Love it brother! Keep that heart solid as the ground. You have many brothers, who understands what you understands is one with you indeed. King and priests is what I see in you my brother. Who's worth honoring, respecting, loving, and giving my life for you kind of love. I'm not perfect but the one who's in me is perfect. Luv ya! My brother
Rationality is nothing more than a psychological and social idea we have created. Rationality is a reasonable end of human pattern seeking and sociobiology. Law of reason are not as infallible as one thinks.
Has Science Buried God? I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. William Lane Craig debate Lawrence Krauss & Richard Dawkins at The Veritas Forum at Yale University
Lol - I am not a sir. And I addressed your "questions" very carefully. Simply refer to ALL my comments. Gosh - I don't know how many times I can say this: JUST READ. And for the record, God cannot open my heart more than He already has. I assure you.
15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 2 Peter 3.
PART 1: Here, I'll take you through it slowly. 1) Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:10: The words translated here as "effeminate" and "homosexual" are difficult to translate. The first does not mean the modern word "effeminate", and the second certainly cannot mean the modern sense of the word "homosexual". The first word (malakoi) refers to someone decadent, and the second (arsenokoitai) meant literally man-bed. The word cannot be translated as homosexual (as I have already explained). PLEASE SEE PART 2
First of all new testament is written in greek so you can find the different terms of love.Paul traveled through a greek world you know.Besides this,the correct translation and intented meaning (since we cannot asked Paul himself we always interpretate) is free to discuss.Do some theological and greek studies in deepth and you will see.Simple google search already helps if you read more than just only sources defending the homosexuality.Furthermore,this is just one passage where you try
PART 2: Imagine if some translator, 2000 years from now, saw the word lady-killer. He would assume that a lady-killer was someone who killed women, not someone who was attractive to the ladies. The meaning must be found within the context. Based on the Corinthian context of man-bed, Paul could refer to the Corinthian practise of ritual temple sex, which involved the use of male and female slave-prostitutes whom Athenaeus describes as “in the lovely beds picking the fruits of the mildest bloom”
Those four loves are not common to biblical scripture. They are of Greek origin and predate both the NT and the OT. I was not referring to the Four Loves, which are experiences by ALL humans (whatever culture). I was referring to the word incorrectly translated as "homosexual" - "arsenokoitai" This word is never used in Greek (ever) to describe homosexuals. Why would Paul use it if he wanted to condemn gay people?
Obviously, you have the urge to criticize every single comment.Well,start from the basics then.Since Jesus we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21).We are all sinners and of course it is not ours to judge others but rather looking and our own life! But since conversation about homosexuality was taking place, I simply stated that a christian will accept the authority of the bible (not the interpretation of some Bishop Tuto or whatever
Term homosexual practice is used to clarify that the bible nowwhere condemns homosexual feelings/tendencies.Homosexuality is identified with both, tendencies and actual intercourse in English langauge,for my knowledge.Said this, the bible mentions homosexual acts in 7 differnt passages: 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22), 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10) Look them up
I sincerely invite you to follow your own advice. It is the best and by far the most intelligent thing you have said to me. Bye now. We have had our say, yes? You won't be hearing from me again. Please refer to my previous posts.
Total agreement with Stephen.A (honest) christian's first authority is the bible.However,not all christians obey to it and (mis)interpretating the biblical messages greatly accounts for hundreds of denominations in Christianity. Homosexual practices are condemned several times, both in old and new testament.Secondly,we are ought to be responsible and use rational thinking (logos) to solve issues (obviously man and woman belong togehter).We condemn the sin,not the sinner (btw we all are sinners)
PART 3:Thus arsenokoitai refers in this context to a man who sexually forces himself upon a slave. It does not refer to homosexual couples. If it did, Paul would not have had to use the word "arseokoitai" to describe them, as there exist far more standard (and colourful) words to describe such couples. 2) Judges19: 22. and Genesis 19:5: Neither of these scriptures refers to homosexuals, ever. Why was the crowd offered women to rape if they were gay? These were not gays, but rapists. SEE PART 3
Please explain what Timothy 3:16 means then. If Jesus is the word, then how did God breathe him out? Your only argument would be that God created Jesus.
The Dividing line? LOL! I don't need to post "my theory". I was raised to know the difference between good and evil. I am on the side of the righteous and the abused. I do not need to prove anything - especially not to you. I just need to protect my brothers and sisters. I may make HUGE errors academically - without a doubt. But on the ecclesiastical and liturgical abuse of gay people - I cannot be wrong. "Whilst I can vent clamor from my throat, I’ll tell thee thou dost evil!"
Gods command to be fruitful and multiply does not merely refer to having sex as much as possible and as many children as you possibly can. The word "fruit" also refers to ideas, art, literature, philosophy, inventions. There is more to humanity than just sex. Why does it take a gay person to make you realise this?
