is it worth it to live in your own chosen lifestyle
> > for
> > a few miserable years all the while laying up for yourself an eternity
> > of whoa, darkness, torment and destruction? =A0Have you no
> > conscience left you to recognize your stubborness?
>
> Miserable? Hardly. I've never been happier since I met my partner.
>
Sin is pleasurable for a season. No one denies that. But sin is
the great deceiver. It has that worm dangling out on that hook
and it looks so inviting promises to be so satisfying and then
BAM, you're hooked and brought into the dragnet.

[A Browne]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SPNQk.3414$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 5, 8:13=A0pm, shegeek72 <***@2die4.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> You hold an old-school, fundamentalist flavor of Christianity and are
>> obviously set in your ways and will not be swayed by another
>> viewpoint.
>
> You presumptive thought here is that to be such, I am ignorant and
> that God's truth changes over time.

No, but OUR understanding of God's truth does change.

There was a time when it was thought that anyone with a mental disorder or
epilepsy was a result of being posessed.

> Look, I've never made the
> claim that fundamentalism (do you even know what that is?) is
> inerrant. No system of theology is. However, based upon the
> normative, the historic/grammatic interpretation of God's revealed
> Word, it best understands and interprets. How can one be so
> bold to make this assertion? The same way one recognizes what
> is false- either it works consistently with what is or it does not.

You are certainly free to decide what is false in your quest and walk with
God.

You are not free to impose that on others....who may 'recognize' God's truth
differently.

> On the other hand, your system of "truth" can't even get beyond
> being consistent biologically, let alone theologically. Nature itself
> denies your view of the world. As I have often illustrated, put
> a man and a woman on an island and come back 100 years later
> and what can you expect to find? A family. But put two men or
> two women on that same island and you will only come back to
> an empty island. It does not conform to the universe which was
> designed by God.

This analogy would hold water if gay people were trying to convert the world
to homosexuality as the only way. You're right, the generations would not
continue. But gay people are not trying to recruit anyone.

There are lots of people in the world. There are hetero people who are
never called to marry. There are hetero people who are not able to have
children. What do we make of them?

Do we tell them that "nature denies their view of the world"? It's just
the way it is....and people do their best to serve their God. Do we tell
them that their life is any less? Of course not.

>> That's sad, as it can lead to unhappiness, depression and
>> even murder/suicide of your GLBT brothers and sisters.

You have tried to make this point before This is not based in fact.

Unless of course you want to consider what happens when people shun gay
folks, or do them violence. I recall people used to shun anyone simply
divorced. After all, "thats not the way God intended it, is it"?

> The greatest part of humanity is going to end up unhappy,
> depressed, dead in their sins for all eternity because, like you,
> they have denied and refused the Truth given.

Wow. We're back to the idea that "the sins of others are more severe and
offensive to God than my own sins". In response, I would say that your
thinking is falling to vanity, which is the basis of all sin. It's amazing
that you would give in to your vanity (a sin) to point out sins of another.

Matthew 7

4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,'
when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first
take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove
the speck from your brother's eye.

> If you wish to cry in your beer, then do so before God. He
> is the one you are arguing with, not me.

So, your voice is God's? A little presumptious.

God is not arguing with me. He loves me and accepts me.

> I don't judge you-
> God does.

And God is happy with me....and loves me and accepts me.

> Paul cast out of the assembly and turn the man over to
> Satan to be rebuffed for his sexual sin.

Once again...sexual sins are not the sole province of gay people.

> Elders are directly called
> to discern the health and well being of fellow believers and further,
> to test the spirits.

You are not my elder. I am in good standing with my elders.

> Just because you don't like what you read, don't
> go off half crocked defending your chosen actions by shooting
> the one who stands by God's word without revision.

If you stand by God's word without revision, then you should not eat
shellfish, because God considers that an abomination. (Leviticus.)

> Then you don't believe in GOD, capital G and you don't believe
> in the inSpiration of scripture.

Another bold assumption.

However, many churches read the scriptures contextually....not literally.

>> > He did not create humanity such that procreation
>> > could be achieved by natural means other than the male/
>> > female union.

Some people (yes, even heteros) are not called to procreate.

People who marry after menopause are not called to procreate either.

Are they any less in God's eyes?

> After the fall. See how you twist everything just to pretend that
> you have a defense?

I am amazed at how you have twisted God's word.

>> > > AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease that currently affects more
>> > > heterosexuals than gays.
>>
>> > It does not affect husband/wife heterosexuals who remain in God's
>> > will, waiting until they are married and then "drinking only from
>> > their
>> > own cistern."

Nor does it affect man/man or woman/woman homosexuals who remain in God's
will, waiting until they are married and "drinking from their own cistern".

It doesn't affect them either.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <zkLRk.443$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, A Browne says...
>

[snip]

>No, but OUR understanding of God's truth does change.

Or, as in your case, misunderstanding of God's truth.

>There was a time when it was thought that anyone with a mental disorder or
>epilepsy was a result of being posessed.

And that was back in the days when such people were actually healed by miracle
workers. But if they had had YOUR "misunderstanidng of God's truth", they would
have been capable of NO miracles.

[snip]

>You are certainly free to decide what is false in your quest and walk with
>God.

No, he is not, and neither are you. The Scriptures are quite clear about this.
Rather than describing your ILLUSORY freedom, we are warned:

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways
of death.
(Pro 14:12 JPS)

That is the way you are on, the way that you are so ardently defending.

[snip]

>I am amazed at how you have twisted God's word.

Don't be. Your way of twisting it is far more amazing.

>>> > It does not affect husband/wife heterosexuals who remain in God's
>>> > will, waiting until they are married and then "drinking only from
>>> > their
>>> > own cistern."
>
>Nor does it affect man/man or woman/woman homosexuals who remain in God's
>will, waiting until they are married and "drinking from their own cistern".
>

This is a perfect example of how crudely and violently you twist the words of
Scripture! You praise "contextual reading" above, but you REFUSE to practice
yourself here!

The "own cistern" Scripture refers to in the Proverb is that of marriage, which
throughout Scripture is between a man and a woman. Once you prate about a
homosexual man 'married' to another man as "driking form their own cistern", you
are twisting Scripture shamefully.

You will not escape punishment from God for such evil words. And you won't even
fool many in this newsgroup, since your twisting is TOO obvious, too 'amazing'.

[Concerned Nudist]

"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message
news:uH6Sk.646

> Or, as in your case, misunderstanding of God's truth.
...
> You will not escape punishment from God for such evil words. And you won't
> even
> fool many in this newsgroup, since your twisting is TOO obvious, too
> 'amazing'.

Is all you want to do is talk about me...?

Or do you actually have some real discussion to offer.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 9, 6:34=A0pm, "A Browne" <***@mailandnews..com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> This analogy would hold water if gay people were trying to convert the wo=
rld
> to homosexuality as the only way. =A0You're right, the generations would =
not
> continue. =A0But gay people are not trying to recruit anyone.
>
Sigh! A BIG sigh! Either you are completely daft or you are
completely
dishonest. What about that grade school teacher that had her class
taken
to her gay wedding? That isn't indoctrination and seeking acceptance?
Just today it was reported about the kindergarten teacher who had her
kids sign very adult worded petitions for accepting gays in their
school.
It very much is about conversion. These "gay pride" parade's are all
about putting it out there. Fifty years ago sodomy was in the closet
and
very very few heterosexuals ever even considered the homosexual
experience let alone lifestyle. Now it is so in your face that it is
portrayed
as normal. This is nothing less than indoctrination of a society.
Don't
"recruit"! Get real.
>
> There are lots of people in the world. =A0There are hetero people who are
> never called to marry. =A0 =A0There are hetero people who are not able to=
have
> children. =A0What do we make of them?
>
God treats us as individuals and yet still maintains absolute
standards.
You seems to make no account of the fall of man.

Why don't we get back to the original argument which no one has
yet given reply to. God's original design was one man and one
woman. Not only do we have Scripture to testify to that but we also
have nature itself. God created man such that he needed a woman
to procreate. That design has not been circumvented even today. But
the fall brought in all sorts of perversions to the original intent.
THis
is the nature of rebellion.

The major issue here isn't that I or anyone else stands opposed to
homosexuality. The major issue is that you and others refuse to
accept the clear teaching that God condemns it. In fact,
homosexuality
is a sign of a people who have generations earlier committed spiritual
adultery. The internal depravity always precedes the external. Homo-
sexuality is just one of a handful of external evidences that God has
begun He release of restraint on our society, if not the world.
>
SNIP

> > The greatest part of humanity is going to end up unhappy,
> > depressed, dead in their sins for all eternity because, like you,
> > they have denied and refused the Truth given.
>
> Wow. =A0We're back to the idea that "the sins of others are more severe a=
nd
> offensive to God than my own sins". =A0
>
I'm sorry, but you are overstating the true nature of the case. You,
in
fact, are being presumptive in your conclusions. Be that as it may,
the question I ponder is can one truly be saved/regenerated, having
the Spirit, having the new disposition and orientation, and still not
only
practice a known sin, but advocate it while denying that it is indeed,
by God's own word, SIN?

Except for Harold and Donna, I don't recall anyone here ever
presuming they had attained to perfectionism. But that does not
equate to say that admitting sin in one's life is on the same
plain as those who commit sin but deny it's sin. I admit I'm a
sinner which means that I admit those things I do are indeed,
contrary to the will of God. You on the other hand, advocate
via revisionism, that your sin is not actually sin. Rom 1:32.
The reason you deny the sinfulness of your sin is expressed
throughout scripture. Rom 1:21 is but one verse:

"they became futile in their speculations and their foolish
heart was darkened."

Light refused only leads one into deeper darkness.
>
> In response, I would say that your
> thinking is falling to vanity, which is the basis of all sin. =A0It's ama=
zing
> that you would give in to your vanity (a sin) to point out sins of anothe=
r.
>
1 Tim. 6:3 If anyone advocates a different [another of a different
kind] doctrine, and does not agree [consent] with sound [healthy]
words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine
[teaching] conforming to godliness, [proper attitude toward God]
1 Tim. 6:4 he is conceit*ed* [finished work of pride] and understands
nothing [devoid of knowledge; unable to reflect]; but he has a morbid
[sick] interest in controversial questions and disputes about [strife;
waring of words] words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive
language, evil suspicions,
1 Tim. 6:5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and
deprived [once possessing the truth but have disinherited themselves
from it] of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.


>
> Matthew 7
>
> 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,=
'
> when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first
> take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remo=
ve
> the speck from your brother's eye.
>
You illustrate your lack of care in exegesis and application. Look
at
the context. "judge." Judging and discerning are two entirely
different
actions with two entirely different intents. I don't judge because I
am
not The Judge. I leave that up to God. However, I would be
unfaithful
to the Word if having it I did not teach it to those who either don't
know
it or dismiss it. "profitable for teaching [what is right], for
reproof [what
is not right], for correction [how to get right], for training [how to
stay
right] in righteousness."

"Am I my brother's keeper?" The answer is so obvious that it does
not require answering.
>
> > If you wish to cry in your beer, then do so before God. =A0He
> > is the one you are arguing with, not me.
>
> So, your voice is God's? =A0 A little presumptious.
>
As it conforms to the principles revealed in Scripture, you bet
it is. "Prophet" primarily is forthtelling, not foretelling. We
are to tell forth the revealed will of God. Hardly "presumptious"
[sic].
>
> God is not arguing with me. =A0He loves me and accepts me.
>
God's love is not like human, especially fallen man's love. His
love does not operate independent of His other attributes. In
fact, the governing attribute is "Holy, Holy, Holy, LORD God
Almighty." The beauty of God's love is that it is a holy
love. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue [present
subjunctive: habitual sin/ lifestyle sin] in sin [definite article
pointing back to 5:21; i.e. old sin nature] that grace might
increase? MAY IT NEVER BE!"
>
> > I don't judge you-
> > God does.
>
> And God is happy with me....and loves me and accepts me.
>
Then your god is not the God of the bible, as God has revealed
Himself to be and His will for His creation. John wrote that
God is love, not love is god, as if it circumscribed Him. He
is a unity. His love does not stand alone let alone over Him
or His other attributes.
>
> > =A0Paul cast out of the assembly and turn the man over to
> > Satan to be rebuffed for his sexual sin.
>
> Once again...sexual sins are not the sole province of gay people.
>
That was not the point of the illustration. If you can't follow
an argument in the context given, then it would be more honest
of you to refrain from replying. Paul clearly passed a judgment
on that man because of his sexual sin. The purity of the
assembly is paramount. Achan (Gen 7) translated means
"trouble." "Remove the things under the ban from your
midst." Practicing and advocating homosexuality is clearly
ban from the assemblies in the NT.
>
> > Elders are directly called
> > to discern the health and well being of fellow believers and further,
> > to test the spirits.
>
> You are not my elder. =A0I am in good standing with my elders.
>
2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure [holding
themselves firmly against] [the] sound doctrine; but wanting to have
their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in
accordance to [being dominated by] their own desires [personal
cravings];
2 Tim. 4:4 and will [as a result] turn away their ears from the truth,
and will turn aside to myths.

but all of this is prefaced with:

2 Tim. 4:1 I solemnly charge you [with the responsibility of caring
for the church] in the presence [enopion, "in the sight of] of God
even Christ Jesus, who is to [shall indeed] judge the living and the
dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
2 Tim. 4:2 preach [kerusso, formal, authoritative proclaimation to be
accompanied with respect & careful attention] the word; be ready in
season and out of season; reprove, rebuke [severe], exhort [gentle
pleading], [all with confession & repentance with conviction as the
goal, returning to the revealed will of God] with great patience and
instruction.


> > Just because you don't like what you read, don't
> > go off half crocked defending your chosen actions by shooting
> > the one who stands by God's word without revision.
>
> If you stand by God's word without revision, then you should not eat
> shellfish, because God considers that an abomination. (Leviticus.)
>
A broken record. I already deflected this wayward dart in an earlier
post.
>
> > Then you don't believe in GOD, capital G and you don't believe
> > in the inSpiration of scripture.
>
> Another bold assumption.
>
> However, many churches read the scriptures contextually....not literally.
>
1. Context is not antithetical to literalism
2. You don't know what literalism. i.e. historic/grammatic
hermeneutics
teaches
>
> >> > He did not create humanity such that procreation
> >> > could be achieved by natural means other than the male/
> >> > female union.
>
> Some people (yes, even heteros) are not called to procreate.
>
> People who marry after menopause are not called to procreate either.
>
Are we suppose to close both eyes? Were is the logic in your
counter point? Original design. Even beyond that, you completely
overlook the required dynamic -one male, one female. That is
the design. That is and was the original intent. Homosexuality
defies that design. In that it does not conform to the construct
of the universe, it is contrary to God who designed and created
the universe as it is.
>
> > After the fall. =A0See how you twist everything just to pretend that
> > you have a defense?
>
> I am amazed at how you have twisted God's word.
>
THAT? That is the best you can do? That is a substantiating
rebuttal to the point? You are not serious in your desire to
know truth, to be in the will of God.
>
> >> > > AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease that currently affects more
> >> > > heterosexuals than gays.
>
> >> > It does not affect husband/wife heterosexuals who remain in God's
> >> > will, waiting until they are married and then "drinking only from
> >> > their
> >> > own cistern."
>
> Nor does it affect man/man or woman/woman homosexuals who remain in God's
> will, waiting until they are married and "drinking from their own cistern=
".
>
> It doesn't affect them either.
>
But if this is the strict nature of the union, then the paradigm dies
of its own accord because it CANNOT procreate.

But it is not the true nature of homosexual "unions." Men, as should
be
expected, have hundreds if not thousands of partners. There are 5
lesbian couples were I work. In the last five years they have all
traded
in their original partner and moved on to another. Studies have long
supported my numbers for average homosexual men. Chain gang
takes on an entire new meaning.

[R Palino]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vH6Sk.649$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 9, 6:34=A0pm, "A Browne" <***@mailandnews..com> wrote:
> SNIP
>>
>> This analogy would hold water if gay people were trying to convert the
>> wo=
> rld
>> to homosexuality as the only way. =A0You're right, the generations would
>> =
> not
>> continue. =A0But gay people are not trying to recruit anyone.
>>
> Sigh! A BIG sigh! Either you are completely daft or you are
> completely
> dishonest.

recruiting?

....when was the last time anyone asked you to leave your spouse and become
gay?

no one has ever asked me to do that....but simply to let them live their
life and serve God as best they can....

i haven't seen any 'recruiting stations' around lately.....but then again,
maybe those "Uncle Sam wants YOU" signs had more to them than I
thought.....

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 12, 10:30=A0pm, R Palino <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> ....when was the last time anyone asked you to leave your spouse and beco=
me
> gay?
>
Last time? Don't remember. But I certainly remember the first time,
though I wasn't married at the time (he was) but decidedly engaged
as he well knew.
>
> no one has ever asked me to do that....but simply to let them live their
> life and serve God as best they can....
>
Well then will just have to concluded that we've had different
experiences. Even when working in what later came under the
banner, "Exodus," I received "come-ons". That was mid or
late 70's. That was the last time that I was personally involved
in either ministry or working as a ward volunteer.
>
> i haven't seen any 'recruiting stations' around lately.....but then again=
,
> maybe those =A0"Uncle Sam wants YOU" =A0signs had more to them than I
> thought.....
>
Box a week in the wrong hotel in the keys and see for yourself
the recruiting that goes on. BTDT

[Charlie Horse1]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kn6Tk.1267$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 12, 10:30=A0pm, R Palino <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ....when was the last time anyone asked you to leave your spouse and
>> beco=
> me
>> gay?
>>
> Last time? Don't remember. But I certainly remember the first time,
> though I wasn't married at the time (he was) but decidedly engaged
> as he well knew.

Didn't work, did it? You can't "make people gay".

>> no one has ever asked me to do that....but simply to let them live their
>> life and serve God as best they can....
>>
> Well then will just have to concluded that we've had different
> experiences. Even when working in what later came under the
> banner, "Exodus," I received "come-ons". That was mid or
> late 70's. That was the last time that I was personally involved
> in either ministry or working as a ward volunteer.

And it didn't work, did it? You can't "make" people gay.

>> i haven't seen any 'recruiting stations' around lately.....but then
>> again=
> ,
>> maybe those =A0"Uncle Sam wants YOU" =A0signs had more to them than I
>> thought.....
>>
> Box a week in the wrong hotel in the keys and see for yourself
> the recruiting that goes on. BTDT

ANd it wouldn't work...because you can't "make people gay".

>> Even when working in what later came under the
> banner, "Exodus," I received "come-ons".

That should show you that Exodus has an abysmal tarck record...and is not
sucessful in changing people.

You can't make people gay, and you can't make gay people straight.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, Charlie Horse1 <***@attbi.com> wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Kn6Tk.1267$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:30=3DA0pm, R Palino <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ....when was the last time anyone asked you to leave your spouse and
> >> beco=3D
> > me
> >> gay?
>
> > Last time? =A0Don't remember. =A0But I certainly remember the first tim=
e,
> > though I wasn't married at the time (he was) but decidedly engaged
> > as he well knew.
>
> Didn't work, did it? =A0You can't "make people gay".
>
You would have a hard time convincing my sister of that when
after being dumped by her boyfriend, her girlfriend seduced her and
for a brief time, she tried that lifestyle. I personally know about
six different parents who went through this same experience. Two
of them have children who are still active in that lifestyle while the
rest renounced it, struggled with a severe guilt over it but
eventually
married and are raising families.
>
> SNIP
>
> >> Even when working in what later came under the
> > banner, "Exodus," =A0I received "come-ons".
>
> That should show you that Exodus has an abysmal tarck record..
>
Exodus hasn't been as successful as others but I think you are
selfserving classifying it as "abysmal."
>
>and is not
> sucessful in changing people.
>
My auntie is nearing the end of her 70th year. She was
once an alcoholic. But since the mid 1970's, she hasn't
had a drop. Does she miss it? The life style and damage it
strewn through her family? No. But often she has confessed
that she has never lost her taste for it.

You are poor in your definition. Not successful in completely
eradicating the appetite? If that is what you meant to say,
then, 100%, in every case, of course not. But by the grace
of God, there are some who lose it entirely. Many are the
testimonies that speak of having this propensity or that being
completely lost upon conversion. Personally I stopped
swearing. We were talking of this just this past Sunday in
class, one stating she had quite smoking, another drinking.
If you had ever gone to a Promise Keepers seminar, you
would have heard many who had given up an adulterous
relationship upon salvation. Do many still struggle with
pornography after salvation? Many. However, that is because
the churches are either lax or uneducated in the biblical
principle of mortification of the flesh.

"You have not because you ask not and when you do
ask, you ask self servingly."
>
> You can't make people gay, and you can't make gay people straight.
>
Again, this a moral issue, not a race issue. People can and do
chose to either homosexual or straight. Most are oriented to the
heterosexual model because it is the original design. Why should
that surprise anyone?

[A. Nona Muss]

>> Didn't work, did it? =A0You can't "make people gay".
>>
> You would have a hard time convincing my sister of that when
> after being dumped by her boyfriend, her girlfriend seduced her and
> for a brief time, she tried that lifestyle.

And....did it take? Did she "turn gay"? I am guessing not.

> I personally know about
> six different parents who went through this same experience. Two
> of them have children who are still active in that lifestyle while the
> rest renounced it..

However, you are putting them all on the same playing field, which they are
not.

