Senate passes repeal of DADT with 65 votes

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

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

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

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

People usually don't get mad at books (like the Bible or Koran), rather, they get mad at how extremists interpret them.

since when is accepting statements at face value considered “extreme”?

Rom 1:26 "God gave them up to shameful passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men."

Regardless what context you wrap around it, it still clearly describes women desiring sex with women and men desiring sex with men.  It condemns desire for homosexual sex and calls both the passion and the acts shameful.  And, of course, the statement meshes with the rest of the bible that defines the proper context of sex to be within a heterosexual marriage.

So, it is the bible itself that you are calling “extreme”, that is why you’ll only those who accept a watered down “interpretation” of it, which is really no interpretation at all.

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

My view tends to be the passages (whether put there by God or by man) like this are there for a very practical purpose (not so much per se, a moral mandate)...God's chosen people need to multiply etc...sodomy tends not to aid in that effort.  Therefore, since it doesn't...its wrong...

then why doesn't the bible condemn sexual acts between a husband and wife that don't promote conception?  and you're ignoring Rom ch1 which calls homosexual passions and acts as shameful and unnatural for humans.

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

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

actually, you are mischaracterizing those sections (Lev ch 18 & Lev ch 20) because you’re acting as if those sections include laws that were only put into place at the time of Moses.  But if you read the context, those chapters are describing the PREVIOUS actions of pagan nations and those nations were being thrown out of the land because the nations of their PAST HISTORY  of practicing these things.

So, God explicitly stated the acts described within Lev ch 18 & ch 20 were already judged PRIOR to the Law of Moses.  And none of those actions mentioned within that contextual pagan wrapper are allowed in the New Testament.  So, you are wrong in characterizing “that particular part of the OT” as being first instituted under the Law of Moses, and you are wrong to say “hardly any Christians actually follow those laws” because nowhere in the New Testament are the list of these sexual acts (incest, bestiality, homosexuality) allowed.

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

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

actually, you are mischaracterizing those sections (Lev ch 18 & Lev ch 20) because you’re acting as if those sections include laws that were only put into place at the time of Moses.  But if you read the context, those chapters are describing the PREVIOUS actions of pagan nations and those nations were being thrown out of the land because the nations of their PAST HISTORY  of practicing these things.

So, God explicitly stated the acts described within Lev ch 18 & ch 20 were already judged PRIOR to the Law of Moses.  And none of those actions mentioned within that contextual pagan wrapper are allowed in the New Testament.  So, you are wrong in characterizing “that particular part of the OT” as being first instituted under the Law of Moses, and you are wrong to say “hardly any Christians actually follow those laws” because nowhere in the New Testament are the list of these sexual acts (incest, bestiality, homosexuality) allowed.

Learn to read for Christ's sake. Whether it is right that most Christians do not closely follow the mass of laws in the OT (or who came up with them first or whatever) is not the issue, the fact that they clearly don't is.

Wait, why did I take you off ignore? Ah, yes. I remember now. But you never contribute anything meaningful outside election time, so...

Zap.

you said, "that particular part of the OT", which to me means Lev ch 18 and ch 20.  and within the context of the actions of the pagan nations as described in Lev ch18 and ch 20, are dozens of laws defining incest, bestiality, and homosexuality....all of which are not allowed in the context of the New Testament.

if you meant "follow the mass of laws in the OT' instead of "that particular part of the OT", then simply get your story straight to begin with.

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

So you believe in this then....


"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." 

do I believe that NT church members are to be executioners of sinners?  no, the execution of sinners back then was simply a prefiguration of God's eternal judgment.  For the believer, Christ died and took the wages of sin (death) upon himself.

do I still believe homosexuality is a sin that if not overcome will result in the person being eternally condemned?  absolutely.

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

do I still believe homosexuality is a sin that if not overcome will result in the person being eternally condemned?  absolutely.

Cute. I've always wondered how that's supposed to work given the testimony of countless numbers who persuaded themselves they had done so only to realise they had been sold a pup by the charlatan that promised them a fix for the unfixable.

of course, you discount the testimony of the ones who actually escaped out of homosexuality.  as i said earlier:

The Gordon Gekko types, those who try to pass their character flaws off as “good”, would be the ones that would scream, “If you hate greed, then you hate me, for I was born greedy.  I was greedy from my earliest childhood memories! You can’t change me.  God can’t change me.  God’s not powerful enough to remake me.  I won’t let him.  I like the way I am.  Leave me alone or I will attack you and call you mean names!”

