Monday, February 26, 2007

HOMOSEXUALITY: NOT GENETIC

All of you people who keep insisting that homosexuals are born homosexuals (as in naturally, not created that way by environment)forget one very important thing.

Common sense.

No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals. They know they were abused by some one when they were children, or molested, or maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home. Who knows?

But they won't admit it and they won't tell you. And I suppose some have been denying the truth for so long they have begun to totally believe their own delusion. They are too busy defending their perversion instead of working on the issues that have influenced then to become that way.

It is so much easier to convince people who would rather let so-called experts tell them what to think whether it is logical or not, isn't it?

I don't hate homosexuals, nor do I fear them as some have insinuated. I hate the act of homosexuality. (It is possible.) My whole argument concerning the subject is that I categorically reject the notion that anyone has ever been born a homosexual. They choose to be that way for the reasons that I mentioned. And more. In the last couple of decades, I believe another reason for "turning gay" is that it has become fashionable.

I have had many homosexual friends, (I've mentioned this before) and I like all of them personally. But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma in their formative years such as molestation, at the extreme end of the spectrum, to simply not having a strong enough father figure influence at the mild end. Every one.

Just the other day, I talked to a woman who got all defensive when I mentioned my belief that environment creates queers, not nature. Why defensive? Because her son admitted to her at 14 that he was gay.

She went on to explain that instead of trying to explain to him that homosexual behavior is unacceptable, she simply accepted it. Then she explained that he didn't have a father until she married when he was 7.

I am a stepfather, and it is my belief that stepfathers, while they may be very good fathers, simply cannot be as good a father to their stepchildren as they can to their own, because they do not have that blood bond.

Right there in that short exchange is two textbook examples of childhood experiences creating a homosexual. A mother who does not accept the responsibilty of guiding her son in the right direction, and no father figure. In that case, I believe the two elements combined to create a homosexual tendency, which in itself, is not necessarily deviant. It is when the individual gives in to the urge to explore deviant fantasies that it becomes unnatural.

I created a post about a scientific study back on June 3 last year. Scientists genetically altered a female fruit fly by placing a male gene in it. It did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly. A similar, more recent experiment was done with mice, if I remember correctly. Then, the article I was referencing (from who else? The New York Times) drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic. The more recent study drew the same conclusion.

My take on the subject at the time was flawed because I based it on a statement from one of the scientists that I misunderstood.

What I should have pointed out at the time, but didn't, is that the research didn't prove that homosexuality was genetic at all. It proved precisely the opposite. The fruit flies would have never behaved in that fashion if not altered. In their natural unaltered state, they would have behaved heterosexually.

An opposite sex gene never occurs in nature. It can only happen if it is artificially altered in some way.

So, if not genetic, what then?

Environment. As I said.

Furthermore, despite what many so-called experts have said, homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Some Biblical scholars have made the attempt to change the intent behind the words in Leviticus, "A man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman". They insists often that the words, in the original Greek, don't really mean what they say. Instead of trusting their own common sense, they twist God's words in an attempt to legitimize perversion.

Well, they can fool some of the people all of the time, but they can never fool God.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever floats your boat. I don't really care. But stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way. You weren't, and subconciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

Sometimes you just has to use the sense the good Lord gave you.

86 comments:

purple jesus said...

God is a myth loser!

Dan Trabue said...

"They know they were abused by some one when they were children, or molested, or maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home. Who knows?

But they won't admit it and they won't tell you"

That's right, Mark. If someone disagrees with you about their own life, then obviously they are wrong and/or lying. After all, who knows better about their life - you or them?

Really Mark, your position doesn't match reality. Believe it or not, there ARE gay folk who had perfectly happy childhoods.

Did you see the news last week that arch-conservative Al Mohler conceded that gays may be born that way? It's reality.

Deny it all you want, that won't make it true.

Look at it this way: Suppose I said that conservatives were only conservative because of trauma in their lives. Their daddy was a pervert and that distorted their sense of morality.

"But," you'd say, "that's not true. I became a conservative because I chose to!"

No, you're wrong. "Conservatism" (not actually Conservative reasoning, but what passes for conservatism in many circles today) is a genetic disorder that hopefully will be cured one day.

Do you see how preposterous and arrogant it is for someone to deny what you know to be real in your own life?

Humility is the beginning of all learning.

Marshal Art said...

It's one thing to say that gays are born that way. It's quite another to say that it is normal or meant to be. One explanation I've heard is that due to some traumatic or highly emotional situation in the mother's life during the earliest stages of pregnancy, her hormonal balance is altered so that the fetus does not produce the proper amount of testosterone. A lower supply can result in a less agressive person more prone to homo tendencies. I doubt, however, that this explains everything, particularly when we see a football player come out.

My opinion is that it doesn't matter how someone is gay, only that they work to resist. I would wager that if someone took the time, they could find similar biological reasons for most of what humans do. We are all prone to indulge ourselves in one way or another. Some of those indulgences are forbidden by Scripture. It doesn't concern Itself with what is "natural" or how someone is born. It only teaches about what we are to do to serve God's Will.

So if I was born with an abnormally high level of testosterone, I am equally relieved of responsibility for my violent behavior as is the homosexual for his. Or am I? Scripture speaks against anger and violence. Therefor, despite how I "was born", I am duty bound to change my behavior to conform to the Will of God.

And what the hell does "God is a myth loser!" mean?

Mark said...

Art, I believe PJ left out a comma between myth and loser. He is, after all, an idiot who hasn't learned the art of punctuation.

Marshal Art said...

I see. I'm always interested in reviewing the research that supports the views of a purple jesus. I'm sure it's voluminous.

Dan Trabue said...

"Scripture speaks against anger and violence."

But scripture no where speaks against committed loving relationships. No where does God's Word speak against gay marriage.

So, on what basis would we tell folk who are, in fact, gay NOT to seek out a committed loving relationship?

On the basis of 5-6 verses in the WHOLE Bible that churches traditionally have taken to mean that God is opposed to homosexuality in general?

Perhaps.

But churches traditionally found a few verses in the Bible to support slavery, as well. And we know that churches who did so were unequivocally wrong. So traditional interpretations of the Bible is not, in and of itself, reason to oppose gay marriage.

For most religious people (myself included) we have tended to accept that the Bible "clearly" condemns homosexuality in any and all forms and therefore God condemns homosexuality in all forms, even gay marriage.

But a closer examination of the Bible reveals that it's not so clear as might be tempted to think by tradition.

IF tradition is correct, then by all means, we should stick to tradition. BUT we should not stick to traditional rules just for tradition's sake.

That was what got slavery supporters in trouble as well as the Pharisees. And we know how rough Jesus was on them. Blind Guides! Fools! Serpents! Sons of perdition!

Caution.

Marshal Art said...

Bad argument, Dan. Scriptural references on slavery were not an endorsement of the practice. They never were, but were used as such. That's quite a bit different than admonitions against homosexual behavior. Those verses are quite clear. If God considers the practice an abomination, how could He possibly condone marriage between two engaged in abominable behavior? The argument is, frankly, quite stupid. Find a different one lest others view you in like manner. As I've stated before, the Bible never, EVER, comes close to condoning any sexual relations other than that which occurs between a man and a woman who are married to each other. Period. To state that it can be interpreted any other way is an out and out lie.

You must keep in mind that I do not believe that there's anything wrong with those who wish to prevent harm from being visited upon gays and lesbians. I count myself among them. I also happen to believe that it is wrong to sever the hands of thieves. But in neither case would I ever try to pretend that thieving or buggering is just fine and dandy for some. It's wrong for everyone. It's wrong because God says so first of all, and then society says so as well. At least so far.

And BTW, if you think you can, try to find a tract that says slavery is a sin or wrong. Slavery was mostly used to relieve debt in ancient times. Some were captured during wars, but debt satisfaction was commonly met through enslaving oneself, as in indentured servitude. In most cases, slaves could earn their freedom. America's time with slavery was rather different and as such a special case. But the treatment of slaves was the concern of Scripture and for America, the treatment was rather poor to heinous and for that it became truly distasteful. Ending slavery here didn't end the sorry view of blacks with even abolishonists condescending. The point is, that it was not the Bible that condemned slavery as much as Christians condemning it based on their interpretation of how a Christian should treat another. One could say that these Christians "misinterpreted" Scripture, too, even though we're all cool with the result.

But the only people misinterpreting Scripture when it comes to homosexuality, are those who wish to support the gay agenda. Sadly, too many within Christ's church are among that group.

Dan Trabue said...

"That's quite a bit different than admonitions against homosexual behavior. Those verses are quite clear."

If it's all right with you, friend, I'll choose to disagree with you. I don't think it's clear at all that gay marriage is a sin. Since it's not mentioned in the Bible, we have to figure it out on our own, praying for God's leadership.

