A replay of Dr. Brown interviewing Daniah Greenberg, the visionary behind the new Messianic Bible (TLV) translation, and then Dr. Jeffrey Feinberg, one of the main translators for the new Tree of Life Version. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The darker things get around us and our society, the more pronounced the Light will be. Let us let our light shine brightly!
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Watch what’s happening in the world. Step back and ask, “what’s the spiritual explanation for Israel and its treatment?” The answer will help enlighten you.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, Dr. Brown is offering the Tree of Life Version Messianic Bible for $30 plus Postage.
Order Online!
Other Resources:
On this show Dr. Brown talks about his book “Can you Be Gay and Christian?” — so I assume we can continue this discussion here.
– – – – – –
>> It’s true, a generation or so ago most people didn’t think about homosexuality very much, and didn’t consider the possibility that two people of the same sex would engage in sexual activity.
I think they thought that the same sex was possible — they just didn’t understand it as a sexual orientation. They thought of it as confusion or a moral failing.
>> If you go farther back, to, say, Victorian times, it would’ve been unthinkable and untenable, at least in polite society, and in the Middle Ages, etc.
Not everybody agrees with you on this. Some people argue that there were multiple, often competing, definitions of marriage. (even within Christianity) Some would allow for sexual diversity, others not.
Thats seems pretty obvious, right? There was diversity of opinion back then, as well.
>> But, in the age of Paul, it would’ve been in your face, so he would’ve seen it on a day to day basis, especially in the Greek world. He wouldn’t have been ignorant of gay relationships at all. They were quite the norm in his time and in that context, not in Jewish circles, no, but definitely in the pagan world.
To argue your point, you have to be more clear about “gay relationships”
If you mean, pederasty and gay prostitution cults — yes, Paul would have been well aware of that.
But homosexuality understood as a sexual orientation? As monogamous, committed family unit, modeled directly from straight marriage?
I have lost track of how many historians I’ve heard say that this concept of marriage would have been alien to them as college education for girls or veterinary care for you dog. (or whatever random modern practice we now accept.)
When it comes to gays — we know better now.
This doesn’t mean we throw all morality out the window. This doesn’t mean we dismiss the bible.
It just means — we know better now.
>> gay prostitution cults
I made a semantic slip there.
It should be “male prostitution cults.”
People argue (and I believe them) that “homo sex” was really a heterosexual phenomenon back then — not to be confused with current gay culture.
I believe them because I saw this when I lived in the tribal areas in Muslim countries. It was common to see heterosexual men (often a patriarch) with a young male “concubine”.
These men would put a bullet in your head if you called them gay! These men had wives (yes, plural) and children and felt they were living in Quranic obedience. Don’t dare call them gay!
I am sure it is debatable, but this strikes me as very similar to how homosexuality was understood in the bible times.
The Christian view of the gay issue can be summed up this way: “Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative but conservative. They attach themselves to the current view of the world and consecrate it.” – John Dewey. We see Christians coming around now and accepting gay marriage. This is because society constantly transforms Christianity while Christianity in the end has no lasting effect on our culture.
This should be printed inside this new Messianic Bible: “A Collection of Writings of Unknown Date and Authorship Rendered into English From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals Unfortunately Lost.”
And on the cover there should be a warning label that says this book is to violent for children, no one under the age of 18 should read it. This should be printed under the word FICTION in bold letters. Just a suggestion.
Van said,
>>The Christian view of the gay issue can be summed up this way
Which Christian view? The Pope’s? Dr. Brown’s? Bishop Gene Robinson’s?
No offense, Van, but your attempt to “sum up” the thinking of over two billion shows that you have a very simplistic understanding of the debate. Or of Christianity itself.
As for your quote — I am a fan of John Dewey and agree that lots of Christians consecrate whatever was practiced about a generation ago and call it “biblical.”
Lots but not all.
Many of the great progressive movements had Christians at the center.
And not just then, but now.
Lots of Christians are backing marriage equality — leading, not following.
For decades, Christian clergy have been marrying gay couples, long before it was legal in any state.