>> >> Even when working in what later came under the
>> > banner, "Exodus," =A0I received "come-ons".
>>
>> That should show you that Exodus has an abysmal tarck record..
>>
> Exodus hasn't been as successful as others but I think you are
> selfserving classifying it as "abysmal."

Not self-serving at all. Just based on fact.

Notice Exodus and others do not release any information about their track
record?

>>and is not
>> sucessful in changing people.
>>
> My auntie is nearing the end of her 70th year. She was
> once an alcoholic.

You're comparing sexual orientation with a pathology...and it is not.

>> You can't make people gay, and you can't make gay people straight.
>>
> Again, this a moral issue, not a race issue. People can and do
> chose to either homosexual or straight.

Wrong. Please cite an unbias source.

Facts are stubborn things.

You are like the Pharisees that put a heavy burden on people you know very
little about.

Most of your "understanding" of this issue comes from some very negative
experiences.


It reminds me of diabetes, if your only experience with the subject of
diabetes is people who ahve lost limb, or eyesight, or stroke, etc...then
your image of diabetes may be that it's a death sentence. If you have met
diabetics who run marathongs, hold down high-pressure jobs, anchor tv
shows....then your concept of diabetes would be very different.

It appears your world of gay people consists of come-ons from prostitutes, a
brother in law that is breaking his marriage vows, and parents you know who
have heartache because there child did not turn out the way they expected.

Now, you go find Bible verses that support that viewpoint.

[Concerned Nudist]

>> This analogy would hold water if gay people were trying to convert the
>> wo=
> rld
>> to homosexuality as the only way. =A0You're right, the generations would
>> =
> not
>> continue. =A0But gay people are not trying to recruit anyone.
>>
> Sigh! A BIG sigh! Either you are completely daft or you are
> completely
> dishonest. What about that grade school teacher that had her class
> taken
> to her gay wedding?

Neither daft...nor dishonest. Gay people aren't trying to make other
people "turn gay".
If this is what you believe then you are dealing with this whole discussion
is a realm of paranoia.

While I wouldn't agree with the decision, unless the parents approved, the
teacher invited the student to her own wedding.

It was done with the parents approval. Did the parent want all their kids
to turn gay?

Don't be ridiculous.

>> That isn't indoctrination and seeking acceptance?

Acceptance is one thing. However, no one is trying to 'recruit' anyone to
the gay life.

> Fifty years ago sodomy was in the closet
> and
> very very few heterosexuals...

#1. Not all homosexuals engage in sodomy. It is another thing that is not
the sole province of gay people. Many straight people engage in sodomy,
many married people as well. So, if "sodomy" is your issue, it affects many
straight people as well, which doesn't seem to bother you.

#2. So you are saying all gay people should be kept hidden? We should keep
them all in the closet?

> ever even considered the homosexual
> experience let alone lifestyle.

#3. You are saying that this is a lifestyle people "choose". And if we
keep it hidden enough people will not choose it?

> This is nothing less than indoctrination of a society.
> Don't
> "recruit"! Get real.

Has anyone ever tried to recruit you into the gay lifestyle? Has anyone
proposed you leaving your spouse and living the gay lifestyle for the rest
of your life?

>>
>> There are lots of people in the world. =A0There are hetero people who are
>> never called to marry. =A0 =A0There are hetero people who are not able
>> to=
> have
>> children. =A0What do we make of them?
>>
> God treats us as individuals and yet still maintains absolute
> standards.

The absolute standard is God's love.

> You seems to make no account of the fall of man.

Nor you. The Pride of man was his fall...and you revel in it.

> Why don't we get back to the original argument which no one has
> yet given reply to. God's original design was one man and one
> woman.

And as we have stated, not everything goes according to plan. Some people
are not called to marry.

And if it's "God's plan"...why aren't priest and nuns required to be in a
"one man /one woman" relationship?


> t only do we have Scripture to testify to that but we also
> have nature itself. God created man such that he needed a woman
> to procreate.

Are we going back to the story of people on the desert island? If so, you
didn't read any of the responses.

You argument would be valid if gay people were trying to turn the word
"gay"....and you're right there would be no procreation. But people are not
trying to "turn the world gay".

> THis
> is the nature of rebellion.

No, this is not 'rebellion' is just how some people are born and we have a
history of accomodating people whoa re different.

> The major issue here isn't that I or anyone else stands opposed to
> homosexuality. The major issue is that you and others refuse to
> accept the clear teaching that God condemns it.

No, the major issue here is people aren't buying your interpretation of
God's Word.

There is one reference in the New Testament (which is subject to
interpretation).

There are NO references in the Godpels (JEsus must've thought it not as
important as you, who spends days writing about it.)

The referebnce in Leviticus also reference shellfish as an abomination.

We must read God's Word "contextually".

> In fact,
> homosexuality
> is a sign of a people who have generations earlier committed spiritual
> adultery. The internal depravity always precedes the external. Homo-
> sexuality is just one of a handful of external evidences that God has
> begun He release of restraint on our society, if not the world.

Sounds like what they said if we allowed blacks to vote...or allowed
interracial marriage. The world would come to an end!

But you are not discussing, you are pontificating.

> Be that as it may,
> the question I ponder is can one truly be saved/regenerated, having
> the Spirit, having the new disposition and orientation, and still not
> only
> practice a known sin, but advocate it while denying that it is indeed,
> by God's own word, SIN?

See above.

You are certainly fre to decide for yourself if one can be truly saved, etc.

You are not free to decide that for me.

>> Matthew 7
>>
>> 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your
>> eye,=
> '
>> when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first
>> take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
>> remo=
> ve
>> the speck from your brother's eye.
>>
> You illustrate your lack of care in exegesis and application.

No, I think it applies perfectly here.

You wallow in your vanity, yet you wish to help others from their sin.

>> > If you wish to cry in your beer, then do so before God. =A0He
>> > is the one you are arguing with, not me.
>>
>> So, your voice is God's? =A0 A little presumptious.
>>
> As it conforms to the principles revealed in Scripture, you bet
> it is. "Prophet" primarily is forthtelling, not foretelling. We
> are to tell forth the revealed will of God. Hardly "presumptious"
> [sic].

It is presumpuous to think your interpretation of scripture is the only one.

You can see what Fundamentalism has brought to the world.

>> God is not arguing with me. =A0He loves me and accepts me.
>>
> God's love is not like human, especially fallen man's love.

No it is not. It is perfect. It is not limited by one's own prejudices and
limited view.

God who knows all....love's all.

>>
>> > I don't judge you-
>> > God does.
>>
>> And God is happy with me....and loves me and accepts me.
>>
> Then your god is not the God of the bible...

Maybe not the God of your Bible....but he is the God of my Bible.

The God who is all knowing, all forgiving,

>> > =A0Paul cast out of the assembly and turn the man over to
>> > Satan to be rebuffed for his sexual sin.
>>
>> Once again...sexual sins are not the sole province of gay people.
>>
> That was not the point of the illustration.

No, it was the fallacy of your illustration.

You seem to present that immorality is the sole domain of gay people.

I believ a whole industry has subsisted on the sexual sin of heterosexuals.

>> > Elders are directly called
>> > to discern the health and well being of fellow believers and further,
>> > to test the spirits.
>>
>> You are not my elder. =A0I am in good standing with my elders.
>>
> 2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure [holding
> themselves firmly against] [the] sound doctrine; but wanting to have
> their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in
> accordance to [being dominated by] their own desires [personal
> cravings];

Which I think describes your style of Christianity.

Your fears and lack of understanding cause you to turn to preachers who will
tickle your ear with fear of others. Your brand of religion demonizes other
to make youn feel better, in an attempt to elevate yourself.

As long as it's "those people" who are comitting all the horrible sins, then
you don't have to look at yourself.

> 2 Tim. 4:4
> 2 Tim. 4:1
> 2 Tim. 4:2

Where does Jesus condem homsexuality?

What Gospel writer thought this valuable enough of an issue to write about
it?

Are you still eating shellfish in your Church? Or have you turned from yoru
sins.

>> If you stand by God's word without revision, then you should not eat
>> shellfish, because God considers that an abomination. (Leviticus.)
>>
> A broken record. I already deflected this wayward dart in an earlier
> post.

You keep coming back to it. It shows how you pick and choose which sins you
like, and which you don't. (Usually their the ones that don't affect you.)

There are more references to love and forgiveness than homosexuality.

>> > Then you don't believe in GOD, capital G and you don't believe
>> > in the inSpiration of scripture.
>>
>> Another bold assumption.
>>
>> However, many churches read the scriptures contextually....not literally.
>>
> 1. Context is not antithetical to literalism

Of course it is.

Did Jesus actually feed 5,000? Or was it 10,000? Which is it literalist?

> 2. You don't know what literalism. i.e. historic/grammatic
> hermeneutics
> teaches

Again, we are back to the point that only you understand what the Bible is
saying. And everyone else only understands it if they agree with you. We
are back to the ravages of fundamentalism.

>> >> > He did not create humanity such that procreation
>> >> > could be achieved by natural means other than the male/
>> >> > female union.
>>
>> Some people (yes, even heteros) are not called to procreate.
>>
>> People who marry after menopause are not called to procreate either.
>>
> Are we suppose to close both eyes?

No, not at all. However you are not to keep putting people in a box.

> Were is the logic in your
> counter point? Original design. Even beyond that, you completely
> overlook the required dynamic -one male, one female.

The "required" dynamic of all human relationships is love and forgiveness.

Jesus spoke about it often,

> That is
> the design. That is and was the original intent.

If it was the original intent and design, what do we make of people who
don't fit into this mold?

For some marriages no procreation? Are they defying the origianl design?
Should they difvorce and find aprtners that can give them children? No, God
apprecaites theuir love, committment and fidelity.

For some no marriage? Are they failing God's design?

For odler couples, past childbearing age? Whats the poitnof marriage, since
God's design doesn't seem to carry fruit? Again, it's love, comittment and
fidelity.

> Homosexuality
> defies that design.

We were not 'designed' to go to war either. Yet, sometimes we find thats
what we have to do.

There are a lot of things in this world that don't fit into what you
perceive as God's plan.

We do the best we can, we have ab history of accomodating those different
than us.

And we are called to be compassionate. Not condemning.

>> >> > > AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease that currently affects more
>> >> > > heterosexuals than gays.
>>
>> >> > It does not affect husband/wife heterosexuals who remain in God's
>> >> > will, waiting until they are married and then "drinking only from
>> >> > their
>> >> > own cistern."
>>
>> Nor does it affect man/man or woman/woman homosexuals who remain in God's
>> will, waiting until they are married and "drinking from their own
>> cistern=
> ".
>>
>> It doesn't affect them either.
>>
> But if this is the strict nature of the union, then the paradigm dies
> of its own accord because it CANNOT procreate.

Again...

1.) gay people are not trying to turn the world gay...forn tere would be no
procreation.

2.) there are many people that don't procreate.

> But it is not the true nature of homosexual "unions." Men, as should
> be
> expected, have hundreds if not thousands of partners.

What is your source for this? Just something you amde up? Want to believe?
Or you "knew a gay couple once"?

> There are 5
> lesbian couples were I work. In the last five years they have all
> traded
> in their original partner and moved on to another.

Gee, heterosexual marriage is doing Soooo much better with comiitment, isn't
it?

And this is just an anecdotal sotry.

> Studies have long
> supported my numbers for average homosexual men. Chain gang
> takes on an entire new meaning.

Please quote the study. However, again, sexual sin is not the sole province
of gay men.

Look at the studies of VD during the war...mostly spread by hetero men.

Look at the idnustry of pornogarphy that has floruished through th sins of
hetero men.

Look at the out of wedlock births. Look at New Orleans during Mardi Gras.

I would hate to think this is the way all hetero men are.

Please don't make stereotypical assumptions of gay men.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 12, 10:30=A0pm, Concerned Nudist <***@NoPolitics.com>
wrote:
>
> Neither daft...nor dishonest. =A0 =A0Gay people aren't trying to make oth=
er
> people "turn gay".
> If this is what you believe then you are dealing with this whole discussi=
on
> is a realm of paranoia.

way to much here to respond to. But I will say this, by personal
experience I've had men proposition me, "AC/DC. I can get you girls."
While living in Atlanta in the 70's it was not at all uncommon to have
someone pull over while you're walking down the street to proposition
you. The AC/DC this most certainly was an enticement.

Also, while working in the hospital in the ward that all these
homosexual men were segmented off into, it was hardly a rare
occurrence to have one of the "friends" offer me a ride home or
something even more vivid.

I'm not naive. Sin is deceitful. You are living in deceit.

[Charlie Horse1]

>> Neither daft...nor dishonest. =A0 =A0Gay people aren't trying to make
>> oth=
> er
>> people "turn gay".
>> If this is what you believe then you are dealing with this whole
>> discussi=
> on
>> is a realm of paranoia.
>
> way to much here to respond to. But I will say this, by personal
> experience I've had men proposition me, "AC/DC. I can get you girls."
> While living in Atlanta in the 70's it was not at all uncommon to have
> someone pull over while you're walking down the street to proposition
> you. The AC/DC this most certainly was an enticement.

Never heard of it people walking down the street asking ACDC. Were' you in a
prostitution area?

However, people were tring to find out if you were gay...not "recruit you".

> Also, while working in the hospital in the ward that all these
> homosexual men were segmented off into, it was hardly a rare
> occurrence to have one of the "friends" offer me a ride home or
> something even more vivid.
>
> I'm not naive. Sin is deceitful.

And I take it you didn't 'flip'..beacuse you can't turn people gay. No one
recruits. Someone wanted to find out if you were gay.

>> You are living in deceit.

You are swimming in vanity.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, Charlie Horse1 <***@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> Never heard of it people walking down the street asking ACDC. Were' you i=
n a
> prostitution area?
>
If you limit possibilities to your own realm of experience, then you
really are on an island.

BTW, it was on Peachtree St, just north of 14th, where I lived between
the Peachtrees.

Why are you so defensive?

[R Palino]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_AqUk.1216$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, Charlie Horse1 <***@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>> Never heard of it people walking down the street asking ACDC. Were' you
>> i=
> n a
>> prostitution area?
>>
> If you limit possibilities to your own realm of experience, then you
> really are on an island.

it seems to be what you are doing....

[A. Nona Muss]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kn6Tk.1266$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 12, 10:30=A0pm, Concerned Nudist <***@NoPolitics.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Neither daft...nor dishonest. =A0 =A0Gay people aren't trying to make
>> oth=
> er
>> people "turn gay".
>> If this is what you believe then you are dealing with this whole
>> discussi=
> on
>> is a realm of paranoia.
>
> way to much here to respond to. But I will say this, by personal
> experience I've had men proposition me, "AC/DC. I can get you girls."
> While living in Atlanta in the 70's it was not at all uncommon to have
> someone pull over while you're walking down the street to proposition
> you. The AC/DC this most certainly was an enticement.

Could it be that you are still living in the past? Living with a single
exprience from 30 years ago?

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
>
> Could it be that you are still living in the past? =A0Living with a singl=
e
> exprience from 30 years ago?
>
I think I clearly noted several instances. Hardly "single", meaning
one incident. Beside, it wasn't that long ago that I was down in
Florida.

[R Palino]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_AqUk.1214$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
>>
>> Could it be that you are still living in the past? =A0Living with a
>> singl=
> e
>> exprience from 30 years ago?
>>
> I think I clearly noted several instances. Hardly "single", meaning
> one incident. Beside, it wasn't that long ago that I was down in
> Florida.

if I had bad experiences with black people (lets say I was mugged and given
the finger in traffic) i would not use that experience to consider all black
people rude and/or violent.

i was approached by a "swinging couple" the last time i was in the
carribbean. does that mean all hetero people are swingers?

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <w3OSk.1081$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Concerned Nudist says...

[snip]

>The referebnce in Leviticus also reference shellfish as an abomination.

>We must read God's Word "contextually".

But you do not DO this. You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.

>Sounds like what they said if we allowed blacks to vote...or allowed
>interracial marriage. The world would come to an end!

[snip]

Then you are failing to listen, whether then, now or both. Your analogy is
false.

>But you are not discussing, you are pontificating.

What you are doing isn't 'discussion' either. It is carping and equivocating.

[snip]

>> You illustrate your lack of care in exegesis and application.

>No, I think it applies perfectly here.

No doubt you do. But you think so WRONGLY. Loren tried to point out why you are
so wrong, you just blew him off without learning a thing.

>You wallow in your vanity, yet you wish to help others from their sin.

Every time you blow him off like this, returning only carping and equivocation,
making excuses for sin, it is you who is wallowing in vanity.

[snip]

>It is presumpuous to think your interpretation of scripture is the only one.

Maybe so. But if it is, it is nowhere NEAR as presumptuous as what you have done
ever since you first appeared in this thread. Why, it is not even as
presumptuous as your ignorant insistence that your 'interpretation' even IS an
interpretation.

It is not inteprretation you offer, but outrageous perversion of the text,
clearly done to excuse your sick desire to remain mired in carnality.

[snip]

>Where does Jesus condem homsexuality?

This question has been answered SO many times... Are you blind? Or are you
incredibily dishonest, pretending to have never see the reference, nor the
explanation WHY Mat 15:19 condemns homosexual behavior?

[snip]

[A. Nona Muss]

> However, based upon the
> normative, the historic/grammatic interpretation of God's revealed
> Word, it best understands and interprets. How can one be so
> bold to make this assertion? The same way one recognizes what
> is false- either it works consistently with what is or it does not.
>
> On the other hand, your system of "truth" can't even get beyond
> being consistent biologically, let alone theologically. Nature itself
> denies your view of the world. As I have often illustrated, put
> a man and a woman on an island and come back 100 years later
> and what can you expect to find? A family. But put two men or
> two women on that same island and you will only come back to
> an empty island. It does not conform to the universe which was
> designed by God.

Wow. Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and come back in
100 years late.

What do you find? An empty island.

Using your logic, nature itself denies all priests and nuns view of the
world. (Never mind the Pope himself.)

I think we should have a ballot question that bans rights from priests and
nuns.

You see, your thinking is not shaped by logic, but by your own desire to
reinforce your biases, stereotypes and fears.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 9, 6:34=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
...
> Wow. =A0Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and come back =
in
> 100 years late.

That is a false analogy.

> What do you find? =A0An empty island.
>
> Using your logic, nature itself denies all priests and nuns view of the
> world. =A0(Never mind the Pope himself.)

BTW, I hold that RCism is not biblical Christianity. So your darts
are
poorly spent.

> I think we should have a ballot question that bans rights from priests an=
d
> nuns.
>
> You see, your thinking is not shaped by logic, but by your own desire to
> reinforce your biases, stereotypes and fears.

Well, apparently, so it seems based upon this reply, you can't even
remain logically consistent in your comparative modeling. Also, it
seems
you are incapable or readdressing even one point that was made.

[Concerned Nudist]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vH6Sk.648$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 9, 6:34=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Wow. =A0Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and come back
>> =
> in
>> 100 years late.
>
> That is a false analogy.

It's taking your logic to it's illogical natural end.

>
>> What do you find? =A0An empty island.
>>
>> Using your logic, nature itself denies all priests and nuns view of the
>> world. =A0(Never mind the Pope himself.)
>
> BTW, I hold that RCism is not biblical Christianity. So your darts
> are
> poorly spent.

(OK, but you and Matthew should have a talk.)

OK...drop the pope fromt he equation. ;-)

> Well, apparently, so it seems based upon this reply, you can't even
> remain logically consistent in your comparative modeling. Also, it
> seems
> you are incapable or readdressing even one point that was made.

I addressed your "island analogy". It didn't hold water.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 12, 10:30=A0pm, Concerned Nudist <***@NoPolitics.com>
wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vH6Sk.648$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:34=3DA0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> Wow. =3DA0Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and come =
back
> >> =3D
> > in
> >> 100 years late.
>
> > That is a false analogy.
>
> It's taking your logic to it's illogical natural end.
>
No it is not and truthfully, I should have refrained from
even bothering to answer. But I'm torn between
Prov 26:4 and Prov 26:5. Because there have been
emails, I know there are several following this
discussion than there are participating.

You did not take my point to its logical end, rather
you sought to dismiss the point by overstating or
more correctly, exaggerating a point that was
outside the context of the original.
>
> >> What do you find? =3DA0An empty island.
>
> >> Using your logic, nature itself denies all priests and nuns view of th=
e
> >> world. =3DA0(Never mind the Pope himself.)
>
> > BTW, I hold that RCism is not biblical Christianity. =A0So your darts
> > are
> > poorly spent.
>
> (OK, but you and Matthew should have a talk.)
>
> OK...drop the pope fromt he equation. =A0;-)
>
> > Well, apparently, so it seems based upon this reply, you can't even
> > remain logically consistent in your comparative modeling. =A0Also, it
> > seems
> > you are incapable or readdressing even one point that was made.
>
> I addressed your "island analogy". =A0It didn't hold water.
>
No you didn't as I have, in the above paragraph, noted. You
went outside of test model. You did not adhere to strictness
of the experiment. This is why I replied noting the fall. Apart
from the fall, where there is no sickness, where there is no
malaria, no bad "genes" etc, the original design model of one
man and one woman conforms the constructs of the universe.
This the homosexual model never achieves either before or
after the fall.

Basically the standard rebuttal has been to note the present
ability for homosexual couples to bear children via in vitro
fertilization. But even here, if one is honest, this again does
not upset the original construct. It still requires one male
and one female. Just because an end around is performed,
it still does not give the objector an out. Homosexuality
does not conform to the constructs of the universe which
was designed by God and governed by God. It is not as
if there is any alternative options here. In order to procreate,
the original construct must be held to.

