This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Just another topic about the homosexuality and the Bible.

#391MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 6:45:41 PM
C_Mat posted...
I must owe you a huge apology. Where did you acknowledge your error a long time ago?


Back in post #269 I stated that the interpretation still holds if there were supposed to be groups of three and groups of two.

Morgasaurus posted...
If the verse is supposed to contain three groups of two and two groups of three, the interpretation still holds.


Since December and especially since this topic started I have been reading everything that I can find from both traditionalists and reformists. When I originally posted that they came in groups of three I was going by memory.

As it turns out, for reasons I stated earlier, there are three pairs and three triples if you consider matricide and patricide to be two separate items. The bottom line is that arsenokoites shows up there in between two words which are usually translated to mean whore-mongers and slave-traders suggesting that arsenokoites has some kind of prostitution or human ownership connotation.

Everything falls into place if Leviticus 20 was originally supposed to condemn temple prostitution since that is where Paul got the root words of arsenokoites. With that translation, the connotation of arsenokoites in 1 Timothy 1 would make perfect sense.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#392C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 3/17/2014 7:25:26 PM
No, in post #269, you changed your argument. You never acknowledged an earlier mistake. There is no shame in making a mistake, but the fact that you've went out of your way to avoid admitting it points to a much bigger problem, and that's the reason I'm not going to bother discussing anything else with you.

If you refuse to admit a mistake as minor as that, I don't hold out much hope that you'll ever admit losing the larger argument if I ever did prove your interpretation wrong.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#393MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 8:02:56 PM
C_Mat posted...
No, in post #269, you changed your argument. You never acknowledged an earlier mistake. There is no shame in making a mistake, but the fact that you've went out of your way to avoid admitting it points to a much bigger problem, and that's the reason I'm not going to bother discussing anything else with you.

If you refuse to admit a mistake as minor as that, I don't hold out much hope that you'll ever admit losing the larger argument if I ever did prove your interpretation wrong.


There's only one way for me to answer this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvpyz6MUa1w
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#394MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 8:03:31 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
And I'm arguing that one can both feel guilt and be unreformable at the same time.

Sure, feeling guilty opens the gate to reform.

But, if that gate doesn't exist, then there's nothing to open. It doesn't make the gate suddenly appear out of thin air. Also, feeling guilty is not dependent upon the gate's existence.


My assertion is that they are one and the same. If there existed a killer who literally felt no remorse, then he could not be reformed. If all killers are reformable, then all killers must at some point feel some level of remorse.

A remorseless sinner is a contradiction to Scripture for multiple reasons. First of all as I've mentioned plenty of times Romans 2 states that The Law of God is written upon the hearts of gentiles. Everyone feels remorse for sinful behavior. Second, without remorse there can be no contrition, and without contrition there can be no forgiveness. However, everyone can be forgiven, therefore it is the case that everyone must be capable of feeling remorse for sinful behavior.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#395MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 8:04:19 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
Why must one choose to disobey TCoG?
Why would TCoG lose it's authority?


You must choose to disobey TCoG if they ask you to sin for them. It's that simple, and I feel that TCoG loses its authority when they ask you to sin for them because TCoG shouldn't be doing that.

So, based on your interpretation of this verse:

Can you be perfect, of your own will?
Are you perfect?
If not, why not?
Where are all the perfect people now?
Was Jesus perfect?
If one is perfect, would they be like Jesus, minus the divine power stuff?

What does "perfect" mean to you? Are there different types of perfection?


Perfection is the absence of sin. All humans have been guilty of sin at some point, and all humans feel remorseful for their sinful actions. However, that does not mean that it is impossible for a human being to be forgiven and from that point on commit no further sins.

Let's draw some parallels here.


|| = \\ //

Jim can't stop doing X.
Bob can't stop doing Y.

Jim and Bob both feel guilty over doing X and Y, respectively.
Jim and Bob have both tried to stop doing X and Y, respectively, but they keep failing.