Greg,
Culture can define sexuality and morality, and morality has been fluid throughout history, and based upon regional norms, I agree, but the Bible has to inform our society, no the other way around. That’s why our faith is there in the first place, so that we can live by it. It really isn’t a matter of orientation. It’s right or wrong, and God decides, not society, not science, etc. The Greek world in Paul’s day was very sophisticated, very learned. Philosophers and thinkers could come up with great arguments for homosexual practice, but this is what distinguishes the world’s viewpoint from God’s viewpoint, so I wouldn’t say that “we know better now.” I would, however, say that we are eschewing God’s standard and returning to the vomit of pagan ethics, out of which the light of Christianity brought Western civilization.
“Lots of Christians are backing marriage equality — leading, not following.
For decades, Christian clergy have been marrying gay couples, long before it was legal in any state.”
> Christians are like everybody else in that they do whatever they want. The difference is that religious people use their religion as an excuse for their views, intolerance and bigotry. And the Bible is a great book to support these backward and archaic ideas and superstitions because it is so very backward and archaic.
Van,
I am curious, what brought you here in the first place? Did you come to these boards to stand up for injustice (as you perceive it), or just to pick on Christians, just for pleasure, out of boredom, for instance?
This is really ironic. Some of the critics here accuse me of being obsessed with homosexual issues (the reality, of course, is that I’m simply responding to what is happening in our culture), yet the moment they have the opportunity, they bring up the subject here. This does bring a smile to my face. 🙂
Van, Nobody Cares what you think so go and haunt somewhere else.
I wonder how Rom 2:1 comes out in the TLV.
Van, Maybe every Bible should have a warning on it’s cover that says something like: “Warning! Disobedience to the gospel contained within will cause corruption of your life which will end in premature death and everlasting damnation, without the divine intervention of Jesus Christ.”
Ray,
Fear is not a good reason to believe something. You just proved OTHER PEOPLE frightened you into your beliefs. Sad and funny at the same time. Yeah why not post a big fat lie on the cover of a book full of big fat lies.
Van,
>> religious people use their religion as an excuse for their views, intolerance and bigotry
What is your excuse? 😉
By painting all religious people as bigots, with that massive bigot brush of yours, you are taking a swipe at Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, the Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and so many other religious people who have dedicated their lives to ending bigotry.
Nicholas,
Marriage has always been defined by society — even in the bible. The marriage of the patriarchs is (polygamy, concubinage, etc) is no different than what the surrounding culture practices. Solomon was pretty much what other royals. did.
And as society changed — so did “biblical” marriage.
This is not to say that the New Testament teachings didn’t influence marriage — but this didn’t happen until Christian culture widely flourished in the Middle Ages, especially from about Augustine on.
What Dr. Brown and other Christian conservatives call “biblical marriage” is really just marriage as it evolved after the Industrial Revolution – based around the nuclear family.
Ironically, marriage, as defined by the “nuclear family” is quite compatible with gay marriage. It is only a minor adjustment to make a gay couple the “nucleus” — no major redefinition is needed.
It’s the more ancient (and biblical) models of patriarchal, clan-based marriage that are incompatible with livelong, homosexual pairing.
Greg,
Marriage in the Bible is always heterosexual. So, that’s the first thing. Moreover, God did not approve of David and Solomon’s polygamy. David and Solomon allowed the pagan world to define their relationships, yes, but they did this in derogation of God’s ultimate design for them. God did not approve of divorce either but he allowed it for a time. In explaining the true purpose and design of the institution of marriage, Christ both elevated it and sacramentalized it. Especially in a New Covenant context, marriage is an indissoluble union between one man and one woman.
Nicholas,
Some people see homosexual relationships in the bible — David and Jonathan, for example. I don’t see it, myself, but I think their relationship illustrate that “pair bonding” can come in different forms.
>> Especially in a New Covenant context, marriage is an indissoluble union between one man and one woman.
Well, not exactly indissoluble. Jesus specifically mentions unfaithfulness and Paul mentions cases where one spouse is not a believer.
