The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by Rajk999
So believing in God is childish? Well , Christ said :

I can't tell whether you genuinely misunderstood LemonJello's post or are wilfully misrepresenting him.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I can't tell whether you genuinely misunderstood LemonJello's post or are wilfully misrepresenting him.

Basically he is saying that if I unquestioningly accept Gods laws even though their appears to be some other law contrary to God's laws then my reasoning is childish.

I ACCEPT GODS LAWS WITHOUT QUESTION.

Then by LJs estimation Im childish, my reasoning is childish etc etc.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If homosexuality is ok because it does not hurt anyone then that would void the Bible totally. Why? Here are a list of sins which dont hurt anyone ..

1 Safe fornication - no pregnancies and no disease
2 Hidden adultery - nobody finds out
3 Covetousness - lusting after your neighbours big car and big house
4 Drunkeness - stay at home and drink - wi ...[text shortened]... od, but that is only relevant to you, so dont use that as a reason why I should change my views.

Yes , thats a pretty good list of things NOT to worry about.
After all, it's not like you are going to change a homosexuals mind with arguing that homosexuality is wrong but heterosexuality is ok (because the bible claims it to be so). Not to mention the failure of prohibition and so on.
If you really want to show someone the virtues of being a christian I believe you should concentrate on the more heinous sins that affect and directly hurt others.

Also of examples like that are quite subjective- (does one stay at home and have 2 drinks or 20? etc,). Common sense should prevail here and sins like those are relative to the individual.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Basically he is saying that if I unquestioningly accept Gods laws even though their appears to be some other law contrary to God's laws then my reasoning is childish.

I ACCEPT GODS LAWS WITHOUT QUESTION.

Then by LJs estimation Im childish, my reasoning is childish etc etc.

Right, that is childish. It is the same fundamentalism which characterised the Pharisees and which characterises Muslim terrorists. It is the consequence of divorcing reason from biblical theology.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Right, that is childish. It is the same fundamentalism which characterised the Pharisees and which characterises Muslim terrorists. It is the consequence of divorcing reason from biblical theology.

Whatever you say. The laws by which I live dont come from atheist guys.
Sorry to disappoint you.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Whatever you say. The laws by which I live dont come from atheist guys.
Sorry to disappoint you.

I don't understand. I am not trying to impose any laws on you. I am quite happy for Christians to observe their biblical precepts. What worries me about your attitude to Christian ethics, however, is the total absence of critical reasoning. Your attitude is basically that if Scripture commands it, no further reasoning needs to be engaged.

There is little distinction between you and Islamic terrorist (normally I would avoid hyperbolic comparisons like this but here I feel that there is a legitimate point.) Even if a moral biblical precept has enormous destructive consequences, you would still unquestioningly observe it. You would not pause to think perhaps another interpretation should be investigated or perhaps such a law may be obsolete. That's pretty scary.

Anyway, I don't plan to continue in this thread. You have said that the mental health issues experienced by gay youth are morally inconsequential to you. It doesn't matter to you if the biblical prohibition on homosexual relations is harmful. Presumably you wouldn't lift a mule from a ditch on the Sabbath. That lack of empathy makes you pretty much a sociopath.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
.. you should concentrate on the more heinous sins that affect and directly hurt others..

God deals with those who sin.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't understand. I am not trying to impose any laws on you. I am quite happy for Christians to observe their biblical precepts. What worries me about your attitude to Christian ethics, however, is the total absence of critical reasoning. Your attitude is basically that if Scripture commands it, no further reasoning needs to be engaged.

There is littl ...[text shortened]... a mule from a ditch on the Sabbath. That lack of empathy makes you pretty much a sociopath.

God will deal with gays however he sees fit.

Originally posted by Rajk999
God deals with those who sin.

Whatever...I'm just trying to give you some practical advice so that your christianity may carry a bit more weight but if you want to continue to denounce people for sins that dont hurt anyone then feel free. I am following Conrau out of this thread, I'm sure any further questions you may have have already been answered, in one way or another, on this thread. Goodbye

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Whatever...I'm just trying to give you some practical advice so that your christianity may carry a bit more weight but if you want to continue to denounce people for sins that dont hurt anyone then feel free. I am following Conrau out of this thread, I'm sure any further questions you may have have already been answered, in one way or another, on this thread. Goodbye

I think its arrogant of you Mr Karoly to think for one second that you can give me advice which will override what the Bible clearly says.

And I never had any questions about gays. Homosexuality is WRONG !
However you want to put it or twist it ... ITS WRONG .. END OF STORY.

Goodbye to you.

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., hold your horses. You asked me for my argument, and I’m presenting it. Once the argument is done, you’ll have your opportunity to respond. I know you want to start your defense, but please just let me get my argument out. Then I’ll go back over your posts and respond to your objections and counter-arguments.

My second question is this:

In each ...[text shortened]... er that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

This post will be longer then some wish. And probably bbarr will find much in it not relevant to his points.

But I reserve the right to answer in the way I have. The skeptic's job is rather easy. All he needs to do is find some things to choke on in the Bible and ride that ad infinitum as his rational to discard God in total. That is, ie. read up until early Joshua, close the book, and remain atheistic from then on.

My job as a Christian believer is a bit more involved. I honestly wish to collect ALL of the data from the ENTIRE Bible to get a well rounded picture of this God who has come into my life.

Some of my comments below are in the spirit of considering a wider scope of things rather then just the brief yes or no answers bbarr asked for.