You have (as I did at for the first half of my life) chosen to believe the traditional church interpretation, even though the pickin's are slim on the topic and even though the Bible is all over the place on sexual mores (is marrying your sister okay? Marrying a bunch of wives? Having a harem? Trading your wife off to another man? Suggesting your husband have intercourse with another woman? All happen within the Bible's pages).

Believe what you feel led to believe, just don't do it in ignorance. Understand what the Bible does AND DOESN'T say about same sex issues. Mostly, it doesn't say anything, although clearly there are some prohibitions against sexual immorality, but again, they can be sort of hard to pin down.

The facts of the Bible:

1. Homosexuality is not mentioned.
2. Gay marriage is not mentioned.
3. Jesus never touches on the topic at all.
4. There are ~5 places (depending upon your translation) in the Bible that SEEM to be talking about some kind of same sex immorality, but it's never spelled out exactly what it is.

If you look at those five or six verses and pray for wisdom and still come out thinking that homosexuality is a sin, that is between you and God. Just know that there are some very devoted Christians out there, saved by God's grace who love God's Word, who have read the Bible and come away with a different opinion.

Dan Trabue said...

Let me clarify my first point: There are two-ish places in the Bible where a word has been translated "homosexual offenders" in some versions, other words in other translations. They're not sure of the meaning of the word. The word translated "homosexual offender" has the literal translation of "soft."

In that regards, the words "homosexuality" or "homosexual" are never used in the original text.

Marshal Art said...

You can pretend if you want to, Dan. There are quite a few lib Christians who have poured through the Book in search of permission and throught dexterous manipulation of the original language have satisfied themselves that they have found it. Yet, each have been refuted expertly by those who seek first to know what the Bible teaches without regard to what they'd like it to teach.

Consider this: None of what you're saying has ever been interpreted in such a manner until the homosexual lobby gained more acceptance in the world. There was never anyone who studied the Bible and said, "WOW! I just realized we were all mistaken about that gay stuff! It's really OK!" No. As I've said, there are those who look to interpret the Bible based on personal experience and seek to interpret in light of such. You've apparently decided to do as well. Good luck with that. You've created for yourself a false god, as have they. Objective scholars NEVER come away agreeing with the interpretation you've offered. Here's a few names for you to research: Olliff, Hodges and Gagnon. Robert Gagnon has a website.

As to your "facts", I've touched on them all in the past. AS a reminder.

1. But the behavior is without a doubt mentioned and called an abomination.
2. Why would it be? It was never done, even amongst those who practiced homosexual behavior. It's a stupid point to try to make.
3. Why would He? The practice was widely disdained as sinful within the Jewish nations and thus not something they engaged in. The Jews were the people Christ came to redeem, and He focussed on those sins they DID engage in. It took His death and ressurection before His salvation became available to the rest of us.
4. This was spelled out above. Many who have trouble with these verses don't take into account how it was understood by the people at the time it was written. To them it was quite plain. To modern man, it is purposely distorted in order to make their case.

Dan Trabue said...

"As I've said, there are those who look to interpret the Bible based on personal experience and seek to interpret in light of such. You've apparently decided to do as well."

Well, as I've said, I was in your camp. I believed homosexuality was a sin and utterly wrong, not to mention horribly repulsive. I only changed my mind when I closely studied the Bible and prayed sincerely over the matter.

I'm NOT interpreting it in such a way to please me or others - I had no desire to change my mind. The Bible and God did that.

So, you are entirely free to believe what you believe. Just know that there are those of us out there who are sincere Christians striving to understand God's Word who sincerely disagree with your position as an unbiblical one.

Marshal Art said...

One canNOT study the Bible with an objective mind and come away believing that homosex behavior is not sinful. It just can't be done. Not unless you believe that for thousands of years there was no one who picked apart every word while praying hard about it without ever coming up with your position. How can it be that only in modern times people have miraculously seen that which has been hidden from all those other scholars and believers? It's absolute rubbish and it certainly is NOT God who has "enlightened" you. It's most likely someone who hails from a locale warmer and more southerly than heaven. You need to go outside your self-deceiving little circle of confused Christians and compare notes with true scholars of the faith while you still have time to make corrections.

It's one thing to defend sinners about to stoned by those who believe they are without sin. It's quite another thing to defend their sin. Tread lightly here. The ice upon which you skate is tissue thin. You WILL fall in. I'll pray for you.

A few other points: Just how many verses do you require before you adjust your behavior to God's Will? Shouldn't one be enough for you? That there isn't a chapter regarding homosexuality (The Book of Bruce?), means somehow that you can indulge? The Book doesn't spend a whole lot on incest either, but it's in there. Should Christ have to speak on that before you reconsider marrying your sister? Grow up.

Your gay friends are more than welcome to enter into a committed relationship, as long as it comforms with God's Will. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen 2:24. Does God need to draw you a picture?

Dan Trabue said...

"One canNOT study the Bible with an objective mind and come away believing that homosex behavior is not sinful. It just can't be done."

Brother man, this is just exactly the sort of arrogance that turns people away from Christ. Here I am, telling you that I honestly studied the Bible with NOT an objective mind but rather with a mind that was opposed to homosexuality and I DID come away changed.

And here you are saying it can't happen when I tell you that it did in my case and in the case of a good number of others that I know personally.

Who should I believe? My own self or you? Well, obviously you, because you just told me that what I thought happened CAN'T happen.

Go convert someone else to your brand of arrogance, I'm not impressed.

Dan Trabue said...

"Just how many verses do you require before you adjust your behavior to God's Will?"

How about at least one?

I said that there are only a handful of verses that SEEM to condemn homosexuality in general. A closer read didn't support that notion.

How many times would you need to be told (commanded by Jesus!) to sell your belongings and give to the poor to take adjust your behavior to God's Will?

How many times would you need to be told to love your enemies and overcome evil with good do you need to be told to adjust your behavior to God's Will?

It would be a mistake to assume that somehow I'm NOT paying attention to the Bible but you are.

We all have to prayerfully interpret the Bible and sometimes we may disagree on it.

KEvron said...

"Who knows?"

not you, despite your pretenses.

KEvron

Marshal Art said...

OK Dan,

Now you're going to have to explain just how Leviticus 18:22 is NOT a condemnation of homo behavior. I'd be really interested to hear which spin job you use to deny God's Will here.

Also, where have I said that I do not give to the poor? Are you living in a lean-to in the woods because you've sold ALL your possessions to give to the poor? And what then for the poor? No longer being poor, should they now sell all of the possesions they've aquired from the sale of yours, and then give it all away? By that logic, all will be poor and in need. Is that how your looney interpretation works?

After that, you can tell me where in the Bible it says that we must love our enemies so much that we should let them kill us and our loved ones and other innocent people. Can you show me that verse? By your goofy interpretation, we should all be living under the threat that today is the day evil turns its attention to us and does us in rather than us repel the threat. Your interpretation is dangerous to those who you claim to love. Get out of Lalaland and stop pretending you've become enlightened. You're more in the dark than ever before.

Dan Trabue said...

The leviticus passages (there are two, in chapter 18 and in chapter 20) come amid other sexually related sins and say that "a man shall not lie with a man, to do so is an abomination." and in one of the places it goes on to say that those who do so should be put to death.

[and, as an aside, those two single verses are the entire OT argument against homosexuality.]

First, some preliminary questions:

1. Are you saying that we ought to put men who lay with men to death?
2. If not, why not? That's what that passage specifically says.
3. Do you advocate NOT putting men who lay with men to death because you think that was a specific rule given to a specific people at a specific time?

I would suppose that you do NOT support obeying that passage literally, that you have reasons for thinking we ought not kill men who lay with men.

But you don't get that from reading that passage, nor from anywhere else in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that that passage can be ignored.

Rather, you used your reason, the rest of the Bible and not just those literal words to determine what's the right thing to do, correct?

Secondly, when we try to read the Bible and figure out what it's saying to us, we need to have some idea of context. Right?

Well, when I dug a little deeper, I found that there was a problem with Israel's neighbors who'd use male prostitutes in an obviously oppressive manner (the males being boys or slaves and not having much choice). With that knowledge, it appeared to me that this was the likely target of such a rule.

Why that and not gay marriage or committed gay relationships? Because there was no context for such a thing. The Hebrew people would know nothing about the notion of a committed gay relationship, as it was unheard of.

For a thoroughly biblical look at all of these questions and all five-ish places in the Bible where it seems to talk about homosexuality, I'd recommend my good friend, Michael's blog, who has a very intelligent and spiritual look at the topic.

Go to:
http://levellers.wordpress.com/

and look for a sidebar on homosexuality and the Bible.

Dan Trabue said...

And, re: Leviticus commanding us to kill "men who lay with men..."

I'd be really interested to hear which spin job you use to deny God's Will here.

As you said to me.

OR, could it be that you've read, prayed about it and came to some conclusion - NOT in order to deny God's will, but to live up to God's will? Just like me?