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

just to be clear jmfcst, if a dude likes a dude but doesnt have sex with a dude, the dude's okay right?

define "likes a dude"...do you mean "likes a dude as a dude likes a fellow dude" or "likes a dude as a dude likes a dudette"?

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

do I still believe homosexuality is a sin that if not overcome will result in the person being eternally condemned?  absolutely.

Cute. I've always wondered how that's supposed to work given the testimony of countless numbers who persuaded themselves they had done so only to realise they had been sold a pup by the charlatan that promised them a fix for the unfixable.

of course, you discount the testimony of the ones who actually escaped out of homosexuality.  as i said earlier:

The Gordon Gekko types, those who try to pass their character flaws off as “good”, would be the ones that would scream, “If you hate greed, then you hate me, for I was born greedy.  I was greedy from my earliest childhood memories! You can’t change me.  God can’t change me.  God’s not powerful enough to remake me.  I won’t let him.  I like the way I am.  Leave me alone or I will attack you and call you mean names!”

Of course I discount it; because of the testimony of those who realised they couldn't change makes you understand what they went through because of social or religious pressure. Look at this way jmfcst; ex-gay'therapy' is a scam. Scientology is also a scam out to get people by saying theres something wrong with them that only Scientology can 'cure.' Who's testimony do you trust more - those in Scientology who say it's wonderful and amazing and fantastic or those who got out and exposed it for the sham that it is?

Scientology?!  Let's keep the context on Christ:  if a pig that is washed returns to wallowing in the mud, does that mean the pig was never cleaned?  or if a dog returns to his vomit, does that mean the dog never threw up?  If some drunks conquer alcoholism and some drunks fail, does that discount the ones who escaped?

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

I wanna see the dirty pig jmfcst in anti-straight therapy.

as if heterosexuality is something one needs to cleansed of?  And who said anything about "therapy"?  All it takes to be cleansed of sin is a meeting with Christ.

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

Scientology?!  Let's keep the context on Christ:  if a pig that is washed returns to wallowing in the mud, does that mean the pig was never cleaned?  or if a dog returns to his vomit, does that mean the dog never threw up?  If some drunks conquer alcoholism and some drunks fail, does that discount the ones who escaped?

No. Let's not. Until you learn to start answering the question that is put to you, you do not have the right to dictate the context of the debate. Agreed?

Do I need to point out the obvious flaw in your logic?  I only have to change one phrase to have you sound exactly like a drunk unwilling to come clean:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

I wanna see the dirty pig jmfcst in anti-straight therapy.

as if heterosexuality is something one needs to cleansed of?  And who said anything about "therapy"?  All it takes to be cleansed of sin is a meeting with Christ.

Ignoring the Christians who can reconcile their faith with their sexuality again jmfcst

no, I ignore "Christians" who hack the scriptures to suit what their itchy ears want to hear

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

I gave the example of another faith (Scientology) offering people a cheap fix for their perceived problems. Which is exactly what some Christians flog to gays. Now answer the question; whose testimony due you trust - the gullible person deeply embedded in Scientology thinking their stress was due to 'soul dust' or the person who left knowing that what it offered was a sham that made problems where there were none.

there is corruption in everything (in school, in church, in business, in politics), so I don't discount institutions based on the failures of humans, otherwise I would renounce school, business, etc, etc, etc.

also, it should be noted that many times on this forum I have discounted the idea that "sinner's prayer" automatically translates into an conversion to Christ or an experience with Christ.  I myself have stated I said that prayer years before my conversion and knew at the time nothing was changed about me.

So do I discount human programs, whether in Scientology or Christianity?  Yes, absolutely.  But discounting human programs has nothing to do with the power of God.

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

Comparisons to filth, mud, and vomit are an effective propaganda technique for associating the target with an individual's natural sense of disgust. Additional options are to associate them with infectious disease, vermin (rats, fleas), or decaying food.

please tell me you're joking

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

I am genuinely curious about what the 'straight' therapy consists of. Besides something like hormonal treatments or some type of lobodomy I can't see therapy affecting your sexuality in anyway whatsoever. But I really would like to know, is it some kind of hypnosis or just prayer? Either way it has to be bullsh**t, but if it is just a 'pray the gay away' thing I've lost even more respect for the Christian religion.