My point was that homosexuality can even conform to
the physical standards of the universe as designed by
God, let alone the higher standard of living in the sphere
of the Spirit. The carnal man never enters into that
sphere while living in rebellion.

[Charlie Horse1]

>> >> Wow. =3DA0Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and come
>> >> =
> back
>> >> =3D
>> > in
>> >> 100 years late.
>>
>> > That is a false analogy.
>>
>> It's taking your logic to it's illogical natural end.
>>
> No it is not and truthfully, I should have refrained from
> even bothering to answer. But I'm torn between
> Prov 26:4 and Prov 26:5.

You live in the old testament . I find many people do that so they can pick
and choose which strictures they want to follow and which they want to
ignore.

> You did not take my point to its logical end, rather
> you sought to dismiss the point by overstating or
> more correctly, exaggerating a point that was
> outside the context of the original.

I am using your own analoguy to point out the incongruency of your argument.

But, to be honest, no analogy fits 100%...but your reasoning appeared
flawed.

>> I addressed your "island analogy". =A0It didn't hold water.
>>
> No you didn't as I have, in the above paragraph, noted. You
> went outside of test model.

This is a recurring theme with you. Only you understand scripture. Only
you hear God's voice. Only you understand analogies., etc.

> Apart
> from the fall, where there is no sickness, where there is no
> malaria, no bad "genes" etc, the original design model of one
> man and one woman conforms the constructs of the universe.
> This the homosexual model never achieves either before or
> after the fall.

Again, we've seen people use all sorts of rationale (including the Bible) to
keep people outside of what they percieve as "God's Chosen People". I
recall in my childhood people saying that Blacks were outside of God's plan,
etc.

Now a black man is President of the country.

> Basically the standard rebuttal has been to note the present
> ability for homosexual couples to bear children via in vitro
> fertilization.

I don't think anyone brought that up here. But moreover, I pulled apart
your argument about the "bearing children" as an indicator of God's approval
of someone.

However, if you wish to go down that road, many gay people have adopted
children that no one else wants. The "throwaways" of society, the severely
disabled, etc.

Does "caring for the unfortunate" "conform to the constructs of God"?

> In order to procreate,
> the original construct must be held to.

Again, same old song, same old argument.

Gay people are not trying to convert the world to homosexuality.

> My point was that homosexuality can even conform to
> the physical standards of the universe as designed by
> God

A very shallow mind. God created many people, some people are born
hermaphrodite.

God loves them all.

> let alone the higher standard of living in the sphere
> of the Spirit. The carnal man never enters into that
> sphere while living in rebellion.

No rebellion here, just accepting how God made us.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <6u3Uk.1888$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Charlie Horse1 says...
>
>> But I'm torn between
>> Prov 26:4 and Prov 26:5.
>
>You live in the old testament . I find many people do that so they can pick
>and choose which strictures they want to follow and which they want to
>ignore.

What you 'find' it not even true. So how could you 'find' it, unless you are
following your own fancies and ignoring the evidence all around you?

In case you forgot, the New Testament commends the Old Testament as ALL useful
for instruction in doctrine and morals. So no, you have no excuse for accusing
others of "living in the old testament", no excuse for yourself ignoring the
instruction commended there.


[snip]

>I don't think anyone brought that up here. But moreover, I pulled apart
>your argument about the "bearing children" as an indicator of God's approval
>of someone.

No, you did no such thing. Only in your overly fertile imagination have you done
any such thing.

Of course, Loren could himself refute your "pulling apart" of his argument
better if he would himself accept the distinction between act and potency, but
that is an issue for another thread.

[snip]
>God loves them all.

And punishes the impenitent with damnation, even though He loves them. Don't be
one of these.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, Charlie Horse1 <***@attbi.com> wrote:
> >> >> Wow. =3D3DA0Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and =
come
> >> >> =3D
> > back
> >> >> =3D3D
> >> > in
> >> >> 100 years late.
>
> >> > That is a false analogy.
>
> >> It's taking your logic to it's illogical natural end.
>
> > No it is not and truthfully, I should have refrained from
> > even bothering to answer. =A0But I'm torn between
> > Prov 26:4 and Prov 26:5.
>
> You live in the old testament . =A0I find many people do that so they can=
pick
> and choose which strictures they want to follow and which they want to
> ignore.
>
I guess that's why I studied Greek and not Hebrew, eh? And fyi,
Truth transcends all culture and time. The principles revealed and
taught in the OT still have application for today. The Law was set
aside as a means of salvation (justification) but their principles are
still a guide to us on to sanctification.
>
> > You did not take my point to its logical end, rather
> > you sought to dismiss the point by overstating or
> > more correctly, exaggerating a point that was
> > outside the context of the original.
>
> I am using your own analoguy to point out the incongruency of your argume=
nt.
>
> But, to be honest, no analogy fits 100%...but your reasoning appeared
> flawed.
>
Mine did. Because, of sorts, God did exactly as I illustrated,
He put them on an island known as the garden of Eden. There
HE placed them, male and female, "and it was good." There,
prior to the entrance of sin and rebellion, complete humanity
resided, quiet capable of procreation. "Created after the image
of God" includes the grace of procreation. That is something
which none of the angels were granted. Mankind alone was
granted the ability and responsibility (and therefore accountability)
to procreate. Again, though the evidence is as clear as the
nose on the front of your face, you reject the fact that the
homosexual model cannot adhere to the Divine order given to
Man.
>
> >> I addressed your "island analogy". =3DA0It didn't hold water.
>
> > No you didn't as I have, in the above paragraph, noted. =A0You
> > went outside of test model.
>
> This is a recurring theme with you. =A0Only you understand scripture. =A0=
Only
> you hear God's voice. =A0Only you understand analogies., etc.
>
ANd yet you are unwilling either to see or admit that you
did exactly as I stated. You didn't not remain within the
constructs of the model. That is the whole point of the
argument. And yes, sola scriptura. It is the only absolute,
authoritative, and verifiable source given to man as a
safeguard against error.

What has the best that man produced ever accomplished. One
philosopher comes along as draws a big circle in the sand and
declares, "This is the proper definition of what is." But then
comes along yet another who crosses out that circle and makes
his own only to have his circle crossed out by the next who
comes along, ad nausium. Man's truth is exactly what both
the modernist and postmodernist conclude -relative.
> > Apart
> > from the fall, where there is no sickness, where there is no
> > malaria, no bad "genes" etc, the original design model of one
> > man and one woman conforms the constructs of the universe.
> > This the homosexual model never achieves either before or
> > after the fall.
>
> Again, we've seen people use all sorts of rationale (including the Bible)=
to
> keep people outside of what they percieve as "God's Chosen People". =A0I
> recall in my childhood people saying that Blacks were outside of God's pl=
an,
> etc.
>
To be black is not a moral issue. You confuse the two as
all too many do. There is a similitude as to sociological
acceptance, but that does not play into this moral argument.

But once again, you object but you never answer the question.
>
> Now a black man is President of the country.
>
Just like Tiger Woods? And no, he is not President,
he is president-elect. In case you are unaware, there is
the growing and serious question as to whether or not
Obama is a US citizen. There still has not been a
certified US birth certificate presented, though repeatedly
called for.
>
> > Basically the standard rebuttal has been to note the present
> > ability for homosexual couples to bear children via in vitro
> > fertilization.
>
> I don't think anyone brought that up here.
>
This argument has been raised in SRC for the last 20 yrs.
>
>=A0But moreover, I pulled apart
> your argument about the "bearing children" as an indicator of God's appro=
val
> of someone.
>
I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to the validity of
that comment.
>
> However, if you wish to go down that road, many gay people have adopted
> children that no one else wants. =A0The "throwaways" of society, the seve=
rely
> disabled, etc.
>
Doesn't matter. That does not address the argument. Child rapist
have adopted children. So what's your point?
>
> Does "caring for the unfortunate" "conform to the constructs of God"?
>
The doctrine of total depravity does not teach that all men are as
bad as they can be. Genesis is the first book in the Bible for a
reason.
It sets the standard. If you begin with a foundation out of plumb, it
becomes quickly obvious that everything you build on top of it will be
as well.
>
> > In order to procreate,
> > the original construct must be held to.
>
> Again, same old song, same old argument.
>
Again, no answer to the point.
>
> Gay people are not trying to convert the world to homosexuality.
>
> > My point was that homosexuality can [not] even conform to
> > the physical standards of the universe as designed by
> > God
>
> A very shallow mind. =A0God created many people, some people are born
> hermaphrodite.
>
AFTER THE FALL!!! Again, you refuse (because you are unable
to do otherwise) to give answer to point.

[R Palino]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZAqUk.1213$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, Charlie Horse1 <***@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Wow. =3D3DA0Well, put a bunch of priests and nuns on an island and
>> >> >> =
> come
>> >> >> =3D
>> > back
>> >> >> =3D3D
>> >> > in
>> >> >> 100 years late.
>>
>> >> > That is a false analogy.
>>
>> >> It's taking your logic to it's illogical natural end.
>>
>> > No it is not and truthfully, I should have refrained from
>> > even bothering to answer. =A0But I'm torn between
>> > Prov 26:4 and Prov 26:5.
>>
>> You live in the old testament . =A0I find many people do that so they
>> can=
> pick
>> and choose which strictures they want to follow and which they want to
>> ignore.
>>
> I guess that's why I studied Greek and not Hebrew, eh? And fyi,
> Truth transcends all culture and time. The principles revealed and
> taught in the OT still have application for today. The Law was set
> aside as a means of salvation (justification) but their principles are
> still a guide to us on to sanctification.

you r right they are there as a guide and they still have application today
but we are not tied to them for salvation

(just like the shellfish example given earlier)


>>
>> > You did not take my point to its logical end, rather
>> > you sought to dismiss the point by overstating or
>> > more correctly, exaggerating a point that was
>> > outside the context of the original.
>>
>> I am using your own analoguy to point out the incongruency of your
>> argume=
> nt.
>>
>> But, to be honest, no analogy fits 100%...but your reasoning appeared
>> flawed.
>>
> Mine did. Because, of sorts, God did exactly as I illustrated,
> He put them on an island known as the garden of Eden. There
> HE placed them, male and female, "and it was good."

where were the priest, nuns and bishops?

where were those that lived a celebate life?

what happened when the male female ratio changed and there wasn't enough
husbands for the women?

then all these other lives must not be of God?



> ANd yet you are unwilling either to see or admit that you
> did exactly as I stated. You didn't not remain within the
> constructs of the model.

no he changed one aspect...and your whole analogy fell apart!

the analogy does not hold water

> That is the whole point of the
> argument. And yes, sola scriptura. It is the only absolute,
> authoritative, and verifiable source given to man as a
> safeguard against error.

and everyone else who doesn't adgere to the 'sola scripture' theology is
flawed and cut off from God I suppose?

>> Again, we've seen people use all sorts of rationale (including the
>> Bible)=
> to
>> keep people outside of what they percieve as "God's Chosen People". =A0I
>> recall in my childhood people saying that Blacks were outside of God's
>> pl=
> an,
>> etc.
>>
> To be black is not a moral issue. You confuse the two as
> all too many do.

no...being black is not a moral issue....but many Christians thought that
blacks marrying whites was a moral issue.

>> Now a black man is President of the country.

>> > Basically the standard rebuttal has been to note the present
>> > ability for homosexual couples to bear children via in vitro
>> > fertilization.
>>
>> I don't think anyone brought that up here.
>>
> This argument has been raised in SRC for the last 20 yrs.

i dont think anyone brought up that comment here.

>>
>>=A0But moreover, I pulled apart
>> your argument about the "bearing children" as an indicator of God's
>> appro=
> val
>> of someone.
>>
> I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to the validity of
> that comment.

they'll see what happens to the priests, nuns, bishops on the island.
Zappo! gone

>> However, if you wish to go down that road, many gay people have adopted
>> children that no one else wants. =A0The "throwaways" of society, the
>> seve=
> rely
>> disabled, etc.
>>
> Doesn't matter.

when someone is caring for th poor, orphaned, etc....God is happy.

>> Does "caring for the unfortunate" "conform to the constructs of God"?
>>
> The doctrine of total depravity does not teach that all men are as
> bad as they can be. Genesis is the first book in the Bible for a
> reason.
> It sets the standard. If you begin with a foundation out of plumb, it
> becomes quickly obvious that everything you build on top of it will be
> as well.
>>
>> > In order to procreate,
>> > the original construct must be held to.
>>
>> Again, same old song, same old argument.
>>
> Again, no answer to the point.

same answer that youve been given....not all people are called to procreate.


>> Gay people are not trying to convert the world to homosexuality.
>>
>> > My point was that homosexuality can [not] even conform to
>> > the physical standards of the universe as designed by
>> > God

the original design of the universe is that God made all differnt kinds of
people...no two are the same...yet people keep trying to put everyone in the
same box.

years of prejudice against people who dont act like us, don't speak like us,
dont worship like us.

its all coming to an end.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 18, 10:08=A0pm, R Palino <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> the original design of the universe is that God made all differnt kinds o=
f
> people...no two are the same...yet people keep trying to put everyone in =
the
> same box.
>
But that does not dismiss that "He made them male and female" nor that
the woman was fashioned out of the rib of a man. "For THIS cause, a
man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife;
and
they shall become one." Then go to Eph 5 where Paul uses this
husband/wife motif as an analogy to Christ and the Church. As I have
written in a reply to Nona Muss about the Deuteronomic principles
(22:5, 9-11) concerning the Divine prohibition on the mixing, so there
are countless Biblical principles, directives and laws which deny
any "evolved" revision.

Honestly, unless one is so callous-fied by fantasy and practice, he/
she
KNOWS that all immorality is offensive to our thrice Holy God. He
doesn't change ("evolve"). As He has revealed Himself to Adam, so
He is immutably today. As He designed one woman for one man and
that a 1000 yrs is as a day and a day as a 1000 yrs, He hasn't
suffered chronological numbness to His perfection. I really think
the primary issue is that of self vs God. Immorality, homosexual
or otherwise, is to deny/disown (arneomai; Jude 4) the "despotes,"
the Absolute Owner of your soul. As with the false teachers which
Jude wrote woe, those who here advocate for immorality (Biblically
defined) are advocates of the instinctual. Several times in this
thread alone, it has been so said. However, phusikos or "by
instinct", those instinctual desires, the yetser hara' of the Torah,
is
an evil impulse which is to be corralled, curbed. To give into this
nature, natural (fallen) instinct, is to be contrasted with
rationality.
That animals are "unreasoning" is Jude's point when comparing
the lower natures to the high calling of man made after the image
of God.

To our great loss, the Church has lost most, if not indeed, all of
it's vision of the terrible majesty of God. Man is no longer made
after the image of God but rather god has been made after the
image of Man. To what degree is our prayer that the eyes of
our hearts be enlightened, in a spirit of wisdom by means of the
knowledge of Him through revelation of the hope of His calling,
knowing just what the riches of glory are be ours as an
inheritance with all the saints? How are we to know the sur-
passing greatness of His power toward us who believe if we
don't believe according to what He has revealed to us in both
word and spirit. Spirit is not always meant to me the Holy
Spirit or even our own spirits. A "spirit of wisdom" speaks of
an attitude. Revelation is the impartation of knowledge but
wisdom in the proper use of that knowledge because our
attitude, our desire, is only to please Him.

All this arguing really has little to do with the external. The
husband who loves his wife beyond all expression, will never
accept "There!... your favorite meal" which is thrown down
before him in spite. Even so, God doesn't want formal
adherence to His will if the heart remains selfish. Like the
adulterer, the homosexual is self-oriented at the root. Even
though one never externally realizes this inclination, if he
entertains or fantasies in his heart, he by no means stands
"in (the sphere) of Christ" but stands outside the camp,
unclean, alienated.

When I make these replies, I am not seeking to raise
myself up artificially by tearing down the opponent. Rather,
I am lovingly calling us to recognize the deceitfulness of
sin which has called you away from the fellowship of the
saints who are called to separate themselves from the
world, the flesh and the Devil. We really going to stand
before His throne and none of us needs to shrink away at
His coming if we will but end our salvation as we began
it -by faith. By faith we accepted for ourselves something
of the mystery of being baptized into His death. That is
a death to our old nature, those fallen natural instincts
which assail us in a thousand different ways. But we
who have began in the Spirit are called to live in the Spirit,
and the Spirit ALWAYS wars against the flesh. To be
in the flesh is to be at enmity against God. But we, in
consciously switching from the mode of the sphere of
the flesh, self-oriented, to the sphere of the Spirit, not
only have the assurance of our salvation as sons and
daughters of God, but we actually have the capacity to
give pleasure to God. This, and this alone, should be
our sole orientation, our hearts desire. If we can't find
enjoyment in that then why should we think that we will
find it when we stand in His presence? To paraphrase
and old Inger Stevens add, "If I have only one life to
live, let me live it as a faithful son/daughter of God."

If we get the internal right with God, the externals will
reorient themselves. God so loved us, the elect, that
He sent His eternally beloved Son to die for us. How
shall we escape if we are negligent to so great a
salvation?


>
> years of prejudice against people who dont act like us, don't speak like =
us,
> dont worship like us.
>
> its all coming to an end.

[Hall Monitor2]

>> the original design of the universe is that God made all differnt kinds
>> o=
> f
>> people...no two are the same...yet people keep trying to put everyone in
>> =
> the
>> same box.
>>
> But that does not dismiss that "He made them male and female" nor that
> the woman was fashioned out of the rib of a man. "For THIS cause, a
> man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife;
> and
> they shall become one."

Again, so EVERYONE has to fit into your mold.

EVERYONE has to be married.

NO ONE should live with his parents, etc.

Nobody should be single, etc.

> Then go to Eph 5 where Paul uses this
> husband/wife motif as an analogy to Christ and the Church.

And are gay people nullifying this analogy? Are gay people looking tos
trike down this analogy? If anything, they want to be PART of the this
analogy.

Again, why can't you stick with your beliefs, that you are so sure of, and
let others live the way they feel they are being called?

Why are you so concerned with what everyone's doing in their own bedroom?

> Honestly, unless one is so callous-fied by fantasy and practice, he/
> she
> KNOWS that all immorality is offensive to our thrice Holy God.

And, again, for some reason, "morality" to you is all about sex. In case
youa re not aware, morality includes feeding the hungry, helping the poor,
sheltering the homeless. But you seem to "pick and choose" scripture to
focus only on that what you fear. And that is love between 2 men. (or 2
women.)

One can be gay....AND be moral. This is something that seems to escape you.

> He
> doesn't change ("evolve").

I believe a previous poster responded to this (yet you keep repeating it).

HE doesn't change or evolve....but our UNDERSTANDING of Him evolves and
changes.

ALl we have to do is look at the case of Bob Jones University who were so
determined that God's Law calls for a seperation of the races. Interracial
dating is forbidden, interracial marriage is immoral!

They were soooo sure they understood God clearer than anyone else. They
also had scripture to back them up.

They all look prety silly now....


>>
>> The years of prejudice against people who dont act like us, don't speak
>> like =
> us,
>> dont worship like us.
>>
>> its all coming to an end.


Amen!

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 24, 7:20=A0pm, Hall Monitor2 <***@Hall.com> wrote:

>
> > But that does not dismiss that "He made them male and female" nor that
> > the woman was fashioned out of the rib of a man. =A0"For THIS cause, a
> > man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife;
> > and
> > they shall become one."
>
> Again, so EVERYONE has to fit into your mold.
>
It's not my mold. I didn't create the universe. I am not Sovereign
over
all. It is not me that you are arguing with.
>
> EVERYONE has to be married.
>
And this is typical. You can't answer the argument so you throw in
some trumped up overstatement thinking no one will notice or that
it will some how magically cast a shadow over all. Well it doesn't
work except in the mind of the self-deluded.
>
> NO ONE should live with his parents, etc.
>
This sort of notation not only transcending time but culture as well.
And
all too often this is the case with heretics. They have so cemented
their rose colored glasses on the end of their noses that they can't
even see their own naivette or at times down right stupidness.
>
> Nobody should be single, etc.
>
> > Then go to Eph 5 where Paul uses this
> > husband/wife motif as an analogy to Christ and the Church.
>
> And are gay people nullifying this analogy? =A0Are gay people looking tos
> trike down this analogy? =A0If anything, they want to be PART of the this
> analogy.
>
There are rules to interpretation. One is that the narative is
interpreted by the didactic and the implicit by the explicit. What
you suggest reverse the order of each of these. The Pauline model
is husband and wife, not husband & husband (male & male) and
wife & wife (female & female). The Pauline model is a true
analogy because as the physical husband and wife can procreate
so Christ and Church create through regeneration. Because
homosexuality cannot fulfill even the elemental aspect of the
motif, it nullifies itself. As I apparently have to continually
repeat it, homosexuality cannot adhere to the physical constructs
of the Divine universe therefore it hardly corresponds to the
higher construct of the spiritual universe.
>
> Again, why can't you stick with your beliefs, that you are so sure of, an=
d
> let others live the way they feel they are being called?
>
Am I stopping you from living your life as you want? But
remember, you already have numerous biblical illustrations
of the fact that God is longsuffering only so long before He
"gives them over" to their degrading affections and then to
suddenly bring destruction upon the unruly. And that word
is correct. You are unwilling to be ruled by God. You are
willing to accept the concept of God but only on your own
terms defined by your own pre-scribed definitions.
>
> Why are you so concerned with what everyone's doing in their own bedroom?
>
"Am I my brother's keeper?"
>
> > Honestly, unless one is so callous-fied by fantasy and practice, he/
> > she
> > KNOWS that all immorality is offensive to our thrice Holy God.
>
> And, again, for some reason, "morality" to you is all about sex. =A0In ca=
se
> youa re not aware, morality includes feeding the hungry, helping the poor=
,
> sheltering the homeless. =A0But you seem to "pick and choose" scripture t=
o
> focus only on that what you fear. =A0And that is love between 2 men. (or =
2
> women.)
>
Yes, but that, sigh, again, does not dismiss the argument. It's
rather like
the issue of tithing. One does not grow spiritually until he/she has
first
learnt and employed the elementals. It is a wrong conclusion to think
that
being less troubled by sin is a sign of spiritual maturity. It is
not. It is
an indicator of just the opposite.

