U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 05-15-2009, 10:39 AM
 
15,691 posts, read 5,586,833 times
Reputation: 3670

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty View Post
Jaymax has done a remarkable job with what was asked of him. He opened the box..
Oi! I'm a woman! See my profile pic.

But thanks for the comments.

cheers!
Jennifer.

Last edited by Ceist; 05-15-2009 at 11:30 AM..

 
Old 05-15-2009, 10:41 AM
 
8,990 posts, read 8,806,488 times
Reputation: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Can you support your opinion that my (and Big Thirsty's and aquila's) conclusion is incorrect? With an examination of the relevant scripture in it's historical and scriptural and original language context?

That's exactly what I have been doing in all my earlier posts.

I've yet to see any serious examination of the scripture in this thread from anyone who is anti-homosexual. So far it's just been copying and pasting the verses that allegedly condemn homosexuality and copying and pasting a concordance and a whole lot of unsupported biased opinion and eisogesis. THAT is bad theology.
Notice I didn't get one scripture I asked for-who is talking bad theology again?
Of course you wouldn't. You see what you want to see or is it that God has hardened your hearts? which if that is the case then there is nothing I can say.

Romans 1:26-28

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and 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 and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
 
Old 05-15-2009, 10:56 AM
 
15,691 posts, read 5,586,833 times
Reputation: 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
Notice I didn't get one scripture I asked for-who is talking bad theology again?
Of course you wouldn't. You see what you want to see or is it that God has hardened your hearts? which if that is the case then there is nothing I can say.

Romans 1:26-28

26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and 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 and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
You really haven't read the thread, have you?

Here, I'll repost what theopedia says about the methods involved with studying and interpreting the Bible/aka Good Theology.

How about you answer ALL those questions below about the 2 verses you just quoted. (which have already been posted by several people by the way.)

http://www.theopedia.com/Hermeneutics (broken link)

Applying sound principles of hermeneutics requires answers to a variety of questions:
  • Who was the writer?
  • To whom were they writing?
  • Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?
  • What is the cultural, historical context?
  • What was the author's original intended meaning?
  • How did the author's contemporaries understand him?
  • Why did he say it that way?
http://www.theopedia.com/Exegesis

In the process of exegesis, a passage must be viewed in its historical and grammatical context with its time/purpose of writing taken into account.


This is often accomodated by asking:
  • Who wrote the text, and who is the intended readership?
  • What is the context of the text, i.e. how does it fit in the author's larger thought process, purpose, or argument in the chapter and book where it resides?
  • Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?
  • Why was the text written (e.g. to correct, encourage, or explain, etc.)?
  • When was the text written?
 
Old 05-15-2009, 11:07 AM
 
15,691 posts, read 5,586,833 times
Reputation: 3670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
Notice I didn't get one scripture I asked for-who is talking bad theology again?
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
It's a jump, I have stayed out of this but I have seen nothing but bad theology. You guys use more philosophy, relevants, bad contextualization explaining Paul's letter, no different to how people explain away Paul's letters for allowing women as elders. You don't have one scripture that lends support to your view.

Give that scripture since I am a "literalist"
No scripture in that post Fundy.

I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Can you support your opinion that my (and Big Thirsty's and aquila's) conclusion is incorrect? With an examination of the relevant scripture in it's historical and scriptural and original language context?

That's exactly what I have been doing in all my earlier posts.

I've yet to see any serious examination of the scripture in this thread from anyone who is anti-homosexual. So far it's just been copying and pasting the verses that allegedly condemn homosexuality and copying and pasting a concordance and a whole lot of unsupported biased opinion and eisogesis. THAT is bad theology.
There is LOT's and lot's and lot's ...(and did I mention LOT's?) ...of scripture in my posts in this thread, if you bother to actually read it.

Okay I'll reply to your comments just using scripture.

Here you go:

Quote:
Matthew 16:6-12 (NIV)

6"Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
7They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread."

8Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

11How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.



Pharisees were considered the "Fundamentalists" of Jesus's time.


But...How about dose Corinthians?

Last edited by Ceist; 05-15-2009 at 11:35 AM..
 
Old 05-15-2009, 12:20 PM
 
4,437 posts, read 6,002,219 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Oi! I'm a woman! See my profile pic.