As for God’s disapproval Solomon’s polygamy — wasn’t that because he allowed other gods into his household? Did God ever judge the patriarch’s polygamy or concubines?
The best analysis I’ve heard of “biblical” marriage is that there are two competing models in the ancient world that gets reflected in the bible: clan marriage vs partnership marriage.
“clan marriage” emphasizes patriarchy, procreation, tribal alliances, etc. This model has no room for homosexuality, since sex is the main point of this institution, but it does allow for polygamy, concubinage, consanguinity etc. This is more of a conservative, rural family model. Clan marriage is on full-display in the Old Testament.
vs.
“partnership marriage” emphasizes friendship, “pair bonding”, egalitarianism, service, etc. This is more of a liberal, urban family model and does have room for homosexuality since sex is not at the center of this definition of marriage. While I see this model hinted at in the New Testament, it was sill emerging when the canon was closed and only came to fruition later in church history.
When Dr. Brown argues that acceptance of homosexuality is a “slippery slope” to polygamy, he has history exactly backwards. A drift away from the biblical definition of marriage was also a drift away from polygamy and concubinage.
Perhaps the clearest biblical New Covenant model for marriage — is no marriage at all. Paul’s enouragment of celebacy was pragmatically based in Paul’s eschatology (and hinted at in the gospels) but, for obvious reason, never very embraced by Christians (Catholic clergy being a notable exception).
As for me, I believe that the bible sets a precedent for accepting the societal model for marriage, even as it changes though the ages. We apply our Christian values to the societal definition with things like love, respect, truthfulness, service, mutual submission, family worship, etc.
The nuclear family, that we practice now, is not Christian but I think there is a Christian way to live it.
Dr. Brown:
>>Some of the critics here accuse me of being obsessed with homosexual issues (the reality, of course, is that I’m simply responding to what is happening in our culture), yet the moment they have the opportunity, they bring up the subject here.
You asked us to move this discussion to a show where you talked about homosexuality. This is one of those those.
BTW — have you ever gone back and counted your shows that have a reference to homosexuality? My perception is that you bring up the subject more than any other person I know personally or in the media. I can’t even name a close second.
PS: Welcome back! I’m glad you had a good time.
When you said, “some of the critics here” I think you were probably speaking of me.
To be clear: I am a fan of yours! I like your show. I agree with most of what you say and I like your warm style.
I consider this debate about homosexuality an honest difference of opinion within the family of Christ.
Robert said,
>> Van, Nobody Cares what you think so go and haunt somewhere else.
I care what Van thinks. Despite his fundamentalism and bigotry, he makes some valid points. I liked his Dewey quote.
Ironically, he’d make his points a lot better if he was a better atheist! Supremacists, like him, are always the worst wing of any movement.
Greg,
As a Catholic, I interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the New, which is the traditional hermeneutical approach for Christians. I assume you would agree.
If Christ himself defines the nature of marriage in God’s design, then we must conclude that Solomon’s way of life was not in perfect accord with God’s plan. Solomon was a great king in many respects, but he was terribly flawed. God did not dwell on his flaws, but allowed him certain vices for the time being. The perfect order, the Church, this had not yet come to fruition, so certain things God permitted, as the Old Covenant existed as merely a shadow of the more excellent one to come.
The Bible gives us fascinating insights into the cultures of antiquity, and we see in multiple narratives the integration into Israelite society of heathen lifestyles. However, this does not change the fact that Christ came to elucidate the perfect revelation of his Father, and to explain God’s ultimate design for mankind from the beginning. Christ is Logos. He is the order of God made manifest. He exegetes the Father and the religion of truth perfectly. (“The Only Begotten, Who is in the Father, He has explained Him.”)
God does not allow homosexuality the same dignity as heterosexuality. There is not a single intimation in scripture which places the two orientations in the same light before God and in God’s design for men and women.
> As a Catholic, I interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the New, which is the traditional hermeneutical approach for Christians. I assume you would agree.
Yes, the New Testament is my primary source of biblical teaching, supercedeing the Old Testament where they conflict.
