In a recent post, Shedding Light, I ruminated on a few aspects of the homosexual agenda situation and in the subsequent comments once again dealt with questions concerning why I should feel threatened by the country someday granting marital “rights” to homosexuals. One of my concerns regards the clashing of our well established right to practice and express our religious faith vs. the “right” to openly live as a homosexual and go through life pretending there is no difference whatsoever between them and heterosexuals, otherwise known as “normal people”, forcing them to act as if they believe it, too. And without a doubt, clash we will, just as we are doing now. This piece from Illinois Family lists a number of case studies where that clash has actually played out, and how the already well established right has too often been dealt a blow (pardon the expression) in favor of the fantasy “right”. In addition, there is also the right of free association that will be expected to take a back seat to the rights of these sadly confused people.
I offer this from the same newsletter as a kind of companion piece that shows the determination of the homosex activists to force the rest of us to comply with their selfish sex-based demands. They have a friend in Barry Obama and likely most of the Dems that he has chosen to staff his cabinet.
Marshal Art's 
Danny, Danny, Danny,How you can go on. Irony is not the issue. Using offensive language or imagery is. So the context in which you are making mention of “molesting” animals of any kind, need not be as descriptive as Mark’s words, but is equally offensive to some as you should know being the arbiter of all that’s well and good. So no, I have no problem with irony at all. Nice try.BTW, upon further review, I submit that it is quite likely that Jesus would denounce sarcasm as unnecessary mockery intended to belittle the other guy. How unChristian!”Again, just because you say this does not make it reality.”I don’t just “say” these things, I repeat clearly revealed Biblical concepts and doctrine. Just because you and those you enable deny these facts doesn’t mean they aren’t still in effect.Now as you’ve gotten yourself all huffy again, you should take a pill and realize that within the context of this discussion, regarding the subject matter herein, as concerning human sexuality, you and your “Auntie” are clearly lacking a proper sense of morality. This is no lie or slander, but a statement of fact based on clearly expressed Biblical concepts. Thus, to place kids in an environment where should the subject ever come up, would yield a corrupted teaching on the subject, to say it is a level of child abuse is also not lying or slander based on those same clearly expressed Biblical teachings. The problem with the way Mark and I are approaching this is that we are debating a fellow with a corrupted view of Biblical teaching who while being unable to defend his beliefs through the use of Scripture, must accuse his opponents with charges that are repeatedly shown to be false, but only hurtful to his feelings and those he enables.So it has come down to being mean, I guess, and darn it we should just try to be nicer, lest people believe we are encouraging death and dismemberment to those loving unfortunates, the homosexual community. Nonsense and another ploy to soften the opposition while carrying on with your corrupted beliefs. Being nice is wasted on those who do not consider niceness in their own views of their opponents. Plain talk, hurtful or not, if far nicer in the most beneficial sense of the word. Though you continue to distort such plain talk (Geoffrey insists it’s hate when that’s an unsupportable charge), it’s far easier to defend than ambiguous alternatives weighed to avoid hurting feelings.
I submit that it is quite likely that Jesus would denounce sarcasm as unnecessary mockery intended to belittle the other guy. How unChristian!1. The point was to make a point, not to belittle.2. Jesus used sarcasm, I’d posit. And I would not be the first to suggest this. You think the Jesus who said, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry?” (Matthew 12:3) to a bunch of biblical scholars, or, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” – you think this Jesus did not engage in sarcasm?As to your ridiculous claim that your lies are not lies, you’re simply wrong.Again, to be clear, the charge was we “no morals at all and are capable of anything,” including child abuse and molestation and the other heated depravities that exist mostly in Mark’s fevered perverted brain.I have demonstrated that we do, in fact, have morals. Our position on gay marriage IS a moral position. Our position against the sort of indecency that Mark has engaged in IS a moral position. Our refusal to threaten violence when someone displeases us IS a moral position. Clearly we have morals aplenty.Now, you COULD make the case that we are mistaken in our moral position on gay marriage, that we are wrong to be opposed to Mark’s sort of perverse indencencies, that we are wrong to not engage in violent threats. But that is not the same as saying we have “no morals” and that we “are capable of anything.” That is not the same as saying we are child abusers.Argue, if you wish, that we are mistaken on a point or on several points and we can have that discussion. BUT, make the charge that we have no morals and that we are child abusers and you have only served to show you are an idiot who does not know how to hold a reasonable, logical adult conversation.