Also, just because this particular thread is dealing with this
specific
area of sin, does not equate the conclusion which you have
serendipitously arrived at: ie. that this is the ONLY area which I
focus on.
>
> One can be gay....AND be moral. =A0This is something that seems to escape=
you.
>
Not in God's sight. Again, you're not arguing against some human
moral standard. You kicking against the goads which God has
established in the beginning. An adulterer can give $50,000 to his
local church but do you think God gives one wit what he does beyond
his sin? "Obedience is better than sacrifice." As the author of
Hebrews
would conclude, it's time to leave the elemental teachings. If you
continue to advocated for what has clearly been classified as sinful
biblically, then you proceed no further spiritually. You remain, more
likely than not, yet in your sin and therefore under the wrath of God.
>
> > He
> > doesn't change ("evolve").
>
> I believe a previous poster responded to this (yet you keep repeating it)=
.
>
> HE doesn't change or evolve....but our UNDERSTANDING of Him evolves and
> changes.
>
No it does not. It deepens. Evolution speaks to change from one
state to
the next. This is not the case when comes to the moral principles
revealed
to men by God, both intrinsically and extrinsically.
>
> ALl we have to do is look at the case of Bob Jones University who were so
> determined that God's Law calls for a seperation of the races. =A0Interra=
cial
> dating is forbidden, interracial marriage is immoral!
>
That's because there is no biblical directive against it. That's
because it
is a matter of race, not moral lifestyle. One doesn't get to chose
his/her
race. One does, however, get to chose whether or not he/she is
willing
to adhere to God's commands.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments;
and His commandments are not burdensome.

> They were soooo sure they understood God clearer than anyone else. =A0The=
y
> also had scripture to back them up.
>
Apples and oranges.

[Hall Monitor2]

>> Again, why can't you stick with your beliefs, that you are so sure of,
>> an=
> d
>> let others live the way they feel they are being called?
>>
> Am I stopping you from living your life as you want?

well, yes, you are actively campaining for limiting the rights of gay
people.

gay people are not trying to limit YOUR rights....yet youa re actively
trying to limit their right.

stick with your own life, and let gay people find for themselves, the path
god would have them walk.

[Randy Quaidd]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ja3Xk.1007$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 24, 7:20=A0pm, Hall Monitor2 <***@Hall.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > But that does not dismiss that "He made them male and female" nor that
>> > the woman was fashioned out of the rib of a man. =A0"For THIS cause, a
>> > man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife;
>> > and
>> > they shall become one."
>>
>> Again, so EVERYONE has to fit into your mold.
>>
> It's not my mold. I didn't create the universe.

No, the God that made the universe, made everyone different.

You are limiting God's creation to only fit into your limited understanding.

>> EVERYONE has to be married.
>>
> And this is typical. You can't answer the argument...

I am answering the argument. You point to one aspect of creatiobn, and then
make the assumption everyone should fit into that.

When I point out the absurdity and take your response to it's illogical
conclusion, you say "that's not what I meant".

>> NO ONE should live with his parents, etc.
>>
> This sort of notation not only transcending time but culture as well.

The Bible says he should leave his parents! I guess this means no one can
live with their parents and stay single?

>> Nobody should be single, etc.
>>
>> > Then go to Eph 5 where Paul uses this
>> > husband/wife motif as an analogy to Christ and the Church.

Then I guess no one can be single?

>> And are gay people nullifying this analogy? =A0Are gay people looking tos
>> trike down this analogy? =A0If anything, they want to be PART of the this
>> analogy.
>>
> There are rules to interpretation.

The first rule is not to believe that your interpreattion is the only one.
Or else you fall into the sin of vanity.

>> Again, why can't you stick with your beliefs, that you are so sure of,
>> an=
> d
>> let others live the way they feel they are being called?
>>
> Am I stopping you from living your life as you want?

You seem awfully concerned with what other people are doing. Just like the
pharisees did.

> You are unwilling to be ruled by God. You are
> willing to accept the concept of God but only on your own
> terms defined by your own pre-scribed definitions.

And you are telling God that the only Word of his you will understand...are
those you agree with.

>> Why are you so concerned with what everyone's doing in their own bedroom?
>>
> "Am I my brother's keeper?"

"Are you so concerned with the speck in your brothers eye that you miss the
log in your own?"

"Oh you Pharisees, with your long robes, and lack of humility."

> One does not grow spiritually until he/she has
> first
> learnt and employed the elementals.

The first two commandments are "the elementals".

It appears that "the elementals" to you, only concern sex and the bedroom.

Again, Jesus *never* spoke of homosexuality....so it wasn't all that
"elemental" to Him.

There is no mention of homosexuality anywhere in the Gospels.....so much for
"elementals".

Unless, you would like to be a Pharisee and introduce your own "elementals".

>> One can be gay....AND be moral. =A0This is something that seems to
>> escape=
> you.
>>
> Not in God's sight.

Again, Yes, in God's sight.

See above re: Jesus Words...and the Gospels.

He spoke more about the Pharisee's than he did about homosexuality.

You appear to be hemming and hawing when you make excuses for acting like a
pharisee.

> Again, you're not arguing against some human
> moral standard.

Yes, I am, I am arguing with you and your vain and limited understanding of
God.

> You kicking against the goads which God has
> established in the beginning.

No, we are not. We understand that God established Love, Committment and
Fidelity as the values for humans to live by.

>> HE doesn't change or evolve....but our UNDERSTANDING of Him evolves and
>> changes.
>>
> No it does not. It deepens.

Well, we can go back to the example of Bob Jones University.

Did they change their understanding? Did they evolve...or did their
understanding "deepen".

I hardly think it deepened.

> That's because there is no biblical directive against it. That's
> because it
> is a matter of race, not moral lifestyle.

If you ask Bob Jones SRF., he'll give you all sorts of scripture condemning
it.

Her was convinced he was right! Sinning in his vanity, just like you.

And being gay isn't a "lifestyle". And Morality affects heterosexual people
as well as homosexual people.

> One doesn't get to chose
> his/her
> race.

One doesn't get to choose if he/she is hetero or homo.

> 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments;
> and His commandments are not burdensome.

"I have kept the 10 commandments since I was little"...like the man in the
Bible said.

>> They were soooo sure they understood God clearer than anyone else.
>> =A0The=
> y
>> also had scripture to back them up.
>>
> Apples and oranges.

Again, anytime I pick apart your analofgies and take them to their illogical
conclusion, you respond by saying "That's not what I meant".

You will say or do anything to cling to your limited understanding of
God....as though it gives you some security to claim that you understand
fully.

[John Donovan]

> One does not grow spiritually until he/she has
> first
> learnt and employed the elementals.

The elementals are baptism and belief in the saving power of the cross.

Everything else is secondary.

[B.G. Kent]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, John Donovan wrote:

> > One does not grow spiritually until he/she has
> > first
> > learnt and employed the elementals.
>
> The elementals are baptism and belief in the saving power of the cross.
>
> Everything else is secondary.
>

B -I've grown spiritually by reading other texts than the Bible for
spiritual truths or subjective spiritual "truths" if you will, and watched
nature and meditated....my spirituality which was once based on fear of
retribution soared into new realms of being based on love.

Bren

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:29:53 GMT, "B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, John Donovan wrote:
>
>> > One does not grow spiritually until he/she has
>> > first
>> > learnt and employed the elementals.
>>
>> The elementals are baptism and belief in the saving power of the cross.
>>
>> Everything else is secondary.



The weak and beggarly elemental spirits of the universe?


--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <5eGYk.2052$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, B.G. Kent says...
>
>On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, John Donovan wrote:
>
>> > One does not grow spiritually until he/she has
>> > first
>> > learnt and employed the elementals.
>>
>> The elementals are baptism and belief in the saving power of the cross.
>>
>> Everything else is secondary.
>>
>
>B -I've grown spiritually by reading other texts than the Bible for
>spiritual truths or subjective spiritual "truths" if you will, and watched
>nature and meditated....my spirituality which was once based on fear of
>retribution soared into new realms of being based on love.

Since what you 'learned' from what you read CONTRADICTED the 'elementals', what
you experienced was NOT "spiritual growth".

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <Kt0Yk.1667$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Randy Quaidd says...
>
>Again, Jesus *never* spoke of homosexuality....so it wasn't all that
>"elemental" to Him.

Not true. It IS included in the mention of sexual immorality in Mat 15:19.

[snip]

>"I have kept the 10 commandments since I was little"...like the man in the
>Bible said.

I doubt anyone believes you. I know I don't.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 28, 6:59=A0pm, Hall Monitor2 <***@Hall.com> wrote:
> >> Again, why can't you stick with your beliefs, that you are so sure of,
> >> an=3D
> > d
> >> let others live the way they feel they are being called?
>
> > Am I stopping you from living your life as you want?
>
> well, yes, you are actively campaining for limiting the rights of gay
> people.
>
> gay people are not trying to limit YOUR rights....yet youa re actively
> trying to limit their right.
>
> stick with your own life, and let gay people find for themselves, the pat=
h
> god would have them walk.
>
SRC is a theological discussion NG. All things are explored here
having to do with the study of God. God created us such that we could
"come, let us reason together." So by nature this is exactly where
such topics are properly discussed.

Now, as to your supposition.

You are presuming that "I" am seeking to establish myself as an
authoritative. I have been very careful to express that opinion has
no place in establishing doctrine. In point of fact, scripture itself
expresses this when it reads, "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of
one's own interpretation."

"Prophecy" is primarily defined in scripture not as the oft assumed,
"foretelling" but rather, "forthtelling." I'd be here all night if I
expounded the NT passages that touch on this very point.

"One's own interpretation" has recently been the subject in another
thread here at SRC. But again, it is not what the majority presume it
to say. Peter is not stating that the individual cannot come to the
final reality of what a particular passage teaches. Rather, in the
context, he is teaching exactly what Jude is confronting, those who
allow opinion to be read into scripture in order to arrive at some
preconceived teaching.

One individual CAN come to the correct understanding of the text or a
specific. Easy? Simplistic? Hardly. However, there are instances
where it is not all that hard to determine. This is particularly true
when the didactic is explicit.

This is an old controversy which has been critically addressed. Might
I refer you to a couple threads:

"If gays want to marry, it certainly doesn't bother me at all--"
"Exegesis of OT & Homosexuality"
"Paul Confirms OT Ban on Homosexuality."
"ARSENOKOITAI: NT Meaning of"
"ARSENOKOITAI 2 -Bailey/Boswell"
"ARSENOKOITAI: Scroggs (#3)"
"ARSENOKOITAI: #4"
"ARSENOKOITAI: Linguistic (#5)"

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 30, 6:29=A0pm, "B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> B -I've grown spiritually by reading other texts than the Bible for
> spiritual truths or subjective spiritual "truths" if you will, and watche=
d
> nature and meditated....my spirituality which was once based on fear of
> retribution soared into new realms of being based on love.
>
But when you refuse to accept the God of scripture, you lose all
basis for love, law, community, etc. I know you are not
philosophically
trained so I don't expect to understand this in any depth. I also
know, through the reading of your replies these last couple of years,
that you don't have an understanding of epistemology as well.

Honestly, I thought of you recently when I came across the notation
that Jn 1:3 and Gen 1:1 are NOT teaching creation ex deo but ex
nihilo. You seem unable to grasp the fundamental difference.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 28, 6:59=A0pm, Randy Quaidd <***@Quaid.com> wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
This post is way to long to do a point by point so I'm only going to
respond to a couple.
>
> >> Again, so EVERYONE has to fit into your mold.
>
> > It's not my mold. =A0I didn't create the universe.
>
> No, the God that made the universe, made everyone different.
>
> You are limiting God's creation to only fit into your limited understandi=
ng.
>
Again, I'm not the one limiting it. It is God and His revelation
given
to man, who is to recognize and accept that it is He who defines and
interprets man. So your argument isn't with me, but with what has
been clearly taught in scripture.

Now I just responded to Hall Monitor2 giving a list of threads in
which a biblical accounting of this topic has been extensively
commented on. You need to first read those exegetical analysis
before commenting on my lack of study and understanding
concerning these things.
>
> > There are rules to interpretation.
>
> The first rule is not to believe that your interpreattion is the only one=
.
> Or else you fall into the sin of vanity.
>
I am not going to respond in kind. What I am going to do is encourage
you to take the time to at least read a primer on the subject of
interpretation.
Many besides myself have referred others to read "Protestant Biblical
Interpretation" by Benard Ramm. Again, only a primer but a good intro
to the subject.
>
>
> > You kicking against the goads which God has
> > established in the beginning.
>
> No, we are not. =A0We understand that God established Love, Committment a=
nd
> Fidelity as the values for humans to live by.
>
John used the Greek in a very specific way when he wrote, "God is
love." Apart
from the contextual definition, there is also the fact that the
sentence structure
is such that you cannot correctly reverse the statement to read, "Love
is God."
Now this is exactly what you are doing. Love is not the regulatory
attribute of
God. It is "Holy, Holy, Holy," that expresses the governoring
attribute. You
have made a grave presuppositional error.

Now as to " Committment and Fidelity", you must first pass 1st base
before
running on to 2nd or 3rd. You must first commit to God's revealed
standard
and be faithful to it before entering into a definition concerning
marriage. It
is God's nature which provides the foundation upon which everything is
raised
upon. The Law is founded upon that Nature and therefore the
principles within
are timeless. Note that Paul never discounted the principles taught
within
the Law but rather the inadequacy of its provision to fulfill it.
>
> >> HE doesn't change or evolve....but our UNDERSTANDING of Him evolves an=
d
> >> changes.
>
> > No it does not. =A0It deepens.
>
> Well, we can go back to the example of Bob Jones University.
>
> Did they change their understanding? =A0Did they evolve...or did their
> understanding "deepen".
>
> I hardly think it deepened.
>
Again, apples and oranges. Your analogy is false. First off, I don't
know
anything of what you are referring to, however, I do get the gist of
your
argument. But as an argument, it does not conform to the original.
For
race has nothing to do with moral choice. It is a false comparison as
I
noted in the previous reply.
>
> > That's because there is no biblical directive against it. =A0That's
> > because it
> > is a matter of race, not moral lifestyle.
>
> If you ask Bob Jones SRF., he'll give you all sorts of scripture condemni=
ng
> it.
>
Look, if you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to be
more strict in your analysis. If this were a collegiate debate, your
rebuttal would be thrown out. It simply has no relationship with the
case in point. If you arent able or honest enough to see that, well
perhaps you should be more considerate in your contests.
>

>
> > One doesn't get to chose his/her race.
>
> One doesn't get to choose if he/she is hetero or homo.
>
No one is arguing the point that we each have at least one
particular sin which troubles us. For argument sake, lets
use the adultery as an illustrative comparision. I might have
the inclination within me to always be "looking at little girls
with bad intent" as Tull sang. The real issue isn't so much
the inclination. The real issue is whether or not, by means
of the Spirit, I stand in the sphere of opposition to letting it
rule my thoughts and actions. I heartily recommend you
read one of John Owen's works, esp. "Mortification of
Sin." Or might I point you to something which deals much
less existentially but philosophically, "The Christian Doctrine
of Sin," by M=FCller.
>
> > 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments;
> > and His commandments are not burdensome.
>
> "I have kept the 10 commandments since I was little"...like the man in th=
e
> Bible said.
>
The point was that if, indeed, you are incline to serve Christ as
Lord, then His commandments would not be so difficult for you
that you feel the need to not only defend your biblically defined
immoral inclination, but by defending it, advocate it as well.
>

>
> > Apples and oranges.
>
> Again, anytime I pick apart your analofgies
>
My apologies, but IMHO, I think you are experiencing unwarranted
unwarranted visions of grandeur.
>
> and take them to their illogical conclusion,
>
But you don't. You treat them in exactly the same way
you treat the subject of this tread, presuppositionally. You
have your ducks, your basic beliefs all laid out before you
and you use them to interpret everything that passes you
by. I have been trying to get you and others to go back to
the beginning and investigate your presuppositions. I feel
that you are being very dishonest with yourself, let alone
with the discussion. You'll find it on Abebooks.com at
a very affordable price, "Christian Theistic Ethics" by
Vantil. By no means a primer but certainly an excellent
work discussing presuppositional thought when it comes
to arriving a moral conclusions.

[RP]

"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message
news:hO2Zk.2298$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> In article <Kt0Yk.1667$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Randy Quaidd
> says...
>>
>>Again, Jesus *never* spoke of homosexuality....so it wasn't all that
>>"elemental" to Him.
>
> Not true. It IS included in the mention of sexual immorality in Mat 15:19.

No, it is true. He spoke of sexual imorality.....not of homosexuality.

>>"I have kept the 10 commandments since I was little"...like the man in the
>>Bible said.
>
> I doubt anyone believes you. I know I don't.

Who cares....

[RP]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iO2Zk.2306$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 30, 6:29=A0pm, "B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>>
>> B -I've grown spiritually by reading other texts than the Bible for
>> spiritual truths or subjective spiritual "truths" if you will, and
>> watche=
> d
>> nature and meditated....my spirituality which was once based on fear of
>> retribution soared into new realms of being based on love.
>>
> But when you refuse to accept the God of scripture, you lose all
> basis for love, law, community, etc. I know you are not
> philosophically
> trained so I don't expect to understand this in any depth.

Only if you come to the same conclusion as lsenders are you on the right
path.

"Philosophoically Trained" reminds me of the Pharisees.

Yet Jesus took plain old fisherman to reveal Himself to.

[RP]

>> >> Again, so EVERYONE has to fit into your mold.
>>
>> > It's not my mold. =A0I didn't create the universe.
>>
>> No, the God that made the universe, made everyone different.
>>
>> You are limiting God's creation to only fit into your limited
>> understandi=
> ng.
>>
> Again, I'm not the one limiting it. It is God and His revelation
> given
> to man, who is to recognize and accept that it is He who defines and
> interprets man. So your argument isn't with me, but with what has
> been clearly taught in scripture.

No, the argument is with you...as you are claiming to flawlessly understand
God's will and flawlessly interpet scripture....as no man has done before.

> Now I just responded to Hall Monitor2 giving a list of threads in
> which a biblical accounting of this topic has been extensively
> commented on. You need to first read those exegetical analysis
> before commenting on my lack of study and understanding
> concerning these things.

Again, no one is impressed with your "study and understanding". The
Pharisees claimed to know every law inside and out.

They were so busy with their "study and understanding" they missed Jesus and
his message right in front of them.


>>
>> > There are rules to interpretation.
>>
>> The first rule is not to believe that your interpreattion is the only
>> one=
> .
>> Or else you fall into the sin of vanity.
>>
> I am not going to respond in kind.

Yet this is what you are falling into.

>> >> HE doesn't change or evolve....but our UNDERSTANDING of Him evolves
>> >> an=
> d
>> >> changes.
>>
>> > No it does not. =A0It deepens.
>>
>> Well, we can go back to the example of Bob Jones University.
>>
>> Did they change their understanding? =A0Did they evolve...or did their
>> understanding "deepen".
>>
>> I hardly think it deepened.
>>
> Again, apples and oranges. Your analogy is false. First off, I don't
> know
> anything of what you are referring to...

Maybe you should learn from the mistakes of Bob Jones and company.

>> > That's because there is no biblical directive against it. =A0That's
>> > because it
>> > is a matter of race, not moral lifestyle.
>>
>> If you ask Bob Jones SRF., he'll give you all sorts of scripture
>> condemni=
> ng
>> it.
>>
> Look, if you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to be
> more strict in your analysis. If this were a collegiate debate, your
> rebuttal would be thrown out.

No it would not. You are comitting the same misunderstandings as the people
at Bob Jones.

Yet, you claim the same "understanding".

You would rather debate "how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin"....while missing the complete Gospel.


>> > 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments;
>> > and His commandments are not burdensome.
>>
>> "I have kept the 10 commandments since I was little"...like the man in
>> th=
> e
>> Bible said.
>>
> The point was that if, indeed, you are incline to serve Christ as
> Lord, then His commandments would not be so difficult for you
> that you feel the need to not only defend your biblically defined
> immoral inclination, but by defending it, advocate it as well.

You make false assumptiuons. I do not defend "immoral inclination".
And if you would step away from the sin of vanity, and spent more time in
reflection, prayer and humility....ypou would see that you are missing the
Gospel message.

>> > Apples and oranges.
>>
>> Again, anytime I pick apart your analofgies
>> and take them to their illogical conclusion,
>>
> But you don't. You treat them in exactly the same way
> you treat the subject of this tread, presuppositionally.

Not at all.

> You
> have your ducks, your basic beliefs all laid out before you
> and you use them to interpret everything that passes you
> by.

This sound exactly what you are doing.

You read a line in the old testament....want to take it literally, so you
cook up some argument to re-inforce your human bias.