But, in practice, as a child, I was probably raised on more Old Testament stories than New. I don’t underestmate how much the Old Testament shaped me
>> If Christ himself defines the nature of marriage in God’s design
He describes it. Not defines it. Huge difference.
If you use Matthew 19:3-7 as a definition of marriage, it excludes more than gays. (unadopted orphans, the elderly, widows, etc.)
>> He exegetes the Father and the religion of truth perfectly.
“exegete”? That is fascinating way to view Jesus. Is that a Catholic view?
I think Jesus models God the Father but I don’t think of it as exegesis. If anything, the life of Jesus needs exegesis! But, this is one of the things I love most about the gospels. By living “the word” Jesus is much more timeless than exegesis. Exegesis goes out-of-date the minute culture changes.
>> God does not allow homosexuality the same dignity as heterosexuality.
No. That would be human bigotry.
Greg,
When Christ says something to the effect of, “You have heard it said…, …but I say to you,” which is the formula he uses in his discourse on marriage, he is speaking definitively and making a proclamation. I would disagree that he is merely describing marriage, as if it needed to be described.
When I say that Christ “exegetes” the Father, I am not speaking for a particularly Catholic viewpoint, no. I only mean to say that he provides us with a solid interpretation of the Father’s order, because Christ himself is the personification of that order. Christ’s exegesis, so to speak, is the definitive interpretation of the Father and the Father’s will for mankind.
Homosexuality is referred to a sin which disgusts God. How it can be translated into something positive, let alone in the context of marriage, is beyond me.
Nicholas,
>>I would disagree that he is merely describing marriage, as if it needed to be described.
I am fine with you disagreeing with me. I believe that you are disagreeing in good conscience.
I just hope that you would respect gay Christians the same.
>> Homosexuality is referred to a sin which disgusts God.
Homosexuality _AS IT WAS UNDERSTOOD_, at the time.
We know better now. Homosexuality is not just pederasty and temple prostitution.
We now know that it is also an orientation, not that different than heterosexuality.
Nicholas,
I wish you had responded to my questions about Jesus as the perfect exegete of God.
It’s not my understanding but I don’t dismiss it.
I do think of Jesus as perfect. I’m not even sure this is biblical but it is what I was taught and is what I believe.
But, I don’t think Jesus is comprehensive perfection. He lived in a time and place that does not totally overlap with our time and place.
Oh, sorry… I somehow missed your second paragraph.
I still don’t think I understand what you mean by exegesis.
Jesus was God incarnate. He modeled the “godly” life.
But, here’s the problem. The further we get away from 2000 years ago, the further from a vastly differently cultural setting — the more we need the life of Jesus exegeted.
Greg,
God does not see things in terms of “orientation.” This is an anachronistic interpretation of the absolute truths of Scripture. Essentially, we are imposing modern excuses on timeless morality. Human nature has not changed. People today are motivated by the same passions and vices by which the ancients were motivated. God’s law is still binding, and we still need it, even today, in our supposedly sophisticated interdependent world.
If there is still such a thing as sin, and if right and wrong matter anything, then the Bible stands as an immovable constant in each generation.
Moreover, I respect gay Christians very much. I respect them so much that it grieves me to see them choose pleasure over God and fling themselves into hell.
Nicholas,
>>God does not see things in terms of “orientation.”
You can believe this — but it is not based in scripture. It’s your own personal bias.
>> If there is still such a thing as sin, and if right and wrong matter anything, then the Bible stands as an immovable constant in each generation.
I agree if you are talking about love, hate, murder, theft, avarice, gluttony, etc.
But sexuality and marriage? This is clearly culturally defined.
“As for God’s disapproval Solomon’s polygamy — wasn’t that because he allowed other gods into his household? Did God ever judge the patriarch’s polygamy or concubines?”-Greg
Deuteronomy 17
14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
A specific commandment to any King of Israel is to not “multiply wives.” And just as YHWH said, Solomon’s wives caused his heart to “turn away” from YHWH. He was without excuse because he was to personally write out a copy of YHWH’s law for himself. He was supposed to be just as much under the rule of law as anyone else. His heart was to not be lifted up and thus think that he deserved special treatment concerning anything. Solomon did also multiply wealth and horses and so was disobedient to YHWH, but it was his wives that were his ruin…just like YHWH said they would be.
