the Bible, translation and gays

[shegeek72]

http://www.ppmcc.org/About_the_Bible.html

The Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand
years recounting the history of God's
relationship with the Hebrew and Christian people. It was written in
several languages, embraces many literary
forms, and reflects cultures very different from our own. These are
important considerations for properly
understanding the Bible in its context. There are vast differences in
doctrines between various Christian
denominations, all of which use the same Bible. Such differences have
led some Christians to claim that other
Christians are not really Christians at all! Biblical interpretation
and theology differ from church to church. Biblical
Interpretation and Theology also change from time to time.
Approximately 150 years ago in the United States,
some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order:
black and white. Whites were thought to be
superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and
slavery was an institution ordained by God.
Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of
the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to
divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations.
These same denominations, of course, do not
support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation
of the Bible did!

Lesbians and gay men face discrimination because of societal
attitudes. Unfortunately, these attitudes are often
taught by the church. Sadly, the Bible is often used as a weapon to
"bash" gays and lesbians. It is important to
remember that such hurtful things are not a reflection of Christ, or
the way God wants the church to be, or even
what the Bible really says. They are the products of the fallible and
imperfect human beings who guide these
churches. Ultimately, a Christian's personal faith should not depend
upon a particular church or clergyperson, but
rather it should be solidly placed in Jesus Christ. In addition to the
biased teachings of certain ministers, Scripture
sometimes presents a stumbling block for people who are both
homosexual and Christian.

Thoughtful Bible study reveals that the Bible does have Good News for
gays and lesbians, and it does not say
what you may have thought it did about homosexuals!

Understanding The Bible In A New Way... There are at least two
important things to keep in mind when reading
the Bible. First, you must always consider its context. In order to
understand any writing (whether it be a letter, a
speech, or even the Bible) it is necessary to understand its
background. Think about who is speaking, to whom it
is addressed, why it written, and what the culture was like. In the
case of Scripture, the cultural and social context
of Biblical times was very different from our own. For example, when
the Bible says God commands humanity to
"increase and multiply," remember, among other things, this was
addressed to Israel, a small, desert nation
surrounded by many enemies. They needed to "multiply" just to survive.
Secondly, the Bible began as an oral
tradition and then was written in ancient languages (primarily Hebrew
in the Old Testament and Greek in the New
Testament) over many centuries. It was copied and re- copied in the
original languages, and then translated into
other languages. As anyone who speaks or reads more than one language
will understand, translating requires
interpretation and personal judgement. Even with the best of
intentions, translators and copyists are quite
capable of human error.

The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever" .
All of God's promises are intended for
every human being. This includes gay men and lesbians. How tragic it
is that the Christian Church has excluded
and persecuted people who are homosexual! We are all created with
powerful needs for personal relationships.
Our quality of life depends upon the love we share with others,
whether family or friends, partners or peers. Yet,
lesbians and gay men facing hostile attitudes in society often are
denied access to healthy relationships. Jesus
Christ calls us to find ultimate meaning in life through a personal
relationship with our Creator. This important
spiritual union can bring healing and strength to all of our human
relationships.

Not a sin, not a sickness

For many centuries, the Christian Church's attitude toward human
sexuality was very negative: sex was for
procreation, not for pleasure; women and slaves were considered
property to be owned by males; and many
expressions of heterosexuality, like homosexuality, were considered
sinful. Such tradition often continues to
influence churches today. Many teach that women should be subordinate
to men, continue to permit forms of
discrimination against peoples of color, and condemn homosexuals. They
say that all homosexual acts are sinful,
often referring to their interpretation of scripture. Other churches
today are influenced by a century of
psychoanalytic thought promoted through a powerful minority in the
field of medicine. They see homosexuality as
some kind of sickness. Although this view has now been soundly
discredited by the medical profession, some
churches and clergy continue to be influenced by the idea. They say
that homosexuals are "imperfect" and in
need of "healing."
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72
http://www.ppmcc.org/About_the_Bible.html
The Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand
years recounting the history of God's
relationship with the Hebrew and Christian people. It was written in
several languages,

Several? It is odd to call three 'several'. Or are you saying
'several' because you don't _know_ what languages it was written in?

Post by shegeek72
embraces many literary forms, and reflects cultures very different
from our own. These are important considerations for properly
understanding the Bible in its context.

Considerations you regularly ignore, except for the lip service you
give to them here.

Post by shegeek72
There are vast differences in doctrines between various Christian
denominations, all of which use the same Bible.

'Vast' is an overstatement. If you want 'vast', take a look at the
difference between all the varieties of Hinduism -- or between any
form of Hinduism and any of Christianity.

Post by shegeek72
Such differences have led some Christians to claim that other
Christians are not really Christians at all!

And if you had attentively read Charles' FAQs for this NG, you would
know that that is not at all an unreasonable position.

Post by shegeek72
Biblical interpretation and theology differ from church to church.

So what? That in no way justifies your wildly irrational conclusions
below.

Post by shegeek72
Biblical Interpretation and Theology also change from time to time.

And in some churches, the change is good, and in others, not good. So
what _is_ your point?

Post by shegeek72
Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian
teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white.

That sounds like gross distortion to me. I seriously doubt even the
worst of them could so completely overturn the Epistels of Paul as to
embrace a "two-fold moral order".

Post by shegeek72
Whites were thought to be superior to blacks,

This was always a position based on gross ignorance. It was _never_
endorsed, for example, by any of the churches that accept the Seven
Ecumenical Councils. On the contrary: ever since earliest days, the
Roman Church was quite clear on the matter: blacks and indians have
souls too, therefore are just as much in need of salvation and grace
-- and often capable of very great service to the Church, such as
St. Moses the Black.

There is even a small but substantial minority of scholars that
believe that Augustine was black.

Post by shegeek72
therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an
institution ordained by God.

You are confusing different issues. Whether or not blacks were
inferior and whether or not slaver was 'ordained' by God are different
issues.

Post by shegeek72
Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of
the Bible.

Well, so what? They were under anathema when they said these monstrous
things.

Post by shegeek72
The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some
major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course,
do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their
interpretation of the Bible did!

This could be an example of a good change...

Post by shegeek72
Lesbians and gay men face discrimination because of societal
attitudes.

Ah yes. The setup for your favorite false analogy, that between
prejudice against blacks and 'prejudice' against depravity.

Post by shegeek72
Unfortunately, these attitudes are often taught by the
church.

Nothing 'unfortunate' about that.

Post by shegeek72
Sadly, the Bible is often used as a weapon to "bash" gays and
lesbians.

Even more sadly, people like you use this as a red herring, to fool
people into feeling a false sympathy for you.

Post by shegeek72
It is important to remember that such hurtful things are not a
reflection of Christ, or the way God wants the church to be, or even
what the Bible really says.

How typical of your love of fallacy! You say "it is important to
remember" what is not even true!

Post by shegeek72
They are the products of the fallible and imperfect human beings who
guide these churches.

You claim to see so keenly when others teach the "products of the
fallible and imperfect human beings", yet you fail to see how _your_
teachings are even more fallible? This would be funny if it weren't so
tragic.

Post by shegeek72
Ultimately, a Christian's personal faith should not depend upon a
particular church or clergyperson, but rather it should be solidly
placed in Jesus Christ.

Yours cannot be, since you are waging a propaganda war against His
teachings.

Post by shegeek72
In addition to the biased teachings of certain ministers,

Such as what you show us is the biased teaching of ministers in the
"Metropolitan Community Churches"?

Post by shegeek72
Scripture sometimes presents a stumbling block for people who are
both homosexual and Christian.

Why, yes. It does. So why are you so determined to explain it away
with fallacies?

Post by shegeek72
Thoughtful Bible study reveals that the Bible does have Good News for
gays and lesbians, and it does not say what you may have thought it
did about homosexuals!