...

What would you say about Jim and Bob? Based on this, you say that the habits of X and Y were incurable? That they were beyond reform? What if X was homosexuality? What if Y was sin?

In the case of X, would you say that this is a realistic scenario?
In the case of Y, would you say that this is a realistic scenario? I predict you'll answer no, so why not?


I never engaged in homosexual acts with other men while I was a traditionalist. It was against my interpretation of Scripture at the time. However, I could never settle the inner turmoil I felt about having the thoughts in the first place. At least not until December.

Since Jim feels guilt for homosexual tendencies, he must be a traditionalist. However, you cannot conflate being homosexual with engaging in homosexual acts. A traditionalist can always commit to celibacy and refuse to engage in homosexual acts despite being homosexual. I pulled it off for many years.

Remember that many things other than the conscience cause guilt. Social norms may cause guilt. If you feel pressured by your Church that you shouldn't even be gay, then you will feel guilty about being gay, and that's the main problem. Now that I no longer subscribe to that nonsense, I feel no guilt pursuing my passions.

I agree that the scenarios are realistic, but I do not agree that Jim and Bob are not reformable. They felt guilt for their actions, so Jim being a traditionalist could have honored a commitment to celibacy and Bob could have stopped doing Y. Neither of those is impossible. What is impossible is changing one's sexual orientation.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#396MorgasaurusPosted 3/17/2014 8:05:09 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
Then how do you know whether or not any given person can be reformed? This seems like the problem of induction to me.

Just because you've never seen a black swan, it doesn't mean that black swans don't exist.
Just because you've never seen a reformed X, it doesn't mean that reformed Xs don't exist.


It's like I mentioned before. If someone feels no remorse, then they cannot offer contrition. If they cannot offer contrition, then they cannot be forgiven. Since everyone can be forgiven, it cannot be possible that someone feels no remorse for sin.

When you were being brow-beaten by the church, did you ever feel a sincere desire to make an effort to change?


No. I actually did my homework. Gay conversion therapy consists of watching gay porn while taking vomit pills OR undergoing electroshock therapy. Basically you fry your esophagus or your brain in the name of trying to cleanse yourself of a primitive instinct that will not go away. Your homework is to now go to Google Scholar and read papers on gay conversion therapy to find out just how right I am that it's a terrible idea.

Has any homosexual ever felt a sincere desire to make an effort to change?


Obviously. If they didn't, then gay conversion therapy wouldn't even be a thing. However, they only do so because of social pressure from traditional Churches.

If the answers to either of these questions are yes, then you have proven to yourself that a desire to change doesn't mean you CAN change, and it would seem that you would also have proven to yourself that whether or not you CAN change has nothing to do with whether or not you CAN feel a sincere desire to change.


It depends on what you're talking about. You cannot turn off homosexual passions, but you can refuse to entertain them. A traditionalist who is doing things with other men can instead choose to commit to celibacy. However, he cannot choose not to desire to do things with other men.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#397OrangeWizardPosted 3/17/2014 9:56:35 PM
Morgasaurus posted...

A remorseless sinner is a contradiction to Scripture for multiple reasons. First of all as I've mentioned plenty of times Romans 2 states that The Law of God is written upon the hearts of gentiles.


Yes it is.
But the conscience can be defiled and seared, to be made as unfeeling skin that is just scar tissue without nerve endings. Titus 1:15 and 1 Timothy 4:2

So no, I don't think it is in contradiction to Scripture for this reason.

Second, without remorse there can be no contrition, and without contrition there can be no forgiveness. However, everyone can be forgiven


I don't see how contrition is THE ONLY means through which one can have forgiveness for every individual sin. Please explain how it is in light of Luke 23:34.

Also, what about Mark 3:29?

You must choose to disobey TCoG if they ask you to sin for them. It's that simple, and I feel that TCoG loses its authority when they ask you to sin for them because TCoG shouldn't be doing that.


I asked you why must you choose to disobey? "You must choose to disobey" is not an answer.