1Kings 4
26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
1Kings 11
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
And he died an idol worshiper because he disobeyed YHWH. His rebellion was already idol worship in heart, and it was manifest in his deeds.
The end result is that he lost his inheritance in the kingdom of YHWH. The same is true of homosexuality…it ruins ones inheritance in the kingdom. Both Moses and Paul used very general terms regarding Homosex. These terms include committed homosexual unions. As a matter of fact, Paul speaks specifically of committed homosex as the thing that ruins ones inheritance in the kingdom of YHWH.
1 Corinthians 9
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 1
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
There is nothing in the above verses that speak of only “pederasty and male temple prostitution.” There were words in Greek for such things, but Paul chose to use, and he probably even coined the term, “male bedder” to be sure that no one would twist his words to justify any type of homosexual behavior. Both male and female homosex is condemned by both Paul and Moses. Neither was speaking specifically of prostitution or pederasty. Both were speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that could see the end from the beginning. It does not matter what Paul and Moses had experienced…YHWH used them to pen His words from an eternal standpoint. Homosex is always wrong as far as He is concerned.
Leviticus 20
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
The context is very general. No incest, homosex or bestiality is permitted. If you approve of one, you must approve of the others. It is not a slipper slope. They are all tied together.
James 2
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
And anyone that justifies such sin deserves the same wrath of YHWH that is reserved for the ones that do such things.
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness…
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them…
2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that justifies them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
So be it unto Greg if he does not repent. He is causing little ones to stumble.
Mr 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
The context is very general. No incest, homosex or bestiality is permitted. If you approve of one, you must approve of the others. It is not a slippery slope. They are all tied together.
Greg wrote:
“>> If there is still such a thing as sin, and if right and wrong matter anything, then the Bible stands as an immovable constant in each generation.
I agree if you are talking about love, hate, murder, theft, avarice, gluttony, etc.”
Just not sexual sin…so anything that does not involve sexual pleasure is still the same, he says…Hmmmmm! Does Greg know that he just confessed to sexual idolatry? Will he wake up before it is too late? Greg is following in the footsteps of Solomon and his lust for sex. Maybe Greg is too old or too scared to do such things himself, but he lives vicariously though the deeds of others that he encourages.
Greg,
Do you believe the Bible gets into sexual ethics at all (not including ritual prostitution and pedophilia), or do you understand Scripture to be totally silent on the issue? What about Sodom and Gomorrah? I have heard some people say that God punished the city for their lack of hospitality, but that doesn’t seem to add up, that God would blow them up because they didn’t serve the angels tea and crumpets.
Bo,
You can paste all you want but I just don’t selectively hammer people with scripture, the way you do.
Let me ask you, if I can find a group of people called Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites or Jebusites should I kill them?
Or, do you have the good sense to know that people change over time, even if the names are the same?
Greg,
I guess you do not have a logical or scriptural answer to my posts. What you call “good sense” is what the scripture calls apostasy.
2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Almost everything in the list above describes homosexuality and your view. I am not “hammering” as you assert. I am simply quoting scripture, and you do not like what scripture says because you serve culture. It is idolatry.
The straw man that you raise here is so obvious that it doesn’t even deserve an answer.
Nicholas,
>>Do you believe the Bible gets into sexual ethics at all
Of course it does.
But, these can’t be lifted straight out of the bible and applied to modern times, uninterpreted.
>> I have heard some people say that God punished the city for their lack of hospitality, but that doesn’t seem to add up, that God would blow them up because they didn’t serve the angels tea and crumpets.
You seem to be purposely misunderstanding that interpretation. (One thing I really appreciate about you is that you debate honestly!)
The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors — in the street, without shame! That goes way beyond “tea and crumpets.”
Now that you bring it up — this is one of the more uncomfortable parts of the bible for me.
Lot was quite willing to throw his daughters out on the street to be raped. Despite this, God saved him for his righteousness!