The point being, we can talk to one another as brothers without assuming the other is ignorant, devious or lying, can't we?

Marshal Art said...

"The point being, we can talk to one another as brothers without assuming the other is ignorant, devious or lying, can't we?"

Only if it is true. I feel pretty confident you're not devious.

But I can't believe I have to go through this with someone who claims has studied the Bible. You've offered up such tripe. So I'll speak slowly.

What are the wages of sin? Is it not death? In all the OT, sacrifices were made to absolve one of one's sin. In some cases, the sinner himself was sacrificed, or more specifically, put to death, in order to atone for a sin so bad in the eyes of the Lord that an animal sacrifice would not suffice.

But we are imperfect beings. We are not capable of sacrifice that would be perfect enough to fully absolve us of our sins. There was no sacrifice perfect enough until God sacrificed Himself in the form of Jesus Christ on the cross. And as any first grade Sunday school student can tell you, Christ died to save us from our sins. From that point on, ritual sacrifice and stonings were not required for redemption, but only faith in Christ as our Savior and the Son of God.

But while He changed the way we atone for our sins, He did not change that which is considered sinful behavior in the eyes of the Lord. All sins of the flesh, of which homo sex is without a doubt one, are sins because of God being within each of us. When we engage in sexual activity forbidden by God, it is a direct affront to Him. This is explained in the Paulian Epistles. You remember Paul? Struck blind by Christ Himself and changed into an apostle of the Lord? He's likely to be a better source than your good friend Michael, a heretic if ever there was one. You need to strike him from your favorites list, he's not doing you any favors. This spin job:

"I found that there was a problem with Israel's neighbors who'd use male prostitutes in an obviously oppressive manner..."

is a crock. God's law for the Hebrews was designed to set them apart from their neighbors and their behavior, as well as their appearance, was to be a sign that they are the Chosen People of God. If the tract was only about sadistic sex, don't you think there's be some distinction, and why wouldn't there be some distinction regarding sadism between a man and his wife? The fact is that sadistic behavior was covered by another commandment and the gay/lib/lefty heresy of trying to paint this as some kind of S/M thing is laughable and not worthy of even you. But it's not funny because your soul is at stake.

I feel bad for homos and dykes. I truly do. My bro-in-law paid the ultimate price for his sins when AIDS took him from us. My hope is that when he prayed for forgiveness, he acknowledged he sinned when he contracted his death sentence. His belief that it was just another lifestyle choice brought him judgement sooner than anyone thought he should meet it. But the rest of them are risking their own souls by being led down that terribly wrong path. And those like yourself are complicit when you preach your heresies as you do.

So as your brother in Christ, I'm telling you: YOU ARE WRONG!!! Stop listening to self-serving heretics.

Dan Trabue said...

Let's assume for a minute that you're right and I'm wrong (you've made no argument for your case to convince of that, but let's pretend).

Are you saying that anyone who is wrong about an individual sin is hellbound? If I think behavior X is not a sin and it turns out to be a sin, I'm doomed?

And you? If you're wrong about any individual sin, you're hellbound, as well?

That seems to be what you're saying and, if so, that's an extrabiblical position, isn't it?

And, you "feel bad for homos and dykes"? Really? Is that why you call them demeaning names? To show your love for them?

Is that why you'll "speak slowly for me," to show me your love for me as a brother in Christ?

And, again, I changed my position from what you hold to what I feel is the more Godly, biblical position, not because of Michael, but because of bible study and prayer.

Would you suggest I stop doing that?

Mark said...

Perhaps when God said men who lie with men should be put to death, He had the eventual advent of the AIDS epidemic in mind.

Remember, a human lifetime is as a twinkling of an eye to God, which means homosexuals are being put to death for their sin in God's time. It may seem like centuries to us, and it is, but to God it is only a pittance of time. In God's eyes, the sentence is immediate and final.

The fact remains, God is chastizing those who willfully sin against Him, and He doesn't confine chastizement to only homosexuals, but also those who would condonme homosexuality, as He obviously did in Sodom and Gommorah.

Or does anyone think that absolutely everyone who died in the fire and brimstone were homosexuals? Of course they couldn't have been. But, according to the Bible, they were all guilty of accepting perversion.

Brandon T. Minster said...

Hey, this isn't really about your post, but about your comment on my post. I'm the guy who said he saw Amish people in Maryland. You said they are fundamentalist Mennonites. But the ones I saw were riding horse-drawn buggys, and in the past when I had seen Mennonites, they were driving trucks. Are they just old-school Mennonites, or are they Amish?

Dan Trabue said...

To the Stranger and his question:

They could be old-school mennonites or they could be Amish. Mennonites cover a range of looks and behaviors.

To Mark, who said:

The fact remains, God is chastizing those who willfully sin against Him...

But what of those like me and my friends who have sincerely studied the Bible and come to the conclusion that homosexual marriage is NOT a sin. We are not "willfully" sinning against God (assuming you're right).

We've carefully and prayerfully weighed God's Word and come away with a different interpretation than you. Are we doomed?

Are you doomed if you get some particular sin wrong?

Also, as to your talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, they were destroyed, according to God, because of their lack of concern for the poor, their haughtiness, their selfishness (Ezekiel 17, I believe). Not because they were all gays.

They were also violent and perverse (wishing to rape two strangers visiting town). But the Bible nowhere attaches homosexuality to the sin of Sodom.

This is actually one of those passages that got me to questioning the whole gay issue. I grew up believing that Sodom and Gomorrah story was all about homosexuality (and Wow! God must really hate gays if God's going to wipe out a whole town of 'em!) and when I found out that homosexuality is not a part of the sodom/gomorrah story, it made me question my "traditional" teachings. What else was I taught incorrectly...?

Mark said...

I looked at the same passage, Dan, and came to a different conclusion. My take is that not everyone in those towns were homosexuals but they were nevertheless destroyed because they accepted Homosexuality as a normal lifestyle.

And yes, I would have to agree. "Willfully" is the operative word. God said Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness... I believe you and I do that.

Dan Trabue said...

Ezekiel 16:49-50:

And look at the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in their prosperity, and they gave no help to the poor and needy.

Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them.


There is no mention of homosexuality there. You can guess that was part of their problems, but there's nothing in the text to support that conclusion.

And I'm glad that we're thirsting together after righteousness, even if we're coming to different conclusions... It's a starting point.

Marshal Art said...

Hmm. My last response to Dan has not shown up. Perhaps I erred in my posting. Anyhow...

Dan,

To begin, I HAVE offered sound arguments for my case. You simply deny them.

"Are you saying that anyone who is wrong about an individual sin is hellbound? If I think behavior X is not a sin and it turns out to be a sin, I'm doomed?"

No. Since God judges the heart, honest mistakes should not condemn you. At the same time, I'm here insisting that you are indeed wrong in your interpretation. I'm saying that arguments in support of your position are lacking, in that they don't account for the ability of God to account for every possibility when He mandates His Will, and that His Word is not as cryptic as some would have us believe. Don't you think it odd that it took until the twentieth century for someone to have the smarts to see what scholars over several thousand years could not? As I stated to your friend, the idea that God would not account for "committed homo relationships" is about as far fetched as one can imagine.

So a more accurate way to state the case is that despite your study and prayer, and I'm not so sure it's God who's answering your prayers regarding this issue, your position remains not ready for prime time.

In all the reading of both sides that I've done on the subject, I've never read the pro-gay side and come away with any sense other than that they are really scraping the barrel. Nothing those proponents say seem to have the ability of being seamlessly strung together from start to finish as does the oppositions' arguments. Even taking God out of the mix, as if one could, mental contortions are required to make it all fit. They're working way too hard to make it work. As Mark said in his original post, common sense disputes the pro-gay arguments all by itself. A deeper look at both sides highights this fact.

As to my choice of terms, consider how insulted I am that perfectly good words have been co-opted by such a small and self-serving segment of society. Words like "gay", "fairy", "queer", "faggot" etc etc etc. I want them back. Until then, if they can use words any way they like, why can't I? Are they also born with thin skins? More importantly, lighten the hell up! My goodness! Must I suffer the tedium of having to constantly type out "homosexual" just to avoid some namby-pamby having hurt feelings? Isn't THAT giving them special rights? Sheesh!

Dan Trabue said...

No, it's not giving them special rights. It's treating them with the same dignity that I'd treat anyone else. Adults oughtn't call names, only pigheaded, bigoted fascists do that (irony, huh?).

I don't deny your arguments, I used to hold them myself. I just don't buy them as biblically sound anymore. I think you're wrong and sinning in your position.

But don't worry, I don't think you're hellbound over it. I think it's an honest mistake, even though I've pointed to biblical positions.

But to be faithful to God, I'd call you to prayerfully reconsider your position.

Marshal Art said...