> I have been trying to get you and others to go back to
> the beginning and investigate your presuppositions. I feel
> that you are being very dishonest with yourself, let alone
> with the discussion.

And I think you have been dishonest with your own feelings as well.
Starting with a lack of humility.....which is one of the essentials of
following Christ.

You can't seem to realize that there are many different Christian Churches
that interpet the same Bible in different ways. I have known of Churches
that will preach Bpatism by immersion....and they complain about "invalid
baptisms" unless it is done their way. Churches that interpet tithing
differnetly.

You appear to be a fundamentalist "sola scripture" person who wants to
believe literal texts of the bible.

Good for you. I am not campaining to limit any of your rights. You are
free to follow your conscience and the leanings of the Holy SPirit.

You, on the other had, are stuck trying to take the speck out of your
brothers eye.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 2, 10:02=A0pm, RP <***@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:

>
> > Again, I'm not the one limiting it. =A0It is God and His revelation
> > given
> > to man, who is to recognize and accept that it is He who defines and
> > interprets man. =A0So your argument isn't with me, but with what has
> > been clearly taught in scripture.
>
> No, the argument is with you...as you are claiming to flawlessly understa=
nd
> God's will and flawlessly interpet scripture....as no man has done before=
.
>
What I am defending is the historical position of biblical exegesis.
It
is not I who is the one who is revising the teaching of the Church,
rather it is you.

Also, where is your analysis of the concerning text? Where is
your biblical exegesis of the applicable passages. Where is the
spiritual insight, as opposed to sheer rationalism, on what both
the author's and the Spirit were revealing?

Now I've already listed numerous past threads where the defense
of the historical interpretation is laboriously presented. Both the
OT and NT and the Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha were all given
a thorough inspection along with an investigation into the vulgar
usage of the words in question. There is nothing that supports the
recent theological posturing of homosexual advocates. The burden
of proof promptly lies at your door. Where is your "expert"
analysis? Have you even bothered to read what your "academics"
have written?
>
> > Now I just responded to Hall Monitor2 giving a list of threads in
> > which a biblical accounting of this topic has been extensively
> > commented on. =A0You need to first read those exegetical analysis
> > before commenting on my lack of study and understanding
> > concerning these things.
>
> Again, no one is impressed with your "study and understanding". =A0The
> Pharisees claimed to know every law inside and out.
>
It was good enough to be accepted by a half dozen theological
journals. It was good enough to warrant being placed in the faq
file in SRC for a good while. And it was good enough that the
academic community found little to disagree with. This is quite
contrary to what Boswell, Scroggs and Bailey have presented
over the recent years. They were about as well receive academically
as the Jehovah Witnesses in their interpretive abilities.

Honestly, a comment such as this only betrays the fact that
you never actually read them let alone pursued a validation
of all that was presented.
>
> They were so busy with their "study and understanding" they missed Jesus =
and
> his message right in front of them.
>
Which is not "Love, love, love. All you need is Love, girl. Love is
all you need."
>
> >> > There are rules to interpretation.
>
unfortunately, you offer no reason to accredit you with knowing the
rules nor the art of applying them. Men don't spend years in formal
training for no good reason.
>
> > The point was that if, indeed, you are incline to serve Christ as
> > Lord, then His commandments would not be so difficult for you
> > that you feel the need to not only defend your biblically defined
> > immoral inclination, but by defending it, advocate it as well.
>
> You make false assumptiuons. =A0I do not defend "immoral inclination".
> And if you would step away from the sin of vanity, and spent more time in
> reflection, prayer and humility....ypou would see that you are missing th=
e
> Gospel message.
>
Well, enough. Enlightenment only comes if the testimonium
internum Spiritus Sancti is graciously granted. Man cannot
come to know any spiritual object except through the use of
his mind -not his emotions; but spiritual knowledge certainly
extends beyond mere reason. It is not a mere logical or
imaginative construction, nor is its certainty the derived
certainty of an inference drawn from more certain premises.
Its certainty springs form an immediate awareness of and
contact with the thing known. It is not a notional, swimming
knowledge, second-hand, unstable in its pretense and its
defense. It is real and solid knowledge, the product of
a direct cognisance by spiritual sense of the things known.
The Divine operation whereby it is given is the inner witness
of His Holy Spirit, the "demonstration of the Spirit" (1 Cor 2:4).

Unfortunately, it seems that such things are beyond both
your understanding and your experience. I truly wish it
weren't so. Too many today have lost sight of the both
the majesty and the utter holiness of God. They forget
that after praying, "Our Father" that there is a defining
restraint placed on this claim, "Who art in heaven." It
is a declaration and acceptance that He_is_God, and
therefore the absolute Sovereign of the universe, esp.
the human universe. Man thinks himself to great to
simply accept God at His word. No, he has to redefine
the text inorder to grant himself a false peace. How
short sighted this paradigm is. For those who falsify
the clear teachings of God will surely have to stand
before those eyes of blazing fire. James 3:1
> >> > Apples and oranges.
>
> >> Again, anytime I pick apart your analofgies
> >> and take them to their illogical conclusion,
>
> > But you don't. =A0You treat them in exactly the same way
> > you treat the subject of this tread, presuppositionally.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > You
> > have your ducks, your basic beliefs all laid out before you
> > and you use them to interpret everything that passes you
> > by.
>
> This sound exactly what you are doing.
>
> You read a line in the old testament....want to take it literally, so you
> cook up some argument to re-inforce your human bias.
>
> > I have been trying to get you and others to go back to
> > the beginning and investigate your presuppositions. =A0I feel
> > that you are being very dishonest with yourself, let alone
> > with the discussion.
>
> And I think you have been dishonest with your own feelings as well.
> Starting with a lack of humility.....which is one of the essentials of
> following Christ.
>
> You can't seem to realize that there are many different Christian Churche=
s
> that interpet the same Bible in different ways. =A0I have known of Church=
es
> that will preach Bpatism by immersion....and they complain about "invalid
> baptisms" unless it is done their way. =A0Churches that interpet tithing
> differnetly.
>
> You appear to be a fundamentalist "sola scripture" person who wants to
> believe literal texts of the bible.
>
> Good for you. =A0I am not campaining to limit any of your rights. =A0You =
are
> free to follow your conscience and the leanings of the Holy SPirit.
>
> You, on the other had, are stuck trying to take the speck out of your
> brothers eye.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 2, 10:02=A0pm, RP <***@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> Yet Jesus took plain old fisherman to reveal Himself to.
>
They weren't "plain old fisherman" [sic]. For one, they were all
teenagers, except for Peter. For another, they lived during the
rabbinical times and were therefore well taught in at least the
books of Moses. For whatever reason, they had not, at the
age of 12, gone on, as Saul [Paul} had, to be more extensively
taught by a particular rabbi. This was the whole cultural
import of Jesus' statement to the 12 that He had chosen them
as His telmidim (disciples), not they who had chosen Him to
be their rabbi.

"Study to show yourselves approved."

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <dxnZk.2542$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, RP says...
>
>"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message
>news:hO2Zk.2298$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> In article <Kt0Yk.1667$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Randy Quaidd
>> says...
>>>
>>>Again, Jesus *never* spoke of homosexuality....so it wasn't all that
>>>"elemental" to Him.
>>
>> Not true. It IS included in the mention of sexual immorality in Mat 15:19.
>
>No, it is true. He spoke of sexual imorality.....not of homosexuality.

Yes, true, since homosexuality (in the sense of the acts) IS sexual immorality.

[B.G. Kent]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, RP wrote:

> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:iO2Zk.2306$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > On Nov 30, 6:29=A0pm, "B.G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> B -I've grown spiritually by reading other texts than the Bible for
> >> spiritual truths or subjective spiritual "truths" if you will, and
> >> watche=
> > d
> >> nature and meditated....my spirituality which was once based on fear of
> >> retribution soared into new realms of being based on love.
> >>
> > But when you refuse to accept the God of scripture, you lose all
> > basis for love, law, community, etc. I know you are not
> > philosophically
> > trained so I don't expect to understand this in any depth.
>
> Only if you come to the same conclusion as lsenders are you on the right
> path.
>
> "Philosophoically Trained" reminds me of the Pharisees.
>
> Yet Jesus took plain old fisherman to reveal Himself to.
>

B - I don't tend to read Isenders posts or Matthews anymore and haven't
for some time due to disrespectful attitude towards others who don't think
as they do and only see something of them when attached to someone elses.
I think of God first and the spiritual texts second. Calling "God" the
"God of the Bible" makes it sound as if God has been squeezed into a
little box and I find God so much more than that. The Books try to explain
God but God will also be defined AND undefined both.

I.M.O
Bren

[Robert E. Hall]

> B - I don't tend to read Isenders posts or Matthews anymore and haven't
> for some time due to disrespectful attitude towards others who don't think
> as they do and only see something of them when attached to someone elses.
> I think of God first and the spiritual texts second. Calling "God" the
> "God of the Bible" makes it sound as if God has been squeezed into a
> little box and I find God so much more than that. The Books try to explain
> God but God will also be defined AND undefined both.

Hi Bren,

I stopped responding to Matthew, but I am giving Loren a chance.

They are both literalists, who want to limit God to 9as you say) a box....so
that they can claim to understand the ins and outs of him.

When they create a box, the next thing they can do is decide who is INside
the box...and who is OUTside the box.

And as during the times of Jesus, many people who thought they were IN were
surprised when Jesus invited people who were on the outskirts of
society...what a surprise! The tax collectors, the prostitutes, etc.

They looked at Jesus in amazement..."What kind opf person is this who eats
with prostitutes and tax collectors"!

Things never change.


>
> I.M.O
> Bren
>
>

[A. Nona Muss]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z3k%k.605$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Dec 2, 10:02=A0pm, RP <***@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yet Jesus took plain 'ole fisherman to reveal Himself to.
>>
> They weren't "plain old fishermen. For one, they were all
> teenagers, except for Peter.

"Plain 'Ole Fishermen" doesn't mean they were of a certain age.

I'm sure there were other teenage fisherman.

> For another, they lived during the
> rabbinical times and were therefore well taught in at least the
> books of Moses.

This is a guess....for you have no reason to know this to be true or not.
Not everyone studied in the books of Moses, etc. For all you know they were
UN-churched.

But this is besides the point.

Jesus did not reveal himself to the studied pharisees....he revealed himself
to the coarse UN-educated fishermEn

[A. Nona Muss]

"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message
news:z3k%k.609$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> In article <dxnZk.2542$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, RP says...
>>
>>"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message
>>news:hO2Zk.2298$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>> In article <Kt0Yk.1667$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Randy Quaidd
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>>Again, Jesus *never* spoke of homosexuality....so it wasn't all that
>>>>"elemental" to Him.
>>>
>>> Not true. It IS included in the mention of sexual immorality in Mat
>>> 15:19.
>>
>>No, it is true. He spoke of sexual imorality.....not of homosexuality.
>
> Yes, true, since homosexuality (in the sense of the acts) IS sexual
> immorality.

Well, in the same manner that intercourse during menstration IS immoral.

There are people who believe lots of things.

However, Jesus never condemned homosexuality.

He DID condemn the pharisees who would try to trip up people with irrelevant
rules.

[Randy Fiore]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Aw1_k.2897$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Dec 2, 10:02=A0pm, RP <***@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Again, I'm not the one limiting it. =A0It is God and His revelation
>> > given
>> > to man, who is to recognize and accept that it is He who defines and
>> > interprets man. =A0So your argument isn't with me, but with what has
>> > been clearly taught in scripture.
>>
>> No, the argument is with you...as you are claiming to flawlessly
>> understa=
> nd
>> God's will and flawlessly interpet scripture....as no man has done
>> before=
> .
>>
> What I am defending is the historical position of biblical exegesis.
> It
> is not I who is the one who is revising the teaching of the Church,
> rather it is you.

No, I am just going back to the basics.

Like the pharisees who got caught up in this rule and that rule, they missed
Jesus within their midst.

> Also, where is your analysis of the concerning text?

Well, again, you simply point and chose to tests you like.....you appear to
be a literalist.

Othe christians are more contextual..

>> Again, no one is impressed with your "study and understanding". =A0The
>> Pharisees claimed to know every law inside and out.
>>
> It was good enough to be accepted by a half dozen theological
> journals.

So what? The fact that there are more like-minded people (especially
academics) does not impress.

> Honestly, a comment such as this only betrays the fact that
> you never actually read them let alone pursued a validation
> of all that was presented.

I have read the entire Bible front to back.

>> They were so busy with their "study and understanding" they missed Jesus
>> =
> and
>> his message right in front of them.
>>
> Which is not "Love, love, love.

I think the test says....

"And the greatest of these is Love".

> unfortunately, you offer no reason to accredit you with knowing the
> rules nor the art of applying them. Men don't spend years in formal
> training for no good reason.

Again, Pharisees spent a lot of time learning the texts inside and out.
Jesus was not impressed.


>> You make false assumptiuons. =A0I do not defend "immoral inclination".
>> And if you would step away from the sin of vanity, and spent more time in
>> reflection, prayer and humility....ypou would see that you are missing
>> th=
> e
>> Gospel message.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it seems that such things are beyond both
> your understanding and your experience.

Again, assumption on your part....leading to vanity.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 9, 7:24=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:z3k%k.605$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> > On Dec 2, 10:02=3DA0pm, RP <***@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yet Jesus took plain 'ole fisherman to reveal Himself to.
>
Now this illustrates so perfectly what we have been discussing.
Here you have "revised" the original post which was "old fisherman"
not "ole fisherman." Why would you do this? I just double
checked.
>
> > They weren't "plain old fishermen. =A0For one, they were all
> > teenagers, except for Peter.
>
> "Plain 'Ole Fishermen" doesn't mean they were of a certain age.
>
> I'm sure there were other teenage fisherman.
>
"other fishermEn." We know all but Peter was under the age
of 20 because of the temple tax. Only Peter and Jesus had
to pay. Remember the fish and the coin?
>
> > For another, they lived during the
> > rabbinical times and were therefore well taught in at least the
> > books of Moses.
>
> This is a guess.
>
No, this is education. There is where one who has had some
formal education, even a lot of reading, wide ranging reading and
study actually help determining an end, not "guessing." You
don't realize how surfacy you are until you pursue Jewish studies
in regards to understanding the Jewish authors.
>
>...for you have no reason to know this to be true or not.
>
I have a much better understanding and therefore reason
to conclude this than you do in presuming that I have no
reason. You are the presumptive one.

Besides, why are you arguing the point? Do you not
take instruction for anyone more informed than yourself?
>
> Not everyone studied in the books of Moses, etc. =A0For all you know they=
were
> UN-churched.
>
Well of course they were "un-churched" because the "church" did
not come into existence prior to Pentecost! However, an educated
student draws the reasoned conclusion that they definitely were not,
as you presented it, "un-churched," i.e. not trained in the Torah,
because their Greek is not "un-educated," because they quote from
both the Hebrew and the LXX, and their culture at that time was
such that the norm was that both girls and boys were trained in
either the Writings or the Torah respectively.
> But this is besides the point.
>
> Jesus did not reveal himself to the studied pharisees....he revealed hims=
elf
> to the coarse UN-educated fishermEn
>
And who was Joseph of Arimathea? No, not a Pharisee but
having some relation to the Sanhedrin . John also has a
relation there. John, after all, had no problem following Christ
in during His trial.

Jesus didn't reveal himself to many uneducated people
as He did to educated. Your argument is not good.

For you and other who are pursuing this line of argument,
don't you ever read your bibles. What do the epistles
constantly seek to do? They seek to educate. And
beyond that, what about the prayers? Look at Paul...

For this reason I too... do not cease... to make mention
of you in my prayers, that God of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom
[sophia] and of revelation in the KNOWLEDGE of Him....
[Eph 1:15ff]

For this reason... we have not ceased to pray for you
and to ask that you may be filled with the real knowledge
of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding SO
THAT YOU MAY WALK in a manner worthy of the
Lord, to please Him all respects.... [Col 1:9ff]

as opposed to those who...

have a zeal for God but not in accordance to knowledge."
[Rom 10:2]

And what about the last chapter of Luke's gospel? He
taught them from the Scriptures. He didn't teach them
some revision of what was written. He opened their
eyes to what had been Divinely hidden from them.

And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets,
He explained to them the things concerning HImself
in all the scriptures....then He opened their minds
to understand the Scriptures."

This real content knowledge. This isn't "tickle
their ears" Mr. Feelgood understanding. This
was verifiable "they searched the scriptures"
content which was reasoned and sound. If
you have no means of verification you have
no safeguard against error.

Why do you stand against such understanding?
Is it because you have an established need and
therefore you blind yourself to an unprejudiced
understanding of what God has declared? Don't
write back to answer me. Get on your knees
and HONESTLY as God.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 9, 7:24=A0pm, Randy Fiore <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>

>
> > Also, where is your analysis of the concerning text?
>
> Well, again, you simply point and chose to tests you like.....you appear =
to
> be a literalist.
>
What other way is there to understand it? Even here, you
**presume** that I read you literally!!! How else does one
transmit knowledge and understanding? Have you no appreci-
ation of the premise of epistemology?

I by no means mean to be mean but what you and those
who are aligning themselves with this defense, simply are
overly naive or patently obtuse. I don't know and probably
don't care. The only thing I care about is for all of you
to reassess your basic presuppositions. I mean the
elemental presuppositions. I don't have to give an
answer to God for you. I only have to give an answer for
rightly presenting HIS truth and doing so in a loving,
caring manner understanding that we all stand before God
as sinners in dependence upon His good favor. But that
said, He is the head of the house and His rules are those
of the Creator. When He declares something, who are we
to seek for loop holes?

selah!

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 9, 7:24=A0pm, Randy Fiore <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>

>
> > What I am defending is the historical position of biblical exegesis.
> > It
> > is not I who is the one who is revising the teaching of the Church,
> > rather it is you.
>
> No, I am just going back to the basics.
>
No, you are revising what the church has held for 2000 yrs and
what Israel held before that. Even in secular histories,
homosexuality
was view negatively. Gibbons, in his "Rise and Decline of the
Roman Empire," listed it as one of the classical signs of a
society in decline.
>
> Like the pharisees who got caught up in this rule and that rule, they mis=
sed
> Jesus within their midst.
>
Then read Paul. He never states that the Law was discontinued.
You're advocating antinomianism. There are "rules" for as John
wrote and I have already referred to, one of the witnesses of a
mature believer is that the commands of God are not "burdensome."
>
> > Also, where is your analysis of the concerning text?
>
> Well, again, you simply point and chose to tests you like.....you appear =
to
> be a literalist.
>
No, this is part of a debate. You have come here to air your
version of the truth. However, you have expressed no support
for your position other than to state it. You are entering into
a system of belief, Christianity, but without either authority
or attestation to your opinion.

No one is denying you your opinion. However, if you are
going to express it here in a theological NG, you will need to
provide a basis for your interpretation of the said system or
be denied any worthiness. Apparently you haven't had much
schooling for what you are presenting is mere opinion with
no, and I truly mean no, substantiating evidence that there
is any reason for your faith other than it is just what you
have conveniently conjured up for yourself to keep you
warm at night. But no one else is buying it.
>
> Othe christians are more contextual..
>
You've not presented ANY contextual proof for your
opinion. "Contextual?"
>
> >> Again, no one is impressed with your "study and understanding". =3DA0T=
he
> >> Pharisees claimed to know every law inside and out.
>
> > It was good enough to be accepted by a half dozen theological
> > journals.
>
> So what? =A0The fact that there are more like-minded people (especially
> academics) does not impress.
>
"I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life. NO man comes to me
except through the Father."

Academic? Here Christ made a truth statement. No a lot people
believe that all roads lead to heaven. But the statement made by
Christ is an absolute. In the oriental way, it makes both a positive
and a negative statement. It was declared to be understood
rationally, i.e. literally. The Greek reveals that there is a
definite
article before Way, Truth and Life. This makes it exclusive. And
it that were not already enough, He adds the negative. Academic?
No! It's called being reasonable. It's called substantiated
knowledge. You have only presented an opinion and you know
what they say about opinions.
>
> > Honestly, a comment such as this only betrays the fact that
> > you never actually read them let alone pursued a validation
> > of all that was presented.
>
> I have read the entire Bible front to back.
>
You can't even follow the argument of the tread and you want us
to image you understanding Scripture? Go back and read the
reply. You stated that you had read the numerous articles
provided that substantially detail why it is simple revisionism
to advocate that the NT suddenly accepts the homosexual. Why
such a position doesn't hold water. It's not mere academics.
What it is is "sound doctrine."

"Be diligent to present yourselves approved to God as
a co-workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling
accurately the Word of Truth." [2 Tim 2:15]

"If any one advocates a different doctrine and does
not consent with sound words, those of our Lord
Jesus Christ and with the doctrine conforming to
godliness -he is conceited and understands nothing.."
[1 Tim 6:3,4]

note that "conceited" is in the past tense. It is a
finished work of pride. Also note that "nothing"
speaks to the fact that such are devoid of
knowledge because they are unable to reflect
objectively on the Truth.

"sound doctrine" You should look at how this
phrase is used and then hold up your own "opinions"
to what is said.
>
> > Which is not "Love, love, love.
>
> I think the test says....
>
> "And the greatest of these is Love".
>
And here you illustrate for all how inadequate you are
in properly handling the Word of Truth. Just above you
claimed to be "more contextual" and yet you are any
thing but in referring to 1 Cor 13. For there Paul is NOT
commenting on the nature of God but rather, quite
deliberately placed between two lengthy condemnations,
the final apologetic of the christian and the Church. This
is completely in harmony with Christ prayer of Jn 17.