And, to compound the discomfort — conservative Christians condemn the homosexuality of the Sodomites but give Lot a pass! Seriously — conservative Christians almost never mention that part of the story. It strikes me as creepy.
Greg,
But just in case you think that there is no answer to you ridiculous question…
“Male bedder” still means “male bedder.” “Women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” still means what the words indicate. We are not speaking of ancient civilizations that were to be wiped out by Israel because of their human sacrifice and fornication practices. We are speaking of people that are currently rebelling against YHWH and His design. There may not be people called “Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites or Jebusites” that exist by that name today, but if there is any group that practice such things as they did, they would still be just as reprehensible to YHWH. And there is no doubt that those that practice homosex are just as much abominations to YHWH as they ever were. You just cannot see it because you serve culture instead of YHWH.
Bo,
You use that list VERY selectively. I can’t remember, even once, you condemning a boaster like Rush Limbaugh to hell. The US has broken MANY truces with our Native American brothers and sisters and I don’t recall you caring about that at all. Did you condemn Mitt Romney to hell for being greedy? I don’t remember that. And on and on.
Yet, you hammer the gays with that passage even though homosexuality is not even mentioned!
Greg,
What passage does not mention homosexuality?
Bo,
My point is simple — “gay” doesn’t mean now what it meant then.
When the bible condemned homosexuality, it was condemning a practice very different than modern, monogamous gay marriage.
I’m not sure there is any point of you and I arguing this any more.
Can we just accept that this is a matter of honest disagreement, in good faith, within the body of Christ?
If you think homosexuality is a sin for all times, under any circumstance– then don’t get gay married! I respect your right to not be gay.
But, in obedience to the bible’s call for Christian unity, give our brothers and sisters the respect to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in this peripheral and highly disputed matter.
Greg,
I assume that you mean that 2 Timothy 3 does not mention “homosexuality.” “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” What is it about “lovers of their own selves, covetous, unholy, without natural affection, incontinent, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” that you do not understand?
How are homosexuals not “proud, blasphemers, unthankful”?
How are you and they not ones that have a “form of godliness but deny the power thereof” that can transform sinners into saints and sinful desires into desires to live holy before YHWH?
One thing is for sure…Romans and Leviticus and 1 Corinthians are not vague at all concerning homosex.
Bo,
>>What passage does not mention homosexuality?
The passage you said describes homosexuality, 2 Timothy 3.
I tell you this in all sincerity — you should read the bible more carefully and paste it less frequently.
Bo,
>>How are homosexuals not “proud, blasphemers, unthankful”?
Dude, do you need to get out of the house more?
Find a church that welcomes gays and attend for awhile. Get to know some gay believers. Eat with them. Pray with them. Listen to their stories. If the pastor is gay, listen to his or her sermons.
You seem to project all evil on gays. Even Dr. Brown does not to that.
Well, I gotta go.
Being a new week I will probably not come back to this thread.
Besides, I think we have gone about as far as we can with this topic.
Greg,
You are so wrong. Homosex is not a Biblically disputed matter. It is settled. It is sin. It is abomination. It deserves the wrath of YHWH. It is not honest disagreement. It is blindly serving culture on your part instead of accepting YHWH’s word. Christian unity is never at the expense of truth and holiness. Paul says to kick out those that practices homosex and other forms of fornication.
John 17
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
The only unity that can be right is in truth and holiness. Homosex is not holy or walking in truth.
Greg wrote:
“Well, I gotta go.
Being a new week I will probably not come back to this thread.
Besides, I think we have gone about as far as we can with this topic.”
Well that was par for the course, Greg. You always skip out when the conversation gets too truthful for you. We all knew that you would do it again. But it is alright, because you have once again shown your true colors and deceitful tactics. We will be waiting for you to take some more pot shots and disappear the next time this topic comes up. While you are hiding, try to actually read the scripture and believe it instead of making it conform to your god of culture.
Greg,
Were you being sarcastic when you said that I debate honestly? If not, then thanks. 🙂
Nicholas,
I think that he was trying to insinuate that I don’t debate honestly. Did you see anything in my posts that you disagree with?