Dan, the Obtuse, says, “The difference being that I readily admit that I could be wrong.”That’s the funniest thing you’ve said in a long time, Dan.Be that as it may, Dan, you used terms like obscenity and disgusting and perverted to describe the mental picture I drew of the very act that defines homosexuality, yet, you say God calls those same acts holy and blessed. Well, which is it? holy and blessed, or obscene, disgusting, and perverted? You can’t have it both ways, Danny boy.And while you’re trying to decide which side of the fence you really reside, why don’t you produce the Biblical passages that prove God thinks homosexuality is holy and blessed. This, by the way, is the fourth time I’ve asked you to prove your point Biblically. You haven’t answered yet. Could it be there are no such Biblical passages?You know, you are continually demanding we present citation that suppoorts our views, but apparently you don’t feel bound by the same rules.C’mon, Dan, I grow weary of this argument. Either produce citation from the Bible or give up. In other words, put up or shut up.Geoffrey, you can play, too.
Are you not aware, Dan, that what you say God says is holy and blessed, you are calling a perversion?What do you think God thinks of you for that?
“How would YOU know how difficult it might be for a heterosexual to deny himself his urges?”Is that a man thing? I can’t relate.
Marty,Not necessarily. There are promiscuous women, ya know.
“This, by the way, is the fourth time I’ve asked you to prove your point Biblically. You haven’t answered yet. Could it be there are no such Biblical passages?”I know this was asked of Dan but I don’t mind answering it. There just might be a Biblical passage…About 15 years ago my church was reading through the Bible using Faith Comes By Hearing Series. My daughter was reading faithfully, but me, well, I got bored with it after a little while and slacked off. One day, while at work, I got a frantic phone call from my then teenaged daughter – “Mom, oh…my… God – Mom – Jonathan and David were gay – really Mom, you gotta read this!” And so it began for the two of us. Reading and discussing. We both came to the same conclusion. It seemed pretty clear to us, through scripture, that David and Jonathan did have a “thing” going on and that it also appeared that Johnathan, at least, was totally gay. Much of the story alluded to this but the clincher for us was Saul’s angry outburst – “Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness?” Saul was livid, pretty much calling his son a pervert, and then going on to offer his eldest daughter to David as a wife.My husband refused to read it or discuss it. A macho man thing I suppose.Anyway you don’t have to agree with this, but it seemed clear enough to my daughter and me.
Marty, you need to read the entire story to put it into context. Also, you need to understand the King James version was written in 17th century English, and thus, a little harder for us modern English speakers to comprehend. You might try reading the passage in today’s English. This is what I found:Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? ~ 1 Samuel 20:30Now, clearly, Saul wasn’t referring to Jonathon as perverse, but rather, Jonathon’s mother.Furthermore, if being gay were really normal and natural, blessed and holy, as Dan posits, and, if David and Jonathon were indeed gay lovers, (By the way, this is a favorite argument of gay activists) why would Saul, or anyone else, call it perverse?Keep in mind Saul was insane with jealosy against David by this time, and was out to kill him. In fact, Saul already tried to kill David a couple of times before this incident took place. And, reading further, Saul had offered his eldest daughter to David, and then gave another of his daughters to David two chapters before this exchange.David married Sauls daughter, by the way, which is further evidence he wasn’t gay.David and Jonathon were just very good friends, not lovers. Just as I might have very good male friends, but I don’t have sex with them. But, even if David and Jonathon were gay lovers, that doesn’t prove God approves of homosexuality. It would only prove homosexuality existed in Biblical times, a fact that none of us ever disputed. David was also a murderer, yet he was called, in the Bible, “a man after God’s own heart”. Do you think God gives approval to murder because David committed one?Of course not. By the same token God gives no approval to homosexuality.
Well comfort yourself as you will Mark. But I stand by my interpretation. David was, with all his “sinfulness” – murderer and possible gay relationship – still a man after God’s own heart. That’s the point of all this Mark. He was still very dear to God, regardless of his many “sins”.Some have suggested that Ruth and Naomi, Jesus and John, had sexual relationships. I disagreee with that. For me that is quite a stretch. But David and Jonathan – not so much.
Although I have no further use for the Perverse One, I did address the question about Leviticus at my blog, if anyone is interested.