Do you feel that TCoG must be perfect in every aspect, all the time?

Perfection is the absence of sin. All humans have been guilty of sin at some point, and all humans feel remorseful for their sinful actions. However, that does not mean that it is impossible for a human being to be forgiven and from that point on commit no further sins.


So all humans are guilty of a minimum of one sin?
They HAVE to make only one sin? Everybody gets one?

But it's possible for them to avoid sinning a second time? Is that what you're saying?
What's the difference between the first unavoidable sin, and the second avoidable sin?

And thanks for answering only one of my seven questions. Here's the other six:

Can you be perfect, of your own will?
Are you perfect?
If not, why not?
Where are all the perfect people now?
Was Jesus perfect?
If one is perfect, would they be like Jesus, minus the divine power stuff?

No.


Okay.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#398OrangeWizardPosted 3/17/2014 9:58:43 PM(edited)
Gay conversion therapy consists of watching gay porn while taking vomit pills OR undergoing electroshock therapy. Basically you fry your esophagus or your brain in the name of trying to cleanse yourself of a primitive instinct that will not go away. Your homework is to now go to Google Scholar and read papers on gay conversion therapy to find out just how right I am that it's a terrible idea.


No, because gay conversion therapy is irrelevant to this conversation, and whatever point you're trying to make with it isn't logical because of the problem of induction.


Obviously.


Well then they could be reformed. Looks like you recognize this.

It depends on what you're talking about. You cannot turn off homosexual passions, but you can refuse to entertain them. A traditionalist who is doing things with other men can instead choose to commit to celibacy. However, he cannot choose not to desire to do things with other men.


I said "has any homosexual ever felt a sincere desire to change". I didn't say "a sincere desire to stop having gay sex.".

If a homosexual has a desire to not be attracted to men, then, by your logic, that's contrition, and by your logic, he can be forgiven and reformed, and therefore change his sexuality.

Unless it's possible to feel guilt over things that are not sins, in which case, what of your conscience argument? If it's possible to feel guilt over things that one should not feel guilty about, then the conscience isn't as accurate as you say it is. And if the conscience CAN feel guilty over things that are NOT sins, who is the say that the conscience can NOT feel guilty over things that ARE sins?

And if you say "No homosexual has ever felt a sincere desire to change his sexuality", then I'm afraid you've made a claim you can't back up.
---
The head is backwards.
The head is backwards
#399MorgasaurusPosted 3/18/2014 10:47:26 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
Yes it is.
But the conscience can be defiled and seared, to be made as unfeeling skin that is just scar tissue without nerve endings. Titus 1:15 and 1 Timothy 4:2


And that doesn't happen overnight. Everyone feels remorse for sinful behavior until they engage in it so long or to such an extent that they may feel little to no remorse.

I don't see how contrition is THE ONLY means through which one can have forgiveness for every individual sin. Please explain how it is in light of Luke 23:34.

Also, what about Mark 3:29?


Those are both special cases. Jesus extended forgiveness to those who had a part in His death because they were not aware He is the messiah. There are several ways to interpret the unforgivable sin. I see it as a state of mind whereupon one is willing to speak against The Holy Spirit. A change of heart means you are no longer guilty of such a sin.

I asked you why must you choose to disobey? "You must choose to disobey" is not an answer.


Because it would be sinful to obey them and, well, sin.

Do you feel that TCoG must be perfect in every aspect, all the time?


By definition, yes. A hypothetical CoG should be perfect and never ask someone to sin for them.

So all humans are guilty of a minimum of one sin?


In theory, a human could exist without ever having sinned. In practice, this does not happen. Everyone has something no matter how minor it is. Maybe you teased someone in elementary school. Maybe you lied to your parents about eating a cookie. It could be anything no matter how minor.

They HAVE to make only one sin? Everybody gets one?

Not only one.

But it's possible for them to avoid sinning a second time? Is that what you're saying?
What's the difference between the first unavoidable sin, and the second avoidable sin?


