Where do I go from here?

[cool_name123]

Alright, So I posted this in a different sub forum before realizing there was an entire area specifically dedicated to this topic... So I'm re-posting it here (with some edits as I noticed I made some late night connections that I didn't go into enough detail on in my other post).



So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this (obviously I diverge when needed, but these four are the points I always try to flesh out the most because I think they are the most important to understanding the issue). I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed that's what people want (yet again) or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love Ethic than it does a Sexual Ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. The sexual practices accepted and looked down on are constantly evolving throughout scripture right up to today (I'm fairly sure that the majority of Conservative Christians would not be cool with the idea of Levirate Marriage). I mean it seems to enforce a Love Ethic right down to how Jesus engages with Scripture and makes a point of constantly stressing the importance of the character of ones being as opposed to the strict rules they think everyone should follow (The Pharisees anyone?). Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental to everyone involved and we need to change how we approach this issue. I'm more so just trying to garner a little sympathy with this quote because the church has historically not led the best example of a body under a being that claims to love unconditionally.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not that leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used by speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus tell us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is very likely not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely temple supported male prostitution (I mean he even used the term 'ἀκαθα�σία' not two chapters earlier hearkening back to the Septuagint/Old Testament speaking out against shrine prostitution putting the image square in the readers mind).

And in his other mentions of the topic, like those in Timothy or Corinthians, The word Paul uses here (ἀ�σενοκοίτης) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of (some people even think Paul just straight up made up his own word here, it's that uncommon guys)... The general consensus is that what Paul is referring to are acts of Pederasty or once again shrine prostitution... Again not the same sex consensual adult relationships we've seen develop more recently (in fact the term homosexual didn't even exist in the bible until I think 1949 with the RSV Translation. But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (to the point of potentially making up his own word) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed this one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know why because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then have to go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 19 by 99percentatheism]

Wow... Ok... Uh, I'm not really sure how to respond to that. I mean you twist my words at every chance you can take, make assumptions about things that were never even mentioned and at times seem so scatterbrained that your thoughts just devolve into weird rants that have almost nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Maybe you should just calm down, take a breathe and read my statements through a couple times before seeing a word or sentence you disagree with and going off on a rant before understanding what I am trying to say with said statement (as the words 'no, that's not what I'm saying at all' are about to be repeated a lot).

Lesson 1
So I guess let's start off with a bit of an English lesson. English, much like Greek, has words than can mean numberous different things and does not mean all those things in one instant. Judgement can mean discernment, but also condemnation... That second meaning is the one I was talking about as it is the one Paul is using in Romans 2. No one is telling you not to discern.
Since you seem get confused by this a lot, I'm just going to refer you back to Lesson 1 everytime it comes up (hence the header)

Man that's a long sentence.

Sorry about the run on sentence. If my only crime is forgetting a period here and there I think I'll be forgiven.

And I use scripture and perspective to back up my points. I am a Christian. And no matter the date on the calendar, reality and truth doesn't change.

Also, you didn't explain what made it a stretch. Christ is the same today as he was back then. And I'm sure he'd be just as against temple prostitution today as he was back then.

In separate and separated categories right?

Nope, I even said 'not directly' and the proceeded to explain how the one chapter related to the other... No separation at all, not even a little bit.

Well now, context jumps right out at us. Those that do not "do" the nasty stuff can by all means judge those that do. In fact, those that repent of doing the nasty stuff are no longer "doing" them.

What? Where does it say that? Where does it say you can judge? You've already given me a hard time for extrapolating but you are doing just as much and in my mind much more irresponsibly. Every single mention of Judgement in this text is against you judging, it clarifies why it is against you judging... But nowhere in this chapter is being judgemental portrayed positively.

But since this also comes up a lot lets have Judgement Lesson #2
Here is just a handful of verses telling us not to judge (and again, I'm talking about the condemning sort of judge, see Lesson 1)

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.� John 8:7

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven" Luke 6:37

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God. 1Cor 4:5

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? Youhypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. Matt 7:1-5

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters.c Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor? James 4:11-12

“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17

(notice how I threw a couple in there that actually used the word condemn just to be even more clear? That one was for you buddy.)

What was that again?

R E P E N T A N C E

And yes repentance is important, but look at what leads to repentance... Not your condemnation, but God's love and compassion.
Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? Romans 2:4

Pride goeth before the fall. Haughtiness is another word for pride. Now how do we point out a sinners "deeds" if there is no judgment anywhere on earth?

See Lesson 1

Ambiguity does not make for a great society.

I don't think I'm being very ambiguous... I'm being quite clear in how I think we are to follow Christ. Through non-judgemental love... Some might call it unconditional love. But love none-the-less.

God shows no partiality for what? Or rather for whom?

It says, like, right there not a sentence earlier in Romans 2:10. Jews vs Greeks, or Gentiles, or non-believers... Paul is contrasting those that are a part of this community with those who are not and guess what... Once again all are welcome.

Well I think I have countered your opinion here.

Nope... Not even a little bit as I think I showed above.

Now first off, how do you read Psalm 51... Because as with every other verse that has come up I think it leans more to the side of how I see judgement than you. It's a pretty clear warning that the more judgement you cast upon the world the more will be cast upon you, the more you scrutinize others and the choices they make the more your choices in life will be scrutinized. It's not giving permission, it is warning you of the dangers of being judgemental.

Really? By how? Ignoring scriptures or by teaching them to sinners? The consistent theme in the Bible about sin and sinning is that someone has to "judge" sins and sinners for how they are sinners sinning.

No, not what I'm saying at all. Since I don't want to get into a debate with you about what sin is (especially if this is how you discuss things)... Let's just say 'see Lesson 1' yet again for the rest of that.

Second, that those whom are being all judgemental are referred to as despising the riches of God's kindness and patience.

Really? By how?

Also, 'By how?'? By it says so right there in the exact verse that I am quoting almost word for word.
Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Romans 2:4

So if I take your theology to action, then I never do anything to "preach the word" in season or out because that's judgmentalism to do and that can never be implemented?

Again, no... Not what I'm saying at all, see Lesson 1. (Though I'm beginning to think that word you speak of is different from the good news of the gospels that I speak of... But I'm sure we'll delve deeper into that shortly).

If you're really interested on how I might approach evangelism, here's a video that kinda starts to get into how I think the best way to spread Christs message (and also what I think is primarily wrong with the judgmental sort of evangelism you seem to speak of).

Oh really? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where "do as thou wilt though and you will somehow figure out all on your own what sins and sinning is?

Again, not what I am saying at all. But since I think I can at least figure out where this came from (though not from the segment you quoted). And I've also kind of went into this when talking about Repentance in Romans earlier... So I guess just refer back to that.

Than you are demanding chaos to order? Nothing means anything 'cuz Paul wasn't talking to people in Denver Colorado 2014?

Again, NO! That is not what I am saying at all! How are you even coming to some of these conclusions? Where did I ever say 'Paul's words mean nothing.'? If anything, everything I have been arguing with have come directly from the meaning of Paul's words. Words that I have clearly given meaning (perhaps not the meaning you'd like them to have but meaning none-the-less).

My argument has been that context is important. I mean let's try a hypothetical example. Say there I said to you 'Don't Lick Goats! It's idolatry!' what does that mean, and why am I even bothering to tell you that? Ya of course you won't go around licking goats, you likely never were to begin with. But if that was instead written to a community where Goat licking was how you showed respect for your king as you entered the temple for worship, that becomes much clearer what I'm trying to say. But the even with that context if you take that verse and extrapolate from that that licking any animal any time is idolatry you've missed the point, or that the act of licking or even the desire to lick is idolatry then you have again missed the point and the reason that initial statement was made. In my example showing respect for someone other than God as you enter your temple being idolatry would be just as true today as in the hypothetical past it was written in. But how it is expressed may have changed between the social context we find ourselves in and that which the text was written in. That's what I'm trying to say about context, is that without it you risk grossly mis-interpreting Paul's words... Word which have just as much meaning today as they did back then.

Now of course, you have that right to form any kind of religious movement you so desire, but to imply or demand that there isn't solid Christian reality of truth is simply holding that there is no such thing as Christian truth.

Again, never said anything even remotely close to that. Are you even trying to have a discussion with me? Like the person me sitting at this computer here? Or do you just need someone to vent at? Cause I'm not that person (at least not in this setting). I'll happily talk with you but I'm not just going to take these baseless assumptions you are placing on me (and frankly after this message I think I'll be pretty tired of uttering the mantra "No, That's not what I was saying at all"). If you actually want a discussion let's have one, but please don't assume anything... If something doesn't click with you, ask questions and try to figure out what I'm really trying to say, don't just go off on rants because you assume I am saying something that I'm actually not.

Doesn't work that way.

Actually ya, it works exactly that way re-enforced time and time again throughout the gospel. See Lesson 2 again.

IF, the statement "leave it up to the guy upstairs" means anything at all, a "judgment" as to what that guy upstairs means has to be defined.