Marty,Needless to say, I don’t agree with your David/Jonathan interpretation either, and I’ve heard some great explanations that address your misconception. I just wish I had them handy for linking.In any case, even if we concede that David was a flaming fag, I don’t believe we have evidence that God in any way allowed or blessed David’s sinfulness. So the notion that God loved Him anyway is not in question. The issue is the sinfulness of the behavior and whether or not God treats any form, manifestation or expression of such lust as an act worthy of His blessing. He doesn’t. The question then becomes, can a person be saved while engaging willfully in prohibited behaviors. In other words, a conscious decision to reject God’s command concerning that behavior. I can’t see how anyone can believe that since it is clearly rebellion against God, and/or, creation of a false God in order to proclaim one is within God’s Will whilst engaging in said prohibited behavior. There’s simply too much information available that teaches a CORRECT lesson on the subject for one to truthfully claim they are sincerely ignorant of the truth.
There’s simply too much information available that teaches a CORRECT lesson on the subject for one to truthfully claim they are sincerely ignorant of the truth.So, it is not in any way possible, in Marshall’s view, that someone could – in good faith – come to a conclusion different than the one Marshall has come to on this point? Fortunately – and this is the last time I’ll point this out here – Marshall ain’t God and we don’t have to answer to Marshall. IF we make an honest mistake in interpreting these 4-5 verses in the whole Bible, then God’s grace covers our mistake. Just as God’s grace covers Marshall’s mistaken arrogance and many other mistakes. Unlike Marshall, God does not expect perfect understanding on our part.
“The question then becomes, can a person be saved while engaging willfully in prohibited behaviors. In other words, a conscious decision to reject God’s command concerning that behavior.”Apparently so Marshall. There sure are a lot of people running around claiming to be saved that have divorced and remarried, which is prohibited and considered adultery. Can they be saved or not?As I recall Jesus said “you who are without sin cast the first stone”.
Marty,First of all, I believe it depends on the reason for the divorce. But secondly, and more importantly, one divorces once and not as a chronic behavior. Even Liz Taylor was limited in her divorcing to, I think, three dozen times. But that’s neither here nor there. Pointing to another sin does not in any way give one leave to engage in their preferred sin. The issue here is homosex behavior. Should one engage in an episode or two, that would be one thing. But there is the assumption that two allegedly monogamous, loving, etc, etc homosex couple are engaging in homosex behavior with regularity, otherwise, they’re just roommates. But it is, however, similar to one engaging in repeated adulterous affairs. Neither gains God’s blessing.
Dan,”So, it is not in any way possible, in Marshall’s view, that someone could – in good faith – come to a conclusion different than the one Marshall has come to on this point?”No. Not possible in the least. I’ll explain yet again in just a moment, but first, it must be recognized, that it wasn’t me who came to this conclusion, but I did in fact learn myself by simple study of the Bible as well as through the words and explanations of Biblical scholars who weren’t out to help find permission. The conclusion existed well before I did. I merely learned it as did all those who ignore it or deny it. And therein is my explanation. This stuff is easy to understand and all those sorry individuals who have tried to create for themselves permission, all who have sought to create something they could call “God’s Blessing”, all of these people know the truth and merely deny or ignore it. All of their sad attempts to argue away what they know to be true has been expertly and exhaustively refuted, rebutted and restated to the point where no one with the least sense of honesty could listen to those sad arguments and not know they are lacking and hiding the aforementioned denials. I have absolutely no doubt, that should any evidence, either Scripturally or biologically, have been discovered that could be definitive or compelling, we’d be hearing of it until we puke. None’s been offered, none’s forthcoming. If there are any people who are “honestly” mistaken about this issue, it is because they haven’t seriously exposed themselves to the truth, or taken any serious steps to find and understand it. For that, it is my opinion that they are ducking the issue in order to avoid learning that which they already know intrinsically.
According to the Scriptures remarriage after divorce IS considered adultery. No matter why the divorce occured. It’s the remarriage that is prohibited, not the divorce. So if one continues in that remarriage aren’t they committing an adulterous affair over and over again?You seem to have one set of standards for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.
