To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

a reply to: DISRAELI

In fact I got the impression, from your earlier post, than you were claiming "He must go to a judge" as the meaning of the phrase "He will be a judge". Obviously "being" a judge and "going to" a judge are two entirely different things, and that's why I thought a misunderstanding was taking place.

No! Because they were refusing to submit to the law, and submit themselves to a judge, they were acting their own judge. It's really not that hard to see.

What you were quoting was the account in Genesis ch19 (not ch16), and my comment was purely about the reading of the Genesis text.

This myopic stance that you continually take, your awareness is akin to Shakespeare's Macbeth, in which 3 witches are trying to get a perspective by taking turns looking through one eye. Context is everything.

originally posted by: windword
No! Because they were refusing to submit to the law, and submit themselves to a judge, they were acting their own judge. It's really not that hard to see.

In that case, the layout of your post was a little confusing.
You told us that they wanted to take the man before a judge, and immediately afterwards you quoted and highlighted the phrase "He will needs be a judge".
I think most casual readers would have come to the same conclusion as me, that you were highlighting the second statement as your evidence for the first statement.
Or perhaps a little myopia was misreading "be" as "see".

your awareness is akin to Shakespeare's Macbeth, in which 3 witches are trying to get a perspective by taking turns looking through one eye.

You've got that story wrong as well. That doesn't happen in Macbeth, but it does happen in the Greek myth of the Graeae. Perseus meets them when he's on his mission to collect the head of Medusa.
Is this symptomatic? Is guesswork on the basis of half-remembered knowledge one of the things you do?

a reply to: DISRAELI

You've got that story wrong as well. That doesn't happen in Macbeth, but it does happen in the Greek myth of the Graeae. Perseus meets them when he's on his mission to collect the head of Medusa.

My mistake. But the comparison still stands.

Nevertheless, homosexuality had absolutely nothing to do with the punishment God supposedly wrought on Sodom and Gomorrah.

a reply to: WarminIndy

What did you write as sacrilegious?

I was asking if it was the sunglasses that you took to be offensive.

As for the wording, I further observed, the Messiah character, if that is who is being depicted, could be said to have 3 fathers: Joseph, David, and the god.

a reply to: WarminIndy

That's why Paul said "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".

Pseudo Paul was writing about Timothy's personal library. There was no canonical library at the time. Timothy's library may well have included Plato, Philo, Psalms of Solomon, & etc.

What do you mean by "which prophets must be killed"? You mean Jeremiah and Isaiah? Or do you mean the prophets of Ba'al?

Deut18:20'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'

See also Deut. 13 & 17.
Speak in the god's name something that doesn't come true . . . death
Speak in the name of another god . . . death
Speak an oracle that does come true, then encourage seeking gods other than the national god . . . death

Have you been led by another Christ?

As long as it is understood as past tense, yes.

It was fairly traumatic when the big one Christ showed up and mercilessly beat down my little Christ, then kicked him into a coma. I was only 17 for crying out loud!

That personal Jesus should express the nature and character of the Christ we know from the Bible. Otherwise, it could simply be any spiritual entity that one doesn't know if it is good or evil. There has to be a standard

And that's what I was teaching too, while the little guy was comatose.

I no longer pretend to know Jesus.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy

That's why Paul said "All scripture is given by inspiration of God".

Pseudo Paul was writing about Timothy's personal library. There was no canonical library at the time. Timothy's library may well have included Plato, Philo, Psalms of Solomon, & etc.

What do you mean by "which prophets must be killed"? You mean Jeremiah and Isaiah? Or do you mean the prophets of Ba'al?

Deut18:20'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'

See also Deut. 13 & 17.
Speak in the god's name something that doesn't come true . . . death
Speak in the name of another god . . . death
Speak an oracle that does come true, then encourage seeking gods other than the national god . . . death

Have you been led by another Christ?

As long as it is understood as past tense, yes.

It was fairly traumatic when the big one Christ showed up and mercilessly beat down my little Christ, then kicked him into a coma. I was only 17 for crying out loud!

That personal Jesus should express the nature and character of the Christ we know from the Bible. Otherwise, it could simply be any spiritual entity that one doesn't know if it is good or evil. There has to be a standard

And that's what I was teaching too, while the little guy was comatose.

I no longer pretend to know Jesus.

Paul obviously had access to his own library, considering he was well-adept to having debates with both the Epicurians, Stoics and Jewish Pharisees. He WAS taught at the school of Gamaliel.

And of course, the only "canon" at the time was Jewish canon. That's why every synangogue had then and now the Torah that they sat and read from at minyans. Do you think Paul never went to a minyan? Timothy did, he was Jewish because his mother and grandmother were both Jewish.

Did you grow up in a church that taught you it was Greek and not Jewish? I have heard that there were churches that denied the Jewish founding of Christianity.

I, by the way, am very Messianic when it comes to Christianity and very Jewish oriented. Maybe that is why we disagree?