Arsenokoites certainly does not mean "Sodomite". A Sodomite is simply a person from Sodom. The Sodomites were destroyed at Sodom (including their women and children, who were also Sodomites). Arsenokoiai is a word invented by Paul. Its direct translation is in fact "man bed" . The correct word in Greek to describe a homosexual is person is "paiderasstes". If Paul had meant to condemn gay people, he would not have needed to use the word "man bed" which could mean a great many things.
With all due respect, neither do I understand your question nor did I gave a defintion of 'homosexual practices'.Do you want me to elaborate which sexual activites I consider homosexual and therefore consider sinful and which not? Seems for me that a reasonable mind knows what sexual activity of homosexuals encloses.Furthermore does it not help in answering on the original topic. Refering to "love", new testament knows 4 types of love (στοργή, φιλία, ἔρως, ἀγάπη --> to train your greek) ;)
PART 4: About Levitical laws. Let me quote a few that you seem to have ignored: "Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed Leviticus 20:9 If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people Leviticus 20:18 People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God Leviticus 21:17-18 To quote these laws, you reveal yourself as a a bit of a Pharisees of old, don't you think? Do you remember what the Lord said about them?
I refer you David and Jonathan. And the incident involving the centurion's "slave" whom Christ cured. Has it never bothered you that a centurion would care about a common slave? And why would an owner of slaves, not send a slave? It is in the translation of the word "slave". The term used is not slave at all, but refers to male lovers. And then there is "the disciple whom Christ loved." Did he not love the other disciples? I think you need to read your Bible more carefully. I do.
But you have not read the things I have to say. Your read one comment and then went off on a tirade. I have very clearly analysed the so-called anti-gay texts. I recommend you read them before you do real harm to any gay kids - especially ones who take scripture seriously. Gay Christians who ( thanks to efforts by people like you) are becomming very few and far between.
A "homosexual practice"? That term is not used in the OT or the NT. sounds like a very modern addition to me. Fact is, we don't exactly know WHAT those texts were condemning, as the term used to describe it is not the term used for such same-sex relations. It is however a common term applied to temple prostitution. I think you need to learn your Greek. You do not condemn either a sin or a sinner. You welcome all, and lead by example. Yours is not to condemn. Modern Augustinian heresy.
Answer me this. Do those verses only refer to the documents within 2 Timothy, or do they refer to all scriptures... including those texts excluded by the later church? If so, which compiler other than the apostles do you consider worthy of the title "editor of God". Are we to include the Koran, the Srimad Bhagavatam? Be careful when you use one sentence to include entire swathes of literature. You cannot, and will never, know when to draw the line. You'll have to invent a cut off point.
And to continue - the correct translation is not "committing indecent acts", but "working that which is unseemly". It is extremely unseemly for a straight man to abuse his family and other gay men by turning from his natural, God-given sexuality. However, the word "indecent act" is not used. It is a modernism, and should not be there at all. But you need not believe me. After all. I am just a student of ancient Greek - what do I know?
A scriptural position does not require unthinking literalism. It requires the use of your God-given gift of reason, and raising questions about Torah and the NT. Believe like a child, said our Beloved. What is the first thing a child does when you say no. He asks, "BUT WHY?" that is what it means to hold a "scriptural position". You are no more or less inspired than the biblical authors. All is covered by Christ's Law of the Prophets. Something you break when you abuse GLBTQ's.
Old Testament wasn't written in Greek there champ. Anyway, so you want to throw away all Levitical law? And also throw away the end of Genesis chapter 2?
I was joking about the bolts. And Jesus believed them to be "historical" (Mt 19:4-6)(Mk 10:6-9). Far as what I teach in my schools? I don't own one. Of course the fall attributed to the degradation of our sexuality. Up until that time Gods plan was for male and female to marry...Not male and male. A male was to grow up and leave his father and mother for a wife.....Not a booty call from Steve(cause you know there were no gay marriages in Jewish culture at the time)
I've never said "homosexual" was used in the original languages......That wasn't even our debate. It speaks of "unnatural acts" and we all get the meaning... Look I get it...You're gay and your trying hard to find acceptance in your faith. Thats the part that bothers most of us. It's so obvious your trying to jocky things around trying to say "Well the natural thing for a lesbian to do with a man is talk"...Well show us where thats defined in the Bible as acceptable. It's not.
We could easily draw lines. Jesus came and said that we should obey the law and the prophets and that the word of God was given to the Jews. He even quotes from the OT.Peter, who hung out with Jesus, wrote scripture stating that Pauls writings were scripture. I believe you are being a little too liberal on this case. Your posts quote from the OT and NT, not sure why you have an issue with me doing it. You contradict yourself.
