Atlanta Fire Chief - fired for being Christian.

[firstfloor]

So you just make up things as you go along because you want to see nefarious motivations, against a group of people you really dislike. Most of the pastors I've known, do seem to be some pretty decent people that really do believe what they preach and really do think what they preach is helpful.

I expect that the little kiddies in the IS jihad training schools in Iraq and those in the Hamas schools in Gaza love their teachers too.

Important note: I don’t dislike anybody. You and all your pals here are lovely people. If I did not think that I would not give you the time of day. That has never been the issue.

“They say the religion of your fathers is good enough. Why should a father object to your inventing a better plough than he had? They say to me, do you know more than all the theologians dead? Being a perfectly modest man I say I think I do. Now we have come to the conclusion that every man has a right to think. Would God give a bird wings and make it a crime to fly? Would he give me brains and make it a crime to think? Any God that would damn one of his children for the expression of his honest thought wouldn't make a decent thief.” – Robert Green Ingersoll

[lilpixieofterror]

I expect that the little kiddies in the IS jihad training schools in Iraq and those in the Hamas schools in Gaza love their teachers too.

That's right, compare people who are working in the best interest of others, to jihadist, who are training children to kill themselves and lots of people. Yep, that sure shows you're interested in having a fair discussion and not interested in just trying to make people who dare to disagree with you look bad.

Important note: I don’t dislike anybody. You and all your pals here are lovely people. If I did not think that I would not give you the time of day. That has never been the issue.

Nah, you just paint us as being unthinking sheep, that are too stupid to figure out things on our own. Yep, that is so much better.

“They say the religion of your fathers is good enough. Why should a father object to your inventing a better plough than he had? They say to me, do you know more than all the theologians dead? Being a perfectly modest man I say I think I do. Now we have come to the conclusion that every man has a right to think. Would God give a bird wings and make it a crime to fly? Would he give me brains and make it a crime to think? Any God that would damn one of his children for the expression of his honest thought wouldn't make a decent thief.” – Robert Green Ingersoll

More soundbites? You might like this one, it seems to apply to you, quite well:

“Moderns have not the moral courage, as a rule, to avow the sincere spiritual bias behind their fads; they become insincere even about their sincerity. Most modern liberality consists of finding irreligious excuses for religious bigotry. The earlier type of bigot pretended to be more religious than he really was. The later type pretends to be less religious than he really is. He does not wear a mask of piety, but rather a mask of impiety – or, at any rate, of indifference.” – Illustrated London News, 12-27-19

Isn't it amazing, how words spoken nearly 100 years ago, so accurately describe how things work today?

[Mountain Man]

Apart from the general fact that etymology is an invalid approach to determining meanings, the secondary trouble with trying to guess at the meaning of arsenokoites...

I find your claim that etymology can not be used to determine meaning to be laughable. It's correct to say that it may not necessarily lead to a correct understanding of a term that has changed meaning over time, but we're talking about what a word meant when it first appeared in writing, so your objections hold no water. And besides, nobody is guessing here. Every major lexicon translates arsenokoites to mean homosexuality, and the article I linked to gave strong textual, linguistic, theological, and social evidence that makes it all but certain that Paul and the other relevant scripture are describing and explicitly condemning any and all homosexual relationships while your own arguments seem to depend a great deal on arguments from silence, i.e. "Jesus never asked the centurion if the servant was his gay lover, so he must have been." That's like claiming that Jesus was gay because scripture never says he wasn't gay. The only people who actively buck against certain crystal clear Biblical passages are those who are trying desperately to excuse behavior that God has already called an abomination.

Also, your argument that Paul's contemporaries would have found the word confusing seems to ignore the fact that the Ancient Near East was a high context society with a much broader base of what you might call "common knowledge" than what we have today. Which is to say that Paul didn't go out of his way to define the word because it's one that his readers would have been familiar with as it almost certainly describes homosexual behavior that was strongly condemned by Jewish teaching going all the way back to the Law of Moses.

Despite your many words, your arguments on this matter are, in fact, very weak.

I found reading that essay a bit frustrating because the guy keeps missing the point and is not very logical in his arguments, and he keeps drawing conclusions that are over-broad and inaccurate from the evidence that he analyzes.

This sounds like an excellent description of your own arguments. I don't doubt that you found reading the article to be frustrating since it thoroughly gored your ox.

Now do you have an actual counter-argument, or do you think just idly dismissing the entire thing as "frustrating" is sufficient?

[Mountain Man]

Ultimately, the argument hinges on what God's design for marriage is (Matthew 19:4-6). From a Christian perspective, even if we cannot prove any concrete harms using empirical data, we can still trust that God's ideal of marriage is the superior one.

Even if we were to ignore scripture entirely and trust solely to natural morality, homosexuality can still be shown to be wrong because it is obviously contrary to the natural order due to the fact that males and females are physically compatible in a way that two males and two females are not, and except in very rare cases (which doesn't include humans), heterosexuality is absolutely necessary for the continuation of any species.

