Contributors

Friday, January 10, 2014


15 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships."

While He did not specifically mention "same-sex relationships", He did address marriage and sexuality.

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
— Matthew 19:4–9

When Jesus defines the ONLY valid marital relationship as One Man, One Woman, For Life, why is it necessary to list everything that falls OUTSIDE that definition? That's just stupid. Jesus defined the "field of play" for marriage like football's rules define the field of play for football. Everything outside the field is out. It's not necessary to specify every single seat in the stadium, every tunnel under the stadium, the locker rooms, the training rooms, the ambulances waiting outside, the roads outside the stadium, the supermarket downtown. No, THIS is the field of play. No further discussion needed.

In the process of doing this He TIGHTENED Mosaic law. Show me the words in the text where he loosened any sexual morals.

He also said this:

“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
— Matthew 5:28

Again, tightening, not loosening.

He also said this:

For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
— Mark 7:21

What does He mean by "sexual immorality"? Since adultery is also on the list, it's obviously not adultery.

Remember, Jesus was a Jew who said this:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
— Matthew 5:17–18

What is the Law? What Moses wrote. Therefore, sexual behaviors described by Moses as sinful are what "sexual immorality" means.

Anonymous said...

"The original language of the N.T. actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity…"

Flat wrong. There is no such implication in the Greek. There are no conditional statements or "weasel words" limiting the scope of the New Testament's description of homosexuality as sin. It's just not there. Thus my challenge to Mark to show me the words in the text. Furthermore, the New Testament describes homosexuality several different ways so that it cannot be unclear what is meant.

That is an unadulterated case of reading into the text something which is not there. (Mark's "something better than what was written".)

…not committed same-sex relationships

Read Jesus' words again:

made them male and female
— Matthew 19:4

a man shall … hold fast to his wife
— Matthew 19:5

Those words are explicitly gender specific.

The Bible also defines marriage as one-man-many-women…

Another flat lie. The Bible describes what people did. That is a FAR cry from saying that is how things should be. Nowhere, let me repeat, NO WHERE does the Bible TEACH that marriage is supposed to be anything other than one man and one woman.

Read what Jude had to say:

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
— Jude 1:4

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
— Jude 1:7

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. … But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion.
— Jude 1:8, 10–11

Mark Ward said...

Obviously you didn't spend any time reading through that link. Here are the more specific links...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi1.htm

Common mistranslations in English versions of the Bible:

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are often mistranslated in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

"qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.

"to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.

Anonymous said...

English Standard Version translation:

“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute.
— Deuteronomy 23:17

You do realize, don't you, that the Bible teaches that all sex outside of marriage is sinful.

Also, the Leviticus passage does not use qadesh, it uses small words to describe an activity with no qualifications.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
— Leviticus 20:13

That's a totally different book. Totally different words. Different focus. And of course, the New Testament uses Greek, with it's own condemnations of homosexuality.

So what does referring to a different verse that no one uses in discussing condemnations of homosexuality (I certainly haven't used it!) have to do with the point?!?

That's kind of like having a conversation about a friend taking his truck out 4 wheeling in the snow, and someone chimes in out of the blue (and totally out of context) with, "Yeah, but [someone unrelated to the conversation] drives a Prius in Hawaii."

Where are the words IN THE TEXT that you claim limit the definition of homosexuality as sin, Mark?

Mark Ward said...

The answer to your question is in a thorough reading of the link I provided. Have you read it? They did an excellent job explaining what clobber passages are and how they are misunderstood. Any further comment from me would be purely redundant. As I previously stated, take some time to read through it all and evaluate their argument. It's an excellent example of why Christians shouldn't believe the self proclaimed experts

GuardDuck said...

Yeah I spent some time reading through your link.

Remember how I showed you that your logic of 'the Bible is wrong because society has moved on' is incorrect? Remember how you claim now that is not really what you are saying? Well, at least you have stopped trying to defend that faulty logic....

Well, lookie what I found as logical rationale at you 'end all be all' link....

However, assuming that the validity of biblical statements continues to the present time is not without problems. A few examples are:
bullet

Human slavery was condoned, regulated, and never condemned by the Bible, yet is rejected as profoundly immoral today.
bullet

Government by dictatorship or theocracy was condoned, and yet is rejected today.
bullet

Women were treated as property in the Bible and increasingly as equal to men today.
bullet

Numerous passages imply or state that punishment for sinful behavior can be transferred from the guilty party/parties to the innocent -- a moral concept that is almost universally rejected today.
bullet

Execution in the Bible was typically done by stoning people to death or burning them alive -- practices that are considered barbaric today.
bullet

The Hebrew Scriptures contain many references to genocides, including some ordered by God; none are criticized as immoral. Yet genocide and other crimes against humanity are often considered the most serious criminal actions today.