Correction, my (hopefully) well-meaning friend. 1:27 refers to men abandoning the "natural use of the female". The natural use of the female (for a gay man) would be... conversation, not sex. These verses do not apply to gay people at all. They apply to heterosexuals who abandon the natural use of the female i.e. sex (although I sincerely hope you and other heteros have a conversation with her before you roll her in the hay). Your view is entirely hetero-centric, and a little misogynist
I am not here to discuss hebrew or greek.Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality (Mark 7,20-23). Paul in 1. Cor. 6:9-11 uses the Greek word 'arsenokoites' which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse and I know what happened to Sodom.Also Romans 1:25-27 show that it is not God's intentional creation but rather the result of aversion from God but yo are free to interpretate. gl
Please refer to my postings "PART ONE TO SIX" in which I address the use of the word "homosexual" in the biblical-historical context. OH PLEASE READ!!!!
Simply ask Prof. Lennox why he thinks gay families do not deserve marriage equality. No one seems to corner him on his homophobic views. I wonder if he insists on not being asked these questions.
The text states they have been given over to "degrading passions" You can attempt to call it a "God-given sexuality" but then youd have to show us where God allows us that choice and doesn't condemn it. It would have to have had some president someplace to be able to be accepted here. Far as saying your a greek student? Who cares? Talk Greek with James White. Lets see if your 1st year classes mean anything. You message me when your going to pose your theory on the Dividing Line..I'll be waiting.
As I said - though you appear not to have registered it - those are YOUR interpretations of scriptural translations. There are Christians - those that I mentioned, and many, many more - whose beliefs differ. Not so keen on religious tolerance now, are you?
Don't be glib. You know very well that bigots are not born, they are made - unlike race, gender (including trans-gendered people), sexuality... and intelligence.
If Christ is the law, how is it possible that "He changed the law completely"? Bible worshiper? You just made a huge assumption in which you have no basis. I agree the bible is meant to introduce us to God, I just don't agree with many of the things you have to say.
I am not Jewish, and neither are you. We live in the 21st century, and we use scripture as a template, not a textbook. The SPIRIT of the law. By the way - you can copulate, I make love. Perhaps we were raised differently.... or went to a VERY different church. And for the record "indecent acts" has a very modern connotation - kindly refer to Victorian sex-crime laws of the 19th century (you might even find now-legal activities YOU engage in listed there).
There is no reading of "gay men" or straight men" into the text. No where in the idea of the Jews was a thought of gay men being natural for that person. The natural progression of man and woman was to procreate. Of course they apply to gay people. That's the only context for the text (as no context to the afirms this supposed acceptance of man on man relationships). You can twist the text how you want. It's your prerogative, but it means what it means and defines it's own terms within itself.
Whatever were translating as "indecent acts" was a term at that time and a phrase people would of understood. I dont give a care about when the phrases of our English translation came into fancy, but I care about the intent or SPIRIT as you say of the text. It defines what God deems abominable acts. Saying he's given them over to depraved minds.....That's clear as a bell to me. Look your being gay is something you work out in your end days. Not for me to judge. All I can say is what it says.
I wouldn't know how God was either....Far as I know they didn't have those feelings for anyone in the Bible, so at best it's a made up theology. I can invent something without being it anyways. It's an unscriptural position. God is gay? whew.......watch those lightning bolts...I also might add that sexuality before the fall of man was man/woman.........after the fall...man/whatever....all im saying.
You didn't give any evidence. You've not shown one verse OT or NT where it's said it's an acceptable lifestyle. I didn't need the exact words. And absence from his mouth isn't proof one way or another. God laid it out in the ridged Laws to the Jews, and Paul laid it out in the new testament. I don't need a red letter version of "gays aren't ok". The book as a whole addresses this...
No idea what your getting at here. The Bible only speaks of man marring woman, so where you're getting gay marriage from is beyond me. I'm not twisted in anything. Im not saying you should copulate with anyone but your spouse, but I am saying Biblicaly your spouse should of been a woman if you're a man. Theres no other marriage in the Bible. If I was going to argue from the absence of evidence like you did above, I could very well ask you why there are no gay couples in the Bible.
You are clearly not paying attention, sad really. If you don't want to address the things i actually say, then why are you bothering to respond. I said, you will not find the word homosexual in the bible because we invented it less than 200 years ago. What say you? Don't ignore my statement again please, it will only show that you have no argument.
It is NEVER right for a married couple to "copulate" with ANYONE other than their spouse. This is called adultery. Your views on the relationships of gay people is very twisted.
Um... Bishop Tutu would disagree with you, as would archbishop Lazar Puhalo, bishop Spong... Do I need to list them all? Fact is you just want to disrespect other people's religious beliefs in support of your own. As I said, you are guilty of what you accuse gay people of doing. C'mon, face it. You are intolerant of other religious faiths. Can't weasel out of this one. Own it. It's all yours.