Apples and oranges my dear fellow.
>
> > unfortunately, you offer no reason to accredit you with knowing the
> > rules nor the art of applying them. =A0Men don't spend years in formal
> > training for =A0no good reason.
>
> Again, Pharisees spent a lot of time learning the texts inside and out.
> Jesus was not impressed.
>
So? The Pharisees where not condemned for their knowledge of the
Hebrew bible. No, what they were condemned of was their failure to
recognize external apart from internal are a nothingness to God. It
wasn't, as you presume falsely, that they were wordsmiths. In point
of fact, they were commended because their study correctly under-
stood scripture to regard the resurrection as a thing to be believed.

No my friend, you completely misunderstand the Pharisees. They
were to be commended for their zeal for God. What was condemned
however, is that they did it so as to boast before men. Do you
think God will commend you for treating His revealed Word of Truth
as if it were Sunday supplement reading? "Study to show yourself
approved."
>
> >> You make false assumptiuons. =3DA0I do not defend "immoral inclination=
".
> >> And if you would step away from the sin of vanity, and spent more time=
in
> >> reflection, prayer and humility....ypou would see that you are missing
> >> th=3D
> > e
> >> Gospel message.
>
> >> Unfortunately, it seems that such things are beyond both
> > your understanding and your experience.
>
> Again, assumption on your part....leading to vanity.
>
I'll let the Lord judge on that. For my part, I am merely the
one shouting that the bridge up ahead is out as you seem
so dead set on driving "full speed ahead."

[Rick O'Brien]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1sY%k.1122$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Dec 9, 7:24=A0pm, Randy Fiore <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>
>>
>> > Also, where is your analysis of the concerning text?
>>
>> Well, again, you simply point and chose to tests you like.....you appear
>> =
> to
>> be a literalist.
>>
> What other way is there to understand it?

You can read contextually.

First, understand who was speaking.

Know who they were speaking to.

Recognize the time period and surroundings.

[Rick O'Brien]

>> > What I am defending is the historical position of biblical exegesis.
>> > It
>> > is not I who is the one who is revising the teaching of the Church,
>> > rather it is you.
>>
>> No, I am just going back to the basics.
>>
> No, you are revising what the church has held for 2000 yrs and
> what Israel held before that.

Well, the Church hung onto the prosecution of Galileo for 200 years as well,
becasue he dared say the Earth rotated around the sun.

The basics are what Jesus himself taught in the Gospels.

> Even in secular histories,
> homosexuality
> was view negatively.

Of course, anything that was different, people saw as threatening.

Anything that was threatening had to be wrong.

I want to live by the teachings of Christ. You want to live by the
teachings of the Old Testament apparently.

> Gibbons, in his "Rise and Decline of the
> Roman Empire," listed it as one of the classical signs of a
> society in decline.

Again, there was more wrong in the Roman Empire than homosexuality.

And seeing as the homosexuals were a minority, feel free to plop the blame
of the fall on them.

But, again, you want to live in the past.

>>
>> Like the pharisees who got caught up in this rule and that rule, they
>> mis=
> sed
>> Jesus within their midst.
>>
> Then read Paul.

I did.

And it doesn't change the fact that The "educated" Pharisees were so caught
up in rules they missed Jesus in their own midst.

Instead Jesus revealed himself to Fisherman.

> No, this is part of a debate. You have come here to air your
> version of the truth. However, you have expressed no support
> for your position other than to state it.

The support is the Gospels and the life opf Jesus Christ.

> You are entering into
> a system of belief, Christianity, but without either authority
> or attestation to your opinion.

Christianity = Christ

Again, there are only four Gospels.

Reading the Gospel's and imitating the Life of Christ.

It's pretty simple.

Instead, you, like the Pharisee's are trying to instill your own bias and
trip others up.

>
> No one is denying you your opinion. However, if you are
> going to express it here in a theological NG, you will need to
> provide a basis for your interpretation of the said system or
> be denied any worthiness.

Again, the basis for my interpretation is the Life of Christ...and the
Gospels.

> Apparently you haven't had much
> schooling for what you are presenting is mere opinion with
> no, and I truly mean no, substantiating evidence

Apparently you have had TOO much schooling, you have lost yourself in
academia and scared away the Holy SPirit.

You would apparently like to argue how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin...while Jesus Christ walks right past you.

The SUBSTANTIATING evidence isright there in the Gospels.

You dont see it?

> But no one else is buying it.

More people are "buying" the Gospel message and losing your old style of
theology from the 60's.

> "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life. NO man comes to me
> except through the Father."

Amen!

> Academic? Here Christ made a truth statement. No a lot people
> believe that all roads lead to heaven. But the statement made by
> Christ is an absolute.

Amen!

> It's called substantiated
> knowledge.

No, what you are doing is called self-substantiated knowledge.

> You have only presented an opinion and you know
> what they say about opinions.

When the opinions are those of the Gospels, they say they are are Divine.


>> I have read the entire Bible front to back.
>>
> You can't even follow the argument of the tread and you want us
> to image you understanding Scripture?

Well, after your desert island story was debunked, you seemed tohave gotten
disconbobulated.

Don't blame me for that!

> "sound doctrine" You should look at how this
> phrase is used and then hold up your own "opinions"
> to what is said.

I think Jesus laid out all the "sound doctrine" we needed.

>> > Which is not "Love, love, love.
>>
>> I think the test says....
>>
>> "And the greatest of these is Love".
>>
> And here you illustrate for all how inadequate you are
> in properly handling the Word of Truth.

I just pointed out th error of your comment....."The greatest of these is
love"!

>> Again, Pharisees spent a lot of time learning the texts inside and out.
>> Jesus was not impressed.
>>
> So?

So? So? It's the same thing you are doing.

> No my friend, you completely misunderstand the Pharisees.

No, I understand them pretty well.

With all the regalia, office and scriptural study....Jesus was not impressed
with them.

Jesus instead chose to reveal himself to the poor, uneducated, tax
collectors and prostitutes.

[Rick O'Brien]

>> >> Yet Jesus took plain 'ole fisherman to reveal Himself to.
>>
> Now this illustrates so perfectly what we have been discussing.
> Here you have "revised" the original post which was "old fisherman"
> not "ole fisherman." Why would you do this? I just double
> checked.

It was changed because you apparently didn't understand the saying.

I don't know if english is your first language, but the sayingwe have "Good
Old/'Ole Loren"....doesn't mean years or age.

"Little Old Me"...doesn't indicate I am old.

>> > For another, they lived during the
>> > rabbinical times and were therefore well taught in at least the
>> > books of Moses.
>>
>> This is a guess.
>>
> No, this is education.

Please show me proof. Or esle it's an assumption...and you know what
happens when you assume.

The road to hell is filled with those that extrapolate!

>>...for you have no reason to know this to be true or not.
>>
> I have a much better understanding and therefore reason
> to conclude this than you do in presuming that I have no
> reason. You are the presumptive one.

You have proof of this?

However, the point is moot.

Jesus did not reveal himself to the aristocrats, the scholars, or the
pharissee's.

Thats the point.


> Besides, why are you arguing the point? Do you not
> take instruction for anyone more informed than yourself?
>>
>> Not everyone studied in the books of Moses, etc. =A0For all you know
>> they=
> were
>> UN-churched.
>>
> Well of course they were "un-churched" because the "church" did
> not come into existence prior to Pentecost!

Again...unchurched is a current day phrase.

The Church at the time was the Jewish Temple or synagogue!

Again, you want to argue point that are not important.

>> But this is besides the point.

No kiddin'

> For you and other who are pursuing this line of argument,
> don't you ever read your bibles. What do the epistles
> constantly seek to do? They seek to educate.

There is nothing wrong with education. It's when education leads you to the
sin of vanity.

The Pharisees had position, power and education...but were stunted by
vanity...and a lack of humility.

You seem to be falling to these same traps as well.


I would guess that your theological understanding is from the mid 60's or
so?

And you vehemently defend it...because anything that challenges this is a
threat.

Living in the Spirit, imitatiung the life of Christ....Living the Gospel
message somehow threatens you.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 11, 9:35=A0pm, Rick O'Brien <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > For another, they lived during the
> >> > rabbinical times and were therefore well taught in at least the
> >> > books of Moses.
>
> >> This is a guess.
>
> > No, this is education.
>
> Please show me proof. =A0Or esle it's an assumption...and you know what
> happens when you assume.
>

My youngest son and I were talking about this today
which reminded me of two key proof's that what I
said is evidenced in the Gospels. One, how old was
Christ when He first celebrated the Passover? He
was 12. This is in keeping with rabbinical training
where those who had memorized the first five books
by the age twelve were then granted the honor of
offering the passover lamb. Two, how old was He
when He began His ministry? 30. Again, the
rabbinical school held this to be the age when
the temidium (disciples) were come of age to
advance to rabbi status themselves. To be what
was known as a "rabbi with authority," one had
to have the entire Jewish Bible memorized. I'll
not go into all that that entailed but it well
illustrates that not on Jesus but also His disciples
were taught in the Scriptures.

[B.G. Kent]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Rick O'Brien wrote:

> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1sY%k.1122$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > On Dec 9, 7:24=A0pm, Randy Fiore <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> > Also, where is your analysis of the concerning text?
> >>
> >> Well, again, you simply point and chose to tests you like.....you appear
> >> =
> > to
> >> be a literalist.
> >>
> > What other way is there to understand it?
>
> You can read contextually.
>
> First, understand who was speaking.
>
> Know who they were speaking to.
>
> Recognize the time period and surroundings.
>

B - true...and the parable and koan were used constantly. To take the
Bible literally is a bit of a folly in my opinion.


Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 11, 9:35=A0pm, Rick O'Brien <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1sY%k.1122$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> > On Dec 9, 7:24=3DA0pm, Randy Fiore <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Also, where is your analysis of the concerning text?
>
> >> Well, again, you simply point and chose to tests you like.....you appe=
ar
> >> =3D
> > to
> >> be a literalist.
>
> > What other way is there to understand it?
>
> You can read contextually.
>
> First, understand who was speaking.
>
> Know who they were speaking to.
>
> Recognize the time period and surroundings.

Rick, I don't know how educated you are in theological
training, but "literalism" is not in conflict with
"contextualization." The grammatical/historic herm-
eneutic (literalism) employes all these aspects. So
I don't know what you are trying to establish with this
supposed differentiation.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 11, 9:35=A0pm, Rick O'Brien <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Yet Jesus took plain 'ole fisherman to reveal Himself to.
>
> > Now this illustrates so perfectly what we have been discussing.
> > Here you have "revised" the original post which was "old fisherman"
> > not "ole fisherman." =A0Why would you do this? =A0I just double
> > checked.
>
> It was changed because you apparently didn't understand the saying.
>
> I don't know if english is your first language, but the sayingwe have =A0=
"Good
> Old/'Ole Loren"....doesn't mean years or age.
>
But that doesn't grant one to change the original reply without
notation.

English is my first language and what you wrote would normally
be read with "old" having the primary definition referring to age.
Most
people write "ole" when they mean "ole" not "old." The kings english
has long since lost its primary position.
>
> "Little Old Me"...doesn't indicate I am old.
>
> >> > For another, they lived during the
> >> > rabbinical times and were therefore well taught in at least the
> >> > books of Moses.
>
> >> This is a guess.
>
> > No, this is education.
>
> Please show me proof. =A0Or esle it's an assumption...and you know what
> happens when you assume.
>
I'm not going to prove anything to you. You are going to go out
and get your own study material and learn these things for your-
self. A good bible encyclopedia or some reference work on the
life and times (culture) of Jesus would document these things.
Just because you've never heard or been taught historical Judaism
doesn't equate that what I have expressed here is wrong. Honestly,
IMHO, these are what the author of Hebrews expressed in Ch 6,
"elementary" things.
>
> The road to hell is filled with those that extrapolate!
>
?????? Because I bothered to inform you of these things
I'm going to hell? Just what is it that you feel so defensive
about? You don' t like when someone else knows more
that you do? Anyone more informed is a bad person in
your eyes?
>
> >>...for you have no reason to know this to be true or not.
>
> > I have a much better understanding and therefore reason
> > to conclude this than you do in presuming that I have no
> > reason. =A0You are the presumptive one.
>
> You have proof of this?
>
> However, the point is moot.
>
> Jesus did not reveal himself to the aristocrats, the scholars, or the
> pharissee's.
>
Who do you think Nicodemus was? Also, you are extrapolating
an argument from silence. Just because most of the religious
leaders rejected His kingdom offer, does not grant you or anyone
else the right to dogmatically conclude "Jesus did not reveal Him-
self." Besides, that is the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Thats the point.
>
No, that's a presumption.
>
> > Besides, why are you arguing the point? =A0Do you not
> > take instruction for anyone more informed than yourself?
>
> >> Not everyone studied in the books of Moses, etc. =3DA0For all you know
> >> they=3D
> > were
> >> UN-churched.
>
> > Well of course they were "un-churched" because the "church" did
> > not come into existence prior to Pentecost!
>
> Again...unchurched is a current day phrase.
>
Again, presumption. You are presuming that the 12 and other
disciples did not 1) attend their local synagogue, 2) were not
trained in the Torah.

Again I ask, what axe are you grinding here?
>
> The Church at the time was the Jewish Temple or synagogue!
>
No, it was not. The synagogue was just that, a synagogue. Here
you have capitalized "Church" which distinguishes it and formalizes
its meaning. The "Church," i.e. the body and bride of Christ, was
not brought into existence until the Spirit was sent by the Father
and the Son. The Church did not exist prior to Pentecost. It
wasn't even known of until Christ spoke of it in the upper room.
This is why Paul speaks of it as a "mystery" i.e. something not
before revealed let alone existing.
>
> Again, you want to argue point that are not important.
>
I'm not arguing. I'm trying to teach you to be more refined
in your theology.
>
> >> But this is besides the point.
>
> No kiddin'
>
> > For you and other who are pursuing this line of argument,
> > don't you ever read your bibles. =A0What do the epistles
> > constantly seek to do? =A0They seek to educate.
>
> There is nothing wrong with education. =A0It's when education leads you t=
o the
> sin of vanity.
>
Which you are asigning to me because I have brought forth
an extremely documented apology denying that homosexuality
is view differently in the NT that it was in the OT. Just because
you have not taken the time nor put forth the effort required to
study theologians from both sides of the argument, to pursue
an indepth investigation into the words in biblical context, in
Jewish culture and pagan culture, don't seek to push all that
I have listed in past posts off the table just because you
can't respond in like manner.
>
> The Pharisees had position, power and education...but were stunted by
> vanity...and a lack of humility.
>
> You seem to be falling to these same traps as well.
>
;-) W_E
>
> I would guess that your theological understanding is from the mid 60's or
> so?
>
????? Ya, I've flew off in a space ship and just returned. Time warp
I
guess.
>
> And you vehemently defend it...because anything that challenges this is a
> threat.
>
Now here you are betraying your own thoughts and feeling by
seeking to establish them as my own.

Here is the freedom granted to those who have actually done their
home work, who have studies doctrines and issues to such a degree
as to become established, not a rudderless ships. Jude, oh how
I am becoming fond of Jude. I've already referred to this little
epistle and how well it illustrates exactly what is happening here.

v. 3 "contend" is a forceful expression meaning to fight, to defend
to contest for "earnestly." For what? "The Faith." Definite
article.
It is The established truth taught by the apostles. This also
included
the Hebrew scriptures as Peter equates the Pauline letters to them.
"The Faith." It is defined. What you and the others are trying to
accomplish is no less that what Jude fears in v. 4. You are seeking
to establish a false, revised, "your self serving version" teaching
"following after their own ungodly lusts," which is contrary to The
Faith, "the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles."
>
> Living in the Spirit, imitatiung the life of Christ....Living the Gospel
> message somehow threatens you.
>
"Living in the Spirit" is living without doctrine and dogma? I
think you are the one threatened by having a standard by which
you are to live and give an answer to. You want your cake
and eat it too. You want teachers that tickle your ears, who
seek man's favor, not God's.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Dec 11, 9:35=A0pm, Rick O'Brien <***@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>
> > No, you are revising what the church has held for 2000 yrs and
> > what Israel held before that.
>
> Well, the Church hung onto the prosecution of Galileo for 200 years as we=
ll,
> becasue he dared say the Earth rotated around the sun.
>
"the Church" is equal to the Roman Catholic Organization?
>
> The basics are what Jesus himself taught in the Gospels.
>
Jesus taught Jews, not Gentiles. Jesus came to fulfill the
Law. He didn't come to dismiss the Law, but to fulfill it. To
do what fallen men could not do. The "basics" were given
to the Apostles to teach and reveal.
>
> > Even in secular histories,
> > homosexuality
> > was view negatively.
>
> Of course, anything that was different, people saw as threatening.
>
> Anything that was threatening had to be wrong.
>
> I want to live by the teachings of Christ. =A0You want to live by the
> teachings of the Old Testament apparently.
>
"The Law is holy and the commandment is holy and
righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become
death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin... for we
know that the Law is spiritual."

And because you seek to jettison the Hebrew scriptures,
"What shall we say then? Shall we sin because we are
not under Law but under grace? May it never be!"

The principles taught and established in Hebrew
scriptures were amplified, not discarded, by Christ.
>
> > Gibbons, in his "Rise and Decline of the
> > Roman Empire," =A0listed it as one of the classical signs of a
> > society in decline.
>
> Again, there was more wrong in the Roman Empire than homosexuality.
>
> And seeing as the homosexuals were a minority, feel free to plop the blam=
e
> of the fall on them.
>
enough! You aren't interested in acquiring knowledge. You
don't really care what the scriptures teach. You will wrangle
them to suit your own self serving purposes without any
regard for spiritual honesty. Sometimes I fear for others.

[v***@gmail.com]

I'd like some clarification. Is it sinful for a man to love a man or
woman to love a woman if no genital sex is involved?

What about affectionate kissing between men and women (passionate
affection but not sexual)?

What about stroking of faces, arms, etc - anything not considered to
be sexual?

[A. Hermaphrodite]

Re: ENEMY OF GAY PEOPLE

Lines: 60
Message-ID: <vH6Sk.650$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:09:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.90.230.25
X-Complaints-To: ***@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrddc02.gnilink.net 1226372955 72.90.230.25 (Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:09:15 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:09:15 EST
Bytes: 3795
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com soc.religion.christian:113144

I asked him, "Why do you care? What would Gay people be treated like in
a free Muslim ruled Palestine? Don't people like you count?"
As long as the ugliness continues, the Gay Atheists and non-religious
community numbers which were largely ignored will now be swelling to
glorious proportions. We old timers can say, "I told you so."

I ask Gays to re-examine their faiths and see how badly they are treated
by their own families and the religious community they were brought up
in. Realize religion is the culprit and these religions have nothing to
do with a real God even if there is one.

Gays, leave the churches, the mosques and synagogues. Stop showing up
for their weddings, funerals and holidays. Get away from them or be hurt
by them. Stop saying "Merry Christmas" back to those mean straight
people in public. Simply say, "It is not my holiday."

When homophobic relatives invite you to weddings. Simply say, "I don't
go to weddings." And if they ask. "Why not," as my niece said to me,
simply say, "I don't go to weddings because they're not coming to mine."
Leave the religious charity work and find a secular one that doesn't
hate Gay people like you, Remember many of these religions once even
executed people like you and in some foreign lands still do. Don't
expect them to change.

It is not loneliness when you abstain from being around people who
despise you. Gay communities often have pot luck holidays, to avoid the
usual nasty slurs you receive at straight gatherings. I've gone to
several over the years and they are a riot, free of all the
uncomfortable people pleasing difficult emotional challenges of hiding
what you really feel.

Nowadays if it ain't Gay, I ain't going.

So, so many Gay priests who think they are serving God, must realize the
fraudulent Catholic church they serve. Know the mean and treacherous
history of the RCC and don't just come out to a flock of parishioners.
Leave the church altogether. It is a waste of time and it feeds into the
notion that Gay people like you should be abhorred, beaten, rejected,
fired from your jobs, blackmailed and left lonely and unmarried to
someone you choose, without recourse. Are these bad notions pleasing a
God?

Gays, save your sanity, leave Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
__________________________________
ExChristianDotNet - encouraging ex-Christians (de-converting or former
Christians)
Address:http://exchristian.net/ Changed:5:37 AM on Sunday, November 9,
2008
__________________________________
Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists (GALAH)
Address:http://www.galah.org/ Changed:10:05 AM on Wednesday, July 23,
2008
_____________________________
American Atheists
Address:http://www.atheists.org/ Changed:8:22 PM on Sunday, November 9,
2008
_______________________________
Ex-Gay Watch (EX-EX GAYS)
Address:http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/ Changed:5:20 PM on Sunday,
November 9, 2008

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <opsQk.3426$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, shegeek72 says...
>
>On Nov 4, 7:18 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>You hold an old-school, fundamentalist flavor of Christianity and are
>obviously set in your ways and will not be swayed by another
>viewpoint.

Viewpoints don't sway rational people; rational arguments do. You, OTOH, have
shown great resistance to rational arguments. You show a strong preference for
totally irrational arguments.

>That's sad, as it can lead to unhappiness, depression and
>even murder/suicide of your GLBT brothers and sisters.

Such as this one.

