This is ridiculous

[Scarlet_Teardrops]

Once again, you put words in my mouth and pin generalizations and things on me that you know nothing about.

I said this:

"Hmm...

I don't have too much to say on this, really.

I think it's fairly obvious what can be said.

God bless."

That could mean a whole number of things.

I never said being homosexual was a sin. You can ask other major members in this guild, who have talked with me on multiple occasions, and they will tell you the same. I do not view being homosexual as a sin. And I defend the fact that homosexuals are born. The others in this guild will attest to this, whether they disagree with me or not, sir.

The NASB text was published in 1995, sir. It has nothing to do with the Catholic church.

At Nicaea, it wasn't about what they were all ready teaching. I've studied Church History in college. They chose the books that they did because of a number of reasons:

1. Authenticity of the authors
2. Oldest available manuscripts
3. Accordance with the rest of the Bible

They chose the books that they did because those were the books that could be backed up the best, so that people wouldn't possibly be reading fake texts, or be misled.

And the trouble with your statements is that they were divided about doctrine. That was one of the several purposes of the Council. To determine what was doctrine through scrutiny and thorough examination. There were no real set "traditions", as you say, until after that.

As I said earlier, I never said anything about condemning all homosexual people.

And when did Fox condemn all homosexual people, sir? He was simply angry about the fact that the Church, which is supposed to act according to Christ and not the world, was in fact willing to submit to the world's ideas. We are in this world, but not of it.

It seems I'm not the only one you are misquoting and twisting. Poor brother VK.

And it seems that they are going to dictate present day conduct, since in the United States it is illegal to steal and murder, and so on and so forth.

And--it is what God says. Not what people or I say. That is why it is a sin.
 

[Fighting Fefnir]

Going to clarify now. No, I am not intentionally trying to be a jerk, if you're perceiving me that way. I just tend to get a bit... into the debate.

Scarlet_Teardrops

Once again, you put words in my mouth and pin generalizations and things on me that you know nothing about.

I said this:

"Hmm...

I don't have too much to say on this, really.

I think it's fairly obvious what can be said.

God bless."

That could mean a whole number of things.

I was actually speaking in reference to your direct response to me:

"My dear Fefnir, it isn't just the Old Testament.

There are passages in the New Testament that prohibit homosexual relations as well.

I've listed them dozens of times in this sort of argument. If you require them, I'm willing to provide you with them."

From that, it can be inferred that you find homosexuality a sin, unless you're going to try and read EVERYTHING literally.

Quote:

I never said being homosexual was a sin. You can ask other major members in this guild, who have talked with me on multiple occasions, and they will tell you the same. I do not view being homosexual as a sin. And I defend the fact that homosexuals are born. The others in this guild will attest to this, whether they disagree with me or not, sir.

I like that I got 'sir' tacked on there. I'll say it again: then what the hell are we arguing? And while you may not have said in exactly those terms homosexuality is a sin, you implied it very strongly when you were willing to provide proof that it was against God.

Quote:

The NASB text was published in 1995, sir. It has nothing to do with the Catholic church.

That was the most recent updated version, yes. The books selected are those of Catholic canon which the Catholic Church has been using for years and in fact the NASB is actually a variation of the the Standard Bible which the Catholic Church uses.

Quote:

At Nicaea, it wasn't about what they were all ready teaching. I've studied Church History in college. They chose the books that they did because of a number of reasons:

1. Authenticity of the authors
2. Oldest available manuscripts
3. Accordance with the rest of the Bible

Yeah, no. That was the 'official' reason, but here, have some history. The Catholic Church in the form of the new Christian populace of Jews, still had a Jewish cultural identity, and thereby did things the way that Jews of the time did. This mean Jesus' story and all other stories, for the most part, were an oral history long before anyone actually decided to write things down. That oral history is what they used to determine what they added to the Bible. And that, of course, is bullet point three. Accordance with the 'Bible' equates to accordance with the oral tradition first and THEN itself. The oral history was the 'oldest available manuscript', and so everything conformed to that.

Quote:

They chose the books that they did because those were the books that could be backed up the best, so that people wouldn't possibly be reading fake texts, or be misled.

Which is part of it. The rest of it is that it protected their interests as 'church leaders'. And even from the beginning, reading for yourself and making your own call was forbidden, because if you understood it a different way, HERETIC! Poor Gnostics.

Quote:

And the trouble with your statements is that they were divided about doctrine. That was one of the several purposes of the Council. To determine what was doctrine through scrutiny and thorough examination. There were no real set "traditions", as you say, until after that.