You have _never_ presented the fruit of "thoughtful bible study"
here. You have always presented only very _thoughtless_ 'study.

Post by shegeek72
Understanding The Bible In A New Way... There are at least two
important things to keep in mind when reading the Bible. First, you
must always consider its context. In order to understand any writing
(whether it be a letter, a speech, or even the Bible) it is necessary
to understand its background.

But if you _ever_ did this, you would keep in mind the intense hatred
the Hebrew culture of the time had for homosexuality. But this is
embarassing to you, so you avoid it. You avoid it zealously.

Post by shegeek72
Think about who is speaking, to whom it is addressed, why it written,
and what the culture was like.

Again: this is what you never do.

Post by shegeek72
In the case of Scripture, the cultural and social context of Biblical
times was very different from our own. For example, when the Bible
says God commands humanity to "increase and multiply," remember,
among other things, this was addressed to Israel, a small, desert
nation surrounded by many enemies.

This is a great example of how you misread the context. The command
was addressed to all Man, through Adam and Eve.

Post by shegeek72
They needed to "multiply" just to survive.

What you miss is that the command was not given to the first _Hebrew_,
it was given to the first man and woman. The Hebrews did not come
along until MUCH later.

Post by shegeek72
Secondly, the Bible began as an oral tradition and then was written
in ancient languages (primarily Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek
in the New Testament) over many centuries. It was copied and re-
copied in the original languages, and then translated into other
languages. As anyone who speaks or reads more than one language will
understand, translating requires interpretation and personal
judgement. Even with the best of intentions, translators and copyists
are quite capable of human error.

Well, of course they are. But the worst of their errors pales in
comparison with yours.

Post by shegeek72
The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever" .

Not even close.

Post by shegeek72
All of God's promises are intended for every human being.

This isn't close either.

Post by shegeek72
This includes gay men and lesbians.

The promise is for those who REPENT. If they do not repent, then it is
not for them. You have not repented, as you make clear by your
continued propaganda war against His teachings.

Post by shegeek72
How tragic it is that the Christian Church has excluded and
persecuted people who are homosexual!

No, what is tragic is that you insist on 'including' them, when this
only increases their punishment on the Last Day, when they will be
punished for the gross hypocrisy of pretending to be practicing
Christians when they are cut off from the Church by their hardened and
impenitent hearts.

[snip]

[r***@yahoo.com]

You make the point that the bible was written to different cultures
with the obvious intent to cast some doubt on simply reading the bible
straight up... presumably we need to understand the culture it was
written to so that we avoid the error of just accepting what it says.
Then you wrote about the recopying to imply that the bible is not
trustworthy in certain areas.
But you mention Gods promises and the word whosoever.... I assume you
are reading those straight up and not trying to understand them in a
cultural context.....

So where do you decide what is to be ignored as culturally irrelevant
and what is not?
For all the insinuations, there are no specific ways given that the
bible is misinterpreted here, nor any proof of specific copyists
errors... just generalizations meant to cast doubt on the
trustworthiness of the bible. From there you can reinterpret whatever
you want. This is a text book case of what you call a problem in your
first paragraphs. Do you know the main reason for all those different
interpretations? People didn't like what they were reading so they
ignored what they wanted and read what they wanted.

The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.
That does not make it correct to "bash" gays... unless gays interpret
having homosexuality labeled as sin being bashed. Certainly there is
no justification for trying to harm them. Gays are not really being
singled out in the bible; homosexuality is just one of many different
deviant sinful behaviors that we as humans reflect all the time.
However, it is foolish to claim the bible doesn't condemn it.

Culturally [and I'm speaking from an evangelical Christian cultural
viewpoint...] I think that perhaps this sin gets singled out over
others. It is easy to pick on because it isn't shared by a majority of
people. We ALL sin with pride, so we can forgive that one a bit easier
because we understand it personally. But homosexuality is something
most of us don't personally deal with, so it becomes a pariah sin.
I also personally think that we in the evangelical church are way
behind in dealing with the issue. Often we will simply move away from
the person rather than reaching out. So I do think there is a lot of
work to do in addressing the issue.

That said, one of the reasons the modern church sets homosexuals apart
is their insistence it is not a sin. That is what is perhaps most
galling and why it gets so much attention. The bible is clear that all
sin and fall short of the glory of God. Romans makes a clear case for
this. So no human being is perfect, and that means the bible will
confront every one of us with our sin. Our salvation is found in
acknowledging our sin, repenting and accepting the free gift of Jesus
atonement on the cross.
The bible confronts me and everyone else with sin. If I am wrong, then
I am wrong. I can try and ignore it, or change the meaning, but it
nonetheless confronts me with my sin. If I am prideful, then I am
wrong. If I am hypocritical, then I am wrong. If I am having evil
thoughts towards my brother or am unforgiving, then I am wrong. And if
I am homosexual, then I am wrong.

Make no mistake, it doesn't matter if you were born this way or have
these feelings naturally. The bible is also clear that we are born
into sin. We are sinners by nature. That however doesn't make it ok in
Gods eyes. That's why we are in need of a savior, because we are lost
in sin. Homosexuality is simply another sin that is evil in Gods eyes.
But trying to use the bible to say it is not is to simply ignore what
it says.

A refusal to admit homosexuality is sin and repent is not so much a
condemnation of homosexuality, but a condemnation of being stiff-
necked, obstinate, prideful and rebellious. You've effectively ignored
the bible as the word of God and called him a liar. The same would be
true of a murderer who refused to see his murdering as sin.

[B]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
So where do you decide what is to be ignored as culturally irrelevant
and what is not?

B - I believe it is up to each of us to use our inner God to decide
what is truth and relevant and what is not.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality.
That does not make it correct to "bash" gays... unless gays interpret
having homosexuality labeled as sin being bashed. Certainly there is
no justification for trying to harm them. Gays are not really being
singled out in the bible; homosexuality is just one of many different
deviant sinful behaviors that we as humans reflect all the time.
However, it is foolish to claim the bible doesn't condemn it.

B - whether it does or does not...isn't adherence to God first and
Bible maybe far down the line matter more than idolizing a book and
seeing it as not to be questioned? The Bible is not God..the Bible is
a book of books written by people who did not meet Jesus the Christ in
the flesh but had taken oral teachings of what he might have
said...these same books were reinterpreted over and over. Whether one
believes it is Gods word inerrant or not is up to each of us.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
That said, one of the reasons the modern church sets homosexuals apart
is their insistence it is not a sin. That is what is perhaps most
galling and why it gets so much attention. The bible is clear that all
sin and fall short of the glory of God.

B - perhaps then the Modern church has some work to do. Perhaps the
modern church has to decide whether the Bible should be taken inerrant
or not ...and consider themselves Idolists who put the Bible above
God.

=2E And if

Post by r***@yahoo.com
I am homosexual, then I am wrong.

B - I allow God to decide over a "thing".

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Make no mistake, it doesn't matter if you were born this way or have
these feelings naturally. The bible is also clear that we are born
into sin. We are sinners by nature. That however doesn't make it ok in
Gods eyes. That's why we are in need of a savior, because we are lost
in sin. Homosexuality is simply another sin that is evil in Gods eyes.
But trying to use the bible to say it is not is to simply ignore what
it says.

B - again..you are making the Book a god..and to me this is idolatry.


You've effectively ignored

Post by r***@yahoo.com
the bible as the word of God and called him a liar.

B - rubbish. To ignore or deny some of the Bible has nothing to do
with calling God a liar. God is not the Bible and never will
be...again that is idolatry.

The same would be

Post by r***@yahoo.com
true of a murderer who refused to see his murdering as sin.

B - everyone believes that murder is a sin.....only SOME people
believe that homosexuality is a sin. In that schism lies the truth.
Think on that. God being within tells us what is wrong and
right...even the most heinous of criminals knows that murder is
wrong.