[lilpixieofterror]

Now do you have an actual counter-argument, or do you think just idly dismissing the entire thing as "frustrating" is sufficient?

Most people, who attempt to rewrite the Bible, usually don't have any actual arguments. He tries to bring up that 'pro Nazi's tried doing this too!', but totally ignores the fact that many Christians were directly opposed to people's attempts to re-write history in their image and we can find multiple sources, of the Nazi's being directly opposed, by people, in their attempt to rewrite scripture. Does he have any evidence that the early Christians didn't have a problem with homosexuality and somebody later re-wrote history to say they were? No, in fact, we seem to find that early Christians were opposed to homosexual behavior too and often described it as a sin, from across the ages. It isn't until the very recent past, that such attempts have been made to rewrite the Bible to say homosexuality isn't a sin (within my life time, to be exact). I would love to know what his response is to this argument (since he totally ignore DE's much shorter point, in which he used the same argument too). It's almost as if SL doesn't care what the Bible might actually say and is doing what he accuses others of doing. IE attempt to rewrite the Bible into what he wants it to say.

[firstfloor]

Isn't it amazing, how words spoken nearly 100 years ago, so accurately describe how things work today?

Chesterton can sometimes be a little confusing:

“Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”

[Mountain Man]

Most people, who attempt to rewrite the Bible, usually don't have any actual arguments. He tries to bring up that 'pro Nazi's tried doing this too!', but totally ignores the fact that many Christians were directly opposed to people's attempts to re-write history in their image and we can find multiple sources, of the Nazi's being directly opposed, by people, in their attempt to rewrite scripture. Does he have any evidence that the early Christians didn't have a problem with homosexuality and somebody later re-wrote history to say they were? No, in fact, we seem to find that early Christians were opposed to homosexual behavior too and often described it as a sin, from across the ages. It isn't until the very recent past, that such attempts have been made to rewrite the Bible to say homosexuality isn't a sin (within my life time, to be exact). I would love to know what his response is to this argument (since he totally ignore DE's much shorter point, in which he used the same argument too). It's almost as if SL doesn't care what the Bible might actually say and is doing what he accuses others of doing. IE attempt to rewrite the Bible into what he wants it to say.

Exactly. The traditional understanding of scripture going back thousands of years as expressed in many contemporary Jewish writings is that homosexuality is a sin. There was no confusion on this point whatsoever, and it's only recently that people have tried to claim otherwise (such as Starlight's contention that Paul's audience would have been confused by the term arkensokoites when it's more likely that the word had come into common usage and would have been readily understood by the Christian church to whom Paul was writing).

[lilpixieofterror]

Chesterton can sometimes be a little confusing:

That is because he is a master of paradox and often makes paradoxical statements, to teach a lesson, on purpose.

“Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”

You might want to read the whole context, of those statements and see what he said about both progress and tradition. He tend to see that both of them, made many mistakes for example, he said:

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” – ILN, 4/19/24

You need to understand his politics, to understand his words. He didn't see either side, as having all the answer or always being right.

[lilpixieofterror]

Exactly. The traditional understanding of scripture going back thousands of years as expressed in many contemporary Jewish writings is that homosexuality is a sin. There was no confusion on this point whatsoever, and it's only recently that people have tried to claim otherwise (such as Starlight's contention that Paul's audience would have been confused by the term arkensokoites when it's more likely that the word had come into common usage and would have been readily understood by the Christian church to whom Paul was writing).

Than it would be, up to him, to demonstrate anybody who seemed to have been confused by such a term. I can't find anybody, who was, with the exception of those living in very recent modern times.

[Sparko]

When you argue with me you are arguing only with me and not with me and my overbearing god. If I tell you what I think or even I tell you what I think you should do, because there is no superior authority at my back it is immediately clear to you that you can easily disregard anything I say without penalty.

I disregard anything you say because you are an basement dwelling idiot who just loves to troll and couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

[Mountain Man]

Than it would be, up to him, to demonstrate anybody who seemed to have been confused by such a term. I can't find anybody, who was, with the exception of those living in very recent modern times.

That's an excellent point. His arguments depend a great deal on silence and innuendo and have little if any substance.

[firstfloor]

I disregard anything you say because you are an basement dwelling idiot who just loves to troll and couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag.

[KingsGambit]

Jesus is teaching against divorce in that passage, and espousing ideals for marriage and divorce that nearly all denominations do not follow since it's too tough a standard.

But if you're going to reject Jesus' teachings against divorce as too tough and instead allow divorce (as I assume you do, since your profile says you're Baptist), isn't it a bit unreasonable to take Jesus' ideal for marriage that you don't follow and hold it up as an ideal for marriage that gay people ought to be forced to follow? After all, if you reject Jesus' explicit teachings in this passage (divorce), isn't it unreasonable to demand other people accept what you regard as being the implicit teachings of this passage? (on homosexuality) Or, to put it another way, if you're not going to obey Jesus on what he is talking about, why should you feel justified in demanding other people obey what he isn't talking about?