But thanks for the comments.

cheers!
Jennifer.
That you are. My apologies.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,191 posts, read 3,243,826 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
It's hard to know how to respond to something like this. You say I'm the one who is willfully not looking at all the facts and missing much of the context? Oh dear.
Okay we said we wanted to look at the historical context as well as what is in the written context. Now look at the history of the situation, being slaves in Egypt and then heading to a new land of inhabitants even more foreign in their ways. Historically we know that both Egyptian and Cannaanites practiced what we would call homosexuality, whether it be prostitution, rape, or willfull sex, it was still practiced and God condemned it along with all other sexual immorality. The Egyptians and Cannanites were realy Israels only reference of the rest of the world, so Gods is basically stating "Be in the world but not of the world". Remember we agreed to look at all context and in order to properly interprit these verses, as I have tried to point out, is to take into account all related verses theoughout the Bible and this is something you are not willing to do even though you share alot of information, you ignore what disagrees with your personal opinion. I asked you to point out where God ever condened any other types of marriage other than one man and one woman. This is important for context.

Quote:
Have you even READ all of Leviticus? Or the history of the Israelites in Egypt and Canaan in the Bible itself?
I have read the entire Bible thru a few times and if you have then you know that there is more to the context than just Leviticus.

Quote:
The context of Leviticus 18 and 20 is stated CLEARLY in the opening verses of each chapter. You posted the whole chapter of Lev 18 yourself. (see below)
I have already addressed this.

Quote:
What is apparent to me is that you are completey ignoring what's written in the Bible itself if it doesn't suit your personal opinions. You're reading into it what you want, not what is actually written. That's called "eisogesis: subjectivism. Reading into text something that isn’t there at all."
This is where we are going to disagree, as I stated repepatedly you seem to be ignoring historical context as well as the context of the rest of scripture. Show me one thing I am imposing upon the scripture that is not found in the Bible.

Quote:
Read the opening verses in your own post again and the opening verses to Chapter 20 posted below it, and tell me how in any way, can you NOT see the context of the chapters as prohibitions against following the pagan worshipping practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites-especially in relation to the practices of worhipping gods like Molech?
Look carefully at the historical context, these nations were there references as they were who they had the most contact with at the historically contextual time. Something else you fail to take into account, as I have said before, is the fact that these things are repeated elsewhere as well as there is further context for defining sexual immorality throughout the Bible.



And here's the opening verses in Chapter 20.[/quote]
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,191 posts, read 3,243,826 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
I can give you more than one verse or situation just from Genesis, to show that God condoned men marrying more than one wife at the same time and also condoned married men having sex outside marriage with concubines and slave women. There are other examples throughout the Old Testament, but you only asked for one. Here's three. Abraham, Esau, Jacob

The Days of Our (Genesis) Lives…

Sarah told her husband Abraham to have sex with her Egyptian slave woman Hagar so that he could have a child with her, because she herself had been not been able to conceive. So, Abraham had sex with Hagar, she got pregnant, and gave birth to their son Ishmael. Abraham was 86 years old at the time.



God clearly condoned Abraham having sex with his wife’s slave woman Hagar as Abraham was one of God's favourites and the patriarch of the future Israelites. God also blessed Ishmael, the son of the Hagar and Abraham -conceived outside marriage.


That is what you are missing, just because they did it does not mean God condoned it. Where does He specifically say it was fine for Abraham to do this? He didnt, if you honestly look at the entire situation, Hagar and Ishmael were actually more a curse upon Israel and Abrahams true seed than a blessing. Remember God did not even acknowledge Ishmael as Abrahams son.



Quote:
Abraham also had sex with his concubines and had sons by them:


But where was it condoned? I dont even remember it even saying this, can you share the verse?



Quote:
Then there is Isaac’s son Esau who married FOUR women. (Isaac was Abraham’s son)


One of the many reasons God said He hated Esau, but He never condoned it.


Quote:
Then we have the tangled marital and extra-marital sexual relationships of Jacob in Genesis 29 who married both Leah and Rachel and also had sex with Rachel’s slave woman Bilhah and Leah’s slave woman Zilpah (who he also married) and had children by them.


Where did God condone any of the marriages other than the one to Rachel. Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah, who was actually a very good person and yes was bleesed by God because of Jacobs rejection. The slave women just added more problems to the situation. Rachel was the one Jacob loved but her womb was closed dues to Jacobs rejection of his true wife. Rachel was latter blessed with Jacobs 2 favorite children, but look at what happened to Joseph. People are blessed and cursed based on their own actions, and very often later belssings and curses can come upon them due to the actions of their parents, as we see today with the Arab world wanting to eradicate Israel.