Sure, nothing wrong with trying to define it, but it's still not up to you to judge (and just to avoid confusion, I'm using it in the Condemning sense here), in the end God always has the final word.

"The "social context" of the early Church and the future Church connected until the end of the age . . . was to "JUDGE" what is and what isn't Christian truth and who is and isn't following it. How on earth can there be anything defined if what defines what is definable is not judged correctly?

"Don't judge."

What?

Than how does a rational human being no what's right and what's wrong ON anything!??

Jesus is the Savior.

Or not.

Because it is judgmentalism to say He is.

Chaos never brings order. In the lab or in theology. "

What? K, I'm not exactly sure what was going on there but given how often 'Judge' and knowing right from wrong came up I'm just going make a leap and assume it's the same point you've been hammering in for the last little while and just say "See Lesson 1". If you were trying to say something different here, I'm sorry but it just came across as a jumbled and frustrated mess. I really hope I'm not causing you any kind of frustration or anger as I just wanted a friendly discussion. And I'm truly sorry if I am.

Isn't that judgmental of you to assert that?

No... Unless you are talking about me being Discerning, in which case I suppose you could make the argument... But the condemning sort of judging that I have been rallying against from the get go it most certainly is not.

So you are positing that Jesus empowered "His Church" to do whatever is popular culture of whatever age comes along?

No, I'm positing that Jesus empowered "His Church" to 'Love' no matter who the recipient.

Or not.

What is with all these 'or not''s? I don't get what you're trying to do with them. If they're important, by all means explain or else I'm going to just start ignoring them.

Jesus went to a marriage in Cana. Long before 400AD. You can try that tactic all you want to, but what is clearly defined as "Christian marriage" IN the New Testament, can never be "equated" to homosexual definition. Neither in 400AD or 2014.

I never said marriages were not celebrated before then, but celebrations were not the norm as they were expensive (and I don't know how much you know about the early church but until Constantine basically made it the official religion it wasn't the richest of movements). And even those celebrations were not legal affairs in the way they have become today, they were merely a declaration of the love of two people. I never equated it to a homosexual definition, that's something you did on your own. But as I already said before... This isn't even what we're trying to talk about... so let's just move on.

Not even close. Unless of course you are asserting that Christian spouses should now be free to "join" with a prostitute anytime they "feel" the "orientation" to do so.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT! Seriously, point to where I even alluded to that! Because once again No! that is not at all what I said. Are you even reading what I write or is this some sort of pointless futile exercise I have just embarked on.

Also, WORDS HAVE MEANING! you can't just throw 'orientation' into your sentence in a desperate attempt to make it relevant! it has to make sense.

Sorry for the outburst but that was probably one of the most frustrating sentences you've written as of yet (though it's possible all the poor assumptions of what I was saying are starting to get to me).

The interpretation is not open for reinvention

It's not re-invention. re-invention would be adding something to the texts that was never there (ahem, LGTBQ* cough' cough'). I'm sorry if as we learn more about the past that we are able to read historical texts with more informed lenses but that's just what happens as our curiosity draws us into these texts and we begin to poke around and see how deep it really is (as opposed to assuming it is a western English medium and treating it as such). Oh man, that's another thing Jesus never talked about was translating the Bible into English, Guess that's a great evil too... I mean he did say that he didn't come to change the word of God but we've done so much of that in out attempts to translate this wonderful book (I'm making a point by the way, just for safety's sake I guess should say I do not actually think it is a sin to translate the bible into English... Just so you don't go on another one of those rants I know I grossly took what Jesus said out of context but again to make a point).

Hetero-normative? Are you kidding? Gay neologism in a theological debate?

New or not, it is a word that has meaning... And yes, I'm going to use it when appropriate to make my point. I'm sorry, this is the English language where concepts like Symbolic Interactionism are constantly changing the landscape of our language... If you don't like it, learn French or something. Also, the word is well over 20 years old... It's no longer neologism, it's part of our language and as such I will use it like any other word in our language that carries meaning.

And it's not propaganda, it's a word, a word that means something... I don't suppose you actually read what came after that word, did you? Because my point had little to nothing to do with homosexuality aside from the fact that I did not see the verses as being referential to marriage (at least not in the way you might).

One hardly finds love in lying. Or as the Bible refers to it as "bearing false witness."

Jesus REAFFIRMED marriage as man and woman/husband and wife. There is no such thing as same gender "marriage."

Or not.

I again, have no Idea what you're doing... So I'm just going to ignore anything that's followed by an 'or not' cause I don't have the time to try and figure it out... if it's important I'm sure you'll re-iterate in a less snarky way.

Ya, I'm pretty sure if Christ wasn't so against violence he'd just straight up slap you for that one as he never once cast anyone out. And saying 'You go do your thing over there, I don't care for it and you're not welcome here' sounds like nothing Christ would ever dream of even entertaining the idea of.

You've never read the Gospels?

Why would you assume this? Because I mentioned Jesus' stance on non-violence? If not you chose a weird quote to preface this with. But even still... Yes, Jesus did preach an us verse them sort of deal... but never once was violence the solution. A soldier makes you carry their bag a mile, take it 2, Someone sues you for everything you've got... give them the shirt of your back as well! Someone slaps you on one cheek you turn the other. Never once does Christ imply that how we are to deal with the 'other' is with violence and in fact stated time and time again that we are to do quite the opposite.
In fact, Lesson # 3... Verses on Non-Violent Resistance.

Jesus said,“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a e and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court." Mt. 5.21-22

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Mt. 5.38-42

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" Mt. 5.43-46

Jesus said, "You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another." Mt. 10.22-23

Jesus said, "But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." Lk. 6.27-28

I'm sorry? Are you saying that these outcasts came into The Church and never repented of their sins?

No, I'm saying they're never going to come into the church if you make them do their own thing over there, away from you and your precious religion.

"Daughters and sons?" Seems a rather hetero-normative definition. Or heterosexist?

Right, I guess... which is why we needed better words for them. And hence the bible addresses this. Good thing we're finally starting to find a few too.

Seems Judging to me

How? Where in that verse anywhere was there any sort of condemnation at all.
Verse1: Live the Good Life
Verse2: It'll bring you happiness
Verse3: Don't be exclusive of these Eunuchs
Verse4: If the Eunuchs want what we're selling, don't keep it from them
Verse5: They are more than welcome in my kindgom and We'll have to stop calling them by those derogatory terms, don't worry we'll find something better than even sons and daughters.
Verse6: And all you Non-Eunichs... you're welcome too
Verse7: I fact you're all welcome in my kingdom, we shall feast and it'll be a blast yo!
Verse8: In fact, we've still got room... Lets go find more people to enjoy this kingdom with us.

I'm not going to keep paraphrasing because the chunk we're interested in is not about Isreal's Rulers, and this discussion is not about Isreal's Rulers... Keeping us on topic here (looks like someone is going to have to).

Not "Affirming" and celebrating gay behavior is "equaled" to racism and hate.

I don't think that's what is equated to hate... I think it's more the "Get out, go over there and do your thing away from me... I don't care for you at all" (a stance you have taken more than once on this forum) that is equated to hate. Well, that and all the actual aggressive hate that I can't even begin to comprehend.

Jesus never said a word about watching porn with a bunch of Frat buddies while sitting in a pew attending a Church service either.

No, but the bible teaches many things about healthy and loving sexual unions, which can help inform us when we encounter something not directly tackled in the bible.

The whole idea of basing ones theology on things Jesus didn't say is more than just building a house on sand. It is building a house on no foundation at all. And think about this, Jesus mentions Eunuchs in quite some detail. But not "Lesbians" and "Gays and the Bi-Sexuals?"

Right, because they weren't a thing then. It'd be like me suddenly using the term 'ze' to refer to those with a non-traditional gender in the 1600's, or the terms 'hetero-normative' to refer to everyone else. It would have made no sense because the concept was not present yet. You can't talk about a concept that doesn't exist yet. If you try you'll be met by a bunch of head scratching and people saying 'This joker makes no sense, Let's go back to worshiping Caesar', or 'how is this relevant, I can't apply gibberish to my life, I'll go find someone who can tell me something meaningful'

And that whole basing ones theology on things Jesus didn't say goes both ways, whether it be me with assuming that since it's not there it wasn't something deemed important or you assuming that since it wasn't there that it somehow was.

Eunuchs are still eunuchs "as we know it today." Exactly the way Jesus describes "them" in so-called ancient times.

Right, and what we know as Transsexuals today will likely be known that way in another couple thousand years... I don't get where this is going.

But we have more than enough texts to show the exact opposite.

About as many as we do condemning heterosexual sex acts, and that's still an acceptable orientation... This is what I was trying to say earlier, yes there are acts that tend to separate people from God, and those acts are not healthy. But extrapolating that because those acts happen outside of your sexual identity that the entirety of ones sexual identity is evil is a rickety bridge to try and cross my friend (to say the least).

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 20 by cool_name123]

I just want to say how much I appreciate your posts. They contain more than a degree of scriptural savvy, are reader friendly and are also dished up with a serving of non-offensive, I think, tongue-in-cheek humor.