Marshall said:This stuff is easy to understand and all those sorry individuals who have tried to create for themselves permission, all who have sought to create something they could call “God’s Blessing”, all of these people know the truth and merely deny or ignore it.This is demonstrably false. As I have noted repeatedly, I WAS like you. I thought that homosexuality was a sin, period. Gay marriage was a ridiculous concept. I thought the Bible was clearly opposed to such an idea.I had no desire to change my opinion and would have told you point blank that although I was willing to listen to the other point of view, I WOULD NOT be changing my opinion. The Bible was WAY too clear I thought.And yet, when I looked closer and studied the matter more closely, I was compelled to change my mind. Not because I had a desire to “create permission” for anything. Not because I was uninformed or had not studied it. Just the opposite: It was when I prayerfully studied the matter more closely that I was compelled to change my mind – against my will, even.So, it is demonstrably false by my own witness that I “know the truth” (what you think is the truth) and choose to deny it. I have embraced what I believe to be the truth.You are mistaken on this point. I COULD be wrong – we all could be wrong on any given point – but I and my fellow Christians are not DELIBERATELY wrong. Rather, we are seeking God’s will with all our hearts and strength and this is where that has led us.And now you know the truth. Let it set you free, brother.
Marty,Read it again. There is one reason why divorce might be permissable. But once again, it really doesn’t matter for two pertinent reasons. 1. The topic is homosexuality and how the imagined rights of the homosexual match up against the fully stated and Constitutionally recognized rights of free religious expression and association.2. I don’t know that any adulterers are forming a plan to codify adulterous behavior and force the general public to accept it as normal, natural and equal to tradtional marriage.
Dan,Very nice. But we go around and around yet again. Your “prayerful” consideration is worthless if it contradicts Biblical teaching, which it clearly does. No amount of said consideration has value in a discussion of how one comes to say that black is now white. You have nothing Biblical to support your position, so you are merely “feeling” that you are right. You have “a hunch” that God might bless a sin for which He has clearly shown distaste. Thus, you have disproven nothing about what you know to be true but now deny. When this debate between us began, you could have gotten away for a time by saying that you were compelled by prayerful study. But when it comes time to explain how that occurred, what tracts of Scripture pushed you involuntarily to oppose God’s Will on the subject, you fall woefully short of anything remotely resembling supportive Biblical evidence.At your blog, you stated that you read the Oliff and Hodges piece a second time and found it lacking, yet, you said nothing as to where you found fault. This has been fairly typcial and similar comments were made about Rob’t Gagnon. Still, no arguments were made regarding in what manner any of these scholars could have been mistaken. Thus, I maintain that the argument of the homosex community and their enablers regarding Biblical teaching on the subject is lost totally, but the combatants have yet to admit their defeat. They are very much like the black knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail who won’t accept defeat after having all four limbs removed.
I may have made comments that would better reflect what I read at another blog on the subject, but the sentiments are the same as those found at Dan’s.
Marshall said:But we go around and around yet again. Your “prayerful” consideration is worthless if it contradicts Biblical teaching, which it clearly does.What part of “TO YOU” are you failing to understand. I don’t think it contradicts biblical teaching at all. And I think YOUR position is contrary to good biblical reasoning, to boot.And so, the TRUTH remains that you are WRONG factually when you say that “these people know the truth and merely deny or ignore it.” It is factually NOT the case that we think you’re right and we’re denying it or ignoring it. We’ve heard your case and reject it as lacking in good moral, biblical reasoning.No matter how many times you say, “no you haven’t,” it won’t change the facts.You have nothing Biblical to support your position, so you are merely “feeling” that you are right.No, we have discussed this over at my blog: We BOTH use our reasoning to arrive at our conclusions. I think your reasoning is terribly faulty and you think the same about mine. But in neither case is it about “feelings.” OR, if anyone is relying upon feelings, it is you, since MY feelings on the matter were contravened by the facts as I understand them. I had to turn away from my feelings to reach my position. So, once again, no matter how many times you say, “did not,” your position that I’m relying upon feelings is as demonstrably false as your suggestion that we “know” that you’re right and we deny it or ignore it.You ain’t god of me.
Thanks for the conversation Marshall. I don’t take part in discussions on homosexuality much for obvious reasons, but you’ve been quite civil to me and I appreciate that.The Bible has been used throughout history to support various prohibitions and to beat people over the head. Passages have been used to support slavery and the subjugation of women. In our time it’s sexual orientation, but that is changing and there is nothing you can do to stop it. God is a God of grace and mercy which He extends to all, no exceptions.