The most rudimentary of understandings of the Jewish people would tell you this is wrong. I reiterate: everything with the Jews was an oral history. Do elaborate, though. How am I 'divided about doctrine'? You mean how I realize that some translations are a bit seedier than others, and that some translations are not direct to their source material?

Quote:

As I said earlier, I never said anything about condemning all homosexual people.

But you were more than ready to throw Bible verses at me to support that homosexuality was a sin.

There's a bit of dissonance in your logic.

Quote:

And when did Fox condemn all homosexual people, sir? He was simply angry about the fact that the Church, which is supposed to act according to Christ and not the world, was in fact willing to submit to the world's ideas. We are in this world, but not of it.

I wonder, do you only read things by the word when it's to your advantage, or do you blind yourself like this all the time?

Quote:

It seems I'm not the only one you are misquoting and twisting. Poor brother VK.

The crux of his problem with the church 'conforming to this world' is that homosexuality is a sin. If the church was conforming to free dinner on Sunday for homeless people, this wouldn't be an issue at all. He is INDIRECTLY calling homosexuality a sin. Surely you can see that?

Quote:

And it seems that they are going to dictate present day conduct, since in the United States it is illegal to steal and murder, and so on and so forth.

This a line from the Treaty of Tripoli. circa 1796. It's article 11, if you want to look it up.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Also, fun fact, most of the founding fathers were deists or did not believe in God. WELCOME TO AMERICA.

Quote:

And--it is what God says. Not what people or I say. That is why it is a sin.

And you're willing to allow him to make you condemn people for a meaningless arbitrary distinction?  

[Lucky-Emi]

Fighting Fefnir

Scarlet_Teardrops

...HE HAD SEX WITH HIS DAUGHTERS WHILE DRUNK AFTER THAT.

Good parenting + Lot = NO.

Actually, THEY had sex with HIM so that they could have children. They made sure he had wine that night. I would not have been that hard to... not saying anymore this is getting weird  

[Lucky-Emi]

*Bangs head on table*
Fenfir, Scarlet said that homosexual ACTIVITY was a sin. If one is born homosexual, that is not sin to BE homosexual. But saying, "Oh yeah I have the gay gene I'm gonna go have sex with other men durhurdur" and going out and doing that is a sin. But not if you have the gay gene and resist doing that that being... you know what, then you are fine.  

[Fighting Fefnir]

Lucky-Emi

*Bangs head on table*
Fenfir, Scarlet said that homosexual ACTIVITY was a sin. If one is born homosexual, that is not sin to BE homosexual. But saying, "Oh yeah I have the gay gene I'm gonna go have sex with other men durhurdur" and going out and doing that is a sin. But not if you have the gay gene and resist doing that that being... you know what, then you are fine.

For the third time this thread, WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

Because people can't say what they actually mean. OP says that he doesn't like the church 'conforming to the world' in regards to homosexuality, implying that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. Scarlet here agreed with that. She then attempted to use Bible verses that condemned, in her view, homosexuality on the whole, a view that was then revised when I showed that I know better than to listen to quote mined half truths and intentionally rewritten verses. She's argued semantics in order to still act like she's correct.

In fact, I imagine her response to what I was actually talking about will be something along the lines of 'relations means sodomy!' rather than the meaning it had on the context of attempting to negate my claim, in which relations means 'homosexual urges as well as acts'.  

[Lucky-Emi]

Fighting Fefnir

Lucky-Emi

*Bangs head on table*
Fenfir, Scarlet said that homosexual ACTIVITY was a sin. If one is born homosexual, that is not sin to BE homosexual. But saying, "Oh yeah I have the gay gene I'm gonna go have sex with other men durhurdur" and going out and doing that is a sin. But not if you have the gay gene and resist doing that that being... you know what, then you are fine.

For the third time this thread, WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

Because people can't say what they actually mean. OP says that he doesn't like the church 'conforming to the world' in regards to homosexuality, implying that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. Scarlet here agreed with that. She then attempted to use Bible verses that condemned, in her view, homosexuality on the whole, a view that was then revised when I showed that I know better than to listen to quote mined half truths and intentionally rewritten verses. She's argued semantics in order to still act like she's correct.

In fact, I imagine her response to what I was actually talking about will be something along the lines of 'relations means sodomy!' rather than the meaning it had on the context of attempting to negate my claim, in which relations means 'homosexual urges as well as acts'.

You ask why we are arguing and then you post something saying that they are wrong. They are just trying to prove they are right. That is why we are DEBATING.  