By the way, the video clip you provided by Rob Bell is excellent!

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 19 by 99percentatheism]

cool_name123
[Replying to post 19 by 99percentatheism]

Wow... Ok... Uh, I'm not really sure how to respond to that. I mean you twist my words at every chance you can take, make assumptions about things that were never even mentioned and at times seem so scatterbrained that your thoughts just devolve into weird rants that have almost nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Maybe you should just calm down, take a breathe and read my statements through a couple times before seeing a word or sentence you disagree with and going off on a rant before understanding what I am trying to say with said statement (as the words 'no, that's not what I'm saying at all' are about to be repeated a lot).

You seem confused about condemnation and judgement. The nature of Christian truth depends on "judging" right from wrong and liars, or rather false teachers and enemies of the Way from "brothers and sisters" in the faith.

You seem to be playing the game of anything goes. Love cannot possibly exist in encouraging sin and sinning. That is as antithetical to caring and love as feeding a stone to a starving child by grinding it into a edible powder and mixing it with sugar and spice.

So let's get to the class shall we?

Lesson 1
So I guess let's start off with a bit of an English lesson. English, much like Greek, has words than can mean numberous different things and does not mean all those things in one instant.

I know that professor. Hebrew and Aramaic are not so easily warped by nuance right?

Judgement can mean discernment, but also condemnation...

No that's not right. Judgment is a conclusion. Condemnation is a result of the thought process.

That second meaning is the one I was talking about as it is the one Paul is using in Romans 2. No one is telling you not to discern.
Since you seem get confused by this a lot, I'm just going to refer you back to Lesson 1 everytime it comes up (hence the header)

Christian truth was arrived at by laying down limits and "judging" when those are crossed. There is no ambiguity to what is and what isn't "Christian truth." Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Jesus. No amount of relativism can alter that reality. For Christians. Take "marriage" for example, it is immutably man and woman/husband and wife. Discernment, judgment and reality shows this as truth. If I implement discernment of the gay agenda, it is easy to "judge" its error when claiming that "marriage" can be anything some pop culture movement in some age or era demands it to alter Christian truth.

Man that's a long sentence.

Sorry about the run on sentence. If my only crime is forgetting a period here and there I think I'll be forgiven.

We'll see what your crimes are soon enough. Yours seems to be quite typical of most of he perspectives here. But maybe I'm wrong. I'll hold out hope. Via discernment.

And I use scripture and perspective to back up my points. I am a Christian. And no matter the date on the calendar, reality and truth doesn't change.

Also, you didn't explain what made it a stretch. Christ is the same today as he was back then. And I'm sure he'd be just as against temple prostitution today as he was back then.

And sins and sinning. You forgot that part. Sex outside of a marriage is a sin. And we all know what "Christian marriage" is. It is well defined in the New Testament. Over and over again actually. Hopefully you can discern that I do not care what non and anti Christians do, say or believe. That is their right to choose whatever they wish.

In separate and separated categories right?

Nope, I even said 'not directly' and the proceeded to explain how the one chapter related to the other... No separation at all, not even a little bit.

To say that the all the Greeks and Israelites that Paul was addressing were ONLY into Temple Shrine gay behavior is a stretch that cannot make the distance through 2000-years of measure.

Well now, context jumps right out at us. Those that do not "do" the nasty stuff can by all means judge those that do. In fact, those that repent of doing the nasty stuff are no longer "doing" them.

What? Where does it say that? Where does it say you can judge?

For one thing the parables that Jesus used to sidestep the rabble and then defined what they were all about are solid judgments of actions, thoughts and behaviors. When "binding" things on earth and in heaven, the Apostles would have to enact a judgment. And we see Jude at the end of the NT doing the same thing.

You've already given me a hard time for extrapolating but you are doing just as much and in my mind much more irresponsibly. Every single mention of Judgement in this text is against you judging, it clarifies why it is against you judging... But nowhere in this chapter is being judgemental portrayed positively.

Then why was it written? Paul is literally encouraging judging how and why not to BE a sinner. Then as it describes in Psalm 51, once you have judged your own sins, repented and have been foirgivne (by God) you can then effectively "judge" others. Otherwise, we have an orgy inside the Church instead of a separation from the world and its ways. Which of course demands judgments. Through discernment.

But since this also comes up a lot lets have Judgement Lesson #2
Here is just a handful of verses telling us not to judge (and again, I'm talking about the condemning sort of judge, see Lesson 1)

You are confusing THE Judgment with judgment. As we will see from your offerings:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.� John 8:7

Which was a teaching lesson about judging sinners. You seem to be forgetting the "go, and sin no more" deal Jesus pronounced as well. It seems your use of the term "judging" means everyone can do as they so choose and everyone has to "affirm" that. The very message of the New Testament speaks against that.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven" Luke 6:37

How can you "forgive" someone without judging in what way hey have sinned?

See how easy this is professor? So let's move on with our lessons.

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God. 1Cor 4:5

Let's see how Paul teaches the Corinthians:

For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. 10 We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! 11 To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. 12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment.

Paul’s Appeal and Warning

14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

18 Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21 What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?

Sounds like Paul has judged some people in that congregation. The "arrogant" ones.

“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. Matt 7:1-5

read that again to yourself. Once you have rid yourself of your sins and sinning, by repenting . . . you can get on to judging sinners. Without any fear of being a hypocrite.

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers and sisters.c Whoever speaks evil against another or judges another, speaks evil against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. So who, then, are you to judge your neighbor? James 4:11-12

Speaking evil against one another? How do you pronounce that without judging the person speaking evil?

“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17
[/quote]

To chose Christ as ones Lord and Savior, one must judge onesslef and the world and its ways one is now rejecting. To be "born again" (born from above) is an act of judgmentalism.

(notice how I threw a couple in there that actually used the word condemn just to be even more clear? That one was for you buddy.)

I do not engage in homosexuality nor do I encourage anyone to engage in it. My sins are not present on that. My eyes completely clear of any logs OR specks. Per Jesus, and Paul and peter too, I can judge away with no need to worry about sinning on that. Go ahead and reread the texts and the entire New Testament if you so choose. I will receive an A on the test.

What was that again?

R E P E N T A N C E

And yes repentance is important, but look at what leads to repentance... Not your condemnation, but God's love and compassion.
Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? Romans 2:4

Forgiveness comes from one judging right from wrong and no longer choosing the wrong. You seem to be asserting that one can engage in anything they so desire and be encouraged to do so. That is no where to be found in the New Testament. It is actually antithetical to the testimony of the NT. One cannot become a Christian without judging the living a life the wrong way. It is clear that "Christians" are not to be like the anti and non Christians. Per Jesus and many other voices in the New Testament. Judgment is mandatory to the process.

Pride goeth before the fall. Haughtiness is another word for pride. Now how do we point out a sinners "deeds" if there is no judgment anywhere on earth?

See Lesson 1

I'm on to higher education by now.

Ambiguity does not make for a great society.

I don't think I'm being very ambiguous... I'm being quite clear in how I think we are to follow Christ. Through non-judgemental love... Some might call it unconditional love. But love none-the-less.

Please show where being a Christian has no conditions. As in "unconditional." Use any scripture or dictionary you'd like. Please how where the love of Jesus is unconditional?

"All who call on the Name of the Lord will be saved."

That is conditional.

I'll move my chair to the front of the class as to not seem judgmental to the other students as I speak by them. I wouldn't want to seem like I an speaking to them. You're the teacher here.

God shows no partiality for what? Or rather for whom?

It says, like, right there not a sentence earlier in Romans 2:10. Jews vs Greeks, or Gentiles, or non-believers... Paul is contrasting those that are a part of this community with those who are not and guess what... Once again all are welcome.

Paul is judging and teaching us that we are to judge who is the others by which we come from. That's what the word "contrasting" means: "differ strikingly"

Well I think I have countered your opinion here.

Nope... Not even a little bit as I think I showed above.

So far my offerings show otherwise.

Now first off, how do you read Psalm 51... Because as with every other verse that has come up I think it leans more to the side of how I see judgement than you. It's a pretty clear warning that the more judgement you cast upon the world the more will be cast upon you, the more you scrutinize others and the choices they make the more your choices in life will be scrutinized. It's not giving permission, it is warning you of the dangers of being judgemental.

That's as far off the mark as I have ever read. Pslam 51 is literally a man judging his own sins, repenting in agony, claiming forgiveness and THEN desiring to help other sinners see the errors of their ways. Please post a new thread and we'll judge each others theology there.

Repentance is not a hate crime. Not to Jesus OT or NT.

Really? By how? Ignoring scriptures or by teaching them to sinners? The consistent theme in the Bible about sin and sinning is that someone has to "judge" sins and sinners for how they are sinners sinning.

No, not what I'm saying at all. Since I don't want to get into a debate with you about what sin is (especially if this is how you discuss things)... Let's just say 'see Lesson 1' yet again for the rest of that.