[snip]

----

[If this discussion is going to continue, it needs to have
content other than attacking each other. --clh]

[A. Nona Muss]

> Ihave been going to a very open
>> and
>> accepting liberal church where some people are openly gay. =A0Do you
>> think
>> this is right or wrong? =A0Drop by and express yourself.
>>
>> www.SavvySingleChristpan.blogspot.com
>>
>> PS =A0I am straight and find myself not agreeing.
>
> There is more to this than a simple yes or no. From a normal reading
> of scripture, even a deeply exegetical exposition, homosexuality is
> contrary to the forms established and revealed by God.

However, not all Christian Churches espose this interpretation.


> This life style is anything but "gay." Having worked in that
> community
> as far back at the late '60 in an Atlanta medical ward dealing with
> men
> who had something which only later came to called, AIDs, I've seen
> first hand the deep unhappiness of that life style.

A lot has changed in 40 years.

And promiscuity is unhealthy and sinful either homosexual OR heterosexual.
(It's not the sole provice of homosexuality as you appear to point out.)


> But it is a deception and it is in-
> satiable. Just two months ago my wife's brother revealed his affair
> with another man. It has eaten him up inside.

Would his sin have been any less "satiable" if it was with another woman?

I would imagine it would "eat him up inside" just the same.
(Addiction, self-destruction can be either hetero or homo...it's not the
sole province of homosexuality.)


> So understand that
> to attend an assembly that is so accepting of this life style, will
> suffer the same as illustrated repeatedly by the OT...

ALL assemblies have sin and sinners. SOme are visible, some are not. Some
we tolerate, some we do not.

Even if you believe homosexuality IS sin (not all do), it is wrong to pick
some sins and exclude those people from the Church, while welcoming other
sinners.

We have coma a long way since the OT strictures and stories. We are now
"Jesus People" and living under the Holy Spirit.

[Phineas]

On Oct 27, 8:00 pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
...
> A lot has changed in 40 years.
>
> And promiscuity is unhealthy and sinful either homosexual OR heterosexual.
> (It's not the sole provice of homosexuality as you appear to point out.)
...
> ALL assemblies have sin and sinners. SOme are visible, some are not. Some
> we tolerate, some we do not.
>
> Even if you believe homosexuality IS sin (not all do), it is wrong to pick
> some sins and exclude those people from the Church, while welcoming other
> sinners.
>
> We have coma a long way since the OT strictures and stories. We are now
> "Jesus People" and living under the Holy Spirit.

Excuse me, BUT the BIBLE, as you quoted, is QUITE clear in that NO
homosexual will enter the kingdom of GOD, so for you to question
whether or Not homosexuality is a Salvation Denying SIN seems to
indicate that you are either UN-willing to Believe what the BIBLE
says, or YOU are Just Playing Games, as SO MANY other so-called
"Christians!!!"

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Oct 27, 7:00=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:

>
> However, not all Christian Churches espose this interpretation.
>
only those who revise the text.
only those who are not careful with their exegesis.
>
> A lot has changed in 40 years.
>
It has never ceased being wrong for God has never
ceased to condemn it because God does not change.
>
> And promiscuity is unhealthy and sinful either homosexual OR heterosexual=
.
> (It's not the sole provice of homosexuality as you appear to point out.)
>
That is not the issue.
>
> Would his sin have been any less "satiable" if it was with another woman?
>
> I would imagine it would "eat him up inside" just the same.
> (Addiction, self-destruction can be either hetero or homo...it's not the
> sole province of homosexuality.)
>
Two wrongs do not make a right.
>
> > So understand that
> > to attend an assembly that is so accepting of this life style, will
> > suffer the same as illustrated repeatedly by the OT...
>
> ALL assemblies have sin and sinners. =A0SOme are visible, some are not. =
=A0Some
> we tolerate, some we do not.
>
> Even if you believe homosexuality IS sin (not all do),
>
Truth is not regulated by whether or not anyone believes it.
"God said it, that settles it" whether anyone choses to believe
it or not.
>
>it is wrong to pick
> some sins and exclude those people from the Church, while welcoming other
> sinners.
>
No, not necessarily. A careful reading of scripture would reveal
to you that sexual sins are counted differently. "Every other sin
that a man commits is outside his body, but the immoral man
sins against his own body."
>
> We have coma a long way since the OT strictures and stories. =A0We are no=
w
> "Jesus People" and living under the Holy Spirit.
>
No, you are living under the spirit of deceit and delusion.
Even you have yourself described yourself as being in a
coma [sic]!

Again, only revisionism can twist scripture to allow for
a life style that is antithetical to the Godhead itself.

Rom 1:32

You advocate that your revisionism has removed restraint.
Rom 1 advocates that only God has the authority to remove
restraint. Selah!

[qquito]

You can interpret the Bible, but those churches that accept gay life-
style can also interpret the Bible. Yes, you are reading the SAME
Bible, but the same Bible is subject to a myriad of different
interpretations---all by Christians.

Unless you prove you are the spokesperson of God, your interpretation
is NO MORE right than other interpretations. But even if you can prove
you are God's spokesperson, your words can also be subject to
different interpretations by different Christians.

On Nov 2, 8:14=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 27, 7:00=3DA0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > However, not all Christian Churches espose this interpretation.
>
> only those who revise the text.
> only those who are not careful with their exegesis.
>
> > A lot has changed in 40 years.
>
> It has never ceased being wrong for God has never
> ceased to condemn it because God does not change.
> .........

[A Browne]

> You can interpret the Bible, but those churches that accept gay life-
> style can also interpret the Bible. Yes, you are reading the SAME
> Bible, but the same Bible is subject to a myriad of different
> interpretations---all by Christians.
>
> Unless you prove you are the spokesperson of God, your interpretation
> is NO MORE right than other interpretations. But even if you can prove
> you are God's spokesperson, your words can also be subject to
> different interpretations by different Christians.

So true.

The sin of Pride creeps in when we assume that our understanding is
perfect...and that our interpretation is the only one.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <s8OPk.2687$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, qquito says...

>You can interpret the Bible, but those churches that accept gay life-
>style can also interpret the Bible.

So what? At most one of those interpretations can be correct.

>Yes, you are reading the SAME
>Bible, but the same Bible is subject to a myriad of different
>interpretations---all by Christians.

Again, so what? This is just childish solipsism. Not all of these "myriad of
different interpretations" are even possible or plausible.

>Unless you prove you are the spokesperson of God, your interpretation
>is NO MORE right than other interpretations.

No. This is that same childish solipsism again.

How many different interpretations can there be, for example, of "In the
beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?

>But even if you can prove
>you are God's spokesperson, your words can also be subject to
>different interpretations by different Christians.

You miss the point: there is a certain limit past which you cannot go -- unless
you WANT to fall into error.

You have gone past that limit.

There can be little variation in the interpretation of Mat 15:19: it condemns
ALL sexual immorality, including homosexuality.

Recall it reads:

EK GAR THS KARDIAS EJERXONTAI DIALOGISMOI PONHROI
FONOI MOIXEIAI PORNEIAI KLOPAI CEUDOMARTIRIAI BLASFHMIAI

Look up PORNEIA in any Greek-English lexicon: you will find it means "sexual
immorality". But when Christ spoke those words, there was no question:
homosexuality WAS included as "sexual immorality".

You do not have to be God to see this, you just have to have the patience,
honesty and persistence to connect all the dots. Why don't you have this?

[A Browne]

"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message
news:opsQk.3428$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> In article <s8OPk.2687$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, qquito says...
>
>>You can interpret the Bible, but those churches that accept gay life-
>>style can also interpret the Bible.
>
> So what? At most one of those interpretations can be correct.
>
>>Yes, you are reading the SAME
>>Bible, but the same Bible is subject to a myriad of different
>>interpretations---all by Christians.
>
> Again, so what? This is just childish solipsism. Not all of these "myriad
> of
> different interpretations" are even possible or plausible.
>
>>Unless you prove you are the spokesperson of God, your interpretation
>>is NO MORE right than other interpretations.
>
> No. This is that same childish solipsism again.
>
> How many different interpretations can there be, for example, of "In the
> beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?
>
>>But even if you can prove
>>you are God's spokesperson, your words can also be subject to
>>different interpretations by different Christians.
>
> You miss the point: there is a certain limit past which you cannot go --
> unless
> you WANT to fall into error.

I think "falling into error" would start when one think's their
interpetation is the only one.

...and that you are the only one who understands god's message without human
limitations.

We are all earthen vessals. Flawed by nature.

Romans 14:5 (New International Version)
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers
every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <SPNQk.3412$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, A Browne says...

>"Matthew Johnson" <***@newsguy.org> wrote in message
>news:opsQk.3428$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> In article <s8OPk.2687$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, qquito says...

[snip]

>>>Unless you prove you are the spokesperson of God, your
>>>interpretation is NO MORE right than other interpretations.

>> No. This is that same childish solipsism again.

>> How many different interpretations can there be, for example, of
>> "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?

I see you never answered this question. I assme the reason is because
any answer to it embarasses you.

>>>But even if you can prove you are God's spokesperson, your words
>>>can also be subject to different interpretations by different
>>>Christians.

>> You miss the point: there is a certain limit past which you cannot
>> go -- unless you WANT to fall into error.

>I think "falling into error" would start when one think's their
>interpetation is the only one.

And that isn't even your first error;)

For that matter, your own error disproves your claim here: after all,
at least according to your own history of your own thought, you never
did "think your own inteprertation the only one", yet here you are, so
obviously deep in error!

Clearly this disproves your claim of when falling into error starts.

>...and that you are the only one who understands god's message
>without human limitations.

But this is a "straw-man" argument. I never did claim to be the only
one.

>We are all earthen vessals. Flawed by nature.

You are quoting him out of context. Predictably. "Earthen vessels" are
NOT 'flawed'. Especially not by nature!

YOU are flawed, by your own bad choice of your own free will.

>Romans 14:5 (New International Version)
> 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers
>every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

You are quoting him out of context. Predictably. He certainly didn't
allow such 'pluralism' on the Circumcision issue in the rest of the
Epistle you misquote.

[A Browne]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vfsPk.2210$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Oct 27, 7:00=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> However, not all Christian Churches espose this interpretation.
>>
>> A lot has changed in 40 years.
>>
> It has never ceased being wrong for God has never
> ceased to condemn it because God does not change.

You're right. No He doesn't change.
However, Jesus never condemned it. He never even mentioned it.
Nor is it mentioned in any of the Gospels.

And that hasn't changed.

>> And promiscuity is unhealthy and sinful either homosexual OR
>> heterosexual=
>> (It's not the sole provice of homosexuality as you appear to point out.)
>
> That is not the issue.

It is a response to a poster who claimed that promiscuity was something
attributed specifically to homosexuals.

Heterosexuals AND homosexuals can be promiscuous.

>> Would his sin have been any less "satiable" if it was with another woman?
>>
>> I would imagine it would "eat him up inside" just the same.
>> (Addiction, self-destruction can be either hetero or homo...it's not the
>> sole province of homosexuality.)
>>
> Two wrongs do not make a right.

No, but this was an argument made against homosexuality. (Because it "ate
him up inside".)

Cheating and infidelity are sinful for anyone.

>> Even if you believe homosexuality IS sin (not all do),
>>
> Truth is not regulated by whether or not anyone believes it.
> "God said it, that settles it" whether anyone choses to believe
> it or not.

No, but Truth can be impaired when people think they are the sole dispenser
of what is true and what is not.

>>it is wrong to pick
>> some sins and exclude those people from the Church, while welcoming other
>> sinners.
>>
> No, not necessarily. A careful reading of scripture would reveal
> to you that sexual sins are counted differently.

Hopefully not in the manner suggested. My sins are counted as less than
yours.

"Every other sin
> that a man commits is outside his body, but the immoral man
> sins against his own body."

Again, this is not specifically applicable to homsexuals.

Sin is sin.

>> We have coma a long way since the OT strictures and stories. =A0We are
>> no=
> w
>> "Jesus People" and living under the Holy Spirit.
>>
> No, you are living under the spirit of deceit and delusion.

And, from your answer, you are living under the spirit of pride.

> Again, only revisionism can twist scripture to allow for
> a life style that is antithetical to the Godhead itself.

Without revising some of our thinking, we'd be banning people from eating
shellfish, because God thinks that is an abomination.

We'd be forcing men to sleep with their brothers widow.

We have made great progress in our understanding of scripture.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 4, 9:18=A0pm, "A Browne" <***@mailandnews..com> wrote:
>
> Without revising some of our thinking, =A0we'd be banning people from eat=
ing
> shellfish, because God thinks that is an abomination.
>
That is not revisionism. If you will accept the context, you will see
that those laws were never given to the Gentiles. This, obviously,
is why it is called as kosher diet.

Now principles are to be learned for several times in the NT epistles
it
is noted that they are an example unto us.
>
> We'd be forcing men to sleep with their brothers widow.
>
Again, both context and culture need be accounted for. The Kinsman
Redeemer rule was not Law. It was a mercy. It was to continue the
lineage. It was not sexual craving but procreation that was in
view.
It also forshadowed or typified Christ. There was not forced consent.
>
> We have made great progress in our understanding of scripture.
>
Perhaps, but not by treating them as flippantly as you exhibit in
this exchange.

[Concerned Nudist]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AkLRk.451$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 4, 9:18=A0pm, "A Browne" <***@mailandnews..com> wrote:
>>
>> Without revising some of our thinking, =A0we'd be banning people from
>> eat=
> ing
>> shellfish, because God thinks that is an abomination.
>>
> That is not revisionism. If you will accept the context, you will see
> that those laws were never given to the Gentiles. This, obviously,
> is why it is called as kosher diet.

The same chapter of Leviticus condemns homsexuality.

Pick and choose the scripture you like.

> Now principles are to be learned for several times in the NT epistles
> it
> is noted that they are an example unto us.
>>
>> We'd be forcing men to sleep with their brothers widow.
>>
> Again, both context and culture need be accounted for.

Wow...are we reading contextually now?

What happenned to the absolutes? What happen to the scripture being "crytal
clear"?

We have to take into account the time things were written and the
understanding they ahd at the time.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 12, 10:30=A0pm, Concerned Nudist <***@NoPolitics.com>
wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> > That is not revisionism. =A0If you will accept the context, you will se=
e
> > that those laws were never given to the Gentiles. =A0This, obviously,
> > is why it is called as kosher diet.
>
> The same chapter of Leviticus condemns homsexuality.
>
> Pick and choose the scripture you like.
>
Not at all. When we come to the NT, after the death and resurrection
of Christ, after Pentecost and the introduction of the indwelling
Spirit
into all truly believe (the elect), the Law is set aside. The author
of Hebrews establishes this point resoundingly. The old covenant
has given way to the new. In Ex 19:6-7 we read that the Law had
been given specifically to Israel. It was not given to the Gentile
nations. The question is then, Why? Again, obviously it was
given to govern Israel. However, it's true purpose was to set them
apart from all the other nations as a testimony to the God of
Israel. Even when in captivity, whether in Egypt before the giving
of the Law or afterwards, in Babylon, again, Israel was a witness
as to the God of Israel being The God.

So there are two aspects to the giving of the Law. One aspect
is the historic application in which the nation/people of Israel
were to live by its commandment so at to be a living testimony
to the living God. But now that Christ has come and Israel has
been temporarily been shelves for their unbelief, a new
covenant has been established.

One of the arguments used against young Christianity is that
by Christ's having fulfilled the Law and that the Church was
seen as being without law. Liberty that won by Christ was
mistaken for license. But what is the reality? The reality is
that the letter of the Law was taken way but all the
principles therein are to be lived out in the believers life
by means of the Spirit. The issue with the Law was not
it's content but rather its inability to capacitate the believer
to follow its precepts with the heart. i.e. to desire to truly
please God from a selfless orientation.

So there is a both/and situation today. It is both, freed
from the Law, oh happy days, and yet to live one's life
according to the Law because the principles established
in the Law are directly linked to both God's nature and
His design for His creation.

The dietary laws were not for strict health reasons, meaning
that those foods that were considered unclean where not so
considered because they posed health concerns, but because
that strict diet, those strict laws concerning clothing and
fabric, the establishment of the Sabbath, etc, all testified
to world that God's people live by a different calling. Basically
the Law was to instill antithetical thought forms contrary to
the world's thinking and living.

So your objection is without understanding and without
merit.
>
> > Now principles are to be learned for several times in the NT epistles
> > it
> > is noted that they are an example unto us.
>
> >> We'd be forcing men to sleep with their brothers widow.
>
> > Again, both context and culture need be accounted for.
>
> Wow...are we reading contextually now?
>
> What happenned to the absolutes? =A0What happen to the scripture being "c=
rytal
> clear"?
>
They are only clear to those who are 1) spiritual and 2) spiritually
mature. The natural man simply has not capacity to know (oida)
the teaching of the Spirit. Also, the spiritually immature have
both a hard time understanding the deeper things as well as
accepting them. The natural man however finds these things
to be tedious, having no appetite for the revealed Divine will.

The deep things of God are not a specific set of doctrines while
the shallow or childish things are another set of doctrines. Rather,
the deep things are a better perception and reception of doctrine.
It is only the mature believer, being in the sphere of the Spirit,
who comes into a deeper appreciation and worth of the things
of God.

This is easily illustrated from Scripture itself. For instance, in
the Synoptic Gospels, the crucifixion of Christ is captured in
the terms of historic narrative. Now come to such passages
or treatments as Rom 6 or even the opening verses of Col 3,
and the deeper things concerning not just the crucifixion, but
the nature of the atonement and a host of other things as well
come to those who have the Spirit to guide them.

The point of Rom 8:1-13 is that there are two possible spheres
for the regenerated man to live in. One is the old sphere, that
sphere of operating in carnal flesh. Here the believer lives
his life much as he had prior to conversion. Operating in this
sphere denies him/her any reproduction or living out of the
new life that has been granted, the living out of the rteousness
of Christ. It is simply impossible. However, when the
believer choses to operate in the sphere of the Spirit, then
he/she is spiritually minded, mindful to the things of God.
To remain, to pursue a life lived out in this sphere, the
deep things of God enjoyed. But to the extent one choses
to remain in the sphere of the flesh, to that degree these
things are denied.

Those who deny both the OT and the NT teachings concerning
homosexuality, are operating in the sphere of the flesh and
are therefore dead to the things of God.
>
> We have to take into account the time things were written and the
> understanding they ahd at the time.
>
In exegesis, in interpretation, there are several things which need
to adhered to, context being only one. Application needs to
be distinguished from interpretation. Many fail at this point and
great harm is done because of it. There is also the issue of
correctly interpreting the implicit by the explicit and NOT
vice versa. And as already illustrated, interpreting the
narrative by the didactic, also NOT vice versa.

[Charlie Horse1]

>> > That is not revisionism. =A0If you will accept the context, you will
>> > se=
> e
>> > that those laws were never given to the Gentiles. =A0This, obviously,
>> > is why it is called as kosher diet.
>>
>> The same chapter of Leviticus condemns homsexuality.
>>
>> Pick and choose the scripture you like.
>>
> Not at all. When we come to the NT, after the death and resurrection
> of Christ, after Pentecost and the introduction of the indwelling
> Spirit
> into all truly believe (the elect), the Law is set aside.

Amen!

> So your objection is without understanding and without
> merit.

Not at all. MY assessment still stands.

You ahve rationalized which scritpure you wish to obsever and which you wish
to saddle others with.

>> What happenned to the absolutes? =A0What happen to the scripture being
>> "c=
> rytal
>> clear"?
>>
> They are only clear to those who are 1) spiritual and 2) spiritually
> mature.

Which I assume you asign to yourself?

> Those who deny both the OT and the NT teachings concerning
> homosexuality, are operating in the sphere of the flesh and
> are therefore dead to the things of God.

Like many Christians, you have created the Biblical role that you want...and
use it to judge tohers.

Again, we are back to your offerring to take the speck out of your brothers
eye....when you have not been invited to do so.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, Charlie Horse1 <***@attbi.com> wrote:

>
> > Those who deny both the OT and the NT teachings concerning
> > homosexuality, are operating in the sphere of the flesh and
> > are therefore dead to the things of God.
>
> Like many Christians, you have created the Biblical role that you want...=
and
> use it to judge tohers.
>
This gets old very fast. God's revelation of Himself and His
will for us has never been hidden to those who honest wish to
know it. The God of the Bible is a revelatory God. He is not
a God of confusion. I haven't created anything. I have employed
normal interpretive techniques in discerning understanding.

I'm preparing a class for next semester, teaching on one of the
"postcard" epistles, Jude. Though it wasn't the intent of choosing
this epistle, I have found as I studied the words and grammar
of the text just how greatly it's subject matter applies to this
particular thread. For instance, you seek to defame me and
my position by reducing it to something I have "created." You
grant no possibility that I might actually know how to rightly
divide the Word.

Look at verse 3. "epagonizomai" a simply verb which speaks
of an athlete agonizes not only in training, but to a determine
struggle to defeat his opponent in the race. Just lately we
saw this repeatedly during the Olympics where a runner would
hurl themselves without regard to their bodies, across the line
to win a position on the podium. Jude is saying that this should
be the type of effort that a Christian should put forth when
confronted with false doctrine and those who are advocating
in the church.

Jude also choses the word hapax, "once and for all" meaning
that there is but one true teaching of the Church. Jude is saying
that God has deposited a fixed set of Christian doctrines to the
saints that are to be guarded with all soberness and understanding.
It is not "a faith" but "The Faith," even as he again recounts in
verse 21, there further designated as the "most holy Faith."