So you're saying "homo" and "dyke" are nasty names that hurt their feelings? Seems I've seen those very words on banners in so-called gay pride parades. Who are YOU talking to? Oh yeah, your church is filled with them apparently.

"Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence;"

Now help me here... Where else does God use the term "abominable" or any form of it? Can you guess? Seems to me I can only recall it in regard to sexual sin, particularly, "lying with a man, etc etc." Thanks for supporting our side. Also, the men of Sodom looking to rape the two strangers, who they clearly saw as men, was not an act of homo sex? If Lot did not view it as the abomination that God calls it, why would he have given over his daughters? In other words, the act is so reprehensible, he would sacrifice his own daughters rather than allow a homosexual rape. Plus, there is no indication that the men were convinced that they would HAVE to rape them, only that they wanted to have sex with them. But Lot called it a wicked thing.

It's a crock that references against homo sex are due to oppressive sex of the surrounding peoples or shrine prostitutes or some such. If that were the case, it would be specific. The fact is, that you have allowed yourself to be convinced that these interpretations are valid, and those you used to hold are not. I suspect it is due to those with whom you say you know. Because they are not outright insatiable sex hogs, you've bought into the "they're just like us, except they happen to be gay" line. You also seem to make yourself feel better by referring to me as some kind of bigot. I don't need to defend against that which you know is untrue. One needn't be cruel, insane, or outwardly malevolent in any way to be a sinner. And this love you believe is condoned by Scripture is a lie. You're confusing "eros" and "agape" love. Scripture doesn't concern itself with eros. What little it says refers to only within the traditional marriage. There are aboslutely no other references to any other possible arrangement. Ever.

So you needn't call on me to prayerfully reconsider anything. I am nothing if not totally open to whatever the Truth might be. None of the pro-gay arguments come close, and that's because they're nowhere near it. I don't really care if God says it's OK. Why would I? I personally don't win or lose either way. But God doesn't say that. He says just the opposite. And if you truly care about your gay friends, you'd dig deeper. Too many have left the lifestyle, most with God's help, to support the notion that they can't or shouldn't as well. If you care about kids, you'll make damn sure.

Dan Trabue said...

Where else does God use the term "abominable" or any form of it? Can you guess? Seems to me I can only recall it in regard to sexual sin...

Actually, abomination is used in many contexts including:

Eating pork:

Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things

~Isaiah 66:17


Eating meat sacrificed to an alter:

And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

~Leviticus 7:18


Eating shrimp:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you...

~Leviticus 11:10


Abomination is mostly used to describe eating bad stuff (pig, rats, shrimp, eagles, etc), sexual sins (specifically, the practices of the nearby people who did not follow God) or idol worship – Also cross-dressing (so, I hope you’re not a fan of Uncle Miltie or Monty Python)…

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=abomination&qs_version=9

So, if abominations are those things utterly detested by God, then it would assume you're not a shrimp, pork or rat eater?

For the record, the word translated "abomination" - Toevan, I read - comes closest to being defined as "unclean" or "ritually unclean" moreso than morally despicable and we know that the Hebrews had all manner of things that they considered unclean (menstruating women, sores, dead people...) which is not to say that all (or even most) of these necessarily indicate a moral lapse.

Dan Trabue said...

"Also, the men of Sodom looking to rape the two strangers, who they clearly saw as men, was not an act of homo sex? "

If someone were to have raped Lot's daughter, would that have been a condemnation of heterosexuality? Of course not!

Rape is not about sex, it's about violence and abuse of power. Specifically, in those times (as well as too often today) rape was used as a means of humiliating others.

My daughter (or son) will never date any family members of yours if you think rape is about sexuality.

I'll say it again: The sin of sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality, at least not as described in the Bible. It's an extrabiblical attachment to what is plainly written biblically in order to legitimize the isolation of our gay brothers and sisters.

"You're confusing "eros" and "agape" love. Scripture doesn't concern itself with eros."

This is not true at all.

1. I fully understand the difference between eros and agape love. I also fully understand that sexual lust can be confused with eros-love and to do so is a bad thing.
2. The Bible DOES concern itself with eros love. Read Song of Solomon. Sexual love is a godly thing in the correct context.

"What little it says refers to only within the traditional marriage. There are aboslutely no other references to any other possible arrangement. Ever."

Again, not biblically correct. There are references to prostitution, extramarital trysts, arranged marriages, harems, concubines, polygamy, abstinence as well as what we normally think of as traditional marriage.

We need to sort through all of what the Bible has to say, use our God-given reason and prayer and work out what's a desirable use of our God-given eros. For myself, I find marriage between two people who are committed to one another in non-oppressive love to be the best answer.

Marshal Art said...

But it does refer to abomination in regards to homoosexual behavior. You and yours like to believe it only means oppressive sex, but the tract in question makes no reference to such. That's an exrabiblical attachment of you and yours. Again, the Bible makes no mention of oppressive incest, adultery or fornication, but prohibits those as well. But for your psuedo-sanctimonious arguments you expect us to believe that God made such a distinction regarding homo sex. It just doesn't wash. I also don't recall any stated objections to oppressive sex between husband and wife. It's simply unneeded since mandates against such behavior are covered in other commandments. But the tract regarding "lying with a man..." stands alone without such qualifications.

As to eros vs agape, forgive my rushed comments. It was late. My point was to illustrate that the love of which you speak is being confused with agape love. Eros love isn't supported as having the same importance as agape love. Eros love IS lust. So the references you listed, aside from sex within traditional marriage, supports the point I was trying to make. Otherwise Paul would not speak of refraining and remaining chaste. What you've listed, again, aside from traditional marriage, are examples of the opposite of sexual purity. The Leviticus verses list other examples of sexual impurity and of course among them is homo sex. Not oppressive sex, just the sex. But even within a traditional marriage, it is the agape love that is held up as the "best" love and eros love is "allowed" as a gift for a married man and wife.

But I tire of this discussion. You're intent on saying wrong is right, evil is goodness, sin is righteousness. You're intent on pretending, as homosexual supporters are, that Scripture is so very cryptic and requires such dissection to assertain what is expected of us. You prefer to believe that the Word of God is such that the average individual has little hope of ever knowing God's Will without a degree in ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Well, carry on with your pretense. Feel righteous in your charade. But one thing is clear: God created woman for man and man for woman. This is evidenced by our biological construction. It makes no sense that God would create us one way and not expect us to operate according to our design. There is certainly nothing Biblical that supports that possibility. So good luck trying to convince the Almighty that you know better than He. I will pray for all those who come into contact with you and your like minded lost, that they remain untainted by your self-deception.

Dan Trabue said...

"But for your psuedo-sanctimonious arguments you expect us to believe that God made such a distinction regarding homo sex. It just doesn't wash."

I don't expect you to believe anything except what you feel led to believe. I'm just letting you know that some of us very sincere Christians have studied the matter and come away with a different conclusion.

You're your own free moral agent and you must reach your conclusion. And we both must remember whatever conclusion we reach to always act in love.

I ask nothing else.

Marshal Art said...

You confuse my disgust with your position and the consequences thereof with a lack of love? Because of my tone or choice of words? If I truly lacked love, I would not be arguing my point. I wouldn't be arguing from a Biblical perspective. I would be much of jihadist in my position or I'd be much more uncaring about the harm and confusion giving in to the hedonistic demands of the homosexual community will surely cause.

But here is the key to the real problem with the pro-gay pseudo-Christian viewpoint: "what you feel led to believe." When we start basing our position on our personal feelings, that's where it all goes south. How many "Christians" "feel" the Biblical admonitions against promiscuity don't apply to the modern world? Have you never heard of "Strippers for Christ"? or "Hookers for Christ"? They "feel" as well.

In any case, I'm going to the beginning of Michael's exercise in futility and will begin reading the whole thing up to present. I have to say, that a cursory overview already supports my belief that it is all as convoluted as the most recent. This is the state of liberal, progressive, reformist Christianity and it does not bode well for the world.

Mark said...

I got this information off the internet, and if you want me to supply resources, I can, but to save myself time, I won't.

One of the facts listed here comes from Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, but before you dismiss his findings, remember he has a doctorate in Child psychology, so his observations are scientific.


How many people are gay? The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey which found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. A 2002 study by the CDC found 3% of males 15 to 44 years have had sexual contact with another male in the last 12 months and 4% of females reporting having a sexual experience with another female in the last 12 months. About 1% of men and 3% of women 15-44 years of age have had both male and female sexual partners in the last 12 months. Among men and women 18-44 years of age, 96% said they were attracted only to or mostly to the opposite sex. Only 3.2% of males and 3.4% of females said they were attracted to the same sex or equally to the same sex and the opposite sex. Even so, this amounts to 1.8 million men and 1.9 million women.