Clearly you concede the point once you rely on your personal feelings on this matter. This is the point where I reiterate how much "tolerance and diversity" I hold in your right to invent a new religion based on whatever you desire. But reinventing Christian reality must be contended against.

Second, that those whom are being all judgemental are referred to as despising the riches of God's kindness and patience.

Really? By how?

Also, 'By how?'? By it says so right there in the exact verse that I am quoting almost word for word.
Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Romans 2:4

Patience for what" Repentance. Choosing Christ is via judging ones sins and the sins of the world and its ways (sin) in which one is leaving.

This is pretty easy stuff. Conversion Process 101.

So if I take your theology to action, then I never do anything to "preach the word" in season or out because that's judgmentalism to do and that can never be implemented?

Again, no... Not what I'm saying at all, see Lesson 1. (Though I'm beginning to think that word you speak of is different from the good news of the gospels that I speak of... But I'm sure we'll delve deeper into that shortly).

When we delve deeper into repentance and forgiveness we will arrive at it through making judgments.

If you're really interested on how I might approach evangelism, here's a video that kinda starts to get into how I think the best way to spread Christs message (and also what I think is primarily wrong with the judgmental sort of evangelism you seem to speak of).

When I have time I may watch it. But suffice it to say, if it is your teaching foundation that is represented here so far, I think I am in for a trip to Universalism Central via the Relativism Train.

Oh really? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where "do as thou wilt though and you will somehow figure out all on your own what sins and sinning is?

Again, not what I am saying at all. But since I think I can at least figure out where this came from (though not from the segment you quoted). And I've also kind of went into this when talking about Repentance in Romans earlier... So I guess just refer back to that.

Another avoidance.

Than you are demanding chaos to order? Nothing means anything 'cuz Paul wasn't talking to people in Denver Colorado 2014?

Again, NO! That is not what I am saying at all! How are you even coming to some of these conclusions? Where did I ever say 'Paul's words mean nothing.'? If anything, everything I have been arguing with have come directly from the meaning of Paul's words. Words that I have clearly given meaning (perhaps not the meaning you'd like them to have but meaning none-the-less).

If you think Christian love is based on ignoring wrongdoing, I definitely want to avoid your church wherever it is located. I'd rather attend one based on what the New Testament says.

My argument has been that context is important. I mean let's try a hypothetical example. Say there I said to you 'Don't Lick Goats! It's idolatry!' what does that mean, and why am I even bothering to tell you that? Ya of course you won't go around licking goats, you likely never were to begin with. But if that was instead written to a community where Goat licking was how you showed respect for your king as you entered the temple for worship, that becomes much clearer what I'm trying to say. But the even with that context if you take that verse and extrapolate from that that licking any animal any time is idolatry you've missed the point, or that the act of licking or even the desire to lick is idolatry then you have again missed the point and the reason that initial statement was made. In my example showing respect for someone other than God as you enter your temple being idolatry would be just as true today as in the hypothetical past it was written in. But how it is expressed may have changed between the social context we find ourselves in and that which the text was written in. That's what I'm trying to say about context, is that without it you risk grossly mis-interpreting Paul's words... Word which have just as much meaning today as they did back then.

Christian reality was defined during Roman licentiousness. Now, the gay sex going on in Roman life was not only Temple Shrine behavior. Homosexuality was as common as prostitution. Nero and Sporus did not worship some deity to be married. They were anti Christians doing what they desired. Paul makes it clear that behaviors are important to Christian life. So trying to exclusively connect the proscription of gay sex male and female to Temple Shrine worship is impossible. In the NT or outside of it. Christians lived in the outside world too. They just didn't engage its morality once becoming a Christian. Hint, hint!

Or show otherwise of course.

But here is Peter's judgmentalism on the subject:

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. 2 As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

- 1 peter 4

Now of course, you have that right to form any kind of religious movement you so desire, but to imply or demand that there isn't solid Christian reality of truth is simply holding that there is no such thing as Christian truth.

Again, never said anything even remotely close to that. Are you even trying to have a discussion with me? Like the person me sitting at this computer here? Or do you just need someone to vent at? Cause I'm not that person (at least not in this setting). I'll happily talk with you but I'm not just going to take these baseless assumptions you are placing on me (and frankly after this message I think I'll be pretty tired of uttering the mantra "No, That's not what I was saying at all"). If you actually want a discussion let's have one, but please don't assume anything... If something doesn't click with you, ask questions and try to figure out what I'm really trying to say, don't just go off on rants because you assume I am saying something that I'm actually not.

It is not a rant to be tolerant of diversity. Your message seems rather standard gay theology. Do you, believe that gay sex should be celebrated in The Christian Church? What will you do with the hundreds of millions of us that will never do that? Where do we go from her? Gay behavior is a sin. Repentance is called for. How is that a bad thing? It is actually perfectly Christian goodness. Or do you think otherwise? That sin and sinning should be encouraged and not "judged?"

There, there are some questions. If you do not believe that homosexual behavior is sin, our discussion takes on a totally different phase to it. And I am betting that your view is pro homosexuality all the way. I get that from what I have discerned.

Doesn't work that way.

Actually ya, it works exactly that way re-enforced time and time again throughout the gospel. See Lesson 2 again.

The Gospel? Please show me anywhere in the Gospel that anything goes in the definition of the follower of Christ? The Parables are literally teaching the Apostles how to judge people and their commitment to Christ. This whole Christian thing isn't taught in a dark corner. As Jesus makes clear.

IF, the statement "leave it up to the guy upstairs" means anything at all, a "judgment" as to what that guy upstairs means has to be defined.

Sure, nothing wrong with trying to define it, but it's still not up to you to judge (and just to avoid confusion, I'm using it in the Condemning sense here), in the end God always has the final word.

Done. I am never "judging" a persons soul. Just their commitment to truth through their actions and words. Just exactly how Jesus (and the writers of the NT) taught us how to judge others. And please judge me the same way. As is also described by Jesus, et al.

Hey look, I have to run off right now. I'll be back later on today to finish your lesson.

99

The following to be continued:

"The "social context" of the early Church and the future Church connected until the end of the age . . . was to "JUDGE" what is and what isn't Christian truth and who is and isn't following it. How on earth can there be anything defined if what defines what is definable is not judged correctly?

"Don't judge."

What?

Than how does a rational human being no what's right and what's wrong ON anything!??

Jesus is the Savior.

Or not.

Because it is judgmentalism to say He is.

Chaos never brings order. In the lab or in theology. "

What? K, I'm not exactly sure what was going on there but given how often 'Judge' and knowing right from wrong came up I'm just going make a leap and assume it's the same point you've been hammering in for the last little while and just say "See Lesson 1". If you were trying to say something different here, I'm sorry but it just came across as a jumbled and frustrated mess. I really hope I'm not causing you any kind of frustration or anger as I just wanted a friendly discussion. And I'm truly sorry if I am.

Isn't that judgmental of you to assert that?

No... Unless you are talking about me being Discerning, in which case I suppose you could make the argument... But the condemning sort of judging that I have been rallying against from the get go it most certainly is not.

So you are positing that Jesus empowered "His Church" to do whatever is popular culture of whatever age comes along?

No, I'm positing that Jesus empowered "His Church" to 'Love' no matter who the recipient.

Or not.

What is with all these 'or not''s? I don't get what you're trying to do with them. If they're important, by all means explain or else I'm going to just start ignoring them.

Jesus went to a marriage in Cana. Long before 400AD. You can try that tactic all you want to, but what is clearly defined as "Christian marriage" IN the New Testament, can never be "equated" to homosexual definition. Neither in 400AD or 2014.

I never said marriages were not celebrated before then, but celebrations were not the norm as they were expensive (and I don't know how much you know about the early church but until Constantine basically made it the official religion it wasn't the richest of movements). And even those celebrations were not legal affairs in the way they have become today, they were merely a declaration of the love of two people. I never equated it to a homosexual definition, that's something you did on your own. But as I already said before... This isn't even what we're trying to talk about... so let's just move on.

Not even close. Unless of course you are asserting that Christian spouses should now be free to "join" with a prostitute anytime they "feel" the "orientation" to do so.

WHERE DID I SAY THAT! Seriously, point to where I even alluded to that! Because once again No! that is not at all what I said. Are you even reading what I write or is this some sort of pointless futile exercise I have just embarked on.

Also, WORDS HAVE MEANING! you can't just throw 'orientation' into your sentence in a desperate attempt to make it relevant! it has to make sense.

Sorry for the outburst but that was probably one of the most frustrating sentences you've written as of yet (though it's possible all the poor assumptions of what I was saying are starting to get to me).

The interpretation is not open for reinvention

It's not re-invention. re-invention would be adding something to the texts that was never there (ahem, LGTBQ* cough' cough'). I'm sorry if as we learn more about the past that we are able to read historical texts with more informed lenses but that's just what happens as our curiosity draws us into these texts and we begin to poke around and see how deep it really is (as opposed to assuming it is a western English medium and treating it as such). Oh man, that's another thing Jesus never talked about was translating the Bible into English, Guess that's a great evil too... I mean he did say that he didn't come to change the word of God but we've done so much of that in out attempts to translate this wonderful book (I'm making a point by the way, just for safety's sake I guess should say I do not actually think it is a sin to translate the bible into English... Just so you don't go on another one of those rants I know I grossly took what Jesus said out of context but again to make a point).