Your implied "asebes" (impious) condemnation of my position
presents a mindset that 1) there is no final absolute truth and
2) that even if there was, it is either a mystery or worse, relative
to culture, plus 3) I don't have the qualifications or wherewithall
to arrive at such a truth. Though you are not as brazen as others
who denounce the normative reading of the Word, you rail as
do those mentioned in v. 4, despotes, who arneomai the Word
of Truth.

And isn't it interesting, you voicing your objection when we
read in v. 7 that those who do so are just like the examples
given in vs 4-6. "Hos" an adverb of comparison. The sin
of the five cities was that of the angels of v 6 who left their
divinely ordained oiketerion (habitation), their own idion,
particular sphere. Angels are not to "break through" into
the human sphere apart from divine command. Yet these
angels once and for all apoleipo (left behind) their unique
possession, heaven, abandoning it forever inorder to enter
into a foreign relationship with the daughters of men. This
was apostasy with a vengeance to have their own way,
rejecting the reveal will and authority of God. And in the
same manner, so too did those of Sodom and Gomorrha.
"Toutois" (to these), in like manner "to these" angels who
renounced the confines of their created position, so to
those of the 5 cities "went after strange flesh." What
Jude writes here is the very same sin Paul mentions
in Rom 1:27.

To deny that both OT and NT clearly teach not only
that homo (flesh that is opposed to the original design
which procreates, after the image of God) sexuality
is a rebellion against God's revealed Faith, but that
just as the angels who left their proper abode, just
as the five cities, a certain judgment. a venge-
ance of eternal fire awaits.

Verse 8 again reiterates the direct comparison, "homoios"
(in the same manner) along with the particle of affirmation,
"mentoi," Jude declares "but nevertheless, even though
these have such an undeniable and fearsome examples
set before them, they yet persist in their rebellion." Just
like I've been saying all along, Rom 1:32.

[A. Nona Muss]

Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?

There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously don't see
this theologically as you do.
(President-elect Obama is one of them.)

You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep thologicaly
reasoning you can come up with.

Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not asking for, nor
abiding by your interetations and theological bent.


I notice the origianl poster is nowhere to be found on this thread.

I think the orioginal post was simply a come-on, as opposed to any sort of
wish for a discussion.




<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Kn6Tk.1265$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
...
> One of the arguments used against young Christianity is that
> by Christ's having fulfilled the Law and that the Church was
> seen as being without law. Liberty that won by Christ was
> mistaken for license. But what is the reality? The reality is
> that the letter of the Law was taken way but all the
> principles therein are to be lived out in the believers life
...
> The dietary laws were not for strict health reasons, meaning
> that those foods that were considered unclean where not so
> considered because they posed health concerns, but because
> that strict diet, those strict laws concerning clothing and
> fabric, the establishment of the Sabbath, etc, all testified
> to world that God's people live by a different calling. Basically
> the Law was to instill antithetical thought forms contrary to
> the world's thinking and living.
...
> Those who deny both the OT and the NT teachings concerning
> homosexuality, are operating in the sphere of the flesh and
> are therefore dead to the things of God.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?
>
> There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously don't see
> this theologically as you do.
> (President-elect Obama is one of them.)
>
> You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep thologicaly
> reasoning you can come up with.
>
> Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not asking for, n=
or
> abiding by your interetations and theological bent.
>
The Truth is just that Truth. It is not as the modernist would have
us
understand truth, "I call's them like I see's them" nor is it like
what
the postmodernist now advocates, "They ain't noth'n until Eyes calls
them." But the normative, classical understanding of Truth is, "I
call them as they are."

"God said it. That settles it" regardless whether anyone ever
believes
it or not. I can defend the conservative position all day without
having
to resort to allegory, or revisionism, or eisegesis. Scripture is in
harmony with Scripture.

Also, just because I am able to defend this position does not
warrant you or anyone else to conclude that I'm "shoving it down"
anyone's throat. That is a rather unthoughtout diatribe.
> I notice the origianl poster is nowhere to be found on this thread.
>
> I think the orioginal post was simply a come-on, as opposed to any sort o=
f
> wish for a discussion.
>
You have a firm grasp on the obvious. To bad it isn't so in the more
important area of your life.

[A. Nona Muss]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZAqUk.1212$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 16, 7:08=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
>> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?
>>
>> There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously don't see
>> this theologically as you do.
>> (President-elect Obama is one of them.)
>>
>> You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep thologicaly
>> reasoning you can come up with.
>>
>> Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not asking for,
>> n=
> or
>> abiding by your interetations and theological bent.
>>
> The Truth is just that Truth.

Of course it is, but our understanding of the Truth changes.

There was a time when people thought epilepsy was satanic posession. And
that the world was flat.

Our understanding of God's truth evolves....

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <KiMUk.2290$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, A. Nona Muss says...
>
[snip]

>Our understanding of God's truth evolves....

But what YOU propose as an "evolving understanding" is not. It is DEVOLVED.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 18, 10:08=A0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ZAqUk.1212$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 7:08=3DA0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
> >> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?
>
> >> There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously don't =
see
> >> this theologically as you do.
> >> (President-elect Obama is one of them.)
>
> >> You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep thologic=
aly
> >> reasoning you can come up with.
>
> >> Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not asking for=
,
> >> n=3D
> > or
> >> abiding by your interetations and theological bent.
>
> > The Truth is just that Truth.
>
> Of course it is, but our understanding of the Truth changes.
>
"When I was a child I use to think as a child..." 1 Cor 13

Yes, but the issue is that Truth does not change. The sort of change
being advocated is more than husk and kernel. It is that what was
revealed to the child was a lie while the mature adult comes to the
truth. This is not the biblical perspective regarding truth.
>
> There was a time when people thought epilepsy was satanic posession. =A0A=
nd
> that the world was flat.
>
> Our understanding of God's truth evolves....
>
No, it doesn't "evolve" it deepens (for some). BIG difference.

The word "heresy" (hairesis) is from the verb haireomai or "to
choose",
primarily indicating "a choosing," hence "that which is chosen, an
opinion," which has the implication that it is deliberate, a self-
chosen opinion. In the scriptures it often denotes a group or school
of thought such as the Pharisees or Sadducees, i.e. a sect. In
1 Cor 11:19 & Gal 5:20 we see that such self-chosen opinions lead
to dissension and division. These opinions, when bearing fruit from
a reading of Scripture, espouse views that are arrived at not out
of the text, but read into the text. These opinions become the
presuppositions, the grid, through which interpretation is sifted.
Because of this, the term "heresy" came to denote erroneous or
heretical teachings.

Turn to 2 Peter 2:2, for here it is specifically detailed. The
"heresies" which Peter has in view were teachings incompatible
with a true out-reading, an exegesis of Scripture. Here Peter
clearly notes by the added genetive, "of destruction" (apo-
leias) that such wayward teachings/doctrinal opinions lead
ultimately to destruction. This is the very same teaching that
Jude arrives. Peter ascribes "destruction" five times, twice
in 2:1, once in 2:3; 3:7, 16. "Bringing swift destruction upon
themselves." "Bringing" (epagontes), a present active participle,
indicates that the persistent denial of what is the true teaching
of Scripture culminates in the ruination of those who steadfastly
adhere to it. The adjective "swift" is not illustrating immediacy,
but suddenness. And because of Peter's repetition, he means
to say that serious peril awaits those who refuse the waring.

"And many will follow their sensuality." Peter isn't as direct
or as definitive as Jude, but he still makes the point. "Their
sensuality" (autown tais aselgeiais) is an expressing
excessive sexual debauchery. The plural may indicate that
it is a repeated offense, habitual or self-oriented.

"Because of them the way of truth will be maligned." Not
enough time to break this down the one of the points is that
"many" will follow (Rom 1:32) thinking in terms of anti-
nomianism. History has painted a clear picture that there
will never be a lack of followers to those who teach any
sort of sexual license, contrary to the clear teaching of
Scripture. The "truth will be maligned" for a short time
of physical pleasure.

Now Jude, on the other hand, attributes four charges
against those who come in through the side door of the
Church teaching such heresy. 1) Scripture plainly
condemns them. 2) They are impious at best but
often, when weighed in the balance, godless. 3) They
through stealth morph the grace of God into a
"license for immorality." 4) In reality, they deny by
their practice, the sovereign Lordship of Christ over
their lives. It is their behavior that blasphemes Christ.

Jude 7 "in a similar way" (ton homoion tropon toutois)
indicates that the false teachers that he is condemning
are acting similarly as the angels of Gen 6 and the men
of Gen 19 (Deut 29:23). The term Jude employs,
ekporneuo, is a general term which speaks of intercourse
outside of one man, one woman marriage (Gen 2:24).
However, more specifically as prescribed by the com-
parision or analogy, the phrase more literally interpreted
means to sexually "depart after a different type of flesh"
as illustrated by the angels of Gen 6 and the people of
Sodom & Gomorrah. It is a sexual violation of the laws
of purity prescribed and prohibited in the mixing of things
in Deut 22:5, 9-11. Thus having intercourse with one of
the same sex would be seeking after a different kind of
flesh than that which was originally designed.

Just on Peter and Jude's accounts, several pages
could be written, both exegeting their words and context
and their reference works, not to mention the Jewish
historical rejection of homosexual unions.

To continue to advocate that "we've evolved" and by
such have revised the intended meaning of Scripture,
wins you no ground whatsoever, except further
condemnation at the Judgment seat. Revelation
given is not without purpose or accountability. For
Paul clearly denotes the same woe that both Peter
and Jude attribute to those who continue in such
things, "for they_are_without_excuse!"

[Hall Monitor2]

>> >> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?
>>
>> >> There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously don't
>> >> =
> see
>> >> this theologically as you do.
>> >> (President-elect Obama is one of them.)
>>
>> >> You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep
>> >> thologic=
> aly
>> >> reasoning you can come up with.
>>
>> >> Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not asking
>> >> for=
> ,
>> >> n=3D
>> > or
>> >> abiding by your interetations and theological bent.
>>
>> > The Truth is just that Truth.
>>
>> Of course it is, but our understanding of the Truth changes.
>>
> "When I was a child I use to think as a child..." 1 Cor 13
>
> Yes, but the issue is that Truth does not change.

No, the issue is your UNDERSTANDING of the Truth changes.


> To continue to advocate that "we've evolved" and by
> such have revised the intended meaning of Scripture,
> wins you no ground whatsoever, except further
> condemnation at the Judgment seat.

Gee, wasn't that what Bob Jones was saying about people who insisted on
allowing interracial dating?

Sounds mightily familiar.

And they all looks mightily silly now.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <LpIWk.698$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Hall Monitor2 says...

>>> >> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?

>>> >> There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously
>>> >> don't see this theologically as you do. (President-elect Obama
>>> >> is one of them.)

>>> >> You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep
>>> >> thologicaly reasoning you can come up with.

>>> >> Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not
>>> >> asking for nor abiding by your interetations and theological
>>> >> bent.

>>> > The Truth is just that Truth.

>>> Of course it is, but our understanding of the Truth changes.

>> "When I was a child I use to think as a child..." 1 Cor 13

>> Yes, but the issue is that Truth does not change.

>No, the issue is your UNDERSTANDING of the Truth changes.

But what you are trying to CALL 'understanding' is not. That is the
problem.

>> To continue to advocate that "we've evolved" and by such have
>> revised the intended meaning of Scripture, wins you no ground
>> whatsoever, except further condemnation at the Judgment seat.

>Gee, wasn't that what Bob Jones was saying about people who insisted
>on allowing interracial dating?

No, it was not. Why do you even bother repeating such nonsense?

>Sounds mightily familiar.

Maybe to you, and to anyone else who so easily confuses dissimilar
things. But the uninformed opinions of incompetent observers carry no
weight in debate.

>And they all looks mightily silly now.

No, it is the bogus 'reasoning' of your post that is lookign
"mightily[sic] silly now".

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 24, 7:20=A0pm, Hall Monitor2 <***@Hall.com> wrote:
> >> >> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?
>
> >> >> There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously don=
't
> >> >> =3D
> > see
> >> >> this theologically as you do.
> >> >> (President-elect Obama is one of them.)
>
> >> >> You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep
> >> >> thologic=3D
> > aly
> >> >> reasoning you can come up with.
>
> >> >> Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not asking
> >> >> for=3D
> > ,
> >> >> n=3D3D
> >> > or
> >> >> abiding by your interetations and theological bent.
>
> >> > The Truth is just that Truth.
>
> >> Of course it is, but our understanding of the Truth changes.
>
> > "When I was a child I use to think as a child..." =A01 Cor 13
>
> > Yes, but the issue is that Truth does not change.
>
> No, the issue is your UNDERSTANDING of the Truth changes.
>
Well then, seeing as how you want us to believe that you
have a corner on this, please explain to us all just how much
clearer God could have made His will known to us on this
particular point?

When God declares that He made the "male and female" and
then sent them out to fill the earth (procreation) and then later,
when after the flood and after Babel, God turned the pagan
nations over to the dominion of Satan, keeping for Himself
the "least of all" nations, Israel, a representative of that
which sets itself apart to God, commanding them that if a
man lies with another man as he would with a woman, that
it is an abomination to Him, please explain to us all how this
paradigm has magically "evolved" into something "blessed"
in God's eyes in the 21 Century. Please, we're all ears.
Explain it to us from Scripture.

[Randy Quaidd]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ja3Xk.1008$***@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 24, 7:20=A0pm, Hall Monitor2 <***@Hall.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?
>>
>> >> >> There are many Christians and Christian Churches that obsiously
>> >> >> don=
> 't
>> >> >> =3D
>> > see
>> >> >> this theologically as you do.
>> >> >> (President-elect Obama is one of them.)
>>
>> >> >> You are free to believe whatever you want for all of the deep
>> >> >> thologic=3D
>> > aly
>> >> >> reasoning you can come up with.
>>
>> >> >> Just dont try to shove it down people's throats who are not asking
>> >> >> for=3D
>> > ,
>> >> >> n=3D3D
>> >> > or
>> >> >> abiding by your interetations and theological bent.
>>
>> >> > The Truth is just that Truth.
>>
>> >> Of course it is, but our understanding of the Truth changes.
>>
>> > "When I was a child I use to think as a child..." =A01 Cor 13
>>
>> > Yes, but the issue is that Truth does not change.
>>
>> No, the issue is your UNDERSTANDING of the Truth changes.
>>
> Well then, seeing as how you want us to believe that you
> have a corner on this, please explain to us all just how much
> clearer God could have made His will known to us on this
> particular point?

Look at the words of JEsus in the Gospels.

Look at the ENTIRE Gospels.

Jesus thought there were many things that were important.

He did not think that homosexuality was important enough to even say it
aloud.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 28, 6:59=A0pm, Randy Quaidd <***@Quaid.com> wrote:
>
> Look at the words of JEsus in the Gospels.
>
> Look at the ENTIRE Gospels.
>
> Jesus thought there were many things that were important.
>
> He did not think that homosexuality was important enough to even say it
> aloud.
>
An argument from silence. Of course it would cut across grain for
you to consider that perhaps it was so obvious, He coming to fulfill
the Law, not to deny it, that didn't deserve comment. There is also
the consideration that Christ often taught according to what He
was either confronted with or cared to address as a failure of the
religious primates of Israel at that time. In that homosexuality was
never given acceptance by that community, it is not strange that
Christ never addressed the issue. But Paul did!

[Randy Fiore]

There is also
> the consideration that Christ often taught according to what He
> was either confronted with or cared to address as a failure of the
> religious primates of Israel at that time. In that homosexuality was
> never given acceptance by that community, it is not strange that
> Christ never addressed the issue. But Paul did!


Paul did not.

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 23, 10:46=A0pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 7:08=3D3DA0pm, "A. Nona Muss" <***@Anon.com> wrote:
> > >> Why are you trying to put your theological bent onto everyone else?
> > > The Truth is just that Truth.
>
> > Of course it is, but our understanding of the Truth changes.
>
> "When I was a child I use to think as a child..." =A01 Cor 13
>
SNIP
> > Our understanding of God's truth evolves....
>
> No, it doesn't "evolve" it deepens (for some). =A0BIG difference.
>
I've had some time to now to reflect on this and if it matters,
I'd like to point out some fundamental points concerning truth,
especially when some one begins to toy with the idea that it
"evolves." George Lucas thought this through that those here
who espouse this possibility. It was interesting to follow his
epistemological foray in his space western, "Star Wars."
Remember? "Only the Dark Side of the Force deals in
absolutes." But more directly to the specific analysis here
coined by Nona, "truth from a certain point of view."

It is surely no disgrace for any of us to boldly confess that
we're not omniscient. In reality, do not all things end in
mystery? If this discussion is to have any meaningful
conclusion, must we not first establish a common point of
agreement? First, as the title and purpose of this NG is,
after all, Christian, and second, the title of this thread
initially defined the specificity of parameters, the Church,
I will proceed on the working basis that this discussion
involves, if not actual regenerated Christians (is there any
other type?), then at least those willing to accept that men
are not omniscient and therefore adhering to the authority
of Scripture at least in some formal way. By this last
admission it would mean to say they allow for at least
an "expert authority" but not that of absolute authority
of Scripture. The modern and postmodern view of authority
ultimately concludes that God, after all, because man is
created in God's image thus having true freewill, does not
actually control all things.

So here we come to the real crux of the matter. Let
reason by all means be adhered to. But there is an
unrecognized compromise made by those who operate
in the sphere of "evolved" truth. So far, in this thread,
there has been no objection raised to the idea that the
Scriptures are indeed, authoritative. Though I doubt
that few have thought this out to any sort of epistemo-
logical depth, the reason that Scripture is granted
authority is 1) we are finite. We need to be told what
is actual in God and what is not. 2) that God and His
will are infinite and therefore HAVE to be revealed to
men or it remains absolutely incomprehensible; i.e.
it remains in God. But how do sincere Christians who
truly want to accept the Scriptures as being the self-
attesting Word of God. . . . yet who also want, in some
measure, to own the claims of human autonomy. . .
adhere consistently to the absolute nature of God?

In some fashion the "evolution of truth" crowd here at
least seemingly maintains the idea of the Scriptures
as the Word of God. They seek to show the readers
that it is quite in accord with "reason" to believe in the
Bible as the Word of God. It is in accord with reason
because reason itself points beyond itself and what is
presented in the scriptures is not so far beyond anything
that reason teaches but that it can be shown to be in
accord with it. The principles of discontinuity and of
continuity, of equivocism and univocism after all involve
the notion of human autonomy. But the authority granted
to scripture in this paradigm actually ascends no higher
than that of the "expert." For it is said that what was
denied in the Jewish scriptures evolved into something
quite different in the New, so different as to be no
longer antithetical in nature. In the old, homosexual-
ality was antithetical to the will of God. In the New,
it is homosexuality outside of marriage which stands
diametrically opposed to the will of God.

Now the basic philosophy of reality is taken from
Scripture. God controls whatsoever comes to pass.
This is true because God is what He is, the necessary
self-existent One. God cannot possibly not exist nor
act contrary to His existence. What inevitably results
from this is that there is this basis one law of ration-
ality and one law of being to which God and man are
basically alike.

But what is the picture of man in Scripture? God
there presents Himself as the One in terms of whom
man himself is to forsake his autonomy and permit
himself and his universe to be interpreted by God.
Scripture thus presents itself, as the Word of God,
as the final principle by which ALL things must be
measured. The gods produced by the thinking of
man apart from Scripture are nothing more than idols
of the mind. To hold to any such view of God or of
the Truth which He reveals is to break the first
commandment -Thou shall not have any other gods
before Me.

To be a Biblical Christian is to live ones life
surrendering the natural sphere of autonomy for
the sphere of the Spirit where we stand completely
dependent upon and interpreted by God as revealed
to us in Scripture. It is not we who interpret
Scripture, it is Scripture which interprets us! For we
are not called to judge Scripture, but by the
Scriptures *being* the Word of God, they judge us.

It is counter to faith to revise what is clear in one
passage with that which is less clear in another. It is
also counter to have one passage unteach the
principles first given. Scripture does not stand against
Scripture. Man is not omniscient. Man is finite and
therefore derivative by nature, even in his rebellious
autonomous, self adjudicating state. And because
of these limitations, he MUST admit his limits and
accept, on faith, what God teaches without revising
the revelation to fit his particular situation, desires
or cravings.

"Evolutionary" truth is a contradiction of terms.

---

[Please note that the original claim was that our *understanding* of
God's truth evolves. --clh]

[l***@hotmail.com]

On Nov 4, 9:18=A0pm, "A Browne" <***@mailandnews..com> wrote:
>
> >> We have coma a long way since the OT strictures and stories. We are
> >> "Jesus People" and living under the Holy Spirit.
>
> > No, you are living under the spirit of deceit and delusion.
>
> And, from your answer, you are living under the spirit of pride.
>
God's revealed truth is propositional. I would suggest that you
also would do well to read through those posts which deal
with biblical interpretation of those passages having to do with
this subject. There is no pride invested here. I am not
elevating myself above my opponent for who am I? I too
wrestle with sin. However, I recognize my sin as being
exactly that, contrary to Rom 1:32.

[Concerned Nudist]

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AkLRk.452$***@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> On Nov 4, 9:18=A0pm, "A Browne" <***@mailandnews..com> wrote:
>>
>> >> We have coma a long way since the OT strictures and stories. We are
>> >> "Jesus People" and living under the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> > No, you are living under the spirit of deceit and delusion.
>>
>> And, from your answer, you are living under the spirit of pride.
>>
> God's revealed truth is propositional. I would suggest that you
> also would do well to read through those posts which deal
> with biblical interpretation...

There's that pride again.

Telling others what they should be soing, instead of taking the log from
your own eye.