[Fighting Fefnir]

Lucky-Emi

Fighting Fefnir

Lucky-Emi

*Bangs head on table*
Fenfir, Scarlet said that homosexual ACTIVITY was a sin. If one is born homosexual, that is not sin to BE homosexual. But saying, "Oh yeah I have the gay gene I'm gonna go have sex with other men durhurdur" and going out and doing that is a sin. But not if you have the gay gene and resist doing that that being... you know what, then you are fine.

For the third time this thread, WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

Because people can't say what they actually mean. OP says that he doesn't like the church 'conforming to the world' in regards to homosexuality, implying that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. Scarlet here agreed with that. She then attempted to use Bible verses that condemned, in her view, homosexuality on the whole, a view that was then revised when I showed that I know better than to listen to quote mined half truths and intentionally rewritten verses. She's argued semantics in order to still act like she's correct.

In fact, I imagine her response to what I was actually talking about will be something along the lines of 'relations means sodomy!' rather than the meaning it had on the context of attempting to negate my claim, in which relations means 'homosexual urges as well as acts'.

You ask why we are arguing and then you post something saying that they are wrong. They are just trying to prove they are right. That is why we are DEBATING.

Let me see if I can make this absolutely clear. When you debate with someone, you have an opinion and you take steps to prove that it is correct. That is not what this is. Scarlet is attempting to backpedal from an untenable belief to one she can defend properly. If context is to be believed, she holds the belief that homosexuality on the whole is a sin. She cited several verses from the Bible in a translation that specifically cited homosexuality as a sin, not just sodomy. She has taken a strong stance against homosexuality in any form.

I then took steps to explain that the version of the Bible she was looking at for the verses that specifically said homosexuality is a sin was a sectarian version that echos the interpretation of the people who wrote it rather than the original Greek, which, if you go back and read, you will find that the word translated to effeminate or homosexual is actually a word that Paul coined. It has no other usage anywhere, and is not the word for homosexual.

She then revised her view from 'homosexuality is a sin' to 'homosexual acts are a sin' by arguing the semantic meaning of something she'd said before rather than the context of the statement.

Basically, she's doing her best not to look like she lost at this point. It's dishonest, quite frankly, which is why I am pressing the issue.  

[Lucky-Emi]

Fighting Fefnir

Lucky-Emi

Fighting Fefnir

Lucky-Emi

*Bangs head on table*
Fenfir, Scarlet said that homosexual ACTIVITY was a sin. If one is born homosexual, that is not sin to BE homosexual. But saying, "Oh yeah I have the gay gene I'm gonna go have sex with other men durhurdur" and going out and doing that is a sin. But not if you have the gay gene and resist doing that that being... you know what, then you are fine.

For the third time this thread, WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

Because people can't say what they actually mean. OP says that he doesn't like the church 'conforming to the world' in regards to homosexuality, implying that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. Scarlet here agreed with that. She then attempted to use Bible verses that condemned, in her view, homosexuality on the whole, a view that was then revised when I showed that I know better than to listen to quote mined half truths and intentionally rewritten verses. She's argued semantics in order to still act like she's correct.

In fact, I imagine her response to what I was actually talking about will be something along the lines of 'relations means sodomy!' rather than the meaning it had on the context of attempting to negate my claim, in which relations means 'homosexual urges as well as acts'.

You ask why we are arguing and then you post something saying that they are wrong. They are just trying to prove they are right. That is why we are DEBATING.

Let me see if I can make this absolutely clear. When you debate with someone, you have an opinion and you take steps to prove that it is correct. That is not what this is. Scarlet is attempting to backpedal from an untenable belief to one she can defend properly. If context is to be believed, she holds the belief that homosexuality on the whole is a sin. She cited several verses from the Bible in a translation that specifically cited homosexuality as a sin, not just sodomy. She has taken a strong stance against homosexuality in any form.

I then took steps to explain that the version of the Bible she was looking at for the verses that specifically said homosexuality is a sin was a sectarian version that echos the interpretation of the people who wrote it rather than the original Greek, which, if you go back and read, you will find that the word translated to effeminate or homosexual is actually a word that Paul coined. It has no other usage anywhere, and is not the word for homosexual.

She then revised her view from 'homosexuality is a sin' to 'homosexual acts are a sin' by arguing the semantic meaning of something she'd said before rather than the context of the statement.

Basically, she's doing her best not to look like she lost at this point. It's dishonest, quite frankly, which is why I am pressing the issue.