Hetero-normative? Are you kidding? Gay neologism in a theological debate?

New or not, it is a word that has meaning... And yes, I'm going to use it when appropriate to make my point. I'm sorry, this is the English language where concepts like Symbolic Interactionism are constantly changing the landscape of our language... If you don't like it, learn French or something. Also, the word is well over 20 years old... It's no longer neologism, it's part of our language and as such I will use it like any other word in our language that carries meaning.

And it's not propaganda, it's a word, a word that means something... I don't suppose you actually read what came after that word, did you? Because my point had little to nothing to do with homosexuality aside from the fact that I did not see the verses as being referential to marriage (at least not in the way you might).

One hardly finds love in lying. Or as the Bible refers to it as "bearing false witness."

Jesus REAFFIRMED marriage as man and woman/husband and wife. There is no such thing as same gender "marriage."

Or not.

I again, have no Idea what you're doing... So I'm just going to ignore anything that's followed by an 'or not' cause I don't have the time to try and figure it out... if it's important I'm sure you'll re-iterate in a less snarky way.

Ya, I'm pretty sure if Christ wasn't so against violence he'd just straight up slap you for that one as he never once cast anyone out. And saying 'You go do your thing over there, I don't care for it and you're not welcome here' sounds like nothing Christ would ever dream of even entertaining the idea of.

You've never read the Gospels?

Why would you assume this? Because I mentioned Jesus' stance on non-violence? If not you chose a weird quote to preface this with. But even still... Yes, Jesus did preach an us verse them sort of deal... but never once was violence the solution. A soldier makes you carry their bag a mile, take it 2, Someone sues you for everything you've got... give them the shirt of your back as well! Someone slaps you on one cheek you turn the other. Never once does Christ imply that how we are to deal with the 'other' is with violence and in fact stated time and time again that we are to do quite the opposite.
In fact, Lesson # 3... Verses on Non-Violent Resistance.

Jesus said,“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a e and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court." Mt. 5.21-22

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." Mt. 5.38-42

Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?" Mt. 5.43-46

Jesus said, "You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another." Mt. 10.22-23

Jesus said, "But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." Lk. 6.27-28

I'm sorry? Are you saying that these outcasts came into The Church and never repented of their sins?

No, I'm saying they're never going to come into the church if you make them do their own thing over there, away from you and your precious religion.

"Daughters and sons?" Seems a rather hetero-normative definition. Or heterosexist?

Right, I guess... which is why we needed better words for them. And hence the bible addresses this. Good thing we're finally starting to find a few too.

Seems Judging to me

How? Where in that verse anywhere was there any sort of condemnation at all.
Verse1: Live the Good Life
Verse2: It'll bring you happiness
Verse3: Don't be exclusive of these Eunuchs
Verse4: If the Eunuchs want what we're selling, don't keep it from them
Verse5: They are more than welcome in my kindgom and We'll have to stop calling them by those derogatory terms, don't worry we'll find something better than even sons and daughters.
Verse6: And all you Non-Eunichs... you're welcome too
Verse7: I fact you're all welcome in my kingdom, we shall feast and it'll be a blast yo!
Verse8: In fact, we've still got room... Lets go find more people to enjoy this kingdom with us.

I'm not going to keep paraphrasing because the chunk we're interested in is not about Isreal's Rulers, and this discussion is not about Isreal's Rulers... Keeping us on topic here (looks like someone is going to have to).

Not "Affirming" and celebrating gay behavior is "equaled" to racism and hate.

I don't think that's what is equated to hate... I think it's more the "Get out, go over there and do your thing away from me... I don't care for you at all" (a stance you have taken more than once on this forum) that is equated to hate. Well, that and all the actual aggressive hate that I can't even begin to comprehend.

Jesus never said a word about watching porn with a bunch of Frat buddies while sitting in a pew attending a Church service either.

No, but the bible teaches many things about healthy and loving sexual unions, which can help inform us when we encounter something not directly tackled in the bible.

The whole idea of basing ones theology on things Jesus didn't say is more than just building a house on sand. It is building a house on no foundation at all. And think about this, Jesus mentions Eunuchs in quite some detail. But not "Lesbians" and "Gays and the Bi-Sexuals?"

Right, because they weren't a thing then. It'd be like me suddenly using the term 'ze' to refer to those with a non-traditional gender in the 1600's, or the terms 'hetero-normative' to refer to everyone else. It would have made no sense because the concept was not present yet. You can't talk about a concept that doesn't exist yet. If you try you'll be met by a bunch of head scratching and people saying 'This joker makes no sense, Let's go back to worshiping Caesar', or 'how is this relevant, I can't apply gibberish to my life, I'll go find someone who can tell me something meaningful'

And that whole basing ones theology on things Jesus didn't say goes both ways, whether it be me with assuming that since it's not there it wasn't something deemed important or you assuming that since it wasn't there that it somehow was.

Eunuchs are still eunuchs "as we know it today." Exactly the way Jesus describes "them" in so-called ancient times.

Right, and what we know as Transsexuals today will likely be known that way in another couple thousand years... I don't get where this is going.

But we have more than enough texts to show the exact opposite.

About as many as we do condemning heterosexual sex acts, and that's still an acceptable orientation... This is what I was trying to say earlier, yes there are acts that tend to separate people from God, and those acts are not healthy. But extrapolating that because those acts happen outside of your sexual identity that the entirety of ones sexual identity is evil is a rickety bridge to try and cross my friend (to say the least).

[/quote]

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 22 by 99percentatheism]

Now here’s the deal... since you make the same point over and over again, after I’ve addressed it once, I’m done. So if I don’t directly address one of your quotes, it’s because I feel as though I’ve already addressed it elsewhere (as you seem to have difficulties backtracking, accussing my of avoidance instead of reading what I was referencing you back to to see how it also answers the same question).

99percentatheism wrote:

Oh really? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where "do as thou wilt though and you will somehow figure out all on your own what sins and sinning is?

Again, not what I am saying at all. But since I think I can at least figure out where this came from (though not from the segment you quoted). And I've also kind of went into this when talking about Repentance in Romans earlier... So I guess just refer back to that.

Another avoidance.

What was that again?

R E P E N T A N C E

And yes repentance is important, but look at what leads to repentance... Not your condemnation, but God's love and compassion.
Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? Romans 2:4

To say that the all the Greeks and Israelites that Paul was addressing were ONLY into Temple Shrine gay behavior is a stretch that cannot make the distance through 2000-years of measure.

Shrine Prostitution

Alright, let’s get into this one a little deeper... I don’t like going into Hebrew because I admittedly have less experience there, but you’ve pushed me, so let’s do it.

First I’m going to start off with the Levitical denotations of ‘homosexuality’ (or Shrine Prostitution) because they are very important in understanding where Paul is coming from when he mentions said acts (and I’ll get into why shortly). Firstly one needs to understand that Leviticus 18 blasts off with God telling Moses not to do as the Egyptians where they are leaving or the Canaanites where he is taking them too. The Canaanites typically worshiped many deity’s like Baal or Meloch... Ancient diety’s that were all about fertility and as such many fertility rituals from sacrificing newly born’s to shrine prostitution and the works were all being practiced for the hopes of more fertile land and more progeny. So that starting off point needs to be kept in mind as we read the rest of the chapters from that point onwards.

The next key thing to keep in mind is that while he is going through all the sex acts that Moses wants his people taking no part of, he throws in sacrificing children in rituals to Meloch right before talking about males lying with other males. Why muddle a message about sexuality with a ritualized practice? It’s so out of place? The only way the placement makes sense is if he has moved onto ritualistic practices.

The last thing to note about this text is the word abomination because it is not used in the way we currently use it... in fact a couple of different Hebrew words that have very different connotations have all been translated into that same word. But the actual word here is Te’ovah. And virtually the only time it is every used in the plethora of examples throughout the Old Testament (Ezekiel 7:20, Deutoronomy 7:25-26, 1 Kings 14:24 to name a few) it is virtually always referring to idolatry. In fact earlier in this book it refers to worshiping God (like our God) as te’ovah... as an abomination... That is if it is happening within the Egyptians walls. Idolatry is Idolatry even if your intentions are pure.

Now why is this important to understanding Paul you may ask? Because Paul basically makes up a word here that is not used often throughout the Greek literature to describe the acts in Romans 1:27. That word is Arsenokoites and if you read the Greek translation of Leviticus from the Septuagint that Paul would likely have been familiar with it’s pretty clear where the inspiration for this word came.

Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

Paul is mashing together words that leaders of the time would have understood very clearly... That just like in the land of the Canaanites where shrine prostitution was quite the no-no, it’s still not a good idea to practice idolatry with your sexuality.