By learning what is and is not sinful behavior, it becomes easier for us to avoid it. Over time we can get closer and closer to being completely without sinful behavior. It's not easy by any means.

Can you be perfect, of your own will?

In theory.

Are you perfect?

It depends on your definition. If one must live a life completely free of sin, then I am not perfect. If perfection is more of an instantaneous or forward-looking measure, then a penitent man who commits no further sin could be considered perfect. I might be perfect, but it remains to be seen.

If not, why not?

Under the former definition, I am not perfect because I have sinned in the past. Under the latter, I may not be perfect because I may sin in the future.

Where are all the perfect people now?

Probably living in monasteries.

Was Jesus perfect?

Jesus is perfect.

If one is perfect, would they be like Jesus, minus the divine power stuff?

Not necessarily. Jesus lived on Earth 2000 years ago and had a specific purpose during that time. We all live in the here and now and have a wide variety of purposes which we may fulfill.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26
#400MorgasaurusPosted 3/18/2014 10:47:28 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
No, because gay conversion therapy is irrelevant to this conversation, and whatever point you're trying to make with it isn't logical because of the problem of induction.


You asked me if I ever felt the desire to "change." Initially I thought about it, but upon looking at my options, it became obvious to me that I wasn't going to be able to "change." Don't ask questions if you're just going to dismiss my answers as "irrelevant." Gay conversion therapy (and how much of a failure it is) becomes relevant to the conversation anytime you assert that homosexuals can "change."

Well then they could be reformed. Looks like you recognize this.


No because homosexuality is not a sin. In fact, traditionalists don't even consider it sinful. What is sinful in their model is the pursuit of same-sex relationships or sex based on the compulsions produced by homosexuality.

Not all desire to change comes from attempting to rid oneself of sinful tendencies or behavior. Someone may quit drinking socially for health-related reasons. They may lose weight for health related reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they are living in sin just because they drink with friends on the weekend and have a belly.

I said "has any homosexual ever felt a sincere desire to change". I didn't say "a sincere desire to stop having gay sex.".


Well a lot of them have, but after attempting gay conversion therapy they either change their mind or end up regressing into a pattern of homosexual behavior. Consider the two following scenarios with traditionalists A and B.

A chooses to engage in gay conversion therapy. After some time, he truly believes he is free of homosexual desires. Eventually, he sees a really hot guy, his homosexual passions come rushing back, and they hook up.

B chooses to acknowledge his homosexuality and commit to celibacy. Whenever B sees a really hot guy, he tries not to look realizing that any hookup would contradict his beliefs.

For the better part of two decades, I was B. I caged the tiger, and I walked the forest freely. A tries to fool himself into believing the tiger doesn't exist and therefore gets eaten.

If a homosexual has a desire to not be attracted to men, then, by your logic, that's contrition, and by your logic, he can be forgiven and reformed, and therefore change his sexuality.


That is not contrition by my logic because by my logic homosexuality and same-sex relationships are not sinful. It is like the fat social drinker. Wanting to not be attracted to men at that point is a personal choice resulting from social pressure. Not all desires to change are based on avoiding sin.

Unless it's possible to feel guilt over things that are not sins, in which case, what of your conscience argument? If it's possible to feel guilt over things that one should not feel guilty about, then the conscience isn't as accurate as you say it is. And if the conscience CAN feel guilty over things that are NOT sins, who is the say that the conscience can NOT feel guilty over things that ARE sins?


I already stated this in an earlier topic. Sin is a sufficient condition for guilt, but not a necessary condition for guilt. Guilt can come from a great many other things.

For example if X and Y are best friends and have a car accident due to a deer where X dies and Y survives, Y will have survivor's guilt despite having not been at fault for the accident.

Homosexuals in many traditional Churches feel guilty because there is significant social pressure for them to be straight. That guilt is not coming from sin.
---
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? ..."
- Matthew 16:26