If you don't trust the Bible, Where do you look for truth?

[2timothy316]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

For some reason, you have falsely concluded that programs/policy/behavior that “promote gender equality� and “support the LGBTQ community� will objectively maximize well being and minimize harm. But I would not consider that an objective reality. I would suggest there is research/science/facts showing promoting these supposed gender equality programs/behavior and encouraging and supporting the LGBTQ do not result in good, rather harm. It depends what you mean by supporting these things/groups. It depends how you define “support for the LBGTQ community�. If by support people get the idea that same sex unions are A-ok and in man’s best interest, then that would be a harmful outcome. It also might prevent those in the LBGTQ community from getting important information they should get. Things like how anal sex is considered risky sexual behavior by the CDC (research shows that among men who have sex with men over 90% engage in anal intercourse – in other words the overwhelming majority). Nature shows us the anus was not intended to receive foreign objects inside of it. The anus does not share the natural elasticity of the vagina. The membranes of the anus are thin, can easily tear and rupture, and harbor and spread disease. Those living lifestyles that include this activity are doing so despite the science/research and in fact are putting themselves at risk. The research, perhaps not surprisingly, also shows those in the LBGTQ community have increased substance abuse issues, domestic violence, depression and mental health issues, as well as suicide rates.

Now these are all facts/truths that can be known regardless of whether one believes in God or not, but clearly the message is not getting out, so perhaps it takes the Church to help be honest and realistic about some of these things. If people are falsely repeatedly told there are no differences in gender (even though this is biologically false), he/she might make decisions in life that end up being harmful choices. The Church, in her wisdom, is not driven by fads, fashions, and popular culture and has no choice but to teach truth about these things. Therefore, people could know they are being told the truth and then this would be an example of when metaphysical truths (belief in God and the Bible) might be helpful for some in making informed decisions. At least, from observation, that often seems to be the case.

You have either mistakenly or deliberately misrepresented the research on substance abuse, domestic violence, depression and mental health, and suicide rates in the LGBTQ community as demonstrated in the following peer reviewed journal article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/

You have also mistakenly or deliberately misrepresented the CDC's perspective on anal sex. According to the CDC, the risks associated with anal sex have everything to do with the spread of disease which also applies to oral sex and heterosexual intercourse. In fact, there are a variety of potential health concerns associated with every form of sexual activity regardless of whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. So, unless you are suggesting that all sexual activity must be prohibited because of the associated health risks, I suggest you find a more reliable argument.

Finally, the disreputable claim that asserts anal sex is unnatural has been disproven by a consensus of experts who have directly observed this form of intimacy in a variety of other species in nature including other primates. However, just because anal sex is observed natural behavior among a variety of species, it doesn't suggest that it is natural for every member of those species to engage in the practice. As an individual, if you are repulsed by the idea, then anal sex is probably not natural for you even though it might be natural for someone else.

In anticipation of a potential apologetic argument referring to Romans 1:26-27 you may be considering in response to my perspective, I offer the following analysis:

ROMANS 1:26-27

Original Greek:
“διὰ τοῦτο πα�έδωκεν α�τοὺς � θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας αἵ τε γὰ� θήλειαι α�τῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χ�ῆσιν εἰς τὴν πα�ὰ φ�σιν� “�μοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄ��ενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χ�ῆσιν τῆς θηλείας �ξεκα�θησαν �ν τῇ ὀ�έξει α�τῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄ�σενες �ν ἄ�σεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσ�νην κατε�γαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης α�τῶν �ν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες�

The Greek phrase “πα�ὰ φ�σιν� from the earliest and best manuscripts of Paul's letter is translated as “against nature� and is used seven other times by Paul in his communications to the early Christian church. Every other time Paul used the term, it had always been in in the context of cultural and religious heritage. For example, Paul used the same term to discourage men from growing their hair long. Since it is obviously not against human nature for men to have long hair, it is a false assumption to assume the Greek word translated as “natural� is referring to what occurs in nature. In the case of these two verses, the translation alone is insufficient for anyone to assume Paul was condemning all forms of same-sex behavior as being contrary to our biological nature. However, for the first time in the Bible, both men and women are identified as participants in the illicit activity. Nevertheless, additional information is required before a reasonable interpretation of the illicit activity being described in these two scriptures can be formulated.