Interestingly, we constantly hear of these studies and evidence that homosexuality is not something your born with, or that as Ted Haggard's wife says people can be 'conditioned' in their sexuality. But I've never seen any of it. Saying you know someone who 'used to be gay' is not evidence at all, just an irrational statement based on something you cannot prove. How can you know if someone's sexual attraction has changed? And if people can be conditioned in their sexuality does that mean heterosexuals can turn gay? Or people can turn themselves into pedophiles?

i don't buy into the therapy thing at all, nor do I believe that people are born again simply because they pray the "sinner's prayer".  God doesn't require a 12 step program of human works.  And I agree that testimonies cannot be proven or disproven, which is why it is idiotic and hypocritical to discount one side yet not discount the other side.

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

Comparisons to filth, mud, and vomit are an effective propaganda technique for associating the target with an individual's natural sense of disgust. Additional options are to associate them with infectious disease, vermin (rats, fleas), or decaying food.

please tell me you're joking

I am completely serious. I don't know if you're aware of what you're doing when you choose either harmful traits (lying, stealing, cheating) or those associated with disgust (mud, vomit) when making analogies to homosexuality, but it's an old tactic and easy to slip into. I'm sure it reflects your own feelings of disgust as well.

1) I could have easily chosen heterosexual fornication instead....but I simply chose sins we all have in common (idolatry, lying, cheating, stealing, greed).  For you to state sexual sin isn't harmful simply shows how degraded your mind has become.

2) the analogy of a washed pig returning to wallow in the mud and a dog returning to his vomit is an analogy Christ himself used in scripture to portray those who have been freed by Christ from the bondage of sin yet choose to return to it.  the analogy is applicable to any sin, sexual or otherwise.

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

I wanna see the dirty pig jmfcst in anti-straight therapy.

as if heterosexuality is something one needs to cleansed of?  And who said anything about "therapy"?  All it takes to be cleansed of sin is a meeting with Christ.

Ignoring the Christians who can reconcile their faith with their sexuality again jmfcst

no, I ignore "Christians" who hack the scriptures to suit what their itchy ears want to hear

Oh you mean like you do when you say gays shouldn't be put to death, or that slavery isn't a good thing, or that the first born shouldn't be sacrificed.   Unless if you believe in those things then you are hacking scriptures as well.

somewhere you missed the parts where bible repeatedly and explicitly claims the new covenant superceded the old.

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

For you to state sexual sin isn't harmful simply shows how degraded your mind has become.

I don't consider harmful to one's soul to be objectively meaningful. It can be so for you, but I find that even people who cite religious scripture often lump that in with other assessments (you're unhappy, you don't know true love, you're going to get sick or become an alcoholic etc.) I measure harm differently from the way you do, and do so for all acts categorized as sins, not just the one that's central to who I am and how I live my life. On the factors other than the wellbeing of my soul, I know for certain my life would be worse if I tried to be celibate and single.

the bible says the wages of sin is death, and since death is the antithesis of being "healthy", you're basically arguing you reject the bible.  which is ok for the purpose of this argument.  just for future reference, there are only a few posters (opebo, JSJ, Andrew, Dibble, Naso, etc) on here whose positions on issues I remember, and you're not one of them (which is probably to your credit ) so in the future simply state that you reject the bible so I know where you're coming from.

having said that, I'm not going to going to tell you that you're "unhappy", for I wasn't "unhappy" before I came to Christ, I simply didn't have the peace and joy of having a clear conscience and knowing that everything was completely taken care of.

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

the bible says the wages of sin is death, and since death is the antithesis of being "healthy", you're basically arguing you reject the bible. 

True. Alternatively, I could be rejecting the New Testament or a literal reading of the Bible, but I accept that those may be functionally equivalent. I concede the metaphysical ground to you because I don't have the grounding to argue it, nor do I see it as worthwhile. Where I involve myself is when I perceive arguments that have some intersection with the physical world.

what part of the bible doesn't intersection with the physical world?

---

the bible says the wages of sin is death, and since death is the antithesis of being "healthy",

See, this is an argument of the physical world as well as the metaphysical world. You're arguing that the Bible says that by committing the sin of homosexuality, I will die earlier than I would otherwise.  Is that your argument?

Do you believe that God kills people earlier if they're sinners?

obviously, it impacts physical health, but not always to an early death.  but "the wages of sin is death" is referring to current spiritual death even though one is physically alive, as well as referring to the physical-spiritual "death" of eternal condemnation after the resurrection.