Marty,”The Bible has been used throughout history to support various prohibitions and to beat people over the head.”This is true, but it’s not the case here. The fact is that the Bible is being used incorrectly to support this sinful practice as somehow OK, when all related verses are without a doubt opposed. This is not a matter of deep interpretation, it is crystal clear. There is nothing that can honestly be used to contradict this. People like Dan HAVE to deny these points in order to have any hope of justifying their blatantly false belief that God would ever bless what He has already condemned. He has nothing but his “prayerful considerations”, which is Dan-speak for “feelings”. He’s been asked numerous times to provide whatever verses he thinks overturns God’s earlier mandate. He’s brought nothing. At all. It is a tough topic on which to debate. It crosses lines to easily making the debated difficult to get through. For example, this post began as a lament on the obvious difficulties that would occurr in society were this behavior given the state sanctioning the homosex activists demand. It has since become a theological discussion. Even within the context of theological discussion, Dan, as well as others, will bring up examples from Scripture that have either been soundly refuted and correctly explained, or are simply not in anyway relevant to the discussion. If you haven’t already, I invite you to look at my very first post, the same one to which I directed Dan, and see if it makes any sense to you. If nothing else, you would at least see how definitively the issue has been addressed and understand why the chasm exists. I maintain that Scripture and it’s logical and obvious interpretations support my belief on the issue, and Dan has yet to provide anything that one could even use to consider an alternative point of view. Prayerful considerations are meaningless considering our inability to negotiate the spiritual world. Who knows who it is that Dan thinks is our Lord convincing him that this sin is not sinful. I know it ain’t the Almighty.
Just to let you know I read your fist post. Nothing there I didn’t know already. And nothing there to change my mind.
Marty,Perhaps you would like to offer something that counters any of what Oliff and Hodges had to say on the subject? I mean, what could there be in that piece, or in any study like it, that leaves you unconvinced of their explanation? Or are you, like Dan and so many others, just denying what is there or ignoring it in favor of your preferred view. Keep in mind that these two have really gone through a logical step by step in explaining the issue. Where have they gone wrong?
Okay…Marshall, I’ve not addressed your Holy writ (ie, Olliff/Hodges) because there is so much wrong there it is hard to know where to begin.The authors (Olliff/Hodges) begin by making this claim about the “opponent” (Helminiak) who is arguing in favor of gay marriage:For example, he also said in both his lecture and in his book that he does not believe in one of the main doctrines taught in Scripture, i.e., sola Scriptura. When Scripture speaks it is the same as God speaking, and Scripture provides a complete revelation of all God wants us to know about Him.1. One can believe in the inerrant Word of God (which is much broader than the Bible alone, but rather every Word out of God’s mouth as well as Jesus, who is proclaimed to be the Word in John 1) and not believe in Sola Scriptura2. “Scripture provides a complete revelation of all God wants to know about Him”? Says who? Show me the verse and chapter. It ain’t there.3. “Main doctrines taught in Scriptures???” In fact, Sola Scriptura is an extrabiblical concept, not found within the pages of the Bible. It is a common religious tradition, but not a biblical one. One might find a few verses on which to hang some SS thinking, but whatever you may call it, it certainly is not one of the main doctrines taught in the Bible. Does any serious theologian ever make such a claim?And we could go off on a whole discussion about SS and this O/H’s views and Helminiak’s views on how to consider weigh scripture and wade through it. But when they begin by making such broad and unsupported statements, that is a warning sign right there. And you can see, how just addressing this one point would require perhaps a page or two of rebuttal and clarification. From there, they go on to make red herring arguments, strawmen errors and outright goofs. Over and over they make claims about Helminiak that he has simply not made. Rather, they reinterpret Helminiak to have said something other than what he said and then say, “See? How awful that he believes that!!” – when Helminiak never said he believed that. I can see how you like these guys, they argue in the same way as you do. They insert words and opinions into Helminiak’s mouth presumably because they know better than Helminiak what he thinks. They, too, have a god-complex, it appears.And, on top of that, they lack clarity, they ramble. They say in 1000 words what could be said in ten; as if by throwing more words at their poor positions, they can make them appear weightier.And ALL of this is before they even get started on the discussion on homosexuality and the Bible.Can you understand why folk may be reluctant to try to wade through all of this poor biblical reasoning just to satisfy you?For a sampling of their ridiculous, ignorant and downright stupid arguments… If we may develop our own a fortiori argument, we know that heterosexual rape is quite sinful. Yet it would clearly be a lesser evil when compared to the wickedness of homosexual rape.Oh really? We know this? We CLEARLY know this?? How do we know this?They, like you, make statements about what is “clear” as if it were the end of the conversation. “Well, since the Bible clearly and obviously condemns all of homosexuality, then those who embrace are clearly and obviously choosing deliberately to reject God’s Will!!” uh, no. Just because you and these folk think something is clear, does not make it so. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13These passages clearly specify that homosexual acts merited the death penalty under the Mosaic law.Here, they beg the question: They DO “clearly” specify that homosexual acts are bad? Isn’t that what we’re striving to discern? They’re arguing like this: “The Bible says that homosexuality is bad. It is clearly there, so therefore it is bad. How do we know it is clearly condemned in the bible? Because it is there, and it is bad. Clearly so.”Offering their opinion that the Bible “clearly” condemns all homosexuality as evidence that the Bible condemns all homosexuality is circular reasoning. They do the same thing here: This, however, would only have force if one considered actions which undermine the family structure to be a “light” matter.…arguing their opinion that homosexual behavior undermines the family structure and therefore, it is obviously sinful because it undermines the family structure, therefore, it is obviously sinful… and so on.Now, look at the length of this post. And I have only scratched the surface of addressing the problems with their lengthy bad arguments.If they were offering something more substantive than strawman, ad hominem, red herring type attacks and fallacies, I might be willing to wade through it and deal with it. But why would I waste time on such poor reasoning?