The correct word for "homosexuals" in Greek is "paiderasste". Why did Paul simply not use it? During the 16th century, the word "arsenekoitai" was translated as "masturbators" - which means... well... YOU (and 95 percent of humanity)! Each generation interprets these words to suit its own particular hatred. But, of course, if you choose to believe gay people are evil - that is your choice. But please, don;t blame God for your own nasty bigotry. It is rather blasphemous, and not very nice.
I am sure gay people respect your religious beliefs. However, many gay people are religious, too. And their interpretation of scripture is very different from your own. Respecting religion is a two way street. Sorry - but yours is a very facile argument. You need to do better than that.
52:40 Lennox condemned what he thought was an instance of the is-ought fallacy, but proceeds to claim that there IS going to be a magical justice in the afterlife because humans living in a society generally think there OUGHT to be justice. Sorry, the is-ought fallacy doesn't work in reverse either. 🙄
Way off base. 1:27 gives us the definition of what they consider "natural" and "unnatural" "and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts" So men should have a desire for the " natural function of the woman" and this sets the definition for what is "natural" and the "unnatural" would be: "burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts"
Define homosexual practices - IN DETAIL please. I am not sure others (or even you) know what you men when you use such vague euphemisms. Are you afaid to do so, because you know the word "love" will eventually be used, and that word would expose your definition of "homosexual practices" for the claptrap its is. For that matter, define "heterosexual practices". Utter nonsense and you know it.
Lol - you must be American. The moment you mention to an American that you have a tertiary education, he thinks you are not being humble. LOL. As I said, I am sure there are a great many Greek scholars that have other interpretations, and yet all of them will agree: the word "homosexual" is never used in the Bible. Not once. Ever.
heh-heh-heh. Mr Putin was just nominated for one. Perhaps you should check the Nobel list for other nasties. You might be surprised at the kind of creature you find there. Now kindly refer to my previous comment.
+Tosh Manta Perhaps you've not read his book 'God's Undertaker' or listened to any of the talks where he's argued against the 'God of the gaps' idea head-on.
+Tosh Manta No, Alfred Johnson is right.... He is not a "God of the gaps proponent", he is a great teacher of the universe in the name of living God = Jesus.
+Tosh Manta There are two kinds of "gaps". There are gaps which explain things, and gaps which explain things away. The "God of the gaps" is the idea that "It cannot be explained, therefore God did it", and that is what Lennox calls a Bad Gap. It is used to explain away things. Evolutionary biologists do this all the time with an Evolution of the Gaps. They can't explain something, so therefore evolution did it. The other kind of gap is a gap in knowledge that begs a question, or explains things in greater detail. For example, if you look at a supercomputer on silicon chips, and you are trying to explain its origins using only nature and nature's laws, you are going to eventually hit a GAP where you need to inject human intelligence into the equation. That is an explanatory gap, and is what Lennox calls a Good Gap. You see, in bad gaps, increased knowledge closes the gap. In good gaps, increased knowledge widens the gap. The more you learn about nature and computer chips, the wider the gap becomes. You know from the gap that nature could not have produced computer chips on its own. Silicon and metal mixing together in a volcano cannot produce a functional microprocessor, no matter how many billions or trillions of years you wait. Nature cannot produce things like that, and the more you learn about nature, the more obvious that becomes. It widens the gap, and forces you to ask "What fits in that gap?" And of course, human beings and computer programmers fit in the gap. So the reason you "simply cannot stand" Lennox's arguments is probably because you simply cannot understand them.
He comes across as a warm teddy bear offering a belief system of warm fuzzies and I think the world desperately needs warm fuzzies so good on him for being such a caring, sharing human being that makes me want to go to church after 40 yrs.
‘’It all depends on who Jesus Christ is’’. That’s the take home message. Thank you beloved Sir Lennox.
Prof. Lennox is so good. The moderator is abrasive.
those who believe have already passed from death to life, darkness to light. YEA !
Love it brother! Keep that heart solid as the ground. You have many brothers, who understands what you understands is one with you indeed. King and priests is what I see in you my brother. Who's worth honoring, respecting, loving, and giving my life for you kind of love. I'm not perfect but the one who's in me is perfect. Luv ya! My brother
Rationality is nothing more than a psychological and social idea we have created. Rationality is a reasonable end of human pattern seeking and sociobiology. Law of reason are not as infallible as one thinks.
Your attempt to put words in my mouth has been noted.
Kindly refer from parts 1 to part 6 of my argument in the comments. I address ALL the verses using the original Greek texts.
God is here
So good.
Kindly refer to previous comment (s).
Kindly refer to previous comment.
Has Science Buried God?
I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. William Lane Craig debate Lawrence Krauss & Richard Dawkins at The Veritas Forum at Yale University
Yes, indeed.
Yes.
PART 6: Finally. Find me ONE verse (oh please, just one) where Jesus uses the word "homosexual" and condemns them. Just one.
That was spoken through the Holy Spirit given to the apostle paul...
yes you do.