Then this is between you and her
You should probably take it to pms  

[Fighting Fefnir]

Lucky-Emi

Fighting Fefnir

Lucky-Emi

Fighting Fefnir

Lucky-Emi

*Bangs head on table*
Fenfir, Scarlet said that homosexual ACTIVITY was a sin. If one is born homosexual, that is not sin to BE homosexual. But saying, "Oh yeah I have the gay gene I'm gonna go have sex with other men durhurdur" and going out and doing that is a sin. But not if you have the gay gene and resist doing that that being... you know what, then you are fine.

For the third time this thread, WHY ARE WE ARGUING THEN?

Because people can't say what they actually mean. OP says that he doesn't like the church 'conforming to the world' in regards to homosexuality, implying that homosexuality in and of itself is a sin. Scarlet here agreed with that. She then attempted to use Bible verses that condemned, in her view, homosexuality on the whole, a view that was then revised when I showed that I know better than to listen to quote mined half truths and intentionally rewritten verses. She's argued semantics in order to still act like she's correct.

In fact, I imagine her response to what I was actually talking about will be something along the lines of 'relations means sodomy!' rather than the meaning it had on the context of attempting to negate my claim, in which relations means 'homosexual urges as well as acts'.

You ask why we are arguing and then you post something saying that they are wrong. They are just trying to prove they are right. That is why we are DEBATING.

Let me see if I can make this absolutely clear. When you debate with someone, you have an opinion and you take steps to prove that it is correct. That is not what this is. Scarlet is attempting to backpedal from an untenable belief to one she can defend properly. If context is to be believed, she holds the belief that homosexuality on the whole is a sin. She cited several verses from the Bible in a translation that specifically cited homosexuality as a sin, not just sodomy. She has taken a strong stance against homosexuality in any form.

I then took steps to explain that the version of the Bible she was looking at for the verses that specifically said homosexuality is a sin was a sectarian version that echos the interpretation of the people who wrote it rather than the original Greek, which, if you go back and read, you will find that the word translated to effeminate or homosexual is actually a word that Paul coined. It has no other usage anywhere, and is not the word for homosexual.

She then revised her view from 'homosexuality is a sin' to 'homosexual acts are a sin' by arguing the semantic meaning of something she'd said before rather than the context of the statement.

Basically, she's doing her best not to look like she lost at this point. It's dishonest, quite frankly, which is why I am pressing the issue.

Then this is between you and her
You should probably take it to pms

You're the one who jumped in, kiddo. If you didn't want to be part of it, you shouldn't have posted.  

[Scarlet_Teardrops]

This is ridiculous.

The reason I am arguing with you is because you continue to twist what I say, and you know it...

Hmm...

I said "there are passages in the New Testament that prohibit homosexual relations as well"..

You are misunderstanding what I said here.

As well as in reference to the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. If that's where you got hung up.

But I clearly said that homosexual relations is the sin, not being homosexual. You can ask anybody here. They know my stance on this, and several of them disagree with me.

In response to the Council of Nicaea comments: Uh, yeah.

The problem is that they WERE divided about what to do. It's in the New Testament all over the place. The Jewish people did one thing. The Gentiles did another. Some churches did this. Some churches did that.

While I agree that it was unfortunate for the gnostics to be killed, they were wrong.

You are not divided about anything regarding doctrine. I said they, meaning the ancient Christians.

And it was to show you that homosexual relations were a sin.

And I know that America was not founded on the Christian religion. I was not making a statement about the United States being founded on the Christian religion.

...

You know what? I'm done with this.

I argue semantics because you twist what I say. Just as Satan twisted what the Scriptures said when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. He created meaning that he knew did not exist, and Jesus called him on it.

I'd say the difference between you and Satan is that you don't know when to stop, but Satan, to this day, doesn't know when to stop.

You will continue twisting what I say, no matter what. And everyone can see that. And they can also see that you put words in my mouth. I am done with you, on the Mosque Issue and on this issue.

P.S. Please change your signature, as it violates the guild rules with cursing.
 

[SlTVM]

Please people, calm down.


This is pointless.
Same gender sex is sin. No need to say anything else about it, so chill.


Anyway, Mr. Sloop is teetering on the brink of being a traitor. He's cashing in explicitly clear morals and laws for publicity, and acceptance by this world, which is the opposite of what Christians are supposed to do. He should definitely be replaced.

We don't change to match the world. The world changes to match us. Either we are Christians or not.  

[Fighting Fefnir]

Scarlet_Teardrops

This is ridiculous.

HA.

Quote:

The reason I am arguing with you is because you continue to twist what I say, and you know it...

It's not twisting your words. It's holding you accountable for what you say.

Quote:

Hmm...

I said "there are passages in the New Testament that prohibit homosexual relations as well"..

You are misunderstanding what I said here.