“Perhaps you would like to offer something that counters any of what Oliff and Hodges had to say on the subject?”No, not at this time.I am hoping to attend a Bible Study at the end of January taught by Dr. John C. Holbert. This study will take a look at the Scripture passages that are sometimes understood to address homosexuality and the church. “By looking at these passages in light of their original context, we can begin to gain a new understanding as to how these passages relate to our world today, our church, and our own understanding of who God is and who we are called to be as children of God.” Dr. Holbert is a member of the Perkins faculty since 1979 and serves as the Lois Craddock Perkins Professor of Homiletics. He earned his Ph.D. from Southern Methodist University in 1975, his M.Div. from Perkins School of Theology in 1971, and his B.A. from Grinnell College in 1968. Dr. Holbert’s teaching specialties include Hebrew Bible, literature, and preaching.Perhaps if I am able to attend that study I will be in a better position to counter your arguments. But by that time, this discussion will be over.
Always hoping to be as accurate as possible, I Googled “sola Scriptura” and found this and again find that Dan is a bit off in his understanding of what he has read. The Bible as ultimate authority is indeed something I would say most Biblical scholars concede, which is what the term implies, if not definitively means. If Helminiak, like yourself, does not believe in the Bible’s authority, then it’s easy to understand how all the goofy nonsense supporting the pro-homosex position can come about. But for you to then dismiss the rest based primarily on the authors’ opinion of sola Scriptura only shows that you don’t have a serious desire to understand Scripture at all, and that also supports my opinion that you base your position on “feelings”.”1. One can believe in the inerrant Word of God (which is much broader than the Bible alone,”What the hell is this supposed to mean? What Words of God to you have that are not found in the Bible? How can you make the world understand that you have such a direct and chummy relationship with the Almighty that precludes anything we might read in Scripture?”2. “Scripture provides a complete revelation of all God wants to know about Him”? Says who? Show me the verse and chapter. It ain’t there.”Aside from you personal tea parties with our Lord, there is no other source that provides ANY revelation regarding God’s nature or Will for us. Chapter and verse is hardly required to know this, and the lack of chapter and verse should not be an excuse to pretend you know something not supported by Scripture. Have you another source that reveals from the Lord anything not revealed in Scripture? Anything at all not related to your “prayerful considerations”?O/H did not wallow in unsupported statements. The piece copied and pasted was a response to Helminiak’s response to them. If you are unfamiliar with it, that’s fine. But unless you can confirm you’ve made yourself expert on every utterance of Helminiak, I don’t think you should make such unsupported statements.”From there, they go on to make red herring arguments, strawmen errors and outright goofs.”Like what? Do you mean this:”For a sampling of their ridiculous, ignorant and downright stupid arguments…If we may develop our own a fortiori argument, we know that heterosexual rape is quite sinful. Yet it would clearly be a lesser evil when compared to the wickedness of homosexual rape.Oh really? We know this? We CLEARLY know this?? How do we know this?”It’s simple. If rape is bad, then for a man to rape a woman means one sin (aside from the planning and such—I’m speaking only to the commissin of the act). If a man rapes a man, he has both assaulted another and had sex with a man. Two sins. Now, that’s not something upon which I would hang my hat, but neither do O/H. Perhaps you just can’t respond to any of the meat and instead satisfy yourself with the grissle. I don’t blame you. It’s far easier.”Just because you and these folk think something is clear, does not make it so.”Might not be clear to someone who can’t read or is blind, but for the rest of humanity, it’s crystal. The only segment left is those that ignore and deny. That would include you. You wish to continue making this ludicrous statement, but the fact is that nothing could be more clear than “Thou shalt not…” You simply (like a child spoiling his dinner with cookies rather than cake because Mom didn’t say “cookies”) pretend you have a loophole in which to squeeze your desire to placate the whims of the sexually confused.”They DO “clearly” specify that homosexual acts are bad?”You’re an idiot. Are you now saying