Interesting, then what do you make of 2 Timothy 3:16?
Lol - I am not a sir. And I addressed your "questions" very carefully. Simply refer to ALL my comments. Gosh - I don't know how many times I can say this: JUST READ. And for the record, God cannot open my heart more than He already has. I assure you.
Wow!
Sikes Pico - you are a smart looking person!
15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 2 Peter 3.
PART 1: Here, I'll take you through it slowly. 1) Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:10: The words translated here as "effeminate" and "homosexual" are difficult to translate. The first does not mean the modern word "effeminate", and the second certainly cannot mean the modern sense of the word "homosexual". The first word (malakoi) refers to someone decadent, and the second (arsenokoitai) meant literally man-bed. The word cannot be translated as homosexual (as I have already explained). PLEASE SEE PART 2
The only thing that is worth believing is the one that is supported by evidence.
First of all new testament is written in greek so you can find the different terms of love.Paul traveled through a greek world you know.Besides this,the correct translation and intented meaning (since we cannot asked Paul himself we always interpretate) is free to discuss.Do some theological and greek studies in deepth and you will see.Simple google search already helps if you read more than just only sources defending the homosexuality.Furthermore,this is just one passage where you try
The audio on all veritas videos is terrible
what is Greg Ganssle's world view, is he a Christian?
The Word is a Person, not a book. Time to grow up.
Ummmm I think I have addressed this already.
PART 2: Imagine if some translator, 2000 years from now, saw the word lady-killer. He would assume that a lady-killer was someone who killed women, not someone who was attractive to the ladies. The meaning must be found within the context. Based on the Corinthian context of man-bed, Paul could refer to the Corinthian practise of ritual temple sex, which involved the use of male and female slave-prostitutes whom Athenaeus describes as “in the lovely beds picking the fruits of the mildest bloom”
Those four loves are not common to biblical scripture. They are of Greek origin and predate both the NT and the OT. I was not referring to the Four Loves, which are experiences by ALL humans (whatever culture). I was referring to the word incorrectly translated as "homosexual" - "arsenokoitai" This word is never used in Greek (ever) to describe homosexuals. Why would Paul use it if he wanted to condemn gay people?
Obviously, you have the urge to criticize every single comment.Well,start from the basics then.Since Jesus we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21).We are all sinners and of course it is not ours to judge others but rather looking and our own life! But since conversation about homosexuality was taking place, I simply stated that a christian will accept the authority of the bible (not the interpretation of some Bishop Tuto or whatever
Term homosexual practice is used to clarify that the bible nowwhere condemns homosexual feelings/tendencies.Homosexuality is identified with both, tendencies and actual intercourse in English langauge,for my knowledge.Said this, the bible mentions homosexual acts in 7 differnt passages: 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22), 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Look them up
I sincerely invite you to follow your own advice. It is the best and by far the most intelligent thing you have said to me. Bye now. We have had our say, yes? You won't be hearing from me again. Please refer to my previous posts.
Total agreement with Stephen.A (honest) christian's first authority is the bible.However,not all christians obey to it and (mis)interpretating the biblical messages greatly accounts for hundreds of denominations in Christianity.
Homosexual practices are condemned several times, both in old and new testament.Secondly,we are ought to be responsible and use rational thinking (logos) to solve issues (obviously man and woman belong togehter).We condemn the sin,not the sinner (btw we all are sinners)
PART 3:Thus arsenokoitai refers in this context to a man who sexually forces himself upon a slave. It does not refer to homosexual couples. If it did, Paul would not have had to use the word "arseokoitai" to describe them, as there exist far more standard (and colourful) words to describe such couples. 2) Judges19: 22. and Genesis 19:5: Neither of these scriptures refers to homosexuals, ever. Why was the crowd offered women to rape if they were gay? These were not gays, but rapists. SEE PART 3
You don't have any studies to back that up do you?
Please explain what Timothy 3:16 means then. If Jesus is the word, then how did God breathe him out? Your only argument would be that God created Jesus.
The Dividing line? LOL! I don't need to post "my theory". I was raised to know the difference between good and evil. I am on the side of the righteous and the abused. I do not need to prove anything - especially not to you. I just need to protect my brothers and sisters. I may make HUGE errors academically - without a doubt. But on the ecclesiastical and liturgical abuse of gay people - I cannot be wrong. "Whilst I can vent clamor from my throat, I’ll tell thee thou dost evil!"
Gods command to be fruitful and multiply does not merely refer to having sex as much as possible and as many children as you possibly can. The word "fruit" also refers to ideas, art, literature, philosophy, inventions. There is more to humanity than just sex. Why does it take a gay person to make you realise this?
I referred to the OT, then you referred to the Greek language. You still haven't really answered what I have said.
I'm writing about Nobel prizes in science.