Shalom
And for the record…I do not “hammer gays.” I think that homosex is a grave sin. I quote scripture to prove this. I speak the truth in love so that those involved in homosex can know that they need to repent and be in right relationship with YHWH. I refuse to pat them on the back and tell them that they are OK when they are not. I love them in truth instead of some temporal, false, feeling oriented love. I would rather they have great difficulty in this life denying themselves and their pleasures for the sake of obtaining eternal life and pleasure than to make them feel good in this life, only to be cast into hell. Since Greg would rather do the latter instead of the former, he will be responsible for great suffering for eternity. This kind of shortsightedness is terribly damaging and stumbling to true faith. It really does cause the little ones to stumble.
Bo,
I think on this point you’re right on the money.
Churches should open their doors to people, but call them to holiness, not encourage them to wallow in sin. Those of us who give a damn enough to take the time to admonish gays are trying to tell them that the devil is the one who hates them. He is the bigot. He is the one who is trying to destroy them.
Nicholas,
Thank you for the kind words…though I was asking for them 🙂 I wish that Greg could see the folly of his stance. So much is at stake. Hopefully those that read these posts will see, even if Greg does not.
Shalom
Greg wrote:
“Can we just accept that this is a matter of honest disagreement, in good faith, within the body of Christ?
If you think homosexuality is a sin for all times, under any circumstance– then don’t get gay married! I respect your right to not be gay.
But, in obedience to the bible’s call for Christian unity, give our brothers and sisters the respect to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit in this peripheral and highly disputed matter.”
NO! We cannot accept this as honest disagreement in the body of Messiah. It is a false gospel. There is no unity between a false gospel and the real one. The real gospel starts with, “Repent.”
Mark 1
14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
“Repent” means to change ones mind and start acting on it. It means to turn back to YHWH. It does not mean to remain in homosex or consider yourself not a sinner. It does not mean that one is off the hook if they have some kind of “orientation.”
Homosexuality is a highly disputed matter, not because it is hard to decide what is right, but because people refuse to repent. It is a dividing line between those that actually receive the gospel that Messiah, Peter, and Paul preached and the false liberal gospel of “God does not want you to feel bad or guilty.”
This matter is not “peripheral.” It is part of what must be repented of. We do not tell the drunkard that it is fine to continue in drunkenness because, “It is a peripheral matter.” We do not tell the adulterer or the thief or the liar that his sins and “orientations” are not important and do not need to be repented of. The kleptomaniac and the alcoholic and womanizer have “orientations” that need to be squelched, not celebrated. These “orientations” need to be abhorred and dealt with and forsaken. It is a lot of work to repent sometimes. Drunkenness is not all of sudden fine just because two consenting adults agree to the buying and selling of alcohol. It does not matter if they enter a covenant to get drunk together and with no one else…they are still sinning.
The only thing that committed homosex relationships does is make it a continuous sin instead of a singular sin. The lifestyle of homosex is one of the things that Paul says will exempt one from inheriting the kingdom of YHWH.
“Repent! For the Kingdom of YHWH is at hand.” is the message. It goes for drunkards and adulterers and homosexuals and the covetous. It is the same gospel. And every sin that we hang onto because of “orientation” is a sign of an unregenerate and deceitful heart.
Hebrews 12
1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
Sometimes it hurts to repent and do the right thing according to the scriptures. Greg would rob thousands and thousands of the kingdom of YHWH in the name of being nice and of being accepting of “commitment” and “orientation.”
Ultimately homosex is a choice, not within the body of Messiah, but whether or not one wants to partake of sin now and be left out of the kingdom of YHWH or vice versa. It is a not a choice of the body of Messiah about whether homosexuals are allowed to be in the assembly, it is choice to either be an assembly of YHWH or of the god of culture.
The Holy Spirit already lead everyone, via the scripture that He inspired, to not participate in any homosex action. It is not about trusting people to hear from the Holy Spirit about this “peripheral matter.” It is preaching the gospel of repentance to those that have listened to the leading of the spirit of this world that says the opposite of what the Holy Spirit already said in scripture.