When we consider Paul’s use of the Greek word “μετήλλαξαν� which is translated as “change�, his intended meaning for the text becomes a little more understood. Whether Paul believes the same-sex behavior in question is unnatural or just outside the cultural norm, either way, he seems to imply the illicit activity only manifested in the population after God gave them up to it. In other words, the people which Paul was describing had not always been inclined to engage in homosexual behavior but, for reasons which are described elsewhere in Romans, only subsequently developed such practices. As such, people who have always been sexually attracted to their same gender type would not appear to qualify for condemnation under Paul’s description because it was specific to only those people who were acting contrary to either their biological or cultural nature (depending on how “πα�ὰ φ�σιν� is interpreted). In any case, the translations by themselves are clearly not enough support for anyone to reach a definitive conclusion just yet. The historical and cultural contexts must also be considered.

We learn from Paul earlier in his letter to the Romans that he believed there were people in the area who knew the Christian God existed but refused to acknowledge and worship him. If those people chose not to worship the Christian God, then they most likely adopted the religious belief of the surrounding culture. The consensus of modern day historians agree that idolatry remained a common pagan religious practice during the time Paul was writing his letter to the Romans. As a consequence of their rejection of Jesus in favor of idolatry, Paul asserted that God allowed those men and women to submit themselves towards “dishonorable affections� which constituted an exchange of their “natural use� of the opposite gender for what appears to be described as a type of self-destructive same-sex behavior. If the people whom Paul was referring rejected Christianity and subsequently conformed to the existing customs prescribed for idol worship instead, then it seems reasonable to assume a form of shrine prostitution may have been part of their worship routine. Heterosexual men and women would have engaged in this form of religious idol worship which was in no way indicative of a participant’s natural sexual preference.

Given the previously identified considerations, confidence in the traditional Christian interpretation of these passages is unwarranted. It seems more reasonable to understand the same-sex behavior Paul was condemning as being the ritualistic form of homosexual intercourse commonly practiced in association with shrine prostitution. It would be presumptuous to assume Paul’s condemnation of same-sex activity extended beyond that which was linked to pagan idol worship. Such idolatrous activity does not equate to the modern concept of homosexual relationships currently rejected by the church. Here again, citing these Biblical passages to support prejudice against the LGBTQ community seems to be an abusive departure from the intended purpose of the scriptures.

However, there is also no reason to assume these passages indicate Biblical support for homosexual relationships either. Paul may still have personally disapproved of all types of homosexual behavior even if his word choices in these passages might be pointing to specific occurrences of same-sex activity. On the other hand, Christians acknowledge the authority of God’s inspired word; not speculations regarding Paul’s undocumented personal opinions. If Paul’s understanding of homosexuality was incomplete or incorrect, then God could have limited his writing on the subject to include only certain specified types of same-sex activity. The possibility remains that God never intended for Paul to condemn all occurrences of homosexual behavior.

Even if you disagree with my perspective or have a personal preference for the traditional interpretation of the scriptures, you cannot rule-out this assessment as a plausible interpretation unless it can be objectively disproven. Of course, I would not only be open to having my view disproved but welcome that possibility. After all, how am I to discover what is most likely true if I'm not doxastically open to the possibility that I could be mistaken in my beliefs? Adopting a dogmatic attitude will only limit my perspective and prevent me from ever learning if I am wrong about something.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

Why are you not hearing and looking around to see there are no men with healing powers that have not been proven to be frauds. The evidence is there for all to see

That could be the exact same line that skeptics and non believers use regarding the existence of God.

“Look! I am sending you forth as sheep amidst wolves; therefore prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves. Be on your guard against men.�—Matt. 10:16, 17

I'm following Jesus' words to be on guard against lies, as I still have not seen anything like what the Bible describes Jesus or his apostles doing.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 87 by onewithhim]

Yes, 2timothy.....everyone in the world would know these healers, and there would be no more sick people!

Because there were no sick people when Jesus walked the earth? He healed them all?

Do you know of a Bible verse where Jesus denied a person healing?

"But when the sun was setting, all those who had people sick with various diseases brought them to him. By laying his hands on each one of them, he cured them." - Luke 4:40

"And all the crowd were seeking to touch him, because power was going out of him and healing them all." - Luke 6:19

Show me a person doing this today. I need you to show me just one person that heals entire crowds and everyone they meet. Show me where crowds are flocking to a man to be healed by just a touch. I will not be holding my breath for an example.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 70 by 2timothy316]

Tongues is languages, not gibberish and if no one can interpret , its false.

If RR or anyone wants to prove that the gifts of the first century CE have not ended then they will have to produce one person that with zero training in other languages to start speaking in real languages. This would be a person that can speak English and then could suddenly speak Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Greek, Hebrew, etc with never having spoken them before. That's what happened in the 1st century yet I have never seen such a thing today.

There is a disorder called, Foreign Accent Syndrome. This is not the same as speaking in tongues though. FAS is most often caused by damage to the brain caused by a stroke or traumatic brain injury. And yes, sometimes the person will start speaking in completely different language, but the person was already taught the other language. Their brain is just so damaged the language center of their brain is servery handicapped. This is not a miracle, in most cases its a sign that a person is critically ill and close to death.