Arsenokoites certainly does not mean "Sodomite". A Sodomite is simply a person from Sodom. The Sodomites were destroyed at Sodom (including their women and children, who were also Sodomites). Arsenokoiai is a word invented by Paul. Its direct translation is in fact "man bed" . The correct word in Greek to describe a homosexual is person is "paiderasstes". If Paul had meant to condemn gay people, he would not have needed to use the word "man bed" which could mean a great many things.
Please refer to previous comment.
How bout you quote some scripture and show me how you get to there. I will gladly listen.
Gosh. Is it dark living under that rock?
With all due respect, neither do I understand your question nor did I gave a defintion of 'homosexual practices'.Do you want me to elaborate which sexual activites I consider homosexual and therefore consider sinful and which not? Seems for me that a reasonable mind knows what sexual activity of homosexuals encloses.Furthermore does it not help in answering on the original topic. Refering to "love", new testament knows 4 types of love (στοργή, φιλία, ἔρως, ἀγάπη --> to train your greek) ;)
PART 4: About Levitical laws. Let me quote a few that you seem to have ignored: "Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed Leviticus 20:9
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be cut off from their people Leviticus 20:18
People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God Leviticus 21:17-18
To quote these laws, you reveal yourself as a a bit of a Pharisees of old, don't you think? Do you remember what the Lord said about them?
Old Testament. We are not under the law. We are under grace
I refer you David and Jonathan. And the incident involving the centurion's "slave" whom Christ cured. Has it never bothered you that a centurion would care about a common slave? And why would an owner of slaves, not send a slave? It is in the translation of the word "slave". The term used is not slave at all, but refers to male lovers. And then there is "the disciple whom Christ loved." Did he not love the other disciples? I think you need to read your Bible more carefully. I do.
But you have not read the things I have to say. Your read one comment and then went off on a tirade. I have very clearly analysed the so-called anti-gay texts. I recommend you read them before you do real harm to any gay kids - especially ones who take scripture seriously. Gay Christians who ( thanks to efforts by people like you) are becomming very few and far between.
A "homosexual practice"? That term is not used in the OT or the NT. sounds like a very modern addition to me. Fact is, we don't exactly know WHAT those texts were condemning, as the term used to describe it is not the term used for such same-sex relations. It is however a common term applied to temple prostitution. I think you need to learn your Greek. You do not condemn either a sin or a sinner. You welcome all, and lead by example. Yours is not to condemn. Modern Augustinian heresy.
Answer me this. Do those verses only refer to the documents within 2 Timothy, or do they refer to all scriptures... including those texts excluded by the later church? If so, which compiler other than the apostles do you consider worthy of the title "editor of God". Are we to include the Koran, the Srimad Bhagavatam? Be careful when you use one sentence to include entire swathes of literature. You cannot, and will never, know when to draw the line. You'll have to invent a cut off point.
And to continue - the correct translation is not "committing indecent acts", but "working that which is unseemly". It is extremely unseemly for a straight man to abuse his family and other gay men by turning from his natural, God-given sexuality. However, the word "indecent act" is not used. It is a modernism, and should not be there at all. But you need not believe me. After all. I am just a student of ancient Greek - what do I know?
14:18 And you assume the universe is created; but what if it isn't? 🙄
A scriptural position does not require unthinking literalism. It requires the use of your God-given gift of reason, and raising questions about Torah and the NT. Believe like a child, said our Beloved. What is the first thing a child does when you say no. He asks, "BUT WHY?" that is what it means to hold a "scriptural position". You are no more or less inspired than the biblical authors. All is covered by Christ's Law of the Prophets. Something you break when you abuse GLBTQ's.
ROTFL. Kindly refer to previous comment.
Old Testament wasn't written in Greek there champ. Anyway, so you want to throw away all Levitical law? And also throw away the end of Genesis chapter 2?
I was joking about the bolts. And Jesus believed them to be "historical" (Mt 19:4-6)(Mk 10:6-9). Far as what I teach in my schools? I don't own one. Of course the fall attributed to the degradation of our sexuality. Up until that time Gods plan was for male and female to marry...Not male and male. A male was to grow up and leave his father and mother for a wife.....Not a booty call from Steve(cause you know there were no gay marriages in Jewish culture at the time)
I've never said "homosexual" was used in the original languages......That wasn't even our debate. It speaks of "unnatural acts" and we all get the meaning...
Look I get it...You're gay and your trying hard to find acceptance in your faith. Thats the part that bothers most of us. It's so obvious your trying to jocky things around trying to say "Well the natural thing for a lesbian to do with a man is talk"...Well show us where thats defined in the Bible as acceptable. It's not.
We could easily draw lines. Jesus came and said that we should obey the law and the prophets and that the word of God was given to the Jews. He even quotes from the OT.Peter, who hung out with Jesus, wrote scripture stating that Pauls writings were scripture. I believe you are being a little too liberal on this case. Your posts quote from the OT and NT, not sure why you have an issue with me doing it. You contradict yourself.