As I mentioned earlier, Jesus' says that in heaven there will be no marriage (Matt 22:30). Paul says that the ideal situation is celibacy (1 Cor 7) and that marriage is a concession to human lusts. And Jesus says divorce is not the ideal, but is a concession to the hard-heartedness of humanity (Mat 19:8). So in every way the biblical teachings around marriage and divorce seem to say that none of it is ideal and that it is all about concession and compromise. And that should be no surprise because we live in a fallen world, and thus the need for concessions and compromises. Trying to force gay people to meet your perceived heavenly ideals and allowing no compromise where they are concerned, appears to me to be holding them to an unreasonably high standard that is not the kind of standard the bible applies to everyone else.

I've actually done a fair amount of background reading on Jesus' teaching of divorce, and the first clue that prohibitions are not absolute per se is that the rest of the New Testament, as I'm sure you know, is not entirely consistent with a blanket prohibition (Matthew's exception clause, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 7). Thus I follow the lead of scholars such as Instone-Brewer and Keener who conclude that Jesus is speaking against divorce in harsh, not uncertain terms, perhaps using a little hyperbole. (Keener notes that Roman historians surely would have noted if the early Christians had been breaking up remarriages.) So to an extent, I think we do still have a need for some of the concessions and compromise as you noted (adultery, abuse, abandonment seem like acceptable causes for divorce in a marriage that absolutely cannot be saved). Thus, I don't think we need to abandon marriage altogether even though Paul seems to discourage it (and he does seem to indicate in 1 Cor 7 that is it more of his personal opinion).

On the other hand, there does not seem to be any biblical data altogether indicating any sort of concessions to homosexuality, so while you've raised some good questions, I don't think we can ultimately compare the two cases.

[Mountain Man]

The Bible also clearly and unambiguously says that eating bacon is an abomination. Are the Christians who think it is not sinful to eat bacon "dead wrong?"

This is such an inexcusably ignorant argument because there is a clear distinction in the Old Testament between moral laws and levitical laws. But, of course, people who make such arguments are not looking for enlightenment but a simpleminded "Gotcha!"

If you look at the book of Leviticus, chapters 11 through 17 are pretty straightforward and begin with God simply saying, "Tell the Israelites such-and-so," or, "Tell Aaron and the priests such-and-so." Furthermore, the instructions are described as regulations, but when we get to chapter 18, the preamble shows a marked difference:



Notice that God is no longer calls them regulations but laws and decrees. He then describes a long list of sexual sins, including homosexuality, before emphasizing a second time:



Notice specifically that these activities are refered to as sin ("I punished it for its sin") when this word does not appear in any of the previous chapters except in context where it is talking about "sin offering". That is to say that while eating pork or having a skin lesion are described as a defilement, they are not called a sin.

So that seems pretty straightforward at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned, but what about the New Testament? In that case, we simply need to look at how Jesus observed and interpreted the Law. For instance, Jesus said that it's not what goes into the mouth that makes a man unclean but what comes out (Matthew 15:11), so that would suggest that Old Testament dietary restrictions are not binding under the New Covenant. Working on the Sabbath? Jesus suggested that picking grain (Matthew 12), carrying a bedroll (John 5), and pulling a sheep out of a pit (Luke 14:5) were not actually violations of the Law, so it seems that Christians have a lot of freedom in that regard. What about sexual sin? On that point, Jesus' interpretation of the Law in Matthew 5:28 was even more strict than what the Pharisees proscribed! So it would seem we have zero wiggle room when it comes to Leviticus 18.

[Mountain Man]

Paul says that the ideal situation is celibacy (1 Cor 7) and that marriage is a concession to human lusts.

He never describes celibacy as "ideal".

1 Corinthians 7:1-6 is referring to married couples operating under the premise that it is good to abstain from sex. What Paul is saying is that since this can lead to sin, such as lust and infidelity, then go ahead and have sex with your spouse. In verse 5, he talks about temporary, mutual abstinance between a husband and wife, but that they shouldn't do it to the point where sin becomes a probelm. It is this temporary abstinance that Paul is talking about in verse 6 when he says, "I say this as a concession, not as a command." In other words, "You asked me if you should abstain from sex with your wives, so as a concession, I advocate temporary, mutual abstinance, but I am not commanding you to do so."

In verse 8, he says, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do," but just because he says that it is good to stay unmarried does not mean that it is therefore bad to get married. In fact, he says that while it is good to stay unmarried, it is better to marry if you think you lack the self-control to live a life of abstinance.

1 Corinthians also needs to be read in its historical context when Christians were facing tremendous persecution, what Paul describes as "the present crisis" in 1 Cor 7:26. It is specifically in this context that Paul does not think people should get married, but his advice is obviously pragmatic rather than moral because he goes on to say in verse 36 that those who do get married are not sinning.

Try as you might, you'll find no such concession from Paul, or Jesus, or the prophets concerning homosexuality.