What about the casting out of demons? That still does happen. Christ alludes to it in his "Iknow you not you workers of lawlessness)

“Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not . . . expel demons in your name . . . ?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you!� (Mt 7:22, 23)

I'd beware of those that say they can expel demons. According to the Bible, God gives us what we need to keep demons away.

Eph 6:11 says, "Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil.� We do not need another person to cast out Satan or his demons from our own midst. According to the Bible we simply need to call out to Jehovah. (Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13)

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 121 by bluegreenearth]

You have either mistakenly or deliberately misrepresented the research on substance abuse, domestic violence, depression and mental health, and suicide rates in the LGBTQ community

I disagree and would actually suggest perhaps it is you who is doing this.

You have also mistakenly or deliberately misrepresented the CDC's perspective on anal sex. According to the CDC, the risks associated with anal sex have everything to do with the spread of disease which also applies to oral sex and heterosexual intercourse. In fact, there are a variety of potential health concerns associated with every form of sexual activity

Yes, but anal sex is according to the CDC high risk sexual behavior and the CDC also reports who are more at risk – see their website. I have made no mistake. It doesn’t help to ignore or downplay the facts/science – that only hurts the gay community. There could be a huge price to pay in order to maintain political correctness. We should rather prefer people have the facts to make informed decisions.

Finally, the disreputable claim that asserts anal sex is unnatural has been disproven by a consensus of experts who have directly observed this form of intimacy in a variety of other species in nature including other primates.

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by unnatural as that isn’t my argument. Violation of the natural law does not necessarily mean that which is unnatural . I’ve literally had people argue wearing contacts lenses would be immoral since they are unnatural, but again same sex relations are not immoral because they are unnatural. Heck, it is natural for human beings to have sexual desires. Does that mean adultery is moral? Or even promiscuity? Marijuana is natural. Does that mean man should get stoned every day? It isn’t about natural/unnatural in the way you describe it.

Also, it is important to state human beings are not subject to the same natural laws that animals are. Some animals eat their young and there is nothing wrong/bad in their behavior in doing so. Man is subject to the moral law – not other species in the animal kingdom. So, the fact that some examples of homosexual acts can be found in the animal kingdom means nothing. Also, the amount is also much smaller than those pushing the homosexual agenda would like you to think. Some studies actually consider birds that rub their feathers against each other to be engaging in homosexual behavior. It is this kind of pseudo science that is used for political not scientific purposes. What we mean by natural law is that which is right/good/in man’s best interest based on what we know from the world we live in and man’s relationship with this world. To not acknowledge the health consequences of engaging in anal sex whether for homosexuals or heterosexuals would be ignorant. We can tell via science/biology what is right/good/makes sense. We can know via observation of something’s form/shape what its function/purpose/role is. It isn’t rocket science to know sticking foreign objects in the anus might not be wise. And juxtapose that with the vagina that produces natural lubrication, is elastic and stretches, oh and guess what else? Provides access for what the penis produces (sperm) to the egg. That’s kind of a big clue we might know what the function of the penis and vagina are.

However, just because anal sex is observed natural behavior among a variety of species, it doesn't suggest that it is natural for every member of those species to engage in the practice. As an individual, if you are repulsed by the idea, then anal sex is probably not natural for you even though it might be natural for someone else.

People can do whatever he/she likes, but it doesn’t negate the intelligence of doing so. Humans are free to smoke, but the science is very clear that smoking will increase your chances of lung cancer. The lungs, quite literally, were not meant to receive toxins/tobacco. Or if you don’t believe in intended, then you at least have to admit if one does smoke, he is taking the consequences. It isn’t a judgment. The universe isn’t punishing the person. There are simply consequences to our actions/behavior and man in his reason can know what is right/good/in his best interest based on consequences of behavior. We can also know based on form/shape what the purpose/function/use of something is. This would be considered being a good scientific observer and we would be silly not to take note of these things.

Given the previously identified considerations, confidence in the traditional Christian interpretation of these passages is unwarranted. It seems more reasonable to understand the same-sex behavior Paul was condemning as being the ritualistic form of homosexual intercourse commonly practiced in association with shrine prostitution.

Yes, this is the rewritten interpretation of Sacred Scripture that has become very popular in the last 20 years to justify same sex relations. It was not the interpretation of the first Church, the early Christians, or even the secular culture until very recently. Again, a person can pretty much justify any part of Scripture he wants to with just enough twisting, adding, deleting, rewording, etc. It is precisely why there are over 1000 Christian denominations all teaching different things. Congratulations you’ve come up with something new – not.