So really, not much of a stretch at all... in fact, I think that was a pretty well informed conclusion for me to come to... Care to tell me what’s informing yours? Is it merely the English translation we’ve got that can’t really capture the nuances of Hebrew and Greek? Cause I’m sorry, but that ain’t enough.

You seem confused about condemnation and judgement.

No that's not right. Judgment is a conclusion. Condemnation is a result of the thought process.

Lesson 1... Again
Here’s the thing though... I don’t think I am, specifically because every way in which you use the term judgment fits within my categorization of how it can be viewed (and I don’t feel like quoting every time this came up, so just know there’s more than the two above).

Judging right from wrong is something you are discerning, you’ve come to the conclusion that x is right while y is wrong... you’ve made that judgement call and discerned between the two.

As for Judgement as a conclusion... that’s what condemnation is, I can even quote Merriam Webster which has got to be about the most definitive definition of our language we’ve got.
2a : to pronounce guilty : convict
2b : sentence, doom <condemn a prisoner to die>
That’s not informing the Judgement, that is the Judgement.

So even the way you are using judgement, is still exactly as I mentioned earlier... So I’m just going to leave the Lesson 1 header about this because, let’s be honest... it’s the exact same lesson yet again.

There is no ambiguity to what is and what isn't "Christian truth."

Well, actually I think our current social context kinda proves that there definitely is, even though there really shouldn’t be.

And sins and sinning. You forgot that part

Didn’t forget it... I think I was pretty clear that I just wasn’t willing to start that debate with you at this moment. Our responses are already taking up the space of mini essays and soon neither of us are going to have the energy to put into a good response... So like before, I’m keeping us focused... If we get there, we’ll get there... But now is not the time for it.

Hopefully you can discern that I do not care what non and anti Christians do, say or believe.

Believe me I can, it’s one of the things I have the biggest problem with in your theology as I believe we are called to Love, and not caring is simply not loving.

For one thing the parables that Jesus used to sidestep the rabble and then defined what they were all about are solid judgments of actions, thoughts and behaviors. When "binding" things on earth and in heaven, the Apostles would have to enact a judgment. And we see Jude at the end of the NT doing the same thing.

Then why was it written? Paul is literally encouraging judging how and why not to BE a sinner. Then as it describes in Psalm 51, once you have judged your own sins, repented and have been foirgiven (by God) you can then effectively "judge" others.

Judgement in the New Testament.
Lesson 2 Addendum
How you are viewing these texts positively? I really can’t see it. Judgement is never spoken about positively... It’s always about “worry about yourself before you go judging others� Are you trying to tell me you’re perfect? That not a speck exists in those eye’s of yours? That’s quite the bold statement and one I don’t think you’ll ever convince me of. And it’s not just you, I don’t think anyone is perfect. Which is a big reason why I do not feel we are called to condemn.

When you start on that journey of self-reflection it just becomes clearer and clearer that condemnation isn’t how you exemplify God’s kingdom. Perhaps the reason the apostles always phrased it in such a way is because they knew you would a) never get to a point where you could judge and b) would have figured out it was a bad idea by the time you came anywhere close. I mean even the Pope has said “Who am I to Judge� on this matter... the freaking Pope! I’m sorry but if you somehow feel as though you’ve got more of a right to judge than the pope I think that Humble monicker you applied to yourself a few posts ago gets thrown out the window.

Which was a teaching lesson about judging sinners. You seem to be forgetting the "go, and sin no more"

Nope, not forgetting that at all... He’s saying you’ve all got sin, go work on that before you condemn others (again, perfectly in line with what I have been saying this entire time)

How can you "forgive" someone without judging in what way hey have sinned?

Judging in the discerning sence... not the condemning one... How can you forgive one whom you’ve condemned?

So, how about we try this... From now on, let’s not use the word judge in this discussion... We have such an expressive language it isn’t hard to find two words that mean the same thing, we’ve even got a term for it Synonyms, and Thesaurus’s full of suggestions. Because you don’t seem to care about the different ways in which the bible uses the terms Judgement, and maybe this will help clear up our conversation a bit (it’d certainly help give me clarity because you use the two main forms of judgement I have mentioned as if they mean both things at all times and that’s ludicrous).

You seem to be asserting that one can engage in anything they so desire and be encouraged to do so.

Never have I said that... Quote me and say ‘HERE’ so that I can say ‘Ah, at least I see where you’re coming from now... but still... no, that’s not what I’m saying at all’... Because it’s not.

Please show where being a Christian has no conditions.

I never said that. I said my ‘Love’ has no conditions. Two very different things.

Please how where the love of Jesus is unconditional?

If you’d have watched that video it’d be pretty clear where I’m coming from with quotes and all, as that was the subject matter of the video (not universalism, which I again have no idea where you came to that assumption from, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.)

You're the teacher here.

Never said that either... You don’t got to be a teacher to teach a lesson, I can’t count the number of solid lessons I’ve been taught by the kids at camp or day care in my time. But I suppose I can see how one could come to that conclusion given the setting up of lessons, so I’ll give that one a pass.

Paul is judging and teaching us that we are to judge who is the others by which we come from. That's what the word "contrasting" means: "differ strikingly"

But that’s not the reason for the contrast... Did you not read it, it’s saying if you do good, then good... whether you are or aren’t Jewish, the reverse goes for bad. God will happily take the Greek leading a Christ-like life over the Jew who isn’t. (or if we modernize it, The Atheist leading a Christ-like life versus the Christian who is not)

So far my offerings show otherwise.

K, you gotta stop this. You’re far to confident considering how no one is seeing what you are showing. And if we can’t see it you’ve done a pretty terrible job in showing otherwise.

That's as far off the mark as I have ever read. Pslam 51 is literally a man judging his own sins

Sorry, that’s my bad, I started typing a response to psalm 51, and then just wound up responding to the Jesus quote you followed it up with. Must have missed that in my edit. And just because it clearly hasn’t hit home yet Judgement is not a universal term. How is this man in Psalm 51 being condemned? How has the final judgement been cast upon him? He is going through the process of discernment. Pay attention to the textual context, it’ll really be quite helpful if you want to actually continue this discussion.

Please post a new thread and we'll judge each others theology there.

Sorry, I fortunately have a life and am already spending more of it than I expected to on this thread alone.

Clearly you concede the point once you rely on your personal feelings on this matter.

Why would I do that? I don’t really even know what you’re referring to? My unwillingness to go into the topic of sin? Sorry, but I’m already spending an hour or so on these responses... If the scope gets much bigger I’m not going to have time for it at all. If we get there, I’ll address it. But I haven’t even defined it so how can you even conclude that my personal feelings are coming into this matter?

Patience for what" Repentance. Choosing Christ is via judging ones sins and the sins of the world and its ways (sin) in which one is leaving.

This is pretty easy stuff. Conversion Process 101.

Read the things I write! I’m sorry, but from now on if it is clear to me you haven’t actually done what I asked to inform your next response, then your ‘counter-point’ doesn’t merit a response... Moving on.

When I have time I may watch it. But suffice it to say, if it is your teaching foundation that is represented here so far, I think I am in for a trip to Universalism Central via the Relativism Train.

Universalism? Relativism? I distinctly recall saying this video had to do with Evangelism... How do you take that and say 'oh it must be about universalism and relativism... pfft, not going to watch that." Seriously HOW? Are you placing those terms on me? What have I said to deserve them? Disagreeing with you? Is that all it takes? I'm pretty sure that is not the definition of either of those two stances. Don't throw categorizations at me just so you can feel better about not listening to the words I'm saying... And Watch the video... Seriously.

If you think Christian love is based on ignoring wrongdoing

Watch the video... seriously, It’ll clear up my stance a lot and hopefully put a stop to these silly uninformed assumptions.

Homosexuality was as common as prostitution

And do you know who were generally engaging in the non prostitution form of it? I’ll give you a hint... Jesus spoke quite fondly of them after that verse about marriage in Matthew.

So trying to exclusively connect the proscription of gay sex male and female to Temple Shrine worship is impossible

Not so, in fact I think I did a pretty decent job in showing how it is possible earlier in this post.

But here is Peter's judgmentalism on the subject:

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. 2 As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

- 1 peter 4

Yup... Detestable idolatry... You said it!

Your message seems rather standard gay theology

It’s not Gay Theology... It’s just theology. You know, the act of studying the bible (though I suppose my studies do make me pretty happy... perhaps I am having a bit of a gay ol’ time with my theology).

Do you, believe that gay sex should be celebrated in The Christian Church?

Depends on what you mean by celebrate and more importantly what you mean by gay sex. Like should the entirety of homosexuality be praised within the church... No, just as the entirety of heterosexuality should not be. There are bad things that separate one from Christ in both identities. Just as I would not celebrate Heterosexual promiscuity within the confines of the church, neither would I celebrate homosexual promiscuity.

What will you do with the hundreds of millions of us that will never do that?

Continue to extend my love your way and enjoy the conversations we can have when we have them.

How is that a bad thing?