One can never be apart from God..because God is not "over there" and
outside or ourselves. To me this is the first thing that got us
sinning...a belief in separation..a belief that all God is limited and
cannot be within us or that God can pull itself out of God.

God is all....everything is God...and God is also transcendant beyond.
It is a Koan...think on it.

In my opinion only, B.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B

Post by r***@yahoo.com
So where do you decide what is to be ignored as culturally irrelevant
and what is not?

B - I believe it is up to each of us to use our inner God to decide
what is truth and relevant and what is not.

Well, you may indeed believe this, but that does _not_ make it a
_Christian_ belief. Nor does it make it an appropriate topic for this
NG.

Post by B

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. That does not make it
correct to "bash" gays... unless gays interpret having
homosexuality labeled as sin being bashed. Certainly there is no
justification for trying to harm them. Gays are not really being
singled out in the bible; homosexuality is just one of many
different deviant sinful behaviors that we as humans reflect all
the time. However, it is foolish to claim the bible doesn't
condemn it.

B - whether it does or does not...isn't adherence to God first and
Bible maybe far down the line matter more than idolizing a book and
seeing it as not to be questioned?

This is a "false dilemma". You have no excuse for pretending that
these are the only two options.

Post by B
The Bible is not God..

I suppose I should no longer be surprised that you keep coming back to
this "straw-man argument".

Post by B
the Bible is a book of books written by people who did not meet Jesus
the Christ in the flesh but had taken oral teachings of what he might
have said...these same books were reinterpreted over and over.

Where _does_ this myth keep coming from? And again: I suppose I should
no longer be surprised that you keep coming back to this myth. But
what is most disappointing about _this_ myth is that you are not only
denying one form of inspiration, you are effectively denying any
possible form of inspiration of the Scriptures. But to reject
inspiration so radically puts you in open conflict with not just the
entire Christian Tradition, but even the Jewish Tradition.

Many in this NG know better than to do this. What a pity you never
have learned from their examples.

Post by B
Whether one believes it is Gods word inerrant or not is up to each of
us.

Only in the same sense that it is up to each of us to either accept
salvation or choose death.

Post by B

Post by r***@yahoo.com
That said, one of the reasons the modern church sets homosexuals
apart is their insistence it is not a sin. That is what is perhaps
most galling and why it gets so much attention. The bible is clear
that all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

B - perhaps then the Modern church has some work to do.

You have missed the point. It is you who has the work to do.

Post by B
Perhaps the modern church has to decide whether the Bible should be
taken inerrant or not ...and consider themselves Idolists who put the
Bible above God.

No, that is certainly not the course of action the modern church must
take. On the contrary: that course must be avoided at all costs!

Post by B

Post by r***@yahoo.com
And if I am homosexual, then I am wrong.

B - I allow God to decide over a "thing".

So you love to say, but no, you do not. On the contrary: you
repeatedly and clearly reject God's Word.

Post by B

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Make no mistake, it doesn't matter if you were born this way or
have these feelings naturally. The bible is also clear that we are
born into sin. We are sinners by nature. That however doesn't make
it ok in Gods eyes. That's why we are in need of a savior, because
we are lost in sin. Homosexuality is simply another sin that is
evil in Gods eyes. But trying to use the bible to say it is not is
to simply ignore what it says.

B - again..you are making the Book a god..and to me this is idolatry.

Again, you are wrong. By no means is this "making the Book a god".

Post by B
You've effectively ignored the bible as the word of God and called
him a liar.
B - rubbish.

No, it is not 'rubbish'. You really have done these things.

Post by B
To ignore or deny some of the Bible has nothing to do
with calling God a liar.

But why should anyone take _your_ word over his? I won't. You
shouldn't either.

Post by B
God is not the Bible and never will be...again that is idolatry.

But neither rtdavid nor anyone else in this thead is comitting this
idolatry. This is your straw-man again.

Post by B

Post by r***@yahoo.com
The same would be true of a murderer who refused to see his
murdering as sin.

B - everyone believes that murder is a sin.

Really? Whoever gave Prime Minister Yuschenko dioxin did not believe
it was a sin. Whoever gave Litvinenko polonium-210 didn't believe it
either. On the contrary: they probably believed it was a patriotic
act.

Post by B
....only SOME people believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Just as only SOME people believe murder is a sin.

Post by B
In that schism lies the truth.

It is not a 'schism'. Lookup this word.

Post by B
Think on that. God being within tells us what is wrong and
right...even the most heinous of criminals knows that murder is
wrong.

Wrong in so many ways! 1) you have told him to think on 'that', when
'that' isn't even true, 2) you have confused conscience with God 3) I
gave you two examples of people who believe murder is right, at least
in special cases.

Post by B
One can never be apart from God..because God is not "over there" and
outside or ourselves.

Wrong. Sin separates from God.

Post by B
To me this is the first thing that got us
sinning...

No. It was pride that did this, the same pride you express so
tragically in your pantheism.

Post by B
a belief in separation..a belief that all God is limited and cannot
be within us or that God can pull itself out of God.
God is all....everything is God...and God is also transcendant
beyond. It is a Koan...think on it.
In my opinion only, B.

What good does it do, Bren, to state so confidently, "It is a Koan",
confidently commanding others to "think on it", and then say "In my
opinion only"?

Make up your mind. You will find this easier to do, of course, if you
let go of the childish and uneducated solipsism you keep on returning
to.

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by B
God is not the Bible and never will be...
again that is idolatry.

True, but a straw man argument. I consider it completely irrelevant
here.
If you=92d like to detail precisely why you think it pertains to me or
what I said, I=92d be interested in reading it.

This would actually be interesting. Detail an argument as to why this
is true. What are the premises that must exist in order for one to
reach this conclusion, and then let=92s see if anything I did qualifies
as fitting those premises. I=92d be interested to see how this has any
connection to what I was saying.

Post by B
B - everyone believes that murder is a sin.....only SOME people
believe that homosexuality is a sin. In that schism lies the truth.
Think on that. God being within tells us what is wrong and
right...even the most heinous of criminals knows that murder is
wrong.
One can never be apart from God..because God is not "over there" and
outside or ourselves. To me this is the first thing that got us
sinning...a belief in separation..a belief that all God is limited and
cannot be within us or that God can pull itself out of God.

You call this sin=85. But using the principle you listed above, how
could this be defined as a sin? If homosexuality isn=92t a sin because
not everyone recognizes it as sin, then how can the belief of a
separation of God and man be a sin? Clearly, not everyone feels this
way, therefore it can=92t be sin. It is self-defeating.

A couple of things about what you said don=92t make sense to me.
a belief in separation
a belief that all God is limited
and cannot be within us or
that God can pull itself out of God.

I=92m not seeing much connection between these things

Concerning separation:
Jesus had a different opinion=85. He said =93if anyone loves me, he will
OBEY my teaching, my Father will love him and we will come to him and
make our home with him=94 note the conditional=85. IF =85.Then.
Sorry, but Jesus tells us the natural state of man is without God. IF
we are to have God within us, there is a requirement: Love him by
obeying his teaching.

Of course separation doesn=92t mean God is limited, but I do feel even
God has limits, it just has nothing to do with separation=85.
However his limits do not mean that he cannot be within us, only that
certain conditions must be met.
And whatever God pulling himself out of God means, I=92ll need some more
explanation, for that one.

[B]

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by B
God is not the Bible and never will be...
again that is idolatry.

True, but a straw man argument. I consider it completely irrelevant
here.
If you=3D92d like to detail precisely why you think it pertains to me or
what I said, I=3D92d be interested in reading it.

be interested to see how this has any

Post by r***@yahoo.com
connection to what I was saying.

B - who says it pertains to anything you have said.