What are the health risks?
Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Among gay and bisexual men, more than 90% of HIV positive males and 65% of HIV negative males have HPV. Consequently, gay men have an increased risk for anal cancer.
Hepatitis. Homosexuals have increased risk of contracting Hepatitis A, B, and C, according to the CDC.
Gonorrhea. Male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among gays amidst an overall decline in nationwide gonorrhea.
Syphilis. In 2002, gays accounted for the majority of syphilis cases in men reported in San Francisco (93%) and Los Angeles (81%).
HIV. Of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the United States during 2003, CDC estimated that approximately 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men. A 2005 CDC report found that 25% of practicing homosexuals are HIV-positive (48% for African-Americans), with 48% unaware that they are HIV-positive.
AIDS. At the end of 2003, over one million persons in the U.S. were living with HIV/AIDS, with 24-27% undiagnosed and unaware of their HIV infection.The cumulative estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS through 2003 is 524,060. Of all the AIDS cases through 2003, 48% were exposed through homosexual contact, 27% through injection drugs, 7% through both, 16% through heterosexual contact and 2% other.

Lifespan. The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men at age 20 is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, nearly half of 20-year-old gay and bisexual men will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. This is consistent with a recent study that found a twenty year shorter lifespan than that of the general public. A survey of gay and bisexual men found 21% had made a suicide plan and 12% had attempted suicide.

Children. A 1992 study found that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. Homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia. Of male child sex offenders, 59% had been “victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.”

Are gays born that way? There is no evidence to indicate that homosexuality is inherited or genetic. This is not to say that there may not be some kind of biological predisposition or an inherited temperament that makes one vulnerable to environmental influences. Many former gays have sought change and found healing.

Is it chosen? No, homosexuality is not "chosen" except in rare circumstances, according to Dr. James Dobson. Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive. Homosexually assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently becoming practicing homosexuals almost six times as often as the non-assaulted control group. Of homosexual men, 46% reported homosexual molestation in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men. Of lesbian women, 22% reported homosexual molestation in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women.

Can homosexuality be prevented? Research from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality states, "One hundred percent of the research participants stated their father/father figure was distant, uninvolved in their upbringing, frightening and unapproachable. Eighty-seven percent spoke of a mother who was close, controlling and overbearing."

Dan Trabue said...

I say "what you feel led to believe" because you don't have God speaking directly to you telling you A, B and C.

We ALL (those of us who love the bible) read the Bible and try to determine God's Word to us found therein. But we must rely upon our own reasoning to sort that out.

So, you read it and go with what you feel led by God to be God's Word. I will read it and do the same.

What else can we do? Will you say, "But we can KNOW for certain what it says, and since God said it, then I believe it. End of discussion!"

But clearly, Christians throughout history have had a difficult time KNOWING what God is saying to us through the Bible. It's because we are fallible. We bring our own faulty capabilities along with us to our study.

I'd think our fallen humanity would give us much cause to approach God's Word with humility.

Marshal Art said...

Mark,

Dobson's in good company, so to speak. In Chicagoland, AM1160WYLL radio host Sandy Rios, former president of Concerned Women for America (ooh, scary!)read from a publication called "Gay City". In it, there was an article stating that HIV/AIDS cases in the 35-49yr old demographic is rising fast. The average gay man has had six partners. There was a stat regarding rate of deaths of these partners, but I couldn't write it down.

Bottom line: Opposition to gay marriage or gay unions (which is really the same thing no matter what they try to tell us) is far more the benevolent and Christian position than any that supports them, when you consider the above health stats as well as the soul saving aspects based on Biblical restrictions. Hundreds, if not thousands, have left the lifestyle, particularly a large percentage with God's help, making a mockery of the choice/born as argument. It doesn't matter how one came to "be" gay, only that they don't have to stay that way. That's where the choice comes in. No one says it'll be easy. Drunks and gamblers have the same problem.

And in reference to your "common sense" angle, does it make any sense that God would create someone as gay if the person could change? If there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, how could that be?

Here's another common sense problem: Those on our side of the argument will say that gays already have the same rights as straights and that straights are just as restricted as gays regarding the partners they can choose and to whom they can marry. The gays will say, that isn't true, because a gay guy can't marry the MAN that he loves. Often, straight people will be unable to marry the ones they love for other reasons, such as death, distance, or the other person doesn't reciprocate the love. What happens then? Well, some will wither and die as if life can't go on, but most will eventually shake it off and find another, often better match. (This happened to me---not the wither and die part, the better match part) I contend that this can be the case for gays. They CAN find one of the opposite sex that will make them forget about their supposedly unchangable gayness. There's this new dating service that's all the rage, I can't recall the name just now, that matches based on something like 29 points of commonality. I'd be willing to wager a year of Dan's pay that over 50% of the gay population could find a partner of the opposite sex that they would eventually marry.

Mark said...

Marshall. Also, why would God give homosexuals the ability to procreate if they were born gay? It makes no sense. Why would males produce sperm which is used to fertilize eggs that are only produced by women? If God intended them to be gay from before they were born, what would be the point of sperm and eggs?

One would think that if God intended them to be gay, He would have saved Himself the trouble of giving them the ability to procreate. We already know, and Dan agrees, that God wants a married couple to be faithful until death. So why create gays with the ability to have children if He intends for them to be faithful in marriage?

Btw, you are thinking of e-harmony.com. That is how I met my fiancee.

Marshal Art said...

I think the biggest problem within this debate, and I'm quite faced now from beer at bowling so bear with me, is that those who favor the SPECIAL RIGHTS for gays and argue from a religious perspective, is that they are judging God's mandates on human terms. This happens a lot. When people wonder about good people suffering, and rage against the Lord, they don't understand that God isn't a human being, He doesn't think like a human being, and we aren't privy to every motivation of his Godly Mind. It feels really good to support these people in their committed relationships, but from God's perspective, it doesn't necessarily fall under accepted behavior. To humans, we all don't see what the problem is. To many of us heteros, we don't always understand the problem with sex before marriage, or divorce, or a multitude of other issues. We can come up with possible reasons why God wants what He wants regarding our behavior and still be miles away from the real reason. Our job is to conform to His Will. His Will is easily understood but muddied up by those who are looking for loopholes. The simple fact that they have gone through so much trouble to try to convince everyone that they have, after thousands of years, found the truth about homosexuality, makes it pretty plain to me that they are not thinking of God's Will first, but how to find permission to continue what so many theologians have already determined to be sinful behavior. It's sad, really. No one wants to be wrong, or in sin. Al Capone thought himself a great guy. Everyone does and no one takes kindly to being told different. But if one truly desires to know God's Will, it's all there and it's not as cryptic as some would have us believe.

I feel sorry for gays. I truly do. I understand what they are going through because I am a human being with desires and temptations of my own and many are very strong. I don't always succeed in mastering them. It would be great if I could just find some verse or some different interpretation of ancient Greek or Aramaic that would justify my indulgence. But I would never even believe it totally because I know what God wants regarding those issues. I know I shouldn't have had so much beer tonight. I know that although having that extra 24oz bottle won't condemn me on it's own, that I should still abstain.

The 2, 3 or to be very generous 5% of the population that insists they are irretrievably gay are not concerned with the Will of God as it concerns their sexual preferences. It's as simple as that. I would hate if MY sexual desires were sinful, but since I'm married to a woman, I'm good to go. Lucky me. Some of my other sexual desires aren't. Too bad for me. I could indulge them. God prefers I don't. That's good enough for me.

OK, now it's just getting to be beer blathering.

Mark,

Are you well pleased with your e-harmony results? You called her your fiance, so I guess you would be. I think that's great that the service, so far, has worked out as advertised. Good luck and God's Blessings upon your plans.

Chris said...

You said it. I believe largley the same. I have also noticed that many homosexuals don't love in their relationships like hetrosexuals do, but instead find someone with qualities that they want (covet) for themselves. That is, they wish to be like this person. Upon finding someone like this they feel attracted to them and find relief satisfaction when they are close to them. They also feel envy against them. Sort of like the father they never had.

Marshal Art said...

Certainly possible, Chris. I haven't met too many from whom I could glean such knowledge. My best shot diedo of AIDS, but I do know that his boyfriend was a freaking lunatic, who died from starvation after finding out he was HIV positive. Yeah, he didn't even get to the point of AIDS, but he figured himself a goner, while the guy he infected was actually wasting away. What a dickhead! In any case, it would have been enlightening to understand what my bro-in-law saw in this shit-for-brains. I do know that in my bro's case, he always had problems feeling that he fit in. He didn't really feel comfortable in gay world either, and felt most of them to be in serious need of professional help. Sad. Now this is where Dan will say all his gay friends are perfectly normal. In advance, I just want to say that if they were, they wouldn't be gay.

Dan Trabue said...

"Now this is where Dan will say all his gay friends are perfectly normal."

Well, reality is reality. What else should I speak to?

But no, my gay friends aren't normal. Nor are my straight friends at church. Normal people will often make horrible accusations and refuse to believe someone is telling the truth when they are.