There was a time when some churches did think there was no Jewish influence at all in Christianity, which has caused a lot of problems.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy

What did you write as sacrilegious?

I was asking if it was the sunglasses that you took to be offensive.

As for the wording, I further observed, the Messiah character, if that is who is being depicted, could be said to have 3 fathers: Joseph, David, and the god.

You know that in the light of fairness, it is probably better not to present such things. After all, us Christians haven't photoshopped Mohammed for the purpose of making fun of Islam.

Don't you think it is only fair to us that if you are going to pick on us, then do it to them as well? If you can't, then probably examine your own fears and double standards?

Now, if you were really an elder, then please explain to us how you taught the idea of David as His father. What does the Bible really say and what did you say?

a reply to: WarminIndy

I, by the way, am very Messianic when it comes to Christianity and very Jewish oriented. Maybe that is why we disagree?

I'm not sure what you mean by disagree. You are Christian. I am not. I think we may agree perfectly on that.

I listed my pedigree on Buzzywig's thread about training of preachers. But to emphasis my particular crisis:

Born and raised Seventh-day Adventist. Very Old Testament oriented, including keeping of seventh day Sabbath and keeping to Old Testament dietary rules. Note this carefully: Replacement Theology. The Deuteronomy 18 passage that I quoted above concerns the Prophet like Moses who was to come. If the Jews rejected the words of that prophet then the Jews were rejected and status as the god's people was passed on to others.

Accepted Christ as a Jesus person. All my associates in that were Pentecostal Dispensationalists. Note this: Dispensationalism teaches that the Old Testament system is the Real Deal and Christianity is merely a temporary measure patched in until the Real Deal including stone temple and animal sacrifice is re-instituted.

From that, you should be able to conclude that there was no lack of Old Testament appreciation in my young exposure.

And then I got a girl friend. She was Liberal Protestant and her best friend was a Roman Catholic. So what is that? 4 different Christs?

The crisis came to a head when my girl friend asked me out to watch Brother Sun, Sister Moon with her and her liberal friends. If a medical professional had observed my reaction to that movie I'm quite certain that it would easily be labeled a psychotic break. And I lost my girl friend.

a reply to: pthena

Oh, I see.

I have never been to a Seventh Day Adventist church but have occasionally seen Doug Batchelor on tv.
No, the Replacement Theology is absolutely wrong and absurd. I'm sorry that is what you might have been taught.
Dispensationalism is found only within one branch of Pentecostalism, that is not my experience.

Those are not different Jesus', just misunderstood and misconstrued versions of interpreting the Bible. I clearly am not the Messianic type of Seventh Day Adventism.

Unfortunately a lot of Christians do think Replacement Theology is correct and that we are in the Dispensation of Grace (or gifts).

Some Baptists are also into Replacement Theology, as well as some Mennonites. In fact, several years ago a group of Amish actually went to Israel and apologized to rabbis for their previously held belief in Replacement Theology.

Israel Today, Amish and apologies

I am a Christian who does not accept Replacement Theology nor Dispensationalism. I am sorry that was what you had learned.

(NOW cue those Christians who will now tell us all about it...).

a reply to: WarminIndy

Don't you think it is only fair to us that if you are going to pick on us, then do it to them as well? If you can't, then probably examine your own fears and double standards?

You may have me confused with some one else. If I have picked on Christians then I must be so callused of heart that I don't even realize it. I am sorry.

As for Islam, after corresponding with Muslims on this ATS, I have come to realize that I really don't have the proper cultural understanding to have an opinion that would even be worth anything to anyone. Therefore I refrain.

please explain to us how you taught the idea of David as His father. What does the Bible really say and what did you say?

Do a word search for David in the New Testament either electronic Bible or concordance. Then try to tell anyone that the Messiah was anything other than the son of David. You may say descendent of David but the title still is son of David. If it is not so then once again I am sorry for any misinformation I have spread.

a reply to: WarminIndy

(NOW cue those Christians who will now tell us all about it...).

Now you are inviting the thread to get more derailed.

Here's my plug for the fiction writing contest.
Never Make Promises Like -

I really must take a break. This remembering is very emotion intense. I tire easily. But I enjoyed it nonetheless.

a reply to: pthena

You are OK, don't worry about it with me.

Son of David, means a descendent, because Jesus clearly says that David and the fathers are in the grave, their bones are white.

And then He says "behold, a greater than Solomon is here". Meaning that those who were prior to Him were great in their day, but a greater is now here.

He never said Solomon was His brother. He merely indicated that David was an ancestor, the same as when He said "Father Abraham". It is the same idea even now. You may say grandparent or ancestor, but you descend from some father or mother back then. And in the line of succession to thrones, within the Jewish context, fathers meant ancestors.

He is still of the Tribe of Judah, meaning that Judah was His ancestral line, from His father (ancestor) Judah.