Post by r***@yahoo.com

Post by B
B - everyone believes that murder is a sin.....only SOME people
believe that homosexuality is a sin. In that schism lies the truth.
Think on that. God being within tells us what is wrong and
right...even the most heinous of criminals knows that murder is
wrong.
One can never be apart from God..because God is not "over there" and
outside or ourselves. To me this is the first thing that got us
sinning...a belief in separation..a belief that all God is limited and
cannot be within us or that God can pull itself out of God.

You call this sin=3D85. But using the principle you listed above, how
could this be defined as a sin? If homosexuality isn=3D92t a sin because
not everyone recognizes it as sin, then how can the belief of a
separation of God and man be a sin? Clearly, not everyone feels this
way, therefore it can=3D92t be sin. It is self-defeating.

B - I made a statement of subjectivity..I never said "this is" but I
believe this is. To me when there is a schism in many people then
there is no "obvious" absolute. When we all agree...there is. I never
state that all must believe me or they are in the wrong..I simply
stated an opinion ....and opinions can't be right or wrong...this is
like saying because I like chocolate more than vanilla..then I am
wrong.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
A couple of things about what you said don=3D92t make sense to me.

B - that's fine I don't ask you to understand me totally.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Jesus had a different opinion

B - actually no. The Bible says that Jesus had an opinion that you
interpreted in your way. This does not mean that Jesus actually had
that opinion.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Sorry, but Jesus tells us the natural state of man is without God.

B - again that is what you interpret the Bible as saying. This does
not make it so.

Post by r***@yahoo.com
And whatever God pulling himself out of God means, I=3D92ll need some more=
explanation, for that one.

B - when you're ready you'll learn.

Bren

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by B

I would be interested to see how this has any
connection to what I was saying.

B - who says it pertains to anything you have said.

Classic response=85.
So=85. you were just blurting random irrelevant thoughts. Sorry, I
mistook it for some dazed response to something I may have said=85.

Post by B

Post by B
B - everyone believes that murder is a sin.....only SOME people
believe that homosexuality is a sin. In that schism lies the truth.
Think on that. God being within tells us what is wrong and
right...even the most heinous of criminals knows that murder is
wrong.
One can never be apart from God..because God is not "over there" and
outside or ourselves. To me this is the first thing that got us
sinning...a belief in separation..a belief that all God is limited and=
cannot be within us or that God can pull itself out of God.

You call this sin. But using the principle you listed above, how
could this be defined as a sin? If homosexuality is not a sin because
not everyone recognizes it as sin, then how can the belief of a
separation of God and man be a sin? Clearly, not everyone feels this
way, therefore it is not a sin. It is self-defeating.

B - I made a statement of subjectivity..I never said "this is" but I
believe this is.

Hmmm, I don=92t see any such disclaimer in what you wrote=85 it reads like
you were stating facts from what was written above. Note the statement
forms-
Everyone believes that murder is a sin
Only some people believe that homosexuality is a sin
In that schism lies the truth
God being within us tells us what is wrong and right

Not one =96I believe=85or =96it=92s my opinion that=85.

Post by B
To me when there is a schism in many people then
there is no "obvious" absolute. When we all agree...there is. I never
state that all must believe me or they are in the wrong..I simply
stated an opinion ....and opinions can't be right or wrong...this is
like saying because I like chocolate more than vanilla..then I am
wrong.

Can=92t individuals have an =96opinion- about something that is not a
matter of mere taste?
Perhaps one might have an opinion or a belief that the world is flat,
not spherical. Would you still say he is not right or wrong?

But on a deeper level, the statement- opinion can=92t be right or wrong-
is itself a statement. Correct? But if it=92s a statement, it is wrong
under your own theory because not everyone agrees with it=85.
Or is it merely another opinion? Which CANNOT be either right or
wrong=85 if so then your opinion that opinions are not right or wrong
would therefore be neither right nor wrong and refutes itself.
Either way, the idea is self-refuting. Granting it=92s only an opinion,
but it is a self-refuting incoherent opinion.

Post by B

Jesus had a different opinion

B - actually no. The Bible says that Jesus had an opinion that you
interpreted in your way. This does not mean that Jesus actually had
that opinion.

To quote you on this- actually, no - The bible itself does not say
that Jesus had only -an opinion-, the bible itself makes a
correspondence theory of truth statement.

[B]

Classic response=3D85.
So=3D85. you were just blurting random irrelevant thoughts. Sorry, I
mistook it for some dazed response to something I may have said=3D85.

B - I read..I speak....relevancy is upon those that read them. You
don't think they are relevant...understood.

Hmmm, I don=3D92t see any such disclaimer in what you wrote=3D85 it reads =

like

you were stating facts from what was written above. Note the statement
forms-

snip*

B - iN almost every post I make I say "I believe" or "in my opinion"
either at the beginning of my post or at the end. This shows that it
is opinion. I only make statements of fact when I can be 99% sure of
them and even then I'm not totally into that as I am a subjectivist
and as Quantum physics has shown..you can change the outcome of
something just by observation....

Can=3D92t individuals have an =3D96opinion- about something that is not a
matter of mere taste?

*snip

B - I believe so...but still opinions are subjective things so depend
on those making them.

Perhaps one might have an opinion or a belief that the world is flat,
not spherical. Would you still say he is not right or wrong?

B - I would'nt say he was right or wrong if it was his opinion and he
couched his answer thus...but if he said it as objective...I'd ask him
for proof.

But on a deeper level, the statement- opinion can=3D92t be right or wrong-=
is itself a statement. Correct? But if it=3D92s a statement, it is wrong
under your own theory because not everyone agrees with it=3D85.
Or is it merely another opinion? Which CANNOT be either right or
wrong=3D85 if so then your opinion that opinions are not right or wrong
would therefore be neither right nor wrong and refutes itself.
Either way, the idea is self-refuting. Granting it=3D92s only an opinion,
but it is a self-refuting incoherent opinion.

B - that's what I believe. However as I have said before...I tend to
couch my postings in I.M.O or what I believe etc. Point being I have
no stake in your believing in what I say or not. MIne is just to put
that thought out there for those that may think as I do..and have the
same sense of gnosis as I do. I'm not here to convince..just to share.
I have no need to pound someone over the head with my way...but to
just offer it up as another thought.

Post by B

Post by r***@yahoo.com
Jesus had a different opinion

B - actually no. The Bible says that Jesus had an opinion that you
interpreted in your way. This does not mean that Jesus actually had
that opinion.

To quote you on this- actually, no - The bible itself does not say
that Jesus had only -an opinion-

B - truth..my mistake. The Bible is written about the happennings
around a man named Jesus and whether that book is truth...literal or
figuratively or both...mistranslated...direct from God or not..is
always up to each of our opinions I believe. Someone who can't prove
something telling me I MUST believe in something they can't prove or
perish...is ridiculousness to me..but again..that's just me. I tend to
have a lot of faith in what I believe is God and don't believe that
God is that superficial or unloving.

My opinion is never to tear down the Bible or take anyone away from
their beliefs..but just to question things as I believe that God gave
us a mind to use. I love God and think the Bible a good book...not
perfect...not whole...not to be taken literally...but a good book. I
also don't think the "religion called Christianity" as opposed to
Christianity itself...is the only way to God. I live my
Christianity..I don't just read it or attend church and paste that
label on me...it is in my blood. Blessings B.

[h***@rutgers.edu]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
You make the point that the bible was written to different cultures
with the obvious intent to cast some doubt on simply reading the bible
straight up... presumably we need to understand the culture it was
written to so that we avoid the error of just accepting what it says.

But it was written to different cultures. That's a simple fact. The
question is how that fact affects how we read it.

There are at least three examples that as far as I know evangelicals
agree with:

1. We do not bar employees of the Internal Revenue Service from
being officers in churches, even though tax collectors are the
standard NT example of sinners. Presumably this is because we
think there are significant differences between Roman tax collectors
and US ones.