that because the Bible doesn’t use the words, “this is bad” that we are out of line to suggest it is? The Bible clearly frames the act in negative terms, whether you Book says “abomination” or “detestable”. Which of these suggest the action is just fine? So there is NO circular reasoning here. There is simply, “The Bible says it’s wrong. Period. End of discussion.” And it condemns ALL homosexual behavior because there is nowhere where it says or suggests otherwise. No prayerful consideration can conjure up what does not exist. The next quoted snippet is one for which I have no comment since I know not the context from which you ripped it. But you follow it with, “And I have only scratched the surface of addressing the problems with their lengthy bad arguments.”No. You’ve only scratched your ass. You haven’t come close to addressing the substance of the O/H piece but have only knocked about the least significant. I’m not surprised at all. It’s way too solid for you to risk what little credibility you have on this issue.”But why would I waste time on such poor reasoning?”Because it is NOT poor reasoning and you haven’t the tools to persuade otherwise. All it takes is Scriptural evidence. So it’s better to pretend the reasoning of these two is poor. Saves you the embarassment and humiliation.
Marty,”But by that time, this discussion will be over.”Perhaps on this thread, but another will likely take its place in the future. Such distortions of Biblical teaching will always generate discussion, even should the homosex activists win their goal of stifling Christian teaching. So, in the event you are able to attend this lecture and study, I would indeed be interested in what the gentleman has to say.
sigh. I give up. You post a source that is obfuscatory, fallacy-ridden and obtuse and defend it with fallacy-ridden and obtuse defenses. You repeat false claim after false claim. It takes too long to wade through all your fallacies, slander and misrepresentations, Marshall.Believe it or not, it comes down to this: We disagree with you. We ARE seeking God’s will and we believe that you have missed it. It is possible that we are wrong, but we believe that it is much more likely that you are wrong. In any case, we are Christians seeking God’s will. Worst case scenario: We are mistaken and will have to rely upon God’s grace.Fortunately, that’s what God’s grace is for. We have not decided upon our position lightly. I and nearly all my Christian community were once where you were and only came to our position based upon prayer, Bible study and our God-given logic. Our emotions and traditions argued that we ought to believe as you believe. But logic and God’s Word led us to another conclusion.If we have made a mistake, God forgive us. If you have made a mistake, I’m sure you’ll ask for forgiveness, too.Fortunately, God is much more grace-full than you have shown yourself to be.
“So, in the event you are able to attend this lecture and study, I would indeed be interested in what the gentleman has to say.”I did a little research on Dr. Holbert and found this. He wrote Chapter 4. I want very much to attend, but my life is not always my own these days. And should I be asked to keep my grandbaby that day, while Mom and Dad get out for a while, you can betcha that grandma won’t pass up that chance, no way, Bible Study or not.
Dan,”You post a source that is obfuscatory, fallacy-ridden and obtuse and defend it with fallacy-ridden and obtuse defenses.”Such as? It always comes back to this. I get that you don’t agree with the source I provided. I get that you think it’s obfuscatory, fallacy-ridden and obtuse. I get that you believe it’s all crap. Try taking the next step and actually explaining where those lies are and why you think they’re wrong. Show where you have anything close to Scriptural support for perpetuating this heresy. I present an opinion to support my position, and you think you can get away with critiques with no explanation?”You repeat false claim after false claim.”I call ’em like I see ’em. You simply refuse to make a case why I’m wrong. I show you why I don’t act on “hunches”, but you can’t show why you’re not going on “feelings”.”It takes too long to wade through all your fallacies, slander and misrepresentations, Marshall.”Considering how long most of your comments are, I have no pity. But really, this is just another dodge. You got nuthin. The rest of your last is just the usual filler, the “Time Out!” you call when you hit this particular point, the one where you must defend yourself. You never really have. Finally, I have not lacked grace in my demeanor, especially considering my opponent. Perhaps its a result of being in such a graceless position.