Hmmm, an awful lot of 'the Bible is wrong because society has moved on' bullshit posing as reasoned and logical thought there.

You really want to pin your argument to a site that's logic is so flawed and easily de-constructed?

Mark Ward said...

How is it flawed, GD? You're not making a counter argument, just one of your usual imperial edicts which will immediately be supported by juris, NMN, larry and 6 kings. And what did you deconstruct? Nothing.

GuardDuck said...

Oh my god......

GuardDuck said...

Is the Bible wrong about some things because society no longer believes those things?

Mark Ward said...

Oh my god is right, GD. You said that the site is bullshit. Fine. Explain why and how it is.

GuardDuck said...

I have already made a counter argument. The argument is that their argument is invalid. Because they use the same fucked up logic in their arguments that you do.

For the same reason, as I have already shown, that your argument is invalid, theirs is as well.

You claim to have a grasp on logic, use it.

Mark Ward said...

Well, I think I finally understand why you are so bunged up about all of this and I wonder why I didn't think of it sooner. You don't want society deciding what is right or what is wrong, do you GD? That's how the guns get taken away and freedoms curtailed (see: Unicorn Land). I think you must be under the quite illogical impression that right and wrong comes from...somewhere...but not society. God, maybe? God didn't write the Bible. Humans beings did. Sure, they related passages of what God and Jesus said but neither the All Mighty or our Savior wrote a word of it.

So, your protestations are quite silly because who decided what was right in the first place in the
Bible was....SOCIETY...at the time the Bible was written. So, now it's bullshit that we have moved on? I think it's nice to believe in certain universal truths but it doesn't really gibe with the realist portion of your ideology. Isn't that a liberal characteristic?

Of course, I don't really know where you stand on any of this because you refuse to make any real assertions of you own. Perhaps you should.

GuardDuck said...

So, your protestations are quite silly because who decided what was right in the first place in the
Bible was....SOCIETY


So you are saying God had nothing to do with it? Mosaic law isn't God given but 'made up' by man instead? You really need to stick with one argument, every time you change you counter one of your earlier ones. Why then, as you've argued, does man have to follow certain parts of the Bible and not others? Why does man have to follow any parts, just ignoring it and following societies mores instead? Hmmm, that sounds rather humanistic rather than Christian doesn't it?

You don't want society deciding what is right or what is wrong

I thought we were talking about the Bible being right or wrong in the context of you claiming to be a Christian.

In that context, what I want or not IS NOT FUCKING RELEVANT. How many times do you need to read that for it to sink in? What is relevant is whether YOUR argument has merit. I have pointed out the illogical traps of your arguments. THAT DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION. It does indicate that your argument does not support your conclusion. If YOU are happy coming to conclusions without reaching them via logical thought - fine. But since you are trying to argue the righteousness of your conclusions, expect the logic to be examined.


So, now it's bullshit that we have moved on?

Didn't say that, don't make shit up.

What I said was bullshit was your argument - BECAUSE IT DOES NOT STAND LOGICAL SCRUTINY. I'll add that you are full of bullshit as well, because you have no coherent and stable argument. Your logic and line of argument changes every time the weaknesses of them are examined. What's worse is that you are dishonest and deceitful in your refusal to examine and admit this.

In short Mark, you are a childish narcissist who lies to himself and everyone else.


And the rest of you amateur psychology - leave that to your therapist, your not very good at it.



And none of what you've said neither changes that your arguments are logically unsound nor that you even paid attention to what was said.

In other words, just another average day trying to communicate with Mark.

Mark Ward said...

Did it ever occur to you that the problem might not be me but you?

GuardDuck said...

Well I suppose if I'd ever been told I'd had multiple anti-social personality traits by multiple people from diverse areas. Told to such a degree of accuracy that my actions could be predicted in advance. Predicted and proven correct sufficient times that they actually had a numbered list of my standard responses which in almost any and every conversation I would resort to. And finally if I'd ever been voted off an open forum discussion site - not unanimously, except most of the people not voting me off wanted to keep me around because I was such a perfect example of the type.

so yeah, I'd considered it, but the evidence tends to lean that you are the problem.