2. We do not bar employees of banks, even though taking interest is
condemned widely in the OT. Again, presumably there are enough
differences in our economic system that interest is no longer
necessarily abusive.

3. The Bible permits, and in some cases in the OT, encourages slavery.
Everyone now believes that this is wrong.

It may be that homosexuality doesn't fall into this category, but we
can't solve that by pretending that we don't take the cultural context
of acts into account.

I realize that this is to some extent subjective. However there's no
reason to think that the Bible can be properly applied without some
degree of spiritual insight. If God had intended it to be a rulebook,
he is perfectly capable of having created a lawbook rather than a
mixture of narrative, poetry, letters, etc. But such an approach would
violate the spirit of Jesus' teaching, and the letter of Paul's.

I'm not taking a position on homosexuality here. It isn't immediately
obvious to me that anything relevant has changed. But the question is
certainly legitimate.

[shegeek72]

Post by h***@rutgers.edu
But it was written to different cultures. That's a simple fact. The
question is how that fact affects how we read it.
There are at least three examples that as far as I know evangelicals

[snip]

Good points and indicates the danger in believing the Bible is to be
taken literally and is 'inerrant.' I maintain that it is actually is
inerrant, but context, translation and
cultural norms need to be taken into account. IOW, the message is
inerrant, i.e. love, tolerance and transformation, but how it says it
is subject to analysis and interpretation.

You also bring up the hypocrisy of cherry picking certain parts of the
Bible. How many of us wear clothes of mixed fabrics? How many men
shave their beards? How many women wear hats in church? They are all
prohibited in the OT. If we believe in a hateful, vengeful God of the
OT, the we must follow the other proscriptions as well.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by h***@rutgers.edu

Post by r***@yahoo.com
You make the point that the bible was written to different cultures
with the obvious intent to cast some doubt on simply reading the bible
straight up... presumably we need to understand the culture it was
written to so that we avoid the error of just accepting what it says.

But it was written to different cultures. That's a simple fact. The
question is how that fact affects how we read it.
There are at least three examples that as far as I know evangelicals
1. We do not bar employees of the Internal Revenue Service from
being officers in churches, even though tax collectors are the
standard NT example of sinners. Presumably this is because we
think there are significant differences between Roman tax collectors
and US ones.
2. We do not bar employees of banks, even though taking interest is
condemned widely in the OT. Again, presumably there are enough
differences in our economic system that interest is no longer
necessarily abusive.
3. The Bible permits, and in some cases in the OT, encourages slavery.
Everyone now believes that this is wrong.
It may be that homosexuality doesn't fall into this category, but we
can't solve that by pretending that we don't take the cultural context
of acts into account.
I realize that this is to some extent subjective. However there's no
reason to think that the Bible can be properly applied without some
degree of spiritual insight. If God had intended it to be a rulebook,
he is perfectly capable of having created a lawbook rather than a
mixture of narrative, poetry, letters, etc. But such an approach would
violate the spirit of Jesus' teaching, and the letter of Paul's.
I'm not taking a position on homosexuality here. It isn't immediately
obvious to me that anything relevant has changed. But the question is
certainly legitimate.

I'm not questioning that it was written to different cultures, of
course it was. And I agree with the basic premise that it is a
consideration that needs to be taken. I don't bother trying to cover
every angle of a subject in a post. My initial response actually did
include those points but I edited them out to simplify and keep things
as concise as possible. So for any that perhaps want to make this a
discussion primarily on whether or not cultural context should be
included in biblical interpretation, I agree, it should.

However, there was only a general mention of cultural context [with
one example] and an insinuation that perhaps the biblical
pronouncements on homosexuality should be considered irrelevant for
our culture today. There were no specifics on why it should be
considered such, just the mention of cultural context and the
insinuation. I do note that when shegeek wants to read the bible
straight up, such as in the promise mentioned, then there is no
discussion of cultural context. perhaps whosoever doesn't really mean
whosoever to our day and culture..... maybe that was only applicable
to the specific group it was written to....
I'm not really of course arguing such, but I mention it because if you
want to demonstrate some irrelevance of a clear biblical injunction,
then you need to provide more than an insinuation that it may be
irrelevant on cultural considerations. Why is it to be considered
irrelevant? What cultural settings make it so?

There is another area where I saw this happen alot. In my debates with
muslims years ago, there was a likewise insinuation about biblical
inerrancy. There are many variations through manuscripts. Muslims will
mention the amount of variations and then insinuate that we cannot
possibly know what the original versions said. They cannot however
prove by looking at the variations a specific chain of addition or
subtraction to the texts. There are just alot of copy errors over alot
of manuscripts. So they don't ever encourage actually looking at the
variation, it fits thier agenda more to NOT actually check the
variations which would prove thier point wrong. However the
insinuation from all these variations to a point of "not being able to
know what the text says" works well. Because there are actually alot
of variations. However research on the specifics will show that we can
actually be nearly certain of what the original texts said.

shegeek used the same technique in the second point. insinuating that
the original meaning is all but lost. I disagree.
If it can be shown that at one time the manuscripts had one text, but
later there were additions to it, then we can be start to consider it
more clearly. however with the mere insinuations, i'm not going to
take it very seriously. I do understand there are actually several
places: the pericope of the adultress and marks long ending, that do
not have a place in our earlier manuscripts. so those accordingly are
noted as such in most new translations. but in regards to the passages
on homosexuality.......

I believe shegeeks post to be very heavy on insinuation but lacking in
any convincing detail.

[shegeek72]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
I believe shegeeks post to be very heavy on insinuation but lacking in
any convincing detail.

To begin with, I did not write the article. It's from a website and I
posted the URL (http://www.ppmcc.org/About_the_Bible.html) at the top
of my post.

As for 'convincing detail,' explanations of the Greek words 'pornea'
and 'akathartos' can easily be found by googling. My study, both on
the internet and at my church, overwhelmingly indicate that neither
term refers to the loving, longterm same-sex relationships of today.
'Akathartos' is translated into 'uncleaness' and 'pornea' into
'fornication.' Sampling of websites:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://www.wfn.org/2000/11/msg00082.html

And I asked, in this forum and others, for inherent harms in
homosexuality and no one has given me a valid answer. Indeed, the word
'homosexual' wasn't even in existence when the Bible was written and
translated and Jesus said nothing on gay sex, yet he railed against
all manner of sin.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by shegeek72

Post by r***@yahoo.com
I believe shegeeks post to be very heavy on insinuation but lacking in
any convincing detail.

To begin with, I did not write the article. It's from a website and I
posted the URL (http://www.ppmcc.org/About_the_Bible.html) at the top
of my post.

Well, so _what_ if you did not write it? You must take responsibility
for what you post, just as everyone else here.

Post by shegeek72
As for 'convincing detail,' explanations of the Greek words 'pornea'
and 'akathartos' can easily be found by googling.

Newsflash: when _I_ google it, I find that the _good_ sites disagree
with you.

Post by shegeek72
My study, both on the internet and at my church, overwhelmingly
indicate that neither term refers to the loving, longterm same-sex
relationships of today.

But this is only because what you call 'study' is not even genuine
study. Genuine study would not dismiss the witness of St. Clement as
"the opinion of just one man" as you did. Not when it was shared by so
many others.

Genuine study, after all, includes the ability to COUNT.

The results of _my_ study overwhelmingly indicate that _both_ terms
condemn even what _you_ call "loving, longterm same-sex relationships
of today". This became obvious reading St. Clement of Alexandria,
whose condemnations had _nothing_ to do with pecuniary motives and
_everything_ to do with the insult to their own manhood.

Furthermore, _unlike_ you, I _did_ give the details in my posts, I did
_not_ wimp out by asking my reader to Google it.