Marty,Say no more. The missus is chompin to be a granny.
Marty,I just read chapter four. I think it would be better to just pretend you're looking after the grandchild, even if you're not. This guy is just rehashing the same old stuff that has been thoroughly rebuffed by guys like Oliff & Hodge, from my first post, or Rob't Gagnon, another scholar that the homosex activists and enablers dismiss without actually rebutting their points, much less with Scriptural support. He also begins his little chapter by assuming he, or anyone else, can know what the early Hebrews could have conceived regarding human sexuality. This is both a great leap as well as irrelevant. That they might lack a doctorate in sexual studies has nothing to do with the Will of God. I wouldn't waste my time with the guy based on this chapter. Here's how it's gone for me in my pursuit of the best possible undersstanding of this issue: I read one side, and then I read the other (or hear or seek out or view on TV or whatever) and then I get a sense of how the back and forth goes until it's quite clear that one side has stopped the volley. The pro-truth side, which is what I'm on, has had the last word on every angle thrown at them by the pro-homosex side, which is the side I think you're on. The pro-homosex side now has to come up with some way to show that any of the pro-truth side's rebuttals are wrong. It's been a long wait, too. Biblically speaking, they're done. There's nothing left without some new parchment pulled from a hole in the ground in the Middle East showing some new revelations. Don't hold your breath.
“I just read chapter four. I think it would be better to just pretend you’re looking after the grandchild, even if you’re not.”LOL. I thought that too until I read a few of the other chapters. I’d like to give the guy an ear. See what he has to say.”The pro-truth side, which is what I’m on”Well you are convinced. That’s for sure.”has had the last word on every angle thrown at them by the pro-homosex side, which is the side I think you’re on.”If I am on any side here Marshall, I hope it is on the side of Grace.
Tell you what Marshall: You post what you think these fella’s best point is and I’ll address that point.I’ve already given examples of their fallacies, I don’t want to repeat myself.As to your position: I’m still waiting for something substantive as to why we should throw away “and kill ’em” as being a moral wrong (even though it is a command from God) and why we should keep “if a man lies with a man is wrong” AND assume that “man lying with a man” means any and all homosexuality.As I understand your position, it is the same as mine: We reject “and so kill ’em” as immoral because logically and intuitively we know it is wrong to kill people because they are gay. And I agree. But that is not a biblical reason.You reject my logic-based answer (again, repeating lie after lie that it is emotion-based even though I HAVE NEVER ONCE made an emotion-based argument in support of gay marriage is just another example of the fallacies that these two bozos engage in repeatedly) about why I support gay marriage, but you think it’s okay to embrace a logic-based answer as to the “kill ’em” half of the verse.I see no reason why we can embrace logic and moral-reasoning as a basis for the second half of that passage but not for the first half.
Marty,”Well you are convinced. That’s for sure.”Pretty much. At least until something substantive comes along to give me pause. Still waiting.”If I am on any side here Marshall, I hope it is on the side of Grace.”As do we all. But when speaking on a specific issue, such sentiments seem a bit distracting to me. Let’s all assume it’s a given and not bring it up anymore.
Dan,”I’ve already given examples of their fallacies,”When? Where? Could you provide a link to this?”As to your position: I’m still waiting for something substantive as to why we should throw away “and kill ’em” as being a moral wrong…”Asked and answered ad nauseum. Pay attention this time. Putting someone to death, or sacrificing animals, for sins in the OT is a form of atonement replaced by the perfect sacrifice, the death of Christ. Belief and acceptance of Christ as our Savior removes our requirement for further sacrifices. This belief is our atonement, should we repent of our sinful ways and accept Jesus. But the Crucifixion did not alter, nor did anything in Christ’s ministry, what constitutues sinful behavior. So for all those behaviors for which death or sacrifice was an atonement, those behaviors are still sinful and unholy and to be avoided.So our positions on why “and so kill ’em” is no longer practiced is nowhere near the same. It is not wrong to “kill” people because they are “gay”, it is wrong to murder anyone for any reason. We don’t punish them for being homosexual because it isn’t our God mandated job to do so anymore. (And by the way, I would guess that even in OT times, you or I couldn’t just punish anyone with death without going through “channels”. Today’s channels are all civil law and our laws don’t place homosexual behavior as a capital crime.)More later.