According to CNN and an expert scholar, the jmfcst is as dumb as mud...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

according to CNN and an ordained priest in Rome, who is also professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia (what colorful titles)...I don't understand what the scripture teaches about homosexuality.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/?hpt=hp_c1

I hope you enjoy the read...feel free to discuss it in this thread until I return tomorrow, at which time I will respond blindfolded and type with only my little toe.  Right now, I have to log off and play husband for the rest of the evening...I'll probably even get laid.

until then...just bathe yourselves in the supreme wisdom and insight of this esteemed product of human knowledge.
 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Preface…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Repeat after me:  “Irrational…just a fiction of blind conviction…”

I like that!  Certainly, this priest and expert scholar can be trusted not to make such a claim against a group of people unless he has reason to do so.  Certainly, this man has been trained in his church and school to be intellectually honest and logically unbiased.  And certainly we will be able to prove his honesty and intellect trustworthy by examining his points that led to his conclusion which prompted his judgment that the jmfcsts are “irrational” and are following “just a fiction of blind conviction”.

In the end, we will all undoubtedly be in awe at his superior integrity and intelligence, and we will revere him as a true Sheppard of the blind and bigoted.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter One:  We know more now about Homosexuality than God did 2000 years ago…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don’t really know who to respond to this statement, for it contradicts both the bible and what he is supposed to believe as a Christian…

1)   He’s see the bible as a product of ancient people, not a product of the inspiration of God.

2)   He believes the NT, which is supposed to be considered The Standard for the Christian message, is not applicable to today’s world, and therefore can’t be used to define sin for today.

3)   He see’s the questions of today’s world as superior in complexity to the ignorance of the writers of the bible, thus today’s questions supersede the answer questions found in NT…thus we can set the NT aside and answer these questions and define sin ourselves.

[TJ in Oregon]

This guy is clearly an apostate.

[John Dibble]

Some guy has a different interpretation of the Bible than jfmcst!? *GASP* This is certainly worthy of its own thread.

[The Mikado]

Just checking: you didn't specify his complaint anywhere.  Is this the "the word usually translated as homosexual in Paul's letter actually refers to male prostitutes" complaint, or is it some new complaint I haven't heard before?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Some guy has a different interpretation of the Bible than jfmcst!? *GASP* This is certainly worthy of its own thread.

it is fine to have a different interpretation, provided the interpretation is honest and supported by the text.  The purpose of this thread is to determine whether or not this "priest" and "scholar" is being honest or is self-deceived.  

And I think that is something we can ascertain, even though I know many posters on this board hate the idea that something can be tested.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just checking: you didn't specify his complaint anywhere.  Is this the "the word usually translated as homosexual in Paul's letter actually refers to male prostitutes" complaint, or is it some new complaint I haven't heard before?

I'm taking his arguement from top to bottom...we're just not at that point yet. 

[7,052,770]

Is he a Catholic priest? If so, we need to give him and other like-minded priests a promotions. Enough with hateful bishops.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter Two:  Sodom’s sin had nothing to do with homosexuality…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, we can see from the list of biblical books he referenced (Genesis, Ezekiel, Wisdom, Sirach/ Ecclesiaticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah) that this “expert” knows the books of the bible, as he should given the fact that he is a priest.

But, are we to believe he was never heard of the NT book of Jude?!

Jude 1:7 “…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire (Greek: strange flesh), serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

Why the omission?  Could it be that the omission was purposeful because it defeated his argument about Sodom because it mentioned that the men of Sodom were sexually perverted in that they sought strange sexual relations with strange flesh, and therefore this sacred priest and renounced expert and scholar withheld the evidence of Jude’s witness in order to subvert a logical conclusion?!