We're a bit better than normal, thank you... You'd know it if you ever came by my church. A greater, more enjoyable, more humorous, more loving set of Jesus-followers you could never hope to find.

Marshal Art said...

So now you've redefined "normal" just as you've redefined right and wrong. Perfect. You might be humorous and loving, but Jesus following? Not if you're preaching homosexual behavior is not immoral.

Dan Trabue said...

Go ahead and give me that list of all those passages where Jesus condemns loving, committed relationships between gays...

Marshal Art said...

Nice ploy, Dan. NOW who's being disrespectful to another commenter? You, and I'm assuming you haven't lied about studying the Bible, can't sit there and say that Christ changed right and wrong regarding sexual immorality. He sharpened it a bit, as in how lusting in the heart is on par with adultery, but all in all, He maintained the Hebrew laws in His ministry. He was well schooled in what Hebrew law said, and what it meant, and He knew it as a child.

I've read all in the series thus far over at Levellers. And thus far I've found the argument less than convincing and totally refuted by more objective scholars such as the "overblown" Robert Gagnon and others like him. And though Michael isn't finished with his convoluted treatise, I feel that he, you and all those who work so tirelessly trying to rewrite Scripture to your liking, are complicit in the sins of current and future homosexuals, lesbians, transgendered and bi-sexuals. I have no doubt that the Dark One is quite pleased with your worship of your self-made god.

Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

Not being disrespectful at all.

You mockingly questioned our following of Jesus and I pointed out the reality that Jesus never ever condemned gay marriage and did not in fact even mention homosexuality - this horror of horrors "sin" that the modern church spends SO much time talking about despite not having much biblical reason to do so.

How is that being disrespectful?

We do, in fact, humbly and prayerfully try to follow Jesus' teachings, being Christians and all, that seems logical to us.

Marshal Art said...

Mockingly? Not at all. Try right in your face straight up accusing you of bad theology. The disrespect comes from your ignoring thousands of years of understanding, ignoring the far more objective and faithful interpretations of others, and the purposeful distortion and dismissals of Biblical text. If all your beliefs in this matter hadn't been so expertly and logically refuted, I could believe you were simply misled or honestly deceived by oversight and bad interpretation. But your insistance upon your position without remaining open belies your sincerity. You ARE deceived, and you're content with it. You show great disrespect to yourselves in the process.

Dan Trabue said...

Bad theology? It's always possible. I'm a mere mortal, after all.

Do me a favor and show me any ways in which I disagree with a single teaching of Jesus.

But that I ignore thousands of years of teachings? That's a misstatement. Whether spoken in ignorance or malice, I couldn't say.

I am fully aware and have read the teachings of church history on the subject. And I've read the Bible on the subject and, in this case, don't find that tradition holds up to what the Bible actually says.

Feel free to think that I'm wrong on my interpretation, but it is a pure misstatement to say that I and my camp are ignoring traditional teachings.

Marshal Art said...

There was a fellow commenting at Levellers on the subject, I don't recall which number in the series, and he posted quite a few quotes from a book about early Christian beliefs. If you would look at more than just pro-gay material once in awhile, you might have some credibility. If you prefer to insist that traditional and historic church teachings does NOT condemn homosexual behavior, then you are a liar, an idiot, or any combination thereof. Your one saving grace would be that the Almighty might not judge harshly the mentally challenged and then considers you to be one. But for me, I'm through with you. May God's Truth seep into that dense material you call your skull.

Dan Trabue said...

Thank you for the kind words.

"If you prefer to insist that traditional and historic church teachings does NOT condemn homosexual behavior, then you are a liar, an idiot, or any combination thereof."

I have never insisted anything of the sort. Clearly, church tradition has been that homosexuality is wrong.

I accept your apology for mischaracterizing my position, but seeing how this seems to be an ongoing problem (of you saying that I believe this or have said that when this is not true), don't you think you should look at what's troubling you so that you feel compelled to bear false witness?

Or is it that you honestly think your misrepresentations are true?

Like this: "If you would look at more than just pro-gay material once in awhile"

What makes you think this would be the case? In reality, I'm quite familiar with both sides of the issue and, as I have repeatedly pointed out, I agreed with the anti-gay-marriage side for the first half of my life, having read nothing but that side of the issue.

Or as in your misstatement that I insist that church history has not been anti-gay-marriage? Are you just getting confused or are you deliberately misrepresenting me in an effort to help your argument by building up strawmen?

Marshal Art said...

Anyway, back to common sense....

God gives the law in Leviticus, it's mentioned twice. From that point on until perhaps as late as the pervert Kinsey, everyone understands homosexual behavior to be sinful in the eyes of the Lord. Then, at whatever point it actually began, the weak in spirit decided that they would find some way to show that the Bible did not condemn such behavior if it took place between two "committed, loving, and monogomous" dudes. They went so far as to say that it is actually a blessed thing, akin to what reasoned and honest people know to be the only sexual behavior sanctioned by God, that being what takes place within a traditional marriage comprised of one man, one woman. But as stated, since the events described in Leviticus, ANY homosexual behavior was considered sinful, no matter how sweet a couple two guys could be.

Now here is where common sense, if any of it is possessed by the reader, comes in: Since this behavior was considered sinful, and this consideration remained for centuries, why was there never any correction of this alleged misconception? It was so unheard of amongst the Hebrews, for example, that Christ never felt the need to speak on the subject. He spent His ministry speaking about the sins that were perpetrated by the people, not those that weren't.

So from the moment the Commandment was given in Leviticus, it would seem that an omnipotent all-knowing God would sense the people's confusion and make the necessary adjustments. After all, He was in almost daily contact with Moses, continued to speak to His people through prophets all the way through John the Baptist, and even in the person of Jesus Christ He could have at some time or other, maybe during the Sermon on the Mount, for example, say, "Oh yeah, and about that gay thing, let me clear that up for ya..." But no such clarification ever came up in the centuries between Leviticus and the first Easter. Millions and millions and even millions more people lived and died under the false belief that Elton and Lance were prohibited from pining for something borrowed or something blue. How could He overlook that glaring error which took the progressive theological heavyweights to uncover?

How could His imperfect Creations be expected to figure it out while being thrown the curveball that only women are designed to self-lubricate for penetration and all? It would seem that common sense has been telling us that the mandate in Leviticus was understood properly all along.

God created Man and for Man He created Woman. After the Fall of Man, his descendants were born into sin and mankind bore imperfections of all kinds. Imperfections of biology, spirituality, emotionally, mentally...and from these imperfections fell prone to temptations and desires of all kinds. Some God finds abhorent and others pleasing. He gave unto us laws for life that we should be Holy because He is Holy. Sex is never Holy unless it is what takes place between a man and his wife as only they can join and become one flesh. Common sense and common knowledge.

Dan Trabue said...

You're right, Marshall. It's better for your argument NOT to admit it or apologize when you've thrown up strawmen and cast false allegations. It just makes you look stronger and wiser if you ignore it when people call you on your sin.

Marshal Art said...

Whatever makes you feel better, Dan.

Marshal Art said...

"But scripture no where speaks against committed loving relationships. No where does God's Word speak against gay marriage."

Dan's mom: "Who said you could have cake before dinner?"

Dan as a child: "You didn't say I couldn't."

Mark said...

OK. Let's use common sense and logic here.

If you believe homosexuality is a God given, genetic trait, that naturally occurs in nature, think about this:

God also created a gag reflex. This is an involuntary reflex reaction that causes one to vomit (or nearly vomit) whenever one is stimulated by something unpleasant, such as the image of a mutilated human body, or a festering, maggot filled wound, or the image of one man being sexually stimulated by another man's hairy posterior, etc.

My gag reflex is triggered by the mere thought of a man deriving pleasure from the repeated violent thrusting of a penis into his rectum which, as Martial Art mentioned, is not self lubricating, thus, making such penetration painful.

Now, if the gag reflex is a trait created by God to cause one to desire to avoid unpleasantness, and God created some men homosexual, that thought should not logically trigger the gag reflex in me.

Additionally, if God intentionally created some men with a gentetic predisposition towards homosexuality, not only would he have made those particular men's rectum self lubricating, but would have made the insertion of objects as big around (or bigger) as a proctologists finger a pleasant sensation, not a painful one.

Or do you think it is also natural and normal to derive pleasure from pain?

What do you suppose God's purpose in creating the sensation of pain was, originally? I always assumed it was His way of telling us to try to avoid things that cause pain (such as touching a hot stove) whenever possible.

Do you suppose making penetration of the anus painful may have been such a lesson?

Remember, it took the sin of disobedience of God to cause God to make childbirth a painful experience. "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gen 3:16

Would you draw the conclusion that the fact that the act of homosexuality is painful could be directly attributed to the same sin of disobedience? Or was it intended to be painful when God created man in the first place? If so, why?