It comes in your methodology (or I guess what appears to be your methodology... I don’t want to start falling into the realm of making assumptions myself) If you’d have watched the video it would have explained why ‘that’ is a bad thing.

The Gospel? Please show me anywhere in the Gospel that anything goes in the definition of the follower of Christ?

Where do I ever say ‘anything goes’. Where? Seriously, quote me! Like quote me and say ‘There, that’s where!’ Cause I have never said that.

The Gospel? Please show me anywhere in the Gospel that anything goes in the definition of the follower of Christ?

See lesson 2, and then my re-phrasing of lesson 1. then my addendum to lesson 2... This isn’t avoidance, I’m just not re-typing them yet again.

And please judge me the same way.

Ya, I’d rather not... I know I’ve sinned and don’t really want any more judgement coming my way than I’ve already got. I’d like to keep that bar of scrutiny nice and low, so I’m heading the apostles warnings.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 21 by KCKID]

Hey, thanks for the kind words... It's nice to know my degree hasn't been a complete waste time (as let's be honest, in this day and age... Theology is probably one of the most useless degree's out there. I've pretty much got one career path ahead of me and that's assuming my studies haven't made me too much of a 'heretic' by now).

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 23 by cool_name123]

Do false teachers base their deception on love?


OK Rob Bell of Mars Hill . . .

Let's cut to the chase here with this gay theology agenda.

Where do I go from here?
Discussing Homosexuality

That's the thread here. We can go one for days and days watching you trying to homosexualize the Bible as Bell does and watching me present reasons why it is impossible.

If love means there are no gender, moral or theological boundaries, which is definitely what it looks like is the goal on the road of homosexualizing the Christian Church (via planting the Gay Pride Flag on a Bible affirming Church grounds) and what it represents), then we need to see you justify the wholesale reinvention of the New Testament and of course an all new and entirely different (from the original) Christian faith.

I watched your Rob Bell video and as I thought, Bell was effortless in the technique of avoiding the whole picture. He built his strawman on Bullhorn Man and then went on to "prove" that this man represented Christianity as in the sate of it now.

Great use of propaganda. We see how the lessons of Goebbels and Alinsky are indeed speaking a universal success.

Be that as it may, and the whole "sinful homosexuality is ONLY Temple Shrine prostitution" behavior, Bell and his universalist club members seem to believe that the incredible missing gay marriages in the New Testament and the immutability of marriage as man and woman husband and wife testify through the ages against Bell, Matthew Vines and every other relativist that demands that Jesus fit a pop culture that demands to be licentious. And of course lasciviously licentious.

I found it strikingly powerful that Bell had to destroy Bull Horn Man while of course ignoring the preaching of Jesus on the dire warnings that never escape the words of Christ's "love" for sinners. In fact, Bell, his theology and that of his cohorts, look to preach the Hippy 60's and the turning of love into hedonism.

"What" is Bell unleashing on and into the Church with his "anger" about the proscription of homosexuality? How is Bell NOT licensing the LGBT Community to take possession of authority over Christians? Gay pride takes no prisoners. It is 100% the gay way or the dissenter is labeled as hateful, a psychological diseased (to oppose it) and, actually, by the power of secularism (legislation) must be affirmed and celebrated in public. And Jesus did teach on the separation of Church and State now didn't he? Forcing a Christian to engage in the celebration of gay behavior? Hmmm, sounds like forced idolatry to me. No different than the Roman persecutions demanding the Christians "sacrifice to the gods) in order to maintain citizenship and their lives. And many Christians renounced Christ by re-entering the world and its ways. Bell (et al) seem to be forgetting that gay pride with its towering clarion rainbow icon . . . is of a worldly construct.

Now you (Bell, Vines, Mel White or any other gay theologian) need to put aside the desire to fence with me and get on to proving FROM the Bible where there is any support, condoning, affirming, celebrating or even the defining of homosexuality and homosexual pairings as anything compatible with Christian life.

Start off with a clear description of marriage as a same gender matter in the New Testament. That seems an easy request for any of you that seem to hold to the view that to homosexualize the New Testament and the worldwide 21st century Church, through theology or emotional appeal, is doable.

So do it.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 25 by 99percentatheism]

First off, sorry for the formatting, I'm on my phone, {} refers to what 99percentatheism has just said...

{OK Rob Bell of Mars Hill . . .

Let's cut to the chase here with this gay theology agenda.}

Nowhere in this video does Bell so much as even mention homosexuality. Why do you feel the need to label people? If someone makes a good point then it's a good point no matter what other beliefs they may hold. There are theologians I love whom I think 'I agree with what you're saying here , but you went too far there' it's part of that discerning judgement I've been pretty ok with.

Yes he built this message around a certain kind of street preacher, but he never said 'you represent Christianity' he says this style of evangelism is not helpful in spreading the message of Christ.

And how did he not capture the full picture? I think he selected his passages very well and as someone whom has read them, did them justice.

{If love means there are no gender, moral or theological boundaries}

That's not what I am saying at all. Seriously how is 'I feel I am called to love no matter what' the same as 'sin does not exist' there is no overlap between those sentences AT ALL!

{In fact, Bell, his theology and that of his cohorts, look to preach the Hippy 60's and the turning of love into hedonism.}

How? How how how? Maybe the reason you get thrown in the other haters is because you don't understand love... Because I cannot even fathom how you have made that leap in logic. Or are you letting labels get in the way of seeing a legitimately good point again?

{And Jesus did teach on the separation of Church and State now didn't he?}

Kind of, Jesus taught us to live separate from the Roman Empire, not to be taken in by the luxuries that separate us from God. If you see the US as the same kind of empire then ya, live apart from it. Go find an intentional community off the grid somewhere.

{"What" is Bell unleashing on and into the Church with his "anger" about the proscription of homosexuality? How is Bell NOT licensing the LGBT Community...}

How are you getting there? Seriously? How is Bell not Liscensing LGBT? How about because he never mentioned them once. Loving your neighbor is not on par with Liscensing LGBT. If I extend my Love to you, am I Liscensing LGBT? If so, how?


{Forcing a Christian to engage in the celebration of gay behavior?}

No one is forcing you to do that.


{Hmmm, sounds like forced idolatry to me.}

Loving everyone in the same way that you love God, in the same way that you love yourself... Sounds like the love of Christ to me.

{Now you (Bell, Vines, Mel White or any other gay theologian) need to put aside the desire to fence with me and get on to proving FROM the Bible...}

First off... Who are Vines and Mel White? Secondly, every single on of my proofs came directly from the bible. I've done what you asked, if you want to fence with me it's your turn to show how I was incorrect in my exegesis. Don't just complain that I don't agree with you or slap a label on me so you can feel better about yourself for not listening to my words, actually show me where I was wrong.

{Start off with a clear description of marriage as a same gender matter in the New Testament.}

I've already told you how I see those texts... You brushed it off and said 'no, those aren't the ones I was talking about' which I assume meant that you were ok with my reading of the verse as a commentary on power dynamics.

[cool_name123]

[Replying to post 25 by 99percentatheism]

K, so I think I may have just figured out how you have made these crazy jumps in logic with the message Rob Bell delivers in that video I sent you... It looks as though you may be letting his other beliefs colour your opinion on what he is saying here. And I also get the feeling you'd like to be able to do that to me...

So here's my assessment of what is happening. Since you know you don't agree with me but you can't pinpoint exactly why, you are grasping at labels, complete theologies that you already know you disagree with to settle down that uncertainty and give you little bits or re-affirmation.

I however have been very intentional in not saying anything about how I might categorize myself or where my beliefs come from. All I have done is used the bible to show how I read the verses the way I do. I have not relied on science or cultural factors... Just the words in the bible.

And the reason for that is because I want you to listen to the points I'm making and make judgments on the points alone. Not on me but merely on the words I am saying (cause when we're separated by a series of tubes, that's really all you can go off of). It's the same reason I have not defined sin yet, because I think it would distract you from the points I'm actually trying to make.

And if you really think you need to define me to assess what I am saying think about this... If I'm right, it doesn't matter what else I believe, I'm simply right. To use an example if I made the statement '1+1=2' that statement would be no less right if I were an atheist, satanist, Buddhist, universalist or baptist. You may not agree with the rest of my theology and we can address that when we get there... But until then just focus on the points I'm trying to make now. Because even if you guess right I'm going to neither confirm or deny it... Just likely the same old mantra you keep dragging out of me of 'I never said that'.

[99percentatheism]

cool_name123
[Replying to post 25 by 99percentatheism]

First off, sorry for the formatting, I'm on my phone, {} refers to what 99percentatheism has just said...

{OK Rob Bell of Mars Hill . . .

Let's cut to the chase here with this gay theology agenda.}

Nowhere in this video does Bell so much as even mention homosexuality. Why do you feel the need to label people?

Excuse me? We Christians that affirm the reality of the Bible's proscription of same gender behavior and immutable definition of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife . . . we are called "anti-gay," homopobes, bigots, etc., etc., negative labels 1 through whatever inclusive.

If someone makes a good point then it's a good point no matter what other beliefs they may hold.