Correction, my (hopefully) well-meaning friend. 1:27 refers to men abandoning the "natural use of the female". The natural use of the female (for a gay man) would be... conversation, not sex. These verses do not apply to gay people at all. They apply to heterosexuals who abandon the natural use of the female i.e. sex (although I sincerely hope you and other heteros have a conversation with her before you roll her in the hay). Your view is entirely hetero-centric, and a little misogynist
I am not here to discuss hebrew or greek.Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality (Mark 7,20-23). Paul in 1. Cor. 6:9-11 uses the Greek word 'arsenokoites' which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse and I know what happened to Sodom.Also Romans 1:25-27 show that it is not God's intentional creation but rather the result of aversion from God but yo are free to interpretate. gl
Please refer to my postings "PART ONE TO SIX" in which I address the use of the word "homosexual" in the biblical-historical context. OH PLEASE READ!!!!
Simply ask Prof. Lennox why he thinks gay families do not deserve marriage equality. No one seems to corner him on his homophobic views. I wonder if he insists on not being asked these questions.
ROTFL - being gay is not "lifestyle". Gosh - the ideas you have!
The text states they have been given over to "degrading passions" You can attempt to call it a "God-given sexuality" but then youd have to show us where God allows us that choice and doesn't condemn it. It would have to have had some president someplace to be able to be accepted here. Far as saying your a greek student? Who cares? Talk Greek with James White. Lets see if your 1st year classes mean anything. You message me when your going to pose your theory on the Dividing Line..I'll be waiting.
spammer says what?
The one where you made a fool of yourself?
gladly.
As I said - though you appear not to have registered it - those are YOUR interpretations of scriptural translations. There are Christians - those that I mentioned, and many, many more - whose beliefs differ. Not so keen on religious tolerance now, are you?
Don't be glib. You know very well that bigots are not born, they are made - unlike race, gender (including trans-gendered people), sexuality... and intelligence.
If Christ is the law, how is it possible that "He changed the law completely"? Bible worshiper? You just made a huge assumption in which you have no basis. I agree the bible is meant to introduce us to God, I just don't agree with many of the things you have to say.
I am not Jewish, and neither are you. We live in the 21st century, and we use scripture as a template, not a textbook. The SPIRIT of the law. By the way - you can copulate, I make love. Perhaps we were raised differently.... or went to a VERY different church. And for the record "indecent acts" has a very modern connotation - kindly refer to Victorian sex-crime laws of the 19th century (you might even find now-legal activities YOU engage in listed there).
There is no reading of "gay men" or straight men" into the text. No where in the idea of the Jews was a thought of gay men being natural for that person. The natural progression of man and woman was to procreate. Of course they apply to gay people. That's the only context for the text (as no context to the afirms this supposed acceptance of man on man relationships). You can twist the text how you want. It's your prerogative, but it means what it means and defines it's own terms within itself.
Ouu
What a poor argument. Christians believe Jesus is the God of the entire bible. If God's word is the old testament, then I could find you many verses.
Whatever were translating as "indecent acts" was a term at that time and a phrase people would of understood. I dont give a care about when the phrases of our English translation came into fancy, but I care about the intent or SPIRIT as you say of the text. It defines what God deems abominable acts. Saying he's given them over to depraved minds.....That's clear as a bell to me. Look your being gay is something you work out in your end days. Not for me to judge. All I can say is what it says.
I di not say the OT was written in Greek. Oh please read all the posts before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
I wouldn't know how God was either....Far as I know they didn't have those feelings for anyone in the Bible, so at best it's a made up theology. I can invent something without being it anyways. It's an unscriptural position. God is gay? whew.......watch those lightning bolts...I also might add that sexuality before the fall of man was man/woman.........after the fall...man/whatever....all im saying.
You didn't give any evidence. You've not shown one verse OT or NT where it's said it's an acceptable lifestyle. I didn't need the exact words. And absence from his mouth isn't proof one way or another. God laid it out in the ridged Laws to the Jews, and Paul laid it out in the new testament. I don't need a red letter version of "gays aren't ok". The book as a whole addresses this...
No idea what your getting at here. The Bible only speaks of man marring woman, so where you're getting gay marriage from is beyond me. I'm not twisted in anything. Im not saying you should copulate with anyone but your spouse, but I am saying Biblicaly your spouse should of been a woman if you're a man. Theres no other marriage in the Bible. If I was going to argue from the absence of evidence like you did above, I could very well ask you why there are no gay couples in the Bible.
You are clearly not paying attention, sad really. If you don't want to address the things i actually say, then why are you bothering to respond. I said, you will not find the word homosexual in the bible because we invented it less than 200 years ago. What say you? Don't ignore my statement again please, it will only show that you have no argument.