Abouna said...

dan trabue: You stated: I'm NOT interpreting it in such a way to please me or others - I had no desire to change my mind. The Bible and God did that." Did you ever stop to think that just maybe it was Satan who changed your mind?

Once it was stated in Leviticus that homosexuality is an "ABOMINATION" in the eyes of God, that said it all, so there was no need to mention anything regarding "same-sex" marriages, since it would NOT make the homosexual act anyless of an abomination in God's eyes if people of the same sex married.

As regards marriage in general:

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place."

"Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a WOMAN, and He brought HER to the man."

"And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; SHE shall be called WOMAN, because SHE was taken out of MAN.'"

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE, and they shall become one flesh."

That says it all, so what need was there to say anything more?

What did the early Church Fathers have to say on the subject? Let's take a look:

Cyprian of Carthage
"Turn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminate in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion"
(Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).

"Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people imbruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them"
(ibid., 1:9).

Eusebius of Caesarea
"Having forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]"
(Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).

Basil the Great
"He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers"
(Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).

"If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary"
(The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).

John Chrysostom
"[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named"
(Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).

"[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment"
(Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).

"All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases"
(Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).

Augustine
"Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way"
(Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).

The Apostolic Constitutions
"[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious" (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).

Thomas Aquinas
The most influential theologian of the Medieval period was Thomas Aquinas, regarded by Catholics as a Doctor of the Church. His moral theology contained a strong element of teleological natural law. On his view, not all things to which a person might be inclined are "natural" in the morally relevant sense; rather, only the inclination to the full and proper expression of the human nature, and inclinations which align with that inclination, are natural. Contrary inclinations are perversions of the natural in the sense that they do seek a good, but in a way destructive of good.

This view points from the natural to the Divine, because (following Aristotle) he said all people seek happiness; but it turns out that happiness can only finally be attained through the Beatific Vision. Therefore all sins are also against the natural law. But the natural law of many aspects of life is knowable apart from special revelation by examining the forms and purposes of those aspects. It is in this sense that Aquinas considered homosexuality unnatural, since it involves a kind of partner other than the kind to which the purpose of sexuality points. Indeed, he considered it second only to bestiality as an abuse of sexuality.

Were all of these men wrong? I think not.

Marshal Art said...

What Dan thinks, and what he will tell you, Abouna, is that most of what you wrote was what Leviticus prohibited, but not "committed, loving and monogomous" relationships. It's his usual response. But what he and his mentor refuse to acknowledge, is that the attitudes against ALL homosexual practice was, from the beginning, understood by the ancient Hebrews to be the rule without exception. The act itself, in any form, with any intent, was forbidden. And it seems arrogant to assume that anyone in the 20th or 21st centuries would know better than those who lived closer to the time the rule was put into place by the Almighty.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall responded fairly well, thanks.

As to homosexuality being "an abomination" according to Leviticus, so was eating shrimp and pork. Do you believe that we ought not eat shrimp or pork?

Mark said...

Dan, I believe that passage refers to eating RAW shrimp and pork, which as you know, would likely make one very sick. The same thing can be said of the practice of homosexuality. It could make one very sick. ie AIDS.

Mark said...

Tell me Dan, why no argument about the info I provided from the CDC? And what about the facts I presented about a lack of logic on the part of the Almighty if homosexuala were indeed intended to be gay before conception?

Why no argument there?

Dan Trabue said...

What about your CDC quotes? A lot of gay people get sick from promiscuity?

I'm opposed to promiscuity for that reason among others.

I'm not endorsing promiscuity, though. I'm endorsing gay marriage as an equally valid expression of love.

And I'm not sure what you're talking about a "lack of logic" on God's part. Love is about more than how one performs sexually.

If a woman (or a man) has problems performing sexually, does that mean that those individuals logically ought not be permitted to love another? Heaven forbid!

I'm not convinced by your logic, Mark - it sounds like you're really stretching for reasons to condemn homosexuals to a life of loneliness, and so I didn't really have much to respond about.

Marshal Art said...

They would only be lonely if they bought into the notion that their condition was unchangable. Rather than trouble themselves with the struggle they may certainly encounter, I believe they simply default to the easier comfort zone of maintaining their personal status quo. For many hetero men, marriage doesn't do away with their biologically imprinted desire to sow their wild oats, yet they are compelled by God's law to retrict their attentions to the woman with whom they took a vow. Single men are similarly compelled to abide God's Will by not engaging in sexual activity UNTIL they are married. If they don't find a suitable partner, they, too will "live a lonely life". But a man will never be a suitable partner for a man because God made woman to be partner to man. If a homosexual cannot find a suitable partner amonst the millions of available options of the opposite sex, they will be no worse off than those hetero men with the same problem.

As to Mark's remarks, it is debatable as to whether he's stretching for reasons, or simply adding another take or angle to the many reasons already discussed. As to stretching to support and argument, the arguments for inclusion and gay rights are based on stretches of logic, interpretations, and the thinnest of evidence from research that hasn't been duplicated. Objectively, your side leaves much to be desired as far as supportive arguments.

Marshal Art said...

Almost forgot.

Eating is a must. Sex is not, except for procreation. Rules regarding sexual behavior have remained constant throughout Scripture (though you disagree), but rules regarding the eating of unclean foods were discarded. Acts 10:9-15.

Dan Trabue said...

What?! Something can be an abomination one day and NOT an abomination the next day? Did God change God's mind?!

How about that?

Marshal Art said...

Well, Dan, if you're an orthodox Jew, then I guess the rule still holds. As I am not, I'm not obliged to follow rules meant for the tribes of Israel. But it's nice to see that you are all for confusing, rather than clarifying God's Will. You refuse to acknowledge what is, and insist on perpetuating that which isn't.

But since you would prefer to go that route, you are now required to find the passage that overturns Lev 18:22 since I explained the shellfish nonsense. Good luck with that. I'll wait here.

Dan Trabue said...

First, you'd have to show that Lev 18 is talking about gay marriage and not just gay promiscuity.

Additionally, if you're going to embrace Lev 18, then are you going to embrace Lev 20, which commands that you kill men who lay with men?

It's about clarifying God's will, not confusing.

Dan Trabue said...

As to "rules still hodling" so you're saying that eating shrimp is an abomination before GOd, it is detestable! for some people and not others?

Aren't abominations abominations?

Or do we need to admit that every line in the Bible ought not be taken as what it appears to literally mean but rather that we ought to use our God-given reason to work out what it might actually mean for us?

Mark said...

Dan, why do you think gays want to marry? It's to legitimize having homosexual sex with each other.

AS I've mentioned, I have personally known many homosexuals. I've worked with them in various kinds of businesses. I've managed them. I've worked closely with them. I have gone to parties with
them. I've visited them in the hospital. I've had many gay friends. I've talked with them exclusively about their homosexuality. I know them well.

If you really know many homosexuals as you say you do, then you have probably noticed they are obsessed with sex. Every thought they have is about sex. They twist every conversation to be about sex. They invariably make sexual remarks about relatively benign statements that have nothing to do with sex, but somehow they can find sexual innuendo in them.

Homosexual unions, marriage, whatever you want to call a homosexual relationship, is all about having sex. That is all. That is definitely not what God had in mind when he created man.

Love has nothing to do with it. In fact, that is the main crux of the problem. Homosexuals do not differentiate between love and lust, with the possible exception of the kind of love they have for their mother as opposed to lust for their partners.

Gays don't love their partners, at least not in the sense that God intended. They lust after them. The love sex. But they do not really love their partners.

Marshal Art said...

Unfortunately, Mark, Dan will simply put forth anecdotes of his homosexual friends and aquaintances to counter yours. HIS don't think that way, by golly!

Instead, I prefer to remind him of God's Will.

All I have to show is that Lev 18 refers to homosexual behavior, which it does. Your intentional confusion of the issue, by asking questions that are irrelavent, such as to ask that it refers to gay marriage or promiscuity, is proof that you are NOT concerned with truth. Leaving alone marriage for a moment, I never said it referred to promiscuity at all. It doesn't and pretending it does is akin to lying. "Akin" hell, it IS lying.

I've also repeatedly covered your other lame attempt at homo support by explaining why we don't stone homos, or wicked children, or those who engage in bestiality, or any of the other methods of atoning for sins in the Old Testament. Atonement has changed, yes God has changed His mind, through Christ's ulimate and perfect sacrifice. The behavior for which we need atonement is still forbidden. If you can't get your simple mind around this salient fact, you need to find better guidance than that provided by the likes of a Michael White.

We are NOT to figure out what God's Word means for us, if by that you mean, what it means to Dan as opposed to what it means to Art, but simply WHAT IT MEANS period. It's not cryptic. It's intended for all to understand and people like you muddy it up for reasons that will affect your Judgement. You are wrong. Plain and simple. You prefer to make it complex so as to create loopholes for those you've come to know. You do them a great disservice. Shame on you.

Dan Trabue said...

"If you really know many homosexuals as you say you do, then you have probably noticed they are obsessed with sex."