Quote:
I’ll post the story -it’s like a soap opera. But it is clearly condoned by God.


What specifically tells you it was condoned? If you take the entire Bible into context you can clearly see otherwise.


Quote:
As you can see just from these 3 examples, marriage between a man and more than one woman was condoned by God, as well as a man having extra-marital sex with slave women and concubines and having children by them. If you can any censure from God about the men's sexual behavior in these stories, please share...I couldn't find any.


Actually if you look at the entire Bible and reference back to origins you will see far more curses due to these relationships than blessings.

Quote:
Okay, shall we get back on topic about examining any references to homosexuality in the Bible?
Well right now I am trying to catch up,been working the Special Olympics for the past two days. I am the face painter in olympic villiage.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Gaston, North Carolina
4,191 posts, read 3,243,826 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Can you support your opinion that Jesus did away with all the dietary and clothing laws while still reinforcing the sexual immorailty laws? (there were lots of laws in the OT on all sorts of things. 613 I believe.)

Which particular sexual immorality laws are you referring to?

Where is Jesus quoted as saying this? Verses please?

From my understanding, Jesus summed everything up in just 2 commandments. Love God and Love one another as yourselves. The only other mentions I've found of Jesus being quoted saying anything about sexual relations in the Gospels is about adultery (a man having sex with another man's wife) and divorce. Matthew 5:31, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18
Okay you seem to be limiting Jesus to just the Gospels and this is another area where people misunderstand a literal interpritation of the Bible. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, Jesus is God in the flesh, the Holy Spirit speaks thru all the writers of the scriptures. Therefore you interprit the Bible with the Bible as well as the guidance of the Spirit. Taking all this into account the entire Bible is Gods opinion unless otherwise specified and even then when other opinions are given they are done so based on other scripture.

Taking this into account we have Acts 10:11-15 for one of the food references as well as a declaration to accept Gentiles. Then we go where many who support homosexuality just want to reject scripture outright, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. You are welcome to look at the entire context of the verses, but remember there are plenty oof other supporting verses throughout the Bible.
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:22 PM
 
1,156 posts, read 838,022 times
Reputation: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69 View Post
Okay you seem to be limiting Jesus to just the Gospels and this is another area where people misunderstand a literal interpritation of the Bible. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, Jesus is God in the flesh, the Holy Spirit speaks thru all the writers of the scriptures. Therefore you interprit the Bible with the Bible as well as the guidance of the Spirit. Taking all this into account the entire Bible is Gods opinion unless otherwise specified and even then when other opinions are given they are done so based on other scripture.

Taking this into account we have Acts 10:11-15 for one of the food references as well as a declaration to accept Gentiles. Then we go where many who support homosexuality just want to reject scripture outright, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. You are welcome to look at the entire context of the verses, but remember there are plenty oof other supporting verses throughout the Bible.
The problem is that you are trying to have an honest debate about Scripture with people who have no faith in Scripture and only accept a premise when it fits their agenda.

When one speaks context, there is tons of context. In this case people want to recognize a historical context yet they want to pruposely ignore the greater context of the Bible, God making woman for man, or the simple context that people are being cursed with homosexuality. Nowhere in the Bible is someone cursed with something that is positive for another group of people. It is a simple standard in the Bible that good things apply to all and bad things apply to all yet they are trying to twist that there are separate goods and bads. Again, the greater context of the Bible is ignored.

Keep up the good fight but at some point realize it's time to stop casting pearls before swine.

Last edited by Omahabound; 05-15-2009 at 06:46 PM..
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:54 PM
 
Location: America's heartland
346 posts, read 278,540 times
Reputation: 116
The condemnation of homosexuality is found throughout the Bible. I often refer to the verses in 1 Corinthians, Leviticus, and Romans to state the proof of this.

It is highly unfortunate that there are so many non-believers and people of the liberal persuasion who automatically think that people who quote these Bible scriptures are bigoted, homophobic, or hateful. None of this is true.

There are no fellow Christians that I am familiar with who outright hate homosexuals, absolutely none. We as Christians accept homosexuals as human beings but it is their actions and lifestyles that we find abhorrent. It is unnatural and it reverts to the Bible passages that basically state the same thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top