It is NEVER right for a married couple to "copulate" with ANYONE other than their spouse. This is called adultery. Your views on the relationships of gay people is very twisted.
Um... Bishop Tutu would disagree with you, as would archbishop Lazar Puhalo, bishop Spong... Do I need to list them all? Fact is you just want to disrespect other people's religious beliefs in support of your own. As I said, you are guilty of what you accuse gay people of doing. C'mon, face it. You are intolerant of other religious faiths. Can't weasel out of this one. Own it. It's all yours.
Kindly leave that dead horse alone.
The correct word for "homosexuals" in Greek is "paiderasste". Why did Paul simply not use it? During the 16th century, the word "arsenekoitai" was translated as "masturbators" - which means... well... YOU (and 95 percent of humanity)! Each generation interprets these words to suit its own particular hatred. But, of course, if you choose to believe gay people are evil - that is your choice. But please, don;t blame God for your own nasty bigotry. It is rather blasphemous, and not very nice.
I am sure gay people respect your religious beliefs. However, many gay people are religious, too. And their interpretation of scripture is very different from your own. Respecting religion is a two way street. Sorry - but yours is a very facile argument. You need to do better than that.
Ha-ha-ha-ha! Of course God is gay. He is also heterosexual. He invented human sexuality. We were made in His image. This includes our sexuality.
52:40 Lennox condemned what he thought was an instance of the is-ought fallacy, but proceeds to claim that there IS going to be a magical justice in the afterlife because humans living in a society generally think there OUGHT to be justice. Sorry, the is-ought fallacy doesn't work in reverse either. 🙄
Way off base. 1:27 gives us the definition of what they consider "natural" and "unnatural"
"and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts"
So men should have a desire for the " natural function of the woman" and this sets the definition for what is "natural" and the "unnatural" would be: "burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts"
Oh really....your going for the Christ was gay angle? God help you.....
It doesn’t matter that Peter singer was brought up in the so called belief system of his parents. Atheism is better than religion regardless
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I wish to enter into rational dialogue with a supernaturalist.
Define homosexual practices - IN DETAIL please. I am not sure others (or even you) know what you men when you use such vague euphemisms. Are you afaid to do so, because you know the word "love" will eventually be used, and that word would expose your definition of "homosexual practices" for the claptrap its is. For that matter, define "heterosexual practices". Utter nonsense and you know it.
Oh those horrible theists with their Nobel Prizes.
Lol - you must be American. The moment you mention to an American that you have a tertiary education, he thinks you are not being humble. LOL. As I said, I am sure there are a great many Greek scholars that have other interpretations, and yet all of them will agree: the word "homosexual" is never used in the Bible. Not once. Ever.
Your failure to produce a study has been noted.
heh-heh-heh. Mr Putin was just nominated for one. Perhaps you should check the Nobel list for other nasties. You might be surprised at the kind of creature you find there. Now kindly refer to my previous comment.
I simply cannot stand Lennox's evasion and sophistry,he is just another God of the gaps proponent.
+Tosh Manta Perhaps you've not read his book 'God's Undertaker' or listened to any of the talks where he's argued against the 'God of the gaps' idea head-on.
+Tosh Manta No, Alfred Johnson is right....
He is not a "God of the gaps proponent", he is a great teacher of the universe in the name of living God = Jesus.
+Tosh Manta There are two kinds of "gaps". There are gaps which explain things, and gaps which explain things away. The "God of the gaps" is the idea that "It cannot be explained, therefore God did it", and that is what Lennox calls a Bad Gap. It is used to explain away things. Evolutionary biologists do this all the time with an Evolution of the Gaps. They can't explain something, so therefore evolution did it.
The other kind of gap is a gap in knowledge that begs a question, or explains things in greater detail. For example, if you look at a supercomputer on silicon chips, and you are trying to explain its origins using only nature and nature's laws, you are going to eventually hit a GAP where you need to inject human intelligence into the equation. That is an explanatory gap, and is what Lennox calls a Good Gap.
You see, in bad gaps, increased knowledge closes the gap. In good gaps, increased knowledge widens the gap. The more you learn about nature and computer chips, the wider the gap becomes. You know from the gap that nature could not have produced computer chips on its own. Silicon and metal mixing together in a volcano cannot produce a functional microprocessor, no matter how many billions or trillions of years you wait. Nature cannot produce things like that, and the more you learn about nature, the more obvious that becomes. It widens the gap, and forces you to ask "What fits in that gap?" And of course, human beings and computer programmers fit in the gap.
So the reason you "simply cannot stand" Lennox's arguments is probably because you simply cannot understand them.
Assertions like that without examples, evidence or explanations to back them up are completely impotent.
He comes across as a warm teddy bear offering a belief system of warm fuzzies and I think the world desperately needs warm fuzzies so good on him for being such a caring, sharing human being that makes me want to go to church after 40 yrs.
Kindly refer to previous comment.