seebs

Then don't refer to them when making your case.

Wayne Delia

What's your objective standard used to determine whether a particular issue is transcended or extended beyond Mosaic law? The way it looks here, it seems like your objective standard is "if it helps my agenda, then it transcends or extends beyond Mosaic law." I mean, a law's a law, so the set of God's laws dealing with the abomination of eating shrimp, prohibition of eating meat and dairy products together, forbidding wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, etc. ought to be taken at least as seriously as you want to take the laws against homosexuality. Your kneejerk response will be to bemoan how reprehensible homosexuality is, but that misses the point: you need to address why the laws against relatively common practices listed above are largely ignored. A law's a law.

I am forced to conceed seebs's point that if you think that "homosexuality
transcends and extends beyond the moral laws of Moses," then the moral laws of Moses do not apply to homosexuality, and you'll be unable to use anything in the first five books of the Bible to support your argument. That's an extreme case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

WMD

Bible John

Seebs since Pevery never showed up to debunk my round 3 rebuttel do you want a formal debate?

I found some errors in pevery's arguments. One of which is a hebrew word he claims is only 12 times in the bible, which is flat out wrong. Also some of hnis translations are not what the Strongs would reccommend.


John

Nice Squirrel

Well, how does the word count change the meaning?

Because if he is off on his count that doesn't mean anything.

Bible John

Thats only one of my gripes. I have many. Did you read my argument? One of which is Pevry claiming that God creates people homosexual. This is a flat out lie, since what he says compromises the literal greek translation.

Pevery claims that the bible as translated condemms homosexuality, but I claim that the original condemms homosexuality and I showed it.


John

Nice Squirrel

Of which text? If God does not create homosexual people then who creates them?

I didn't see where you quoted more original sources than Pervy. You even selected a "poorer translation" when it fit your argument.

bobhope2112

It's Pervy. P, E, R, V, Y. Pervy.

It's only been a day and a half since you posted your rebuttal. Perhaps you could give him a bit of time to respond before whining about how he "never showed up."

It's Pervy. P, E, R, V, Y. Pervy.

Actually that is not his argument. Go back an re-read it, and you will see that Pervy is making the argument that homosexuality is not strongly condemned by the Bible. For some of the verses in question, he qualifies that the original Hebrew is vague or ambiguous, and have been made explicit--stronger if you will--by presumptions embedded into the English translations.

I'm not willing to say that Pevry's arguments unequivocably hold water, but at least he's fashioning them in the shape of a bucket. Are you making any plans to follow suit?

Dean Anderson

I'm here.

I may not be up to my normal standards - since I am posting from a hotel bedroom in Stockholm and I'm very tired (I'm on-site fixing software - I've worked for 38 of the last 48 hours, and I've only had 7 hours sleep in the last two nights put together) - but I'm here.

There's no need to go around claiming that I "never showed up" after a mere day and a half, when every single one of your posts has been at least 3 days late beyond a known-in-advance week long deadline.

Anyway, people will have to bear with me here, since I have no access to my books - so all I can rely on is my memory and the Internet...

Orthodox_Freethinker

Romans 1
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor 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 recompense of their error which was meet.

If people are actually born gay, they are not exchanging the 'natural' for the 'unnatural' and therefore, one could not use the words of Paul to condemn homosexuality. All we'd have left, then, is Leviticus but I've never seen Jerry Fallwell stone a woman to death for eating shell fish.

Peace.

Evilicious

Pervy,

Take your time. If Bible John is allowed two weeks for a response, then so are you. For him to whine that you haven't responded yet after only a DAY AND A HALF is absolutely ludicrous.