Post by shegeek72
'Akathartos' is translated into 'uncleaness' and 'pornea' into

And neither of these translations answer the relevant question. But
perhaps this omission was deliberate on your part: for if you _did_ do
an honest study of what was considered 'fornication' then, you would
be _forced_ to admit that you are wrong.

Post by shegeek72
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://www.wfn.org/2000/11/msg00082.html

Both you and your chosen websites weaken your own credibility by
mis-spelling the word. It is PORNEIA, not PORNEA.

Nor is that the only indication that the author has at best a
superficial knowledge of Greek.

Post by shegeek72
And I asked, in this forum and others, for inherent harms in
homosexuality and no one has given me a valid answer.

How long do you plan to continue repeating this lie? You have been
answered, and that many times. You just prefer to dismiss the answers,
stirring yourself up to provide some answer only to the weakest of
them.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, the word 'homosexual' wasn't even in existence when the Bible
was written and translated and Jesus said nothing on gay sex, yet he
railed against all manner of sin.

Now this is a scurrilous dodge! Of course the _word_ did not exist
yet. It is the invention of 19th century psychologists. But that does
_not_ imply that their acts were not condemned. On the contrary: their
acts are very clearly condemned, under the classic example of
circumlocution, "who lie with a man as with a woman".

Furthermore, it is an incredible slight against Christ that you call
His preaching "railing". No, He _never_ 'railed' against sin, not even
against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

[shegeek72]

On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Newsflash: when _I_ google it, I find that the _good_ sites disagree
with you.

[snip]

Your entire argument is based on disagreements on the definitions of
the words "pornea" or "porneia" and "akathartos." You believe they
refer to the loving, longterm, monogamous relationships of today and I
don't. We could both produce sources that agree with each other's
meanings until the cows come home and neither will be convinced.

However, there is a significant difference between us in real life: I
know and have associated with GLBT people for decades and you, at
least what I can gather from your surreptitious 'answers,' have not.
The substantial difference is your 'knowledge' is merely intellectual
and mine is real-world. As most people understand, there's no
substitute for real-world knowledge and experience.

I suggest getting to know some GLBT people in real life. And, just
maybe, your ideas will change (though I'm not holding my breath).

Post by Matthew Johnson
Furthermore, it is an incredible slight against Christ that you call
His preaching "railing". No, He _never_ 'railed' against sin, not even
against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So when Jesus stormed into the temple that had been setup as a
marketplace. overturning tables, he wasn't railing? Come on.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[r***@yahoo.com]

be very heavy on insinuation but lacking in

Post by shegeek72

Post by r***@yahoo.com
any convincing detail.

To begin with, I did not write the article. It's from a website and I
posted the URL (http://www.ppmcc.org/About_the_Bible.html) at the top
of my post.
As for 'convincing detail,' explanations of the Greek words 'pornea'
and 'akathartos' can easily be found by googling. My study, both on
the internet and at my church, overwhelmingly indicate that neither
term refers to the loving, longterm same-sex relationships of today.
'Akathartos' is translated into 'uncleaness' and 'pornea' into

I believe this is an attempt at justifying what is clearly a sin, by
trying to distinguish a difference.

For instance, in the first link=85.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm

=85. we get a discussion that the meaning of pornea-
1) that the term fornication is more limited than has been credited
and
2) that conservative Christians have wrongly increased the scope=85

For example:
=93According to Christs Freedmen, it now includes "premarital sex,
orgies, masturbation, oral sex, fetishes, anything to do with
pornography, 'improper' thoughts about the opposite sex,
homosexuality, and just about any other sexual sin you could think
of." He comments: "While some of these things are sin...this is a
gross misuse of the word fornication.=94

But the verses I am thinking of aren=92t merely applying a generic term
of sexual immorality, they specifically define homosexual activity.
Leviticus 18:22
=93Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable=94
Romans 1:26-27
=9326Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same
way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with
other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion=94

It directly states that homosexuality is an indecent act based on
shameful lusts. It makes no distinction between =93loving, long term=94
homosexuality or any other type of homosexual behavior.
Claiming a misreading of the word pornea simply has no relevance
here.

In this link, there are some comments on Romans 1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

There is an attempt to rationalize the clear meaning by questioning
several words.
1. Patho atimas- shameful lusts
RT [Religious Tolerance] says this applies to Pagan fertility rites
and not the type of emotions as one finds in a marriage or sexually
active relationship. But the word pathos seems to refer to passion/
feeling/emotion=85. It is used three times in the NT and every time
after it there is a modifier to describe what the feeling/emotion is
Romans 1:26 patho atimas =96 passion shameful
Colossians 3:5 pathos =96 passion [or lust=85 in context]
1 Thessalonians 4:5 pathei epithumias =96 passion/desire of fornication

Pathos then need not be restricted to pagan rites at all. In fact, it
reads perfectly well with no need for special context or explanation.

2. metallasso =96 exchanged
RT makes the argument that this word refers to those that had once
been heterosexuals but where now engaging in same-sex behavior in
violation of their natural desires. They would attribute this kind of
persuasion to peer pressure and chemical stimulants at pagan rituals.
The assumption then is this passage is not describing homosexual
relations where they feel this is the natural state.

I=92m not sure why this is a more acceptable answer than reading the
passage simply

3. para physin - unnatural
The first definition of =91nature=92 given is:
The nature of things, the force, the laws, order of nature.
It can also [obviously] refer to physical origin, a way of acting that
by long habit has become natural, and the sum of innate properties by
which one person differs from others: native characteristics.
RT tries to make a case that this is mistranslated and demonstrated
prejudice as meaning something immoral when it should mean only
unconventional. Granting the possibility of reading =91para physin=92 as
such, I don=92t see that there is a better argument for reading it as
=91against native [personal] characteristics=92 than =91against the natural
order=92. Given the context of the passage, it would seem that against
the natural order is much more plausible. But more on context below.

4. Context
RT mentions context in several points:
A. the epistle is written to =93all in Rome who are loved by God and
called to be saints=94. Homosexuality was widespread and acceptable in
Roman culture.
B. Romans 1 is concerned with the denunciation of idolatry, and NOT
the denunciation of same-sex behavior.

However [A] might be true, I don=92t see how it applies to the argument.
Yes the epistle was written to the saints in Rome and perhaps they
were exposed to widespread homosexuality=85. But so what?

As for point two, the context of romans one is the rejection of God
leading to various behaviors.
=9319since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities=97his eternal power and divine nature=97have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men
are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish
hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became
fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to
look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts
to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served
created things rather than the Creator=97who is forever praised. Amen.=94

Verse 20 tells us that knowledge of God is all around and men are
without excuse, BUT=85.
Verse 21 say though they knew God, they neither glorified him nor gave
thanks to him, SO their hearts became darkened.
Then there is a list of behaviors that they were given over to.

Now despite the attempts to make it sound like the bible is picking on
homosexuals here, the point of this passage REALLY =85. is that we are
ALL depraved. Note that conclusion in chapter 3: there is none
righteous, not even one. Paul is ultimately making a point that we are
all sinful. NOT just homosexuals.

However, homosexuals using a rewording of this passage to eliminate
themselves from the list are deluded, and in fact living out the very
delusion Romans 1 states so clearly.

Therefore Romans 1 is not primarily a denunciation of idolatry, it is
a list of various behaviors of those rejecting God, and idolatry as
well as homosexuality is one of those. The denunciation of same sex
relationships stands from Romans 1.

Hence the next link:
http://www.wfn.org/2000/11/msg00082.html

where the basic thrust is that the passage is simply Paul=92s cultural
bias, not part of the essential message of the gospel.
There is certainly no shortage of proclamations about what ought to be
in the bible and what ought not to be, but opinions of this aside, the
bible DOES indeed say what it says about homosexuality. If you don=92t
like that, then don=92t follow the bible, but it=92s just silly to claim
that it doesn=92t condemn homosexuality, it clearly does.

