Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

Dixie said:
You're right, you aren't doing that, but Stringy and the others continue to do it. I just thought I would point out the error, since no one seems to be aware of this. Trying to parse out a certain verse to make your case for something, is a common tactic used by non-believers, and while you can often make a compelling case to do so, it's irrelevant because The Bible has to be interpreted in whole, not part. It's like trying to find the meaning of a Dylan song by examining the first chord.
Click to expand...

Where did I parse out a certain verse to prove a point? I have been commenting on verses picked out by others claiming that it means this or that. The only passage I brought up was about the centurion and the pais and said it's meaning was indefinite.

Your bullshit projection does not apply to me at all.

The bible goes through movements where old ideas are overturned and new ideas are introduced. It happened with Christ. If you don't read it as a changing covenant then I am not sure how you solve it's many contradictions.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Yeah, I am well schooled in the cherry-picking habbits of those who claim the Bible is just a bunch of myths and fairytales and then try to tell those who have actually studied it what things mean :) Damo never did answer my question~~~
Click to expand...

What did I cherry pick?

The early parts of the bible are obviously nothing more than myth. What are you, one of the nutjobs that believes the earth is only 6000 years old?
 
RStringfield said:
I was referring to the story of the centurion and his pais. I don't see anything definite in it. But if you are going to stretch the bible as ID is...
Click to expand...

Ahhh found it!

So how have I stretched the bible?

As to the greek word pais the literal translation of the word means child servant. Are you saying that Centurian was a pedophile?

How absolutely absurd and twisted!
 
Ice Dancer said:
You have cherry picked the story of the Centurian it appears.
Click to expand...

Again, I said it's meaning was indefinite. I used it as a point concerning your stretching of the evidence to support your biased interpretation of scripture. I don't buy into something based on so little or accept the magical shortcuts either.

It does appear that Christ may have performed a miracle for a committed homosexual couple. But there is not nearly enough there to form any conclusion, just like there is not enough proof that Christ intended what you claimed.
 
just like there is not enough proof that Christ intended what you claimed.
Click to expand...

what is clear is that God, who under the teachings of Christianity IS Jesus declared that homosexual relations is in a very specific category.....that category includes as well incest, bestiality, human sacrifice and idolatry.....this is clear because the same Hebrew word is used to describe those activities and that word is used no where else in the OT except to refer to those activities.....

it is an error to group these things with the Levitical codes because a completely different word is used to describe those things the Jews must not do before sacrificing.............these laws were designed to bring out a state of righteousness so that offered sacrifices would be acceptable to God.....when the Christ made the final sacrifice, all the Levitical codes were fulfilled, once and for all, and Christianity teaches that we do not have to adhere to the Levitical codes, as we no longer need to sacrifice....

that changes nothing about idolatry, human sacrifice, bestiality, incest or homosexual relations, because none of them were part of the Levitical code.......thus, while incarnated, God changed nothing about his regard of those actions.....

that's the full extent of the argument from start to finish.....and to pretend it bends differently in either direction is nothing more than foolishness.....
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Again, I said it's meaning was indefinite. I used it as a point concerning your stretching of the evidence to support your biased interpretation of scripture. I don't buy into something based on so little or accept the magical shortcuts either.

It does appear that Christ may have performed a miracle for a committed homosexual couple. But there is not nearly enough there to form any conclusion, just like there is not enough proof that Christ intended what you claimed.
Click to expand...

Its meaning is NOT indefinite. Pais is literally a child servant. In the time of Christ servants were a part of the household. It was not uncommon for owners to love and cherish their servants. For you to attempt some sort of sexual relationship is pathetic and does a gross injustice to the passage and has absolutely no basis in fact!

I stretched nothing. I spoke directly to the historical and cultural relevence of the audience Christ was addressing; namely his disciples and the Pharisees. So tell me how it is a stretch to include homosexuality among the "sexual immoralities" Christ was discussing? Why would that sexual sin be excluded??? Please enlighten me!
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer said:
SM did not come up with it. It's a view that has been around for some time.
Click to expand...

apparently ignorance dies slowly....he's still at fault for repeating it.....if the passage dealt with homosexual relations it would have applied the same word it used for homosexual relations every other time it appears in the OT.....
 