My second question is this:

In each instance where God either commanded the death or directly killed young children, would it have been possible for God to have realized His ends or goals in some other manner; some manner that did not involve the death of young children?

Again, this is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

I will answer this question in my way.

The "end" and the "goal" of God ultimately is His blessing on all the families of the earth. That is why He made a covenant with Abraham to begin with:

"And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you and make your name great; ... And you shall be a blessing. ... And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (See Genesis 12:2,3)

We can see that the blessing of the entire human family on the earth is an important goal in God's covenant with Abraham and the Hebrews. God's goal from Genesis to Revelation is a universal to all nations, including national Israel's enemies.

We can see God's goal to bless even Israel's enemies in the prophecy that the two main enemies of the Israel - Egypt and Assyria would also eventually be His people:

"In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land, with which Jehovah of hosts will bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt My people and Assyria the work of My hands and Israel My inheritance." (Isaiah 19:24,25)

I point this out to show the broader picture of God's heart. The same theme of God's desire to bless Israel's oppressors eventually is also seen in Psalm 87 concerning Egypt, Babylon, and Philstia. God's heart is to incorporate them into His people:

" I will record Rahab [Egypt] and Babylon among those who acknowledge me- Philstia too, and Tyre, along with Cush [Ethiopia] - and will say, "This one was born in Zion." Indeed, of Zion it will be said, "This one and that one was born in her, and the Most High Himself will establish her." (Psa. 87:4-6)

The goal of God then is a world wide blessing which even includes Israel's traditional enemies.

In the long history of God's dealings we have the unrepeatable and unique instance where a specified command included the slaying of infants. It must be that the larger blessing of God was threatened and opposed by religious sins of certain societies which had to be judged to preserve the whole of mankind for god's blessing..

It should be noted that many of these infants would have been sacrificed to Molech and made to pass through the fire of human sacrifice by Canaanite religion. I would think that a sudden death would have been preferable.

And since life belongs to God, any harm done in these specific instances would be far overshadowed by divine benefits in the eternal scheme of things.

We see at the end of history the resurrection of the dead from the power of God. The temporal killing of Canaanite infants could be more than compensated for in eternity.

It is asked could God have accomplished His goal another way ? I don't know. I am willing to acknowledge what WAS DONE and leave it at that.

The long term goal of God is to bring such a universal blessing on all the families of the earth. The short term goal was to eradicate certain religions practiced by the Canaanites. I do not believe that it was God's primary goal to kill the people. Rather the primary goal was to kill the religion and disperse certain heinious centers.

What is the ground for saying this ? It is apparent that some hyperbolic language must have been employed because we are told on one hand that Joshua carried out the instructions of God through Moses. But on the other hand many of those peoples remained for years afterwords. So it is difficult to charge Israel with genocide, there were still too many Canaanites left alive after Israel supposedly did what was commanded:

"Joshua captured all the cities of these kings, and all their kings, and he struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; JUST AS MOSES THE SERVANT OF THE LORD HAD COMMANDED" (Josh. 11:12 my emphasis)

See also Josh. 11:14-15 - " ... they struck every man with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them. THEY LEFT NO ONE WHO BREATHED. Just as te Lord had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses"

Moses command was to "consume" and to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites and not to "leave alive anything that breathes" . Scripture clearly indicates that Joshua FULFILLED Moses's charge to him.

So IF Joshua did just as Moses commanded, as the book of Joshua says, then the suspicion of some scholars seems valid. There is some hyperbolic and exaggerated language going on which was typical of the military talk style of the ancient Near East. Moses and Joshua, some scholars reason, must have been following the literary convention and style of the day.

Space does not permit me to demonstrate this in this post. The point is that even when only combatants were engaged and vanquished in the ancient Near East, military style speak mentioned things like nothing left breathing remained. women and children killed, no one was left, they were wasted and devasted, etc.

The true history is that much of the conquest of Canaan took place by Israel's assimilation into the peoples there rather than by genocide. And that fact is indicated by the Bible itself. Ie. the Amalakites, who Saul was to "utterly destroy" appeared again in Judges 3:13; 6:3-5, 33; 7:12; and 10:12.

Though the word picture is of complete obliteration in First Samual 15 we cannot say that no Amalakites remained in existence. We can suspect that some hyperbolic language was employed. We can expect that it was the RELIGIONS that God was out to destroy rather than the ethinic peoples. And we can expect that the fact that the Bible says some were driven out means that they were not literally exterminated.

Some archeological experts say Jericho as well as AI were a military fortresses. This would mean that the inhabitants of this "city" were combatants. If so it would be inaccurate to imagine that Joshua was slaughtering non combatants.

Originally posted by sumydid
One last point bbarr...

When my dog humps the visitor's leg, does that necessarily mean my dog is into bestiality and physically attracted to humans? The obvious answer is no. So why then when an animal humps another male animal conveniently within close proximity, is that animal automatically a bona fide homosexual?

I'm just asking because you have ...[text shortened]... ious and quote me and take me to task for it. You know I don't really think that)

Sure. You can use me as an example anytime. 😏

Originally posted by sumydid
Just remember, brothers.

The people you are arguing against believe that male on male sodomy is not only perfectly natural, but, our physical make up accomodates it with the prostate which is believed to be a bona fide sex organ.

They are free to believe that just as I am to disagree; but I just wanted to remind you, or tell you for the first time if you missed me concluding it a few pages ago.

I am finished with this thread. I am not going ot look at it anymore.
I will leave it to the degenerates.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am finished with this thread. I am not going ot look at it anymore.
I will leave it to the degenerates.

good riddance