Well, one omission doesn’t make a trend…so we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now and move on to the next chapter of his unsurpassed knowledge.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Is he a Catholic priest?

not sure if he is Catholic or not, many denominations call their clergy "priests"...but the question of this thread is whether his argument regarding what the bible teaches about a certain subject is sound, not what denomination he belongs to.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 3:  Romans Ch 1, Right side of mouth – Paul isn’t condemning anything unethetical…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No condemnation of unethical behavior in Rom ch 1?!  Does"nothing unethical being condemned" fit the context (bolded below)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seems to me that the ENTIRE CONTEXT, beginning to end, is about the “ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”  Not sure how you turn that into "not condemning anything unethical”…but this wise scholar did just that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

in case someone is not keeping score at home, here is the scorecard so far:

1) Withholding evidence - In regard to Sodom, this priest and scholar has either a) dishonestly ommitted the book of Jude, or b) is ignorant that the book of Jude references Sodom...either of which make him an idiot.

2) Distorting Context - In regard to Rom ch 1, this priest and scholar admits Paul is referring to same-sex sex, but states the vocabulary is not referring to ethics...even though it is completely surrounded (front to back) by an ethetic context which invokes the wrath of God.

...and we've only just begun!

[TJ in Oregon]

Yeah his argument about "social rebuke" is pretty ridiculous considering it is pretty obvious those who "gave up natural relations" are not exactly being complimented in Romans. Even if the words used translate to "unnatural" without ethical connotations, clearly these people are not "held in dishonor" in the same way Paul calls himself "held in dishonor". This is obviously not a passage where the people in question are being praised for going against society by following God.

Is he a Catholic priest?

not sure if he is Catholic or not, many denominations call their clergy "priests"...but the question of this thread is whether his argument regarding what the bible teaches about a certain subject is sound, not what denomination he belongs to.

He was ordained a Catholic priest at age 17, served the Church for 8 years as a priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and teaching in a seminary. Then, he became dissolusioned and left the Church because he no longer believed in its teachings. He left the priesthood, enrolled at the University of Texas, and is now a professor at the University of west Georgia. He is an advocate for DignityUSA, a pseudo-Catholic apostate organization devoted to petitioning the Vatican to change the Church's sexual teachings.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He was ordained a Catholic priest at age 17, served the Church for 8 years as a priest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh and teaching in a seminary. Then, he became dissolusioned and left the Church because he no longer believed in its teachings. He left the priesthood, enrolled at the University of Texas, and is now a professor at the University of west Georgia. He is an advocate for DignityUSA, a pseudo-Catholic apostate organization devoted to petitioning the Vatican to change the Church's sexual teachings.

Who gave you the microphone?  Why do you inform me of such things?  Don't you know I much rather go into these discussions totally unprepared and in the dark, with a mind wiped clean of knowledge?  I didn't want to know his denomination or his life story; rather I wanted him to be able to ascend on the wings of his titles:

1)   ordained - acknowledged by other men as chosen by God
2)   priest - a spiritual leader of men’s souls, sent from God Himself
3)   in Rome - one whose nostrils regularly breathe the dust of the bones of God’s every own top Apostles, Peter and Paul
4)   theologian - someone who has studied the scriptures thousands of hours more than mere ignoramuses like me   
5)   professor – a scholarly teacher
6)   of psychology – someone who knows the diseases of the mind
7)   psychotherapist – someone trained in therapeutic care of the mentally ill
8 )   author – someone who knows so much, he just has to put it down in print in order to pass along his wisdom to the dumb inbred masses.

I wanted him to soar into the stratosphere, higher than the simple of mind of the jmfcst could even phantom…but, no, you had to go and reveal the spoiler before I had the joy of discovering it for myself.

May you pay for your transgressions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 4:  Romans Ch 1, Left side of mouth - even if Paul is supporting Lev 18:22, it’s just a cultural tradition that is trumped by Jesus’ statements concerning a pure heart.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1)   I agree Paul is referencing Lev 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”…but, more specifically, Paul is referencing Lev 20:13:

Lev 20:13 “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

And you can tell Paul is referencing the death sentence in Lev 20:13, for he states:

Rom 1:32 “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them”.

2)   The context of Jesus’ statement regarding “purity of heart” was clean and unclean food, which Paul himself taught was a regulation of the past.  But, no where, does Jesus use “purity of heart” as an excuse to condone sexual acts.

