Thoughts on "God and the Gay Christian"?

[Adrift]

It gets really ambiguous when you consider the multiple wives and concubines of Israel's kings. David and Solomon entered many gardens.

The Bible is far from clear on sexual sins. One need only look at David's and Solomon's cadre of wives and concubines to see the fuzziness that surrounds the topic, especially with regard to context and the progressive revelation about homosexuality.

Is it fuzzy? Doesn't seem like polygamy and promiscuity worked out too well for either David or Solomon. And it doesn't appear that any new revelation has come along on the subject of sexual sin (or anything else for that matter) since the closing of the canon.

[whag]

What are you talking about? Conversion therapy, whether it works or not, has nothing to do with weather homosexual behavior is defined as sin in scripture. And Matt's main point was not even about conversion therapy.

Yes, but he's for it. His main point is actually worse.
He makes archaic references to natural law. At one point he says "God did not design the man to enter the rectum of another man." God also didn't design the penis for a woman's anus, or the male tongue to stimulate the clitoris, but you'll find that many Christians express their sexuality in this way.

White pretends heterosexual sex is always done in the missionary position and for procreation, showing how out of touch with reality he is.

[Darth Executor]

There is also a great deal of attention paid to the traditional "proof texts" as not condemning committed same-sex relationships

IOW it's garbage.

[whag]

Is it fuzzy? Doesn't seem like polygamy and promiscuity worked out too well for either David or Solomon. And it doesn't appear that any new revelation has come along on the subject of sexual sin (or anything else for that matter) since the closing of the canon.

Yes, real fuzzy. God strangely tolerates those grievous sins was my point. His problem with the Bathsheba incident seems mainly with the killing of Uriah. He took action there.

Re: progressive/general revelation, I wasn't referring to new information regarding polygamy but information on homosexuality. That taboo condition is less taboo as science explains the nature of it.

[Adrift]

It gets really ambiguous when you consider the multiple wives and concubines of Israel's kings. David and Solomon entered many gardens.

The Bible is far from clear on sexual sins. One need only look at David's and Solomon's cadre of wives and concubines to see the fuzziness that surrounds the topic, especially with regard to context and the progressive revelation about homosexuality.

As for what you said about promiscuity, I didn't advocate that. I merely said that high libido can point to psychological and physical problems that marriage isn't necessarily a solution to.

Yes, real fuzzy. God strangely tolerates those grievous sins was my point. His problem with the Bathsheba incident seems mainly with the killing of Uriah. He took action there.

Very strangely, seeing as polygamy led to the ruin of both David and Solomon (without even mentioning Bathsheba).

Re: progressive/general revelation, I wasn't referring to new information regarding polygamy but information on homosexuality.

whag... Honestly, what is wrong with you? Can you not have a conversation with someone without throwing your own peculiar twist on someone elses words? I'm asking for just one conversation where you knock that dishonest junk out. I never said that you said that you were referring to new information regarding polygamy. I said "it doesn't appear that any new revelation has come along on the subject of sexual sin". I know you read that, because you quoted me and then replied to me.

That taboo condition is less taboo as science explains the nature of it.

What does that have to do with progressive revelation?

[whag]

Very strangely, seeing as polygamy led to the ruin of both David and Solomon (without even mentioning Bathsheba).

Yes, extremely strangely, seeing that a) David followed God's heart while concurrently having sex with many woman in front of God and b) Solomon was gifted with wisdom but also mistook fake gods for real.

... Honestly, what is wrong with you? Can you not have a conversation with someone without throwing your own peculiar twist on someone elses words? I'm asking for just one conversation where you knock that dishonest junk out. I never said that you said that you were referring to new information regarding polygamy. I said "it doesn't appear that any new revelation has come along on the subject of sexual sin". I know you read that, because you quoted me and then replied to me.

Nothing's wrong with me. You're just having another whack attack and making it personal. The misunderstanding lies in "polygamy" and "gay sexual expression" falling under the subject of "sexual sin." Re: progressive general revelation, we know more about homosexuality and therefore we're more tolerant of its expression compared to the days when it was more taboo and misunderstood.

[Darth Executor]

we know more about homosexuality and therefore we're more tolerant of its expression compared to the days when it was more taboo and misunderstood.

Who's "we"? What most people learn today about homosexuality comes from liberals and it's mostly lies. Genuine knowledge of homosexuality would make people more averse to it, not less.

[jordanriver]

I feel bad for the gays, struggling with their sin and all...
...but I'm still having a hard enough time struggling with my own sin, and it's hard to stop.

[Adrift]

Yes, extremely strangely, seeing that a) David followed God's heart while concurrently having sex with many woman in front of God and b) Solomon was gifted with wisdom but also mistook fake gods for real.

Which, again, brought them to their ruin. So, the lesson to take away from this is that, even if you're a man after God's own heart, he'll take his hand of protection off of you when you continue in sin.

Nothing's wrong with me. You're just having another whack attack and making it personal.