It would be presumptuous to assume Paul’s condemnation of same-sex activity extended beyond that which was linked to pagan idol worship.

Perhaps, if one were to accept your interpretation of Paul also if one were to try to hinge the entire immorality of same sex relations on that particular passage of Paul. We are expected to read Scripture as a whole. When we do that and even go back as far as the beginning to Geneses, your theory falls apart. God created them male and female, for this reason you shall leave your mother and cling to your wife, be fruitful and multiply, etc. One has a very difficult time justifying homosexual acts when we look at all of Scripture. AND when we look at Sacred Tradition (the Church) which is what we are suppose to do. No where does Scripture say it is our only authority. Nowhere! We are expected to listen to Christ’s Church and when we do, we hear the very beautiful and wise teachings regarding marriage, sex, children, and family.

Paul may still have personally disapproved of all types of homosexual behavior

Gee, ya think?

Even if you disagree with my perspective or have a personal preference for the traditional interpretation of the scriptures, you cannot rule-out this assessment as a plausible interpretation unless it can be objectively disproven.

Oh, but I can and I do for the simple reason we are not supposed to just pick up the Bible and read it how it pleases us to read it. That would be a sure fire way to justify pretty much anything. Jesus gave us One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, and Authoritative Church (who by the way also gave us the Bible in the first place) and told us to listen to her. She has the authority to safeguard and interpret Sacred Scripture. Not you or some revisionist theorist who 2000 years later wants to suggest the Bible means something different. That makes no sense.

Of course, I would not only be open to having my view disproved but welcome that possibility.

As would I.

Personally, I think your interpretation that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts is a weak one and actually could be debunked with proper analysis and knowledge of the language, the grammar, the culture, etc. But I also think to spend time debunking your interpretation (even though a quick Google search can show everything you got wrong) is a silly one. Because a person could take any passage in the Bible and say it could mean something else. Why? Because the Bible can’t interpret itself. The Bible is words on a page, referring to a way and culture unfamiliar to us, written in a language we do not speak, leaving an open door for some to suggest it might mean this or it might mean that – always with the “we can never really know for sure� in the background, allowing for endless possibility. Of course, this is something an all knowing, all wise God would have predicted. This is why Jesus established One Church and desired we be united. So, if you want to persuade me that perhaps your interpretation has merit, you would first have to disprove that Jesus did not establish One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, and Authoritative earthly Church and told us to listen to her.

Because if you can do that, then yes, I would need to consider your interpretation. Or would I? Because at that point. If He didn’t establish One Authoritative Church then I am afraid none of us could ever know if we are getting it exactly right. We would be left always wondering/doubting/arguing. So, I’m not sure being open-minded would be as virtuous or intelligent as you make it sound.

[2timothy316]

If there is one thing I have learned in my years of discussing TD&D with people is one alarming problem. All those different that say the speak to 'the spirit' that only speaks to them and reject everything else, are not speaking to the same spirit. Why doesn't that alarm those that say they are taught by spirit? Shouldn't this spirit be telling everyone the same thing? Isn't it more likely that the person just telling themselves what they want to hear and there is no spirit at all?

[jimtatertayte]

If there is one thing I have learned in my years of discussing TD&D with people is one alarming problem. All those different that say the speak to 'the spirit' that only speaks to them and reject everything else, are not speaking to the same spirit. Why doesn't that alarm those that say they are taught by spirit? Shouldn't this spirit be telling everyone the same thing? Isn't it more likely that the person just telling themselves what they want to hear and there is no spirit at all?

You have never ever talked to anyone who was born of God.
That is why you get all them different answers, that is why even you
can see the errors and flaws in what they say the Spirit spoke to them.
A spirit did speak to them, but it was not the Spirit of truth.

[jimtatertayte]

Evil spirits speak to me all the time.
They are everywhere in your world.
They try to fool me all the time.
The try to tempt me all the time.
They are never ending and and they are relentless.
But unlike you...they cannot hide from me.
I see them plain as day.

[2timothy316]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

Where do I look for truth? From God. If you consider the Bible your sole source of truth, isn't that making a god out of the Bible?

So EJ are you and this poster talking to the same God or spirits? Is he explaining the same things that you are hearing?

viewtopic.php?p=1022007#p1022007
viewtopic.php?p=1022008#p1022008

[jimtatertayte]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

Where do I look for truth? From God. If you consider the Bible your sole source of truth, isn't that making a god out of the Bible?

So EJ are you and this poster talking to the same God or spirits? Is he explaining the same things that you are hearing?

viewtopic.php?p=1022007#p1022007
viewtopic.php?p=1022008#p1022008

He read one of my threads on another forum
he got this from me.