Post by shegeek72
And I asked, in this forum and others, for inherent harms in
homosexuality and no one has given me a valid answer. Indeed, the word
'homosexual' wasn't even in existence when the Bible was written and
translated and Jesus said nothing on gay sex, yet he railed against
all manner of sin.

Discussing inherent harms is an endless debate. Whatever one might say
is an inherent harm, another will simply say it is not. The same can
be [and indeed, it is=85.] argued on almost any point. However it is
clear that the bible condemns it.

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

***@yahoo.com responds to shegeek72 on homosexuality.

Unfortunately shegeek72 uses religioustolerance.org as a source for
Biblical exegesis. I agree with a few of their positions, but I've
seen no evidence in any of their web pages of serious attempts at
exegesis.

Their discussion of pornea is typical. While promising a discussion of
the Greek word, they actually discuss primarily uses of "fornication"
in English.

Their discussion of Rom 1:26-27 is not credible. It's hard to see how
any reasonable person can read that without concluding the Paul
disapproves of all homosexuality. It might be true that he speaks of
people who were originally heterosexual and turned to homosexuality.
However he is speaking of the pagan world as a whole, so he is
probably not speaking of individuals who changed during their lives,
but of the long-term effects of mankind falling from original
sinlessness into idolatry. And since he considers homosexuality to be
such an obvious evil that it is a punishment for idolatry, it's
really, really hard to believe that he would think it's perfectly OK
as long as you start out homosexual.

I think the only credible arguments about Paul's passages are

* Paul's letters are primarily useful because of the light he casts
on Jesus' teachings and how they were carried out in the Church.
His own teachings are not inerrant. There are signs in his letters
that Paul himself makes this distinction.

or

* Modern homosexuality is simply a different thing than what he had
seen.

I suspect that almost everyone who defends homosexuality in the modern
Church in fact accepts the first of these, and possibly also the
second. I probably do too. I think it's disingenuous to do the kind of
pseudo-exegesis that the Toronto Consultants do, appearing to accept
the authority of the texts and then changing their meaning. Before
getting into long arguments on the meaning of porneia, I suggest a
preliminary question: If you concluded that Paul actually opposed all
forms of homosexuality, would it change anything for you? If, as I
suspect, the answer is no, why are we going through this?

I am particularly disappointed at the Toronto Consultants because
their idea of religious tolerance is to reject conservative religion,
not to find a way to practice mutual respect. My idea of a religious
tolerance site would be one that portrays the full range of
theological positions accurately and sympathetically, and then
advocates ways for conservative and liberal Christians to respect and
work with each other. Their position in quite clear: inerrancy and
conservative Christianity is wrong, so the way we got tolerance is for
conservatives to become liberal.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm) I happen to agree,
that inerrancy is wrong, but that's a theological position, not a
basis for religious tolerance. (Note however they go beyond simply
rejecting inerrancy. They reject, either directly or by implication,
most of the key ideas of Christianity.) We need a better approach to
tolerance than "you're wrong; can't you adopt my position?"

[shegeek72]

On Apr 20, 7:10 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
And I asked, in this forum and others, for inherent harms in
homosexuality and no one has given me a valid answer.

How long do you plan to continue repeating this lie? You have been
answered, and that many times. You just prefer to dismiss the answers,
stirring yourself up to provide some answer only to the weakest of
them.

Lie? I'll repeat every supposed harm to homosexuality that was posted:

1. No procreation. As I stated before, when populations consisted of
nomadic peoples, or small populations, procreation was necessary to
the survival of the people, but is not needed in today's over-
populated world. Indeed, you should be glad there are gays and
lesbians, who choose not to have biological children, as they aren't
contributing to over-population.

2. Anal sex. It was claimed anal sex leads to incontinence, yet the
poster supplied no sources or documentation. Also, some gay men don't
have anal sex and some heterosexuals do. And this does not apply to
lesbians.

3. AIDS. AIDS is an equal-opportunity disease and not confined to the
gay community. Indeed, the highest percentage of AIDS is occurring in
Africa among heterosexual men. Lesbians have one of the lowest rates
of HIV.

If you can think of more I'd be glad to respond to them, though I
doubt you will as your posts are big on insinuation, insults and
generalities with little real substance.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Unfortunately shegeek72 uses religioustolerance.org as a source for
Biblical exegesis. I agree with a few of their positions, but I've
seen no evidence in any of their web pages of serious attempts at
exegesis.

This is what I have been saying about their 'exegesis' for quite some time now.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Their discussion of pornea is typical. While promising a discussion of
the Greek word, they actually discuss primarily uses of "fornication"
in English.

Which is _so_ far from genuine exegesis, I can _only_ see it as deliberate
fraud.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Their discussion of Rom 1:26-27 is not credible. It's hard to see how
any reasonable person can read that without concluding the Paul
disapproves of all homosexuality.

Ah, but this is why people tamper with the translation of key words in the
passage. If you tamper with them, suddenly you _can_ fool the reasonable person
into believing he disapproves only of 'prostitution' and the like.

But this illustrates the general trend: in order to fool people, they raise all
kinds of illegitimate disputes about the meaning of key words, all to defend
depravity.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
It might be true that he speaks of
people who were originally heterosexual and turned to homosexuality.
However he is speaking of the pagan world as a whole, so he is
probably not speaking of individuals who changed during their lives,
but of the long-term effects of mankind falling from original
sinlessness into idolatry. And since he considers homosexuality to be
such an obvious evil that it is a punishment for idolatry, it's
really, really hard to believe that he would think it's perfectly OK
as long as you start out homosexual.
I think the only credible arguments about Paul's passages are
* Paul's letters are primarily useful because of the light he casts
on Jesus' teachings and how they were carried out in the Church.
His own teachings are not inerrant. There are signs in his letters
that Paul himself makes this distinction.

But no one should believe this, since this robs Christs own words of meaning; I
refer to where He calls Paul His "chosen vessel".

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
or
* Modern homosexuality is simply a different thing than what he had
seen.

Much ink has been spilled and many trees have lost their lives to support _this_
rationalization. But this ignores the putative _reasoning_ behind God's command
to ban all homosexual activity. It pretends that the command is not for our own
greatest good, as are _all_ His commands.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I suspect that almost everyone who defends homosexuality in the modern
Church in fact accepts the first of these, and possibly also the
second.

Clearly, they have to do one or the other. They think they are being more
thorough if they do both.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I probably do too.

That is sad.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I think it's disingenuous to do the kind of
pseudo-exegesis that the Toronto Consultants do, appearing to accept
the authority of the texts and then changing their meaning.

I am so glad you pointed this out. I have been pointing it out too, so
unfortunately, I know from experience that your opinion here will be largely
ignored.


[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I am particularly disappointed at the Toronto Consultants because
their idea of religious tolerance is to reject conservative religion,
not to find a way to practice mutual respect.

I am not disappointed simply because I knew better than to expect better from
them. Of _course_ they gave up on "finding a way to practice mutual respect". It
is impossible for them, since they sacrificed too much on the altar of fallacy
in support of depravity.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
My idea of a religious
tolerance site

And your idea is more sensible. But it appears you miss the point. If they are
willing to sink to such dishonesty in their disingenuous acts you describe
above, why wouldn't they _also_ sink to dishonesty even in the naming of their
organization? The name "religious _tolerance_ " is a dishonest choice for their
name. They are not interested in "religious tolerance", they are interested in
_intolerance_ towards those who insist on more responsible exegesis.