RStringfield said:
....The bible goes through movements where old ideas are overturned and new ideas are introduced. It happened with Christ. If you don't read it as a changing covenant then I am not sure how you solve it's many contradictions.
Click to expand...

Old "ideas" might be moderated in the New Testament, tempered with the lesson of love and forgiveness by the teachings of Christ, but things that are abominable sins in the OT are the same abominable sins in the NT.

I don't read it as a changing covenant at all, and I don't think very many Christians do either. Most of the "contradictions" you have interpreted, are merely misunderstood context or figurative illustrations presented within stories to convey a particular point. You see, back before they had television or photography, they often told stories in analogous fashion, to get the meaning across more succinctly. This is often misconstrued as a point of 'contradiction' when it really isn't, it's just how they illustrated their points back then. The Bible has many examples of this.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Ahhh found it!

So how have I stretched the bible?

As to the greek word pais the literal translation of the word means child servant. Are you saying that Centurian was a pedophile?

How absolutely absurd and twisted!
Click to expand...

Centurion's were not allowed to marry at the time and were known to keep younger male slaves as lovers. Pais means a servant whom the master holds in affection.
 
RStringfield said:
Centurion's were not allowed to marry at the time and were known to keep younger male slaves as lovers. Pais means a servant whom the master holds in affection.
Click to expand...

You have truly sunk to the realm of dork! Centurians most certainly could and did have wives!!! Pais means child servant or slave. When used by an owner it usually derived the sentiment of one loved like a son.

I do not know where you get your ideas and information...but I suggest you start with a lexicon and move forward from there.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You have truly sunk to the realm of dork! Centurians most certainly could and did have wives!!! Pais means child servant or slave. When used by an owner it usually derived the sentiment of one loved like a son.

I do not know where you get your ideas and information...but I suggest you start with a lexicon and move forward from there.
Click to expand...

http://books.google.com/books?id=jy...&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Pais means beloved servant. It's used in other parts of the bible the same way.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what is clear is that God, who under the teachings of Christianity IS Jesus declared that homosexual relations is in a very specific category.....that category includes as well incest, bestiality, human sacrifice and idolatry.....this is clear because the same Hebrew word is used to describe those activities and that word is used no where else in the OT except to refer to those activities.....
Click to expand...

To which word are you referring? I don't think you are right that it was only used in that context.
 
Southern Man said:
I naturally had a feeling of laziness and sloth, but society taught me that those attributes were not desirable.
Click to expand...

Let's recap.

Msg 315: (Apple) So you agree homosexuality is an inheritable trait, something passed from one generation to another, as opposed to simply being a conscious choice?

Msg 317: (SM) Actually, it is something taught by an older generation to a younger one.

Msg 324: (Apple) Taught? Did someone teach you for whom you should have romantic feelings?

Msg 328: (SM) Yes. I was taught that my feelings towards the opposite sex were normal moral natural and healthy.

Msg 335: (Apple) But you already had those feelings. My point is you were not "feeling-less" and then chose those feelings because of what others said.

Let me put it this way. Did someone tell you how you should feel towards your wife? When you were dating, before your marriage, did anyone say, "SM, that's the right woman for you so you better start getting 'those' feelings for her" or did you experience those feelings yourself without anyone mentioning anything?

I would guess you came by those feelings all by yourself without anyone telling you.

Now imagine if someone told you those feelings you had for her were wrong and tried to convince you to marry someone else. For example, maybe suggesting a gal from a more prominent family or from a more financially successful family or a more religious family. Do you think they would have been successful? Do you think you could have simply dropped those feelings you had for your future wife and dated and married someone else?
 
Ice Dancer said:
He did not need to cover it specifically since his audience knew specifically that homosexuality is a sexually immoral behaviour in accordance to their beliefs and that in his, Christ's, discussion to them about sexual immorality, that it would have been a given.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Yet he covered others specifically. Again, this is just a reach. If we follow your logic there was no necessity to mention any specific sin ever, all he ever had to say was 'sin' then it was all covered.

The reality is, he didn't cover it. Other sins were covered specifically but not that one. It doesn't mean it wasn't a 'sin' just that Christ didn't cover that specific one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top