3)   Claiming the OT laws forbidding homosexuality to “varied cultural traditions” such as clean and unclean meat ignores the following facts:

a)    that prohibition against eating clean and unclean meat began and ended with the Law of Moses (Noah was allowed to eat all meats in Gen 9 prior to the Law of Moses), but the prohibition against homosexuality has a precedent PRIOR to the Law of Moses (see Gen ch 1-4 where sex is given a proper context within heterosexual marriage, and Gen 19 where Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for the sexual perversion according to Jude 1:7…the reference this scholar dishonestly forgot to mention).

b)   The NT itself repeats the condemnation of homosexuality, while declaring all meats clean.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 5: The anti-gay marriage crowd is more anal-retentive than the bible itself…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet homosexuality is not only condemned from Genesis through the NT, it also doesn’t mesh with the examples of marriages within the bible, which were heterosexual…so, not only is it uniformly outlawed, there is no way to make it mesh with what was allowed.

Not to mention that one man – one woman marriage was the original pattern at the beginning and is the pattern accepted by the NT (1Tim 3:2,12;Titus 1:6).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 6: David and Jonathan were queer…Ruth and Naomi were lesbians…and Daniel and the palace master were booty buddies…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basely conjecture (a.k.a. the calling card of many expert scholars.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 7: Whistling Song of Songs over a bridge too far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Head scratcher on this one…guess my feeble mind cant keep up with the professor.  I am not sure what the point is, but it is definitely a heterosexual romance being discussed, and marriage is discussed as well as the word spouse is mentioned numerous times throughout the book.  Example:

4:8 Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse…

[Lambsbread]

TL;DR the whole thing, but as far as sinning goes, Mary Magdalene was a prostitute...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

TL;DR the whole thing, but as far as sinning goes, Mary Magdalene was a prostitute...

does it say Mary Magdalene continued to practice her sin after she came to Christ?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 8:  If Jesus didn’t specifically mention it, it must be alright with God…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He never mentioned bestiality and witchcraft, either.  Does that make bestiality and witchcraft ok for Christians to engage in?  (In fact, unlike homosexuality being discussed in Rom ch1, the NT is completely silent on bestiality.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 9:  “Inconsistency for $800, Alex”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mat 8:5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

The Greek word “pais” occurs many times throughout the NT (Matthew 2:16; Matthew 8:6; Matthew 8:8; Matthew 8:13; Matthew 12:18; Matthew 14:2; Matthew 17:18; Matthew 21:15…Luke 1:54; Luke 1:69; Luke 2:43; Luke 7:7; Luke 8:54; Luke 9:42; Luke 12:45; Luke 15:26…John 4:51…Acts 3:13; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:25; Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30; Acts 20:12)...

...yet, for some reason, only once does it refer to a homosexual lover?!

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/pais.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Chapter 10:   Paul’s teachings allow room for homosexual marriage…

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The scholar is referencing 1Cor ch 7, but…

1) Paul never stated the world was about to end in their lifetimes:

1Cor 7:29 “What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.”

That is far from stating the world is about to end, rather it is statement of urgency to take hold of the salvation being offered lest one be engrossed in the world and be destroyed along with the world.

In other places where Paul does indeed explicitly mentions the timing of the end of the world, he only states it will not take place until the falling away occurs and the AntiChrist is ruling from Jerusalem (2Thes ch 2).  No where does Paul, or anyone in the NT including Jesus, state that the end of the world would end in their lifetimes, rather the NT uniformly declares that certain events must happen first.

2) In encouraging marriage in 1Cor ch 7, Paul ALWAYS couched marriage in terms of a heterosexual union:

1Cor 7:2 “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”

So I have no idea what this scholar's point is, other than he is plainly displaying that he has no point.

You can read the chapter for yourself at the following link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+7&version=NIV1984

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

tl;dr, except, from what I've been able to glean from this thread, jmfcst is dissecting something by a particularly bizarre and incompetent example of a 'scholar' who disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible. I'm not sure if he thinks that this disqualifies other such scholars from being taken seriously or not, any more than jmfcst himself disqualifies all conservative Evangelical readings.