Look at the Scottish clans, they descend from surnames, I just happen to be affiliated with several, because of surnames. And you have to remember, the usage of surnames didn't really come about until several hundred years ago.

Yeshuah ben David, Yeshua ben Judah, both appropriate. My best friend, her son has a family surname, but his birth certificate from Israel says ____ ben Levi, because they can prove their line of descent from Levi.

Because he is Jewish and therefore has dual citizenship with Canada and Israel (all observant Jews actually do have birth certificates from Israel because of right of return). His name, while he has a recognized Canadian surname, he is recognized in Israel as ___ ben Levi (son of Levi). That is the Jewish context of Son of.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't recall Jesus ever calling Abraham "Father"...

Kinda goes against him saying "call no man Father"

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't recall Jesus ever calling Abraham "Father"...

Kinda goes against him saying "call no man Father"

Father Abraham was a colloquial term in those days.

"Is she not a daughter of Abraham?"

Apparently He was indicating that Abraham was a father, because that woman was Jewish.

Luke 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

And this is the basis for my belief that Jews are entitled to the same healing and blessings today, because they are the sons and daughters of Abraham, meaning Father Abraham.

To me, this completely disqualifies Replacement Theology and Dispensationalism, because Jesus said she was to have the same healing and blessing.

I cannot take that away from them and any Christian who does is not in understanding.

a reply to: windword



OK dude,

Then why the hell did Lot offer up his Daughters to the mob?

Stop lying to everyone and yourself.



4 But before they could go to bed, the men of the city surrounded the house — young and old, everyone from every neighborhood of S’dom.

5 They called Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us! We want to have sex with them!”

6 Lot went out to them and stood in the doorway, closing the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brothers, don’t do such a wicked thing.

8 Look here, I have two daughters who are virgins. Please, let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them what seems good to you; but don’t do anything to these men, since they are guests in my house.”

9 “Stand back!” they replied. “This guy came to live here, and now he’s decided to play judge. For that we’ll deal worse with you than with them!”

a reply to: infolurker

5 They called Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us! We want to have sex with them!”

All this is interpolation.

The editors of the popular “Living Bible” paraphrase do interpolate wording which unambiguously refers to homosexuality and identifies it as the sin of Sodom. These words have no basis in the Greek, as we shall see. They were inserted in the spirit of a true paraphrase which combines the Bible text with the paraphrasers’ interpretation to give the reader a pleasant reading experience free of intellectual puzzles. Source

Scholars seems to have narrowed down when they believe story of Sodom and Gomorrah evolved from a lesson in hospitality, commerce and trust into an anti-homosexual polemic.

The belief that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality is a late interpretation. It came into being 1700 years after the destruction of Sodom. No human author of the Old Testament linked Sodom with being gay. In fact, until the inter-testamental period, around 150 BC to AD 100, it is difficult to find any Jewish literature which links Sodom with homosexuality. Since the biblical text makes no mention of homosexuality, anti-gay commentators must read into the text, something the text does not say, in an attempt to make scripture say what they wish it said.
Moses, writing in Genesis 10:19, 13:10, 12, 13, 14:2, 8, 10-11, 12, 17, 21-22, 18:16, 20, 22, 26, 19:1, 4, 24, 28; Deuteronomy 23:17, 29:23, 32:32, and Ezekiel, writing in Ezekiel 16:46, 48-49, 53, 55-56, emphasize Sodom’s lack of hospitality, greed, idolatry, gluttony but neither author mentions gays or lesbians or gay sex or homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. The world must wait until the 163 BC-AD 93 time frame for extra-biblical Jewish writers to begin linking Sodom to particular kinds of same sex activity like pederasty and prostitution.
Source

Why is it, then, that the "sins of Sodom" have become the prototype for "sodomy"? Basically it is the result of the same kind of nationalistic fervour that we have seen much earlier. The Palestinian Jews and Jews of the Dispersion during the period from about 100 BC to AD 100, confronted by pagan Hellenistic "immorality" alien to them, deliberately foisted a homosexual misinterpretation upon the story. They began reacting against "the ways of the Gentiles" just as they had earlier reacted against "the ways of Canaan" and "the ways of Egypt."
Source

Another Source

Sorry for all the quotes, but I've already tried to explain, in my own words, what the Bible, and relevant texts, list as the sins of Sodom, and how homosexuality isn't among them.

Just for fun! This is probably what most Christians think!

originally posted by: WarminIndy
So which church's canon are you going to show us to disprove it?

Skeptic's Annotated Bible

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: WarminIndy
So which church's canon are you going to show us to disprove it?

Skeptic's Annotated Bible

The Skeptics have their own church?

I didn't know you guys were religious.

a reply to: WarminIndy

If you're going to bother to reply, at least click the link.....

a reply to: WarminIndy

Don't read it it contains homosexual, liberal, communist lies! Never doubt the Bible praise the Lord Jesus Christ amen. The homosexual agenda will not destroy us they will not succeed! Hallelujah!