Yes, there's something wrong with you. You are apparently unable to have an honest dialogue with someone without doing this weasly little thing you do with people's words. Did you think no one was going to notice? I know CP has called you on it, pretty sure Chrawnus and Cerebrum have called you on it. Its not the fancy debate technique you think it is.

And what is with this goofy phrase you keep using, "whack attack"? Are people not supposed to react when their posts are twisted out of context? Do you honestly think anyone is going to buy that as well?

If I were you, I would seriously reconsider how to post on this forum. You're making skeptics looks bad when you can't post without being deceitful.

[whag]

Who's "we"? What most people learn today about homosexuality comes from liberals and it's mostly lies. Genuine knowledge of homosexuality would make people more averse to it, not less.

They'd be no more averse to it than heterosexual data would make us averse to heterosexuality.

[shunyadragon]

I read God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships by Matthew Vines recently so that I would have something to recommend to conservative Christians curious about how anyone could take the same high view of the Bible and be LGBT affirming.

The book exceeded my expectations: I now no longer think there needs to be a compromise on typical fundamentalist exegesis in order to be affirming. I've since begun recommending it to conservative Christians and also people who interact with conservative Christians on this topic.

Curious whether anyone here has read it and what their reactions might be.

I do not believe that the book has sound Biblical foundation. It's main purpose is to justify Homosexuality. Biblical foundation view of Chastity trumps reform such as proposed here.

[whag]

Which, again, brought them to their ruin. So, the lesson to take away from this is that, even if you're a man after God's own heart, he'll take his hand of protection off of you when you continue in sin.

That's a convenient view that does nothing to address the strange silence.

Yes, there's something wrong with you. You are apparently unable to have an honest dialogue with someone without doing this weasly little thing you do with people's words. Did you think no one was going to notice? I know CP has called you on it, pretty sure Chrawnus and Cerebrum have called you on it. Its not the fancy debate technique you think it is.

And what is with this goofy phrase you keep using, "whack attack"? Are people not supposed to react when their posts are twisted out of context? Do you honestly think anyone is going to buy that as well?

If I were you, I would seriously reconsider how to post on this forum. You're making skeptics looks bad when you can't post without being deceitful.

You're freaking out and making it personal. That's what it means. You did it with Dee Dee regarding her stance on Christian sexuality, and you do it with me. Take it down a notch.

[Darth Executor]

They'd be no more averse to it than heterosexual data would make us averse to heterosexuality.

The data on gays is worse than on heterosexuals, so yeah, they would be more adverse to it. A lot more. Particularly when you get into the gender of child rape victims, who turn out to be disproportionately male on male despite the insistence of the APA that they're all raped by heterosexuals. We'd also probably have discovered a cause and possibly a cure by now.

[Adrift]

That's a convenient view that does nothing to address the strange silence.

He wasn't silent.

Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Deut 17:17 Furthermore, he [the king] must not marry many wives lest his affections turn aside, and he must not accumulate much silver and gold.

Prov 31:3 What are you doing, my son? What are you doing, son of my womb? What are you doing, son of my vows? Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings.

You're freaking out and making it personal. That's what it means. You did it with Dee Dee regarding her stance on Christian sexuality, and you do it with me. Take it down a notch.

You intentionally misquote people and put words in their mouths. What is that if not personal? Why should I ignore the fact that you've lied about what I've said? As far as I can tell, most people on this forum don't tolerate that sort of behavior. Really, you're doing a disservice to the other skeptics on this forum by acting this way. You wouldn't want someone to think that this is how skeptics routinely act, would you?

[whag]

He wasn't silent.

Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Deut 17:17 Furthermore, he [the king] must not marry many wives lest his affections turn aside, and he must not accumulate much silver and gold.

Prov 31:3 What are you doing, my son? What are you doing, son of my womb? What are you doing, son of my vows? Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings.

You didn't quote God's condemnation of David re: illicit sex. Notice that God burns with anger over a census, though. Thousands killed over it.



[QUOTE=Adrift;163138You intentionally misquote people and put words in their mouths. What is that if not personal? Why should I ignore the fact that you've lied about what I've said? As far as I can tell, most people on this forum don't tolerate that sort of behavior. Really, you're doing a disservice to the other skeptics on this forum by acting this way. You wouldn't want someone to think that this is how skeptics routinely act, would you?[/QUOTE]

Okay now you're lying about me intentionally misquoting people, just like you freaked out with Dee Dee. Now you have to search threads to corroborate my misquotations, which is boring and a waste of time. It's really stupid, especially since I explained our current misunderstanding, which was not a misquote, in this thread. Go back and read what I said.

Re: skeptic behavior, skeptics aren't a homogenous group that I bother to monitor or choose to represent. I'm not selling a group's image, and don't referee other skeptics' posts. I literally don't care to spread a gospel of skepticism governed by a code of uniform conduct. Sorry to disappoint you! =P