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

If 'gay therapy' worked, it would work for everyone

that's a very dumb statement considering no kind of therapy works 100% of the time


---

- you wouldn't expect to see failures like this. That's one of the reasons why Freudian psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific: unlike real medical treatment, it's 'selective', at best. The same criticism applies threefold to the 'ex-gay' movement.

this whole tangential discussion of "therapy" and "ex-gay movement" is a straw-man, for I have never equated any "therapy"  or any 12 step program to a cleansing by Christ.  these programs are man attempted reformation, not Christ enabled recreation.  

some may find Christ while they are involved in a 12 step program, just as some may find Christ while reciting the sinner's prayer,  but it's not the motions of the 12 step program or the motions of the sinner's prayer that has any value, rather they simply opened to Christ while he was knocking on their heart's door.

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

what part of the bible doesn't intersection with the physical world?

The idea of a soul; life after death. Neither of these are observable or provable in the physical world. They exist because you believe the Bible says they exist and that the Bible is without error.

yeah, but it still intersects with the physical world, just as Christ clothed himself in flesh, just as Gen 1:1 starts of with "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".


---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

obviously, it impacts physical health, but not always to an early death.  but "the wages of sin is death" is referring to current spiritual death even though one is physically alive, as well as referring to the physical-spiritual "death" of eternal condemnation after the resurrection.

"Spiritual death" is a meaningless statement to me, and therefore isn't the antithesis of being healthy, because it has nothing to do with any form of health that affects my life. I recognize physical, emotional, and financial health. Spiritual health is a vapid phrase to me because I don't have a soul and there is no account where it is being tracked.
[/quote]

but you're leaving out the fact that your body will be resurrected and therefore directly impacts your physical health for all eternity

---

I think we are at an impasse, but it's been a civil discussion

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

You have created a world where it is literally impossible for you to be wrong. Any homosexual Christians are reprobate backsliders who aren't real Christians; conversely, anything in Christianity that can be considered true axiomatically validates your claims. You have effectively monopolized metaphysics.

look, I never said I couldn't be wrong, rather I simply allow the bible to be my guide between right and wrong within the realm of the areas it addresses, and I believe same-sex sex is one of the areas it addresses.

and I highly highly doubt if I have ever used the term backslide in any religious context on this forum because it is not a concept that has anything to do with Christianity

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

look, I never said I couldn't be wrong, rather I simply allow the bible to be my guide between right and wrong within the realm of the areas it addresses, and I believe same-sex sex is one of the areas it addresses.

And yet you presume that your own reading of 'scripture' is privileged at the expense of any other possible interpretations. That's one of the many, many theoretically difficulties of a hardline sola scriptura stance.

What part of my interpretation is being questioned here?  Are you questioning if marriage was defined as the only proper context for sex?  Are you questioning whether marriage was defined as heterosexual?  Are you questioning whether every instance where the bible mentions same-sex sex is cast in an extremely negative light?  Are you questioning whether the New Testament condemns both the lust and act of same-sex sex?

Because the ONLY arguments I have seen in opposition attempt to introduce a context that is not presented (“they didn’t really desire to have sex with Lot’s visitors, they simply were trying to establish dominance”, “this was just the opinion of Moses who didn’t have any concept of a loving homosexual relationship”, “it only was a law for the Levites and not the whole of Israel”, “Paul is only forbidding homosexual sex in the context of pagan worship”)…and EACH AND EVERY ONE of those arguments falls to address the clear and undeniable fact that every one of these passages is addressing the desire to have same-sex sex, because when the desire for same-sex sex is the topic, it doesn’t matter what setting you wrapper around it, because when you’re discussing the desire you’re striking at the heart of the matter

Example:  Andrew totally stopped discussing Romans ch1 when I pointed out the undeniable facts that it explicitly referred to those who 1) had homosexual desires and engaged in consensual homosexual sex, and 2) had knowledge of the scriptural decrees that condemn the acts in which they were engaged.  And he stopped discussing it at that point because there is no context one can contemplate that can trump the obvious fact it was explicitly addressing homosexual desire leading to consensual homosexual sex among those who have knowledge of the word.  And once those facts were pointed out, no one has offerred an alternative "interpretation".



---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The meaning is the same.

I lost the plot here - What exactly are you comparing and equating to concept of being backslidden?