No I'm not. I simply looked at the Bible verses you posted. Yeah, the ones that don't say 'sodomy' or 'gay sex' or even 'homosexual relations'. You set up a target for precision, a very defined point you want to prove, and then whipped out a shotgun and sprayed sort of related things at the point.

If you were trying to tell me gay sex is wrong, why not use verses to condemn sodomy? Just one of those would have done it.

You decided to try and make your position stronger with more evidence that was kind of related. It backfired. Learn from it.

Quote:

As well as in reference to the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. If that's where you got hung up.

But I clearly said that homosexual relations is the sin, not being homosexual. You can ask anybody here. They know my stance on this, and several of them disagree with me.

Do as I say, not as I do, huh? You SAY relations, but when it comes to the DO part, where you support the view, you pull verses that in their wording specifically condemn all homosexuality and put them there. It was even in your translation of choice! The logic does not follow.

Chalk one up for my prediction. Sure, one post outside of the context says that. However, WITHIN the context, you used verses that said homosexuality AS A WHOLE to make your point. If your point was to say gay sex is a sin, then use verses about sodomy, not about homosexuality.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm calling a spade a spade. You said what you meant, and now you're lying about it.

Quote:

In response to the Council of Nicaea comments: Uh, yeah.

The problem is that they WERE divided about what to do. It's in the New Testament all over the place. The Jewish people did one thing. The Gentiles did another. Some churches did this. Some churches did that.

While I agree that it was unfortunate for the gnostics to be killed, they were wrong.

There's a verse that's coming to mind where Jesus spoke to one of the disciples and told him something, and when the others asked him what Jesus had said, the select disciple told them that they would reject the words. Pretty sure that's where the idea comes from.

Not wrong, per se, just not in line with oral tradition.

Quote:

You are not divided about anything regarding doctrine. I said they, meaning the ancient Christians.

I misunderstood this point, I admit. However, the point is no less valid that Jewish oral tradition guided the selection of doctrine.

Quote:

And it was to show you that homosexual relations were a sin.

There's a dissonance in your logic again. Verses that show homosexuality in and of itself is a sin do not equate to a specific action taken by homosexuals being a sin. That would be like me telling you the date that the United States was founded when you asked for the date a state joined the union. It's overly general and doesn't represent the point you're attempting to make except in the loosest of ways.

Quote:

And I know that America was not founded on the Christian religion. I was not making a statement about the United States being founded on the Christian religion.

"And it seems that they are going to dictate present day conduct, since in the United States it is illegal to steal and murder, and so on and so forth."

This statement would like to disagree with you. The crux of this statement is 'Biblical morality is apparent in the United States legal system and is in fact the direct cause of it'. That is assuming that the laws present in our (or at least my) country are drawn from Biblical ideas of right and wrong. I showed, quite definitely, that what you said it wrong, so you denied meaning that.

This is a fallacious way of arguing called 'Moving the Goalposts'. When I have sufficiently presented evidence that shows you are wrong, you change the thing that I am supposed to be proving or disproving. This is usually followed by an arbitrary declaration of victory.

Quote:

...

You know what? I'm done with this.

I argue semantics because you twist what I say. Just as Satan twisted what the Scriptures said when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. He created meaning that he knew did not exist, and Jesus called him on it.

I'd say the difference between you and Satan is that you don't know when to stop, but Satan, to this day, doesn't know when to stop.

You will continue twisting what I say, no matter what. And everyone can see that. And they can also see that you put words in my mouth. I am done with you, on the Mosque Issue and on this issue.

This is called ad hominem. It's a fallacious method of arguing that centers around attacking the person making the argument rather than addressing the points presented.

Quote:

P.S. Please change your signature, as it violates the guild rules with cursing.

Aww, can't I be the terrible person you make me out to be and keep it?  

[squeakygirl]

I have read most of the first page and just skimmed over the second. I know I may have missed quite a bit.

My mom and I had the homosexual = sin discussion a few Sundays ago.

We were talking of whether it is a sin to be homosexual or if it was a sin once you acted upon that homosexual nature.

My mom, shocked me and actually said that she believes it is a sin once a homosexual acts upon their homosexuality and proceeds with intercourse (with someone of the same sex of course).

And, while I agree that it is definately a sin to act upon the homosexual way; I am not the one who decides if being attracted to someone of the same sex is a sin or not.

I also just want to add that I read only from the KJV. And for 1 Corinthians 6:9, it translates the word effeminate to mean homosexuals. Sorry, that was something that I had to look up. I had an idea of what it might mean, but had to check it out.

Anyways, I think this discussion has been "beat to death" and no closed.

Please, no more posting beyond this.