That temple shrine worship included homosexuality in Canaan, does not carry a blanket definition of same gender sex acts being inappropriate if ONLY in pagan religious worship. Your side keeps using the term Temple Shrine prostitution as if men and women out on the town are cruising a brothel on Molech Avenue. Also, where was "temple shrine prostitution" carried out in Egypt?

There are theologians I love whom I think 'I agree with what you're saying here , but you went too far there' it's part of that discerning judgement I've been pretty ok with.

If we are to fairly "discern appropriate sexual behavior for Christians, it is ONLY defined in terms of man and woman/husband and wife in the New Testament.

That the gay pride movement has finally found its way at trying to subvert the Christian Church and the immutability of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife is rather telling of the powers and principalities empowering the attack on Christian truth.

Yes he built this message around a certain kind of street preacher, but he never said 'you represent Christianity' he says this style of evangelism is not helpful in spreading the message of Christ.

In his opinion. And since Bell was referenced in a gay pride thread, obviously "judging" that usage this kind of man and of his liberalism is logical.

And how did he not capture the full picture? I think he selected his passages very well and as someone whom has read them, did them justice.

Well, John the Baptist is portrayed as a man that was very similar to the Bull Horn character used by Bell. If people like Bell think that it is loving to edit out the parts of the Gospel that most definitely are harsh and draw a line in people's lives, he would do well to leave the pulpit and pursue a job at MSNBC or Skeptic magazine.

{If love means there are no gender, moral or theological boundaries}

That's not what I am saying at all.

But that is exactly what the LGBT community" and its agenda is demanding. Do we not have examples of this from California and the very words of LGBT's here? If a woman can be another woman's wife and a man another man's husband, then that has to be seen as an attack on common decency and of course an affront to Jesus Christ and His Church.

Seriously how is 'I feel I am called to love no matter what' the same as 'sin does not exist' there is no overlap between those sentences AT ALL!

Because "no matter what" is not being honest. A Christian cannot encourage sin, sinning and the sinner to continue to sin. Per Jesus. That is not love, but complicity. How can anything be more hateful in Christian life, than to celebrate sins and encourage a person to continue to sin? That is why so many adversaries cast the stone of divorce and remarriage at us.

{In fact, Bell, his theology and that of his cohorts, look to preach the Hippy 60's and the turning of love into hedonism.}

How? How how how?

Marriage carries with it acceptable sexual behavior. That's how, how, how. Otherwise the whole "For this reason . . .(which if marriage)" makes no sense. Adultery is not when you by the wrong present for your spouse. Which/whom is immutably opposite gender in Christian truth.

Maybe the reason you get thrown in the other haters is because you don't understand love...

What hubris. What haughtiness. But typical of the debate adversaries I deal with here. Is it love to give heroin to a heroin addict? Is it love to give a subscription to porn to porn addict? It is the antithesis of love to encourage sin and sinning. It even carries with it a death threat from Jesus. Unless of course you think many people can swim with a Millstone around their neck as they are thrown into the sea?

Because I cannot even fathom how you have made that leap in logic. Or are you letting labels get in the way of seeing a legitimately good point again?

Labels? You mean like L G B T ? The whole gay pride movement is based on neologisms morphing into other ones. It is logical, when debating a pro homosexuality ideologue, to debate them where they are coming from.

{And Jesus did teach on the separation of Church and State now didn't he?}

Kind of, Jesus taught us to live separate from the Roman Empire, not to be taken in by the luxuries that separate us from God. If you see the US as the same kind of empire then ya, live apart from it. Go find an intentional community off the grid somewhere.

It is clear from history that the Christians lived differently than the Romans and their way of life appealed to many of them and they LEFT the behaviors they were engaging in and followed Christian truth. Of which, is no such thing as same gender marriage or celebration of homosexuality.

{"What" is Bell unleashing on and into the Church with his "anger" about the proscription of homosexuality? How is Bell NOT licensing the LGBT Community...}

How are you getting there? Seriously? How is Bell not Liscensing LGBT? How about because he never mentioned them once. Loving your neighbor is not on par with Liscensing LGBT. If I extend my Love to you, am I Liscensing LGBT? If so, how?

You posted in a decidedly gay pride and homosexuality section of this website. It is not a far stretch at all to see using a relativist like Bell as encourage homosexuality.

{Forcing a Christian to engage in the celebration of gay behavior?}

No one is forcing you to do that.

That is simply not right. Otherwise there would be no issue at all in the gay pride "culture wars."

{Hmmm, sounds like forced idolatry to me.}

Loving everyone in the same way that you love God, in the same way that you love yourself... Sounds like the love of Christ to me.

When I sin I repent of it. Log gone. Now onto others. Per Jesus. Per King David.

{Now you (Bell, Vines, Mel White or any other gay theologian) need to put aside the desire to fence with me and get on to proving FROM the Bible...}

First off... Who are Vines and Mel White?

C'mon now. That isn't going to work with me. You are leading your discussion in the same direction as White and Vines tread.

Secondly, every single on of my proofs came directly from the bible.

Well, your scripture references came from the Bible. Your opinion of them look to be gay Christianity 101 right down the line. Like White and Vines.

I've done what you asked, if you want to fence with me it's your turn to show how I was incorrect in my exegesis.

"And" is a pretty good example. There is no "always" in the proscription of homosexuality to temple shrine worship. That is an incredibly recent tactic of gay pride proponents. The very reality of the New Testament shows that marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. And the way Paul uses marriage can never be used to prop up a same sex union at anytime in history. And of course the complete lack of description of homosexual anything except for in the negative can ever be gleaned from the Bible. If truth must no be a neologism "hate" well then build lots of prisons for the Christians that will be convicted of "anti-gay" positions.

Don't just complain that I don't agree with you or slap a label on me so you can feel better about yourself for not listening to my words, actually show me where I was wrong.

I listed the Leviticus scriptures to KCKID, and there is no connection to ONLY pagan temple worship and gay sex. And of course in Romans, Paul's usage of women homosexuals places a wall of separation between the pagan temple worship being exclusively sexual practices tactic.

{Start off with a clear description of marriage as a same gender matter in the New Testament.}

I've already told you how I see those texts... You brushed it off and said 'no, those aren't the ones I was talking about' which I assume meant that you were ok with my reading of the verse as a commentary on power dynamics.

Your power dynamic energizes something not in the Bible at all. I'll agree with you and any pro homosexuality advocate if you produce clear and well-defined pro homosexuality texts from the Bible. The only ones I have ever seen trotted out are David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi and the Roman Commander and his servant. And then of course the theology based on things never said by Jesus. Not exactly a bedrock for a solid foundation. Actually, all I have yet to see is the labeling of Christians that hold to the truth of the Bible. Do we not have a new thread with the label "anti-gay" yada, yada, yada, in it? The propaganda of neologisms and fear tactics of calling Christians hateful for rejecting secular culture has been tried already over and over again and it isn't going to work any better in the "technological age" as it was in the splendors of Rome, where we were labeled: "Enemies of mankind." And fascinating enough, labeled that again by the United States Supreme court when the majority jurists issued their decree for a homosexual couple in New York. I went to a Chick-fil-A on both the support for Christians and day and the "gay kiss" day. There were ten times more people at the support the Christians day. At least.

So we are at the point in this thread where the "Where do I go from here," is that gay theology can be used to invent a new religion based on the "beliefs" of gay practitioners and and their supportive legion. No different than Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and many other "bible-based" religious religions that have popped up. Which of course I have never stood in the way of for even one moment here at this website or in real life.

[KCKID]

I listed the Leviticus scriptures to KCKID, and there is no connection to ONLY pagan temple worship and gay sex. And of course in Romans, Paul's usage of women homosexuals places a wall of separation between the pagan temple worship being exclusively sexual practices tactic.

Hmmm, I was just passing by and I 'heard' my name mentioned.

Yes, the Leviticus texts have been presented and discussed many times, 99percent. And, we can only do the best we can with what we have when it comes to deciphering them. Now, if the the infamous Leviticus texts are 'blanket condemnation' of homosexuality, then why is female same-sex missing from these texts? The texts only refer to male/male 'lying'. Why so? Are Lesbians ALSO excluded, scripturally speaking, from intimate relationships? I really would like an answer from you, 99percent, on this one.

Then again, as also referenced many times, the 'flow' of the other prohibitions in Leviticus are suddenly interrupted by the reference to "Molech" (18.21), the scripture just before the 'man lying' text. This then appears to take on an entirely new line of thought pertaining to idol worship and its associated practices. Moreover, we now see the term "abomination" used in reference to the 'man lying' text. The Hebrew definition of the term "abomination" appears to confirm the link between 'man lying' and idolatry. One's support or non-support of gay and lesbian people has no bearing as to the actual definition of the Leviticus texts.

As much evidence as can be given has been supplied to link the 'man lying' texts of Leviticus with idolatry and/or shrine temple prostitution. Can you provide evidence that suggests the 'man lying' texts of Leviticus mean any thing other than the explanations already given?