[snip]

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I think the only credible arguments about Paul's passages are
* Paul's letters are primarily useful because of the light he casts
on Jesus' teachings and how they were carried out in the Church.
His own teachings are not inerrant. There are signs in his letters
that Paul himself makes this distinction.

well that just leaves us with relativism, doesn't it! As VanTil long
ago wrote: "If the Christian consciousness has no absolute standard
by which to judge itself, it is soon lost in the ocean of relativity,
in which all the standards of non-Christian ethics swim. More than
that, if the Christian consciousness does not completely submit itself
to the Scripture it is already pagan in principle. All that does not
spring from obedience to God is sin." [Christian Theistic Ethics, p.
25]

How far you have fallen from the WCF!

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Their position in quite clear: inerrancy and
conservative Christianity is wrong, so the way we got tolerance is for
conservatives to become liberal.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm) I happen to agree,
that inerrancy is wrong, but that's a theological position,

a presupposition that chops the legs right out from underneath both
the Reformed faith and Scriptures own witness. I find nowhere in any
of the gospels, Christ treating the Hebrew canon as anything but
inerrant. Peter holds that the Pauline letters were equivalent to the
Hebrew Scriptures, deriding those who treat them otherwise.

What a sad thing to see a Presbyterian renounce the reformed PC's
dogmas and doctrines. How many died for inerrancy to give back to
common man both the inerrant Word of God and the God of that Bible?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@rutgers.edu

Post by r***@yahoo.com
You make the point that the bible was written to different cultures
with the obvious intent to cast some doubt on simply reading the bible
straight up... presumably we need to understand the culture it was
written to so that we avoid the error of just accepting what it says.

But it was written to different cultures.

But principally it was written out of a realized Messianic Jewish
mindset (NT). Yes, it was sent into various cultures and yes, it aids
understanding greatly to have an appreciation of those cultures. For
instance, the lukewarm reference in Christ's analysis of the Laodicean
church.

However, aside from those particulars, the Word transcends time and
culture. It's author stands outside of time and His Eternal Decree
determines and defines all that comes to be. Simply put, there is no
chance behind God and therefore to minimize His revelation to man is
create an idol. Because God is transcendent He must declare Himself
to us. [cf. "Christian Theory of Knowledge", VanTil] Man is totally
dependent on His revelation inorder to gain a correct and true view of
not only God as He is, but man's relationship to God and all that He
has created.

Is this not the whole point of the fall? Man makes himself the
reference point instead of wholly accepting the dependance of his
creature hood. Is this not what Paul addresses specifically in Rom
1? And is he not amplifying the Jewish testament stratagem that when
one generation commits spiritual adultery, the next generation will
inherit physical adultery. Is this not the historical record? Is
this not what we have seen in our own country? I'm only 60 and yet
the moral collapse that has occurred over that time is simply breath
taking. Unfortunately this has also wandered into our churches and
seminaries as well and now Biblical Christians struggle to find true
expositional preaching and Biblically governed churches.

Neither hot nor cold! Is that not the diagnosis of 21st C church?

[shegeek72]

Post by r***@yahoo.com
I believe this is an attempt at justifying what is clearly a sin, by
trying to distinguish a difference.

Your rebuttal, just as MJ's, is based on the interpretation of
"homosexuals" in the the bible as meaning the gays and lesbians of
modern times. I disagree. Context is very important when trying to
wrestle what the Bible is saying.

There WAS temple prostitution and homosexual rape (a means of
humiliating enemies) in biblical times. We are left with the decision
to categorize "homosexuals" as meaning all gays and lesbians, or
homosexual rape and prostitution. One cannot honestly say they can be
dead sure that when homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible that it
means the loving, longterm, monogamous relationships of today. That
it's not referring to the relationships of today is supported in
Leviticus where a "man lying with a man" is included in with the
"abominations" of eating shellfish, wearing clothes made of mixed
fabrics, etc, which were social customs. The most likely reason was to
increase the population in the agrarian culture. And a study of Sodom
in the Bible shows (as was pointed out by the moderator) that the sin
of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. This tradition has
carried over to modern times where, in the middle east, one is always
welcomed into one's home and it's against social custom not to.

The Bible was used to support discrimination of a class of people
(slaves), that we now know is wrong. The same is true today of our gay
and lesbian brothers and sisters.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

----

[Let me be clear about Sodom. It's pretty obvious that Sodom was
portrayed as a cesspool of every kind of sin. The particular episode
described in the Bible seems like it was calculated to combine just
about as many horrors as possible into one: homosexual rape of guests
who just happened to be angels. I would certainly never say "the sin
of Sodom was homosexuality." Homosexual rape would be wrong even if
homosexuality is OK. However we know from other passages that Israel
considered homosexuality to be wrong. I'd never use this passage to
prove it. But given that we know it, I'd say it was intended to be
just one of many elements of offense to the episode. --clh]

[B]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I am particularly disappointed at the Toronto Consultants because
their idea of religious tolerance is to reject conservative religion,
not to find a way to practice mutual respect.

B - they don't reject conservative religion at all..what they reject
is intolerance..and if conservative religion practises this...then
they should not be surprised that one thing that site called religious
tolerance is intolerant of...is intolerance..(wrap your head around
that one!) I could not care less that what certain faiths believe as
long as they don't tell me that I can't go to God because of my
beliefs or state that theirs is the only way to God. We all own the
mountain and we all choose our path up it. Intolerance to people who
don't hurt you or harm you or do anything to you but exist is simple
rude and ignorant and not exactly a God trait as far as this Christian
is concerned.

Bren

[A Brown]

Post by B
I could not care less that what certain faiths believe as
long as they don't tell me that I can't go to God because of my
beliefs or state that theirs is the only way to God. We all own the
mountain and we all choose our path up it. Intolerance to people who
don't hurt you or harm you or do anything to you but exist is simple
rude and ignorant and not exactly a God trait as far as this Christian
is concerned.

We all come to our own conclusions...and are all at different places on our
journey's.

Once someone tells you that the conclusions you've come to are wrong,
because they don't agree with mine (which are better)...they are showing a
lack of respect.

And respect is what guides all human relationships...

However, if you've been around Christian circles for awhile, it should come
as no surprise that the church is full of people who do exactly that. We're
more concerned with "everyone else". Some religious people hold that as a
tenet of faith!

Post by B
Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I am particularly disappointed at the Toronto Consultants because
their idea of religious tolerance is to reject conservative religion,
not to find a way to practice mutual respect.

B - they don't reject conservative religion at all..what they reject
is intolerance..

Ah, but you see, the problem is that they _say_ they are "rejecting
intolerance", but are being dishonest; it is not 'intolerance' they reject. They
are rejecting far more than just that.

[snip]

[A Brown]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B
B - they don't reject conservative religion at all..what they reject
is intolerance..

Ah, but you see, the problem is that they _say_ they are "rejecting
intolerance", but are being dishonest; it is not 'intolerance' they
reject. They
are rejecting far more than just that.

No, they are simply rejecting those that wish to impose their beliefson
them.

Simple as that.

It's called civility. One of the first requirements of a Christian.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by A Brown

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by B
B - they don't reject conservative religion at all..what they reject
is intolerance..

Ah, but you see, the problem is that they _say_ they are "rejecting
intolerance", but are being dishonest; it is not 'intolerance' they
reject. They
are rejecting far more than just that.

No, they are simply rejecting those that wish to impose their beliefson
them.

You wish this were true. But it is not. They are, as I already said, rejecting
far more than that. And they are not _even_ rejecting all those what wish to
impose their beliefs on others, since they do this themselves.

Post by A Brown
Simple as that.

No, it is not.

Post by A Brown
It's called civility.

It may be _called_ that, but it is not. Try using a dictionary before you use
this word 'civility' again.

Post by A Brown
One of the first requirements of a Christian.

And it is not that either. Rather, this false statement of a 'requirement' is
merely an excuse for you to raise false accusations against those who contradict
your poisonous disinformation.