Marshall is correct. I can point you to the two dozen or so gay and lesbian friends who attend my church. Who lead in our prayers. Who are our deacons. Who participate in Bible study with us.

Sex just doesn't come up with them. The fact that maybe you know a few people who fixate on sexuality doesn't mean that it's the norm.

I mean, I know plenty of heterosexual fellas who fixate on sexuality. That doesn't mean that all heterosexuals are fixated on it. Anectdotal stories are just not a reasonable measure, Mark.

Mark said...

"Anectdotal stories are just not a reasonable measure, Mark."

Only if you use them, eh, Dan?

Dan Trabue said...

"We are NOT to figure out what God's Word means for us, if by that you mean, what it means to Dan as opposed to what it means to Art, but simply WHAT IT MEANS period. It's not cryptic."

I agree 100%. And yet, we have many people who find it difficult to come to consensus on what the Bible says and doesn't say.

I mean, I run across plenty of traditional religionists who I can't even get to agree that targeting children for death (as in Hiroshima or Dresden) is a horrible evil!

Surely the Bible teaches us that such actions are atrocities before God. But if we can't even agree on that basic morality (which we can find spoken of throughout the Old and New Testaments and spoken of plenty by Jesus and the disciples), then how can we come together on something that is so nearly-unspoken of in the Bible?

Only by God's grace and our determined conversation, says I. And maybe not even then.

Dan Trabue said...

"Only if you use them..."

I didn't make the claim that my friends were representative of all gays. I'd suggest that gay Christians are probably less likely to be fixated on sexuality and more chaste in their behavior, just as straight Christians probably tend to be.

Conversely, those outside the church and other faith traditions - gay and straight - are oftentimes (not always) more likely to be more sexually promiscuous than their religious counterparts.

Dan Trabue said...

This, on the other hand:

"Gays don't love their partners, at least not in the sense that God intended. They lust after them. The love sex. But they do not really love their partners."

Is an ignorant misrepresentation of reality. Does that mean that some gays aren't horndogs? No.

Just that your subjective anectdotal experience does not mean that you can make blanket statements such as the one above.

You CAN say, "In my experience, gays have been horndogs and not concerned about love..." IF that is a true statement and you have something to base it upon (testimony of the gay individuals you know) other than your hunches about what they say and do.

But you can't leap from your assumptions or experiences to blanket stereotypes that are blatantly false. And I have the faithful, loving gay friends to prove it.

Marshal Art said...

To say that there is a lack of consensus is only true on specific points regarding things such as the need for baptism. Areas regarding sexual behavior are not without consensus by those who seek truth objectively. I revert again to Lev 18 wherein a specific behavior is mentioned. Those of your liberal bent have overlaid the verse with meaning that is not there, that is, references to the specific practices of the Hebrew's neighbors. There is no reference within the text that makes your case, there's only projection. The verse is clearly about homo sex, just as other verses are specific regarding bestiality or incest.

As to the Hiroshima reference, I defy you to support the notion that children were targeted. This implies that they were the reason for the bombing. The reason was to deliver the greatest devastation to scare off any ideas of retaliation or continuation of aggression by the Japanese. Were there no aggression, there would be no atomic bomb dropped on Japan. Regarding the loss of civilian life, children or otherwise, I doubt that Truman ordered the bombing without thought to the consequences, but found the resulting unconditional surrender to be worth it. I also doubt he went to his grave without wondering if there was a better way. Additionally, I doubt he was unconcerned with the morality of his decision and whether or not he'd be judged harshly by God for it.

I study ju jutsu. Our philosophy is that if a fight cannot be avoided, ending it as quickly as possible is the most humane path. Techniques are designed to break joints to render any further action by the assailant impossible. To stand toe to toe and duke it out can lead to even more devastating long term health concerns for either combatant. Break a knee or wrist first and the fight is over without brain damage or other catastrophic injury. To break the wrist of an insistant aggressor is violent, but is it a better way than to repeatedly hit him about the head and face? I think so. To nuke thousands rather than to risk millions? Both suck, but one less so than the other. I think God would agree because more lives would be saved by one action than by the other. Also keep in mind the duties of a government are different than the obligations of an individual. Turn the other cheek is what you and I are supposed to do, not so our government.

Dan Trabue said...

"To say that there is a lack of consensus is only true on specific points regarding things such as the need for baptism."

You are mistaken on this. There is a wide chasm of difference between the Christian Left and Right in this country. As noted, we can't even agree that dropping bombs on children (is that better?) is always a wrong.

This is not a decided matter. The Religious Right may be more noisy than the Left, may have more numbers, but the Christian Left (or those you'd call the Left) is there, nonetheless and we LOVE God and God's Word. We want to live Godly, biblically sound lives.

And we disagree with you and you with us on matters of great importance. It is apparently not at all clear to you that it is wrong to drop bombs on children, but it is to us. It is not clear to you at all that gay marriage is a right thing, but it is to us.

It is not at all clear to us that God condemns homosexuality in general but it is to you. It is not at all clear to many of us that belief in a Virgin Birth is part and parcel of the Christian faith but it is to many.

To act as if there aren't differences of opinion about major biblical positions is to ignore reality. And those differences are there not because some love God and the Bible and others don't, but rather because the Bible can be a complex document with difficult instructions on difficult life decisions and matters of faith.

You and I are both reading the same bible and desiring strongly to hear God's will, and yet are coming to a different conclusion on homosexuality and war, to name two issues.

It seems you prefer to think "well, the Bible clearly supports what I think and therefore these other people like Dan must just hate God and the Bible and want to deliberately confuse things. What other explanation could there be?"

When the other explanation is that we are all fallible humans who try to determine an infinite God's desires and we can be overcome by our own humanity.

Mark said...

We disagree, but at least our differences are not enough to divide us. We are united in our belief in the diety of Christ, and that is the important thing.

Marshal Art said...

Never, ever have I said or implied that people like you hate God or the Bible. Ever. Ever. I have said that you purposely confuse issues and I believe that is more accurate than some claim of "that's how God is speaking to me".

But to digress for a moment, which do you prefer: dropping bombs on an enemy's city in order to save lives on both sides even though innocent civilians of all ages will die, or continuing a war where many more times the city's population will ultimately die? These are your two and only choices. Those were the choices Truman faced. Go ahead and say both are wrong. No argument here. But one is clearly morally superior to the other. There IS a RIGHT choice. If this is your idea of how we differ on God's Will, I can live with it, and so can far many more people.

If you have a choice to kill or be killed and choose the latter, good for you. If your killer goes on to kill more people when you had the chance to kill him, you are complicit in the deaths of the other people. You may still be greeted with open arms come judgement, but I doubt you'd be turned away if choosing to kill was a life saving measure.

These issues may be debatable, but only as matters of degrees. I can't see how a case could be made that totally refutes my position on them. The intentions involved can matter. They are selfless intentions in the two scenarios. To say that the intentions of homosexuals vying for marital rights or blessings by God are selfless is completely ludicrous. And though I might not dispute your desire to please God, which I don't, that doesn't mean that I can let go of your lame interpretations. They are easily disputed. To cling to them without a solid base for doing so is folly and makes you complicit in the very obvious sin of those you think you are helping. It trashes the very idea of giving up all for Christ to go through the efforts through which you and yours go in order to justify homosexual behavior. I find it very sad, frankly, and wish I was more persuasive. I rely on God's loving mercy regarding our shortcomings.

I will say this, though. Despite your very weak arguments defending your unfortunate point of view on this issue, I give you props for your continued engagement in this debate. You have that over your cowardly friend Michael, who banished me from his blog citing such lame reasons as the length of my comments, the imagined nasty tone, and one innapropriate but very funny joke. Kudos to you.

Dan Trabue said...

"I have said that you purposely confuse issues"

But I don't purposely confuse issues.

Here's the sort of disagreement that I disagree with.

By all means, if you disagree with my position, dispute it. Make your case against it.

But way too often, folk (on both "sides") will supplement their attacks on the Other's position with attacks on the Other.

You just aren't omniscient enough to know why I'm disagreeing with you. I'm telling you that my position is based on the Bible and my God-given reasoning. I'm trying to live righteously before my God.

I'm not doing so I can be "friends" with gays. I'm not doing it because it feels "nice" nor to avoid conflict. I'm not purposely confusing issues nor supporting gay marriage because I support hedonism.

For you or anyone else to make assumptions about why I'm supportive of gay marriage - despite my having told you specifically that it's in order to be pleasing to God and naught else - is an attempt to play God.

"I know why he's making that argument. It's to twist facts around..." "He must love promiscuity..."

Dispute the Other's points, that's fine. But don't play God.

It's offputting and a losing game.

Dan Trabue said...

By the way, Marshall, what you HAVE said includes:

"But the only people misinterpreting Scripture when it comes to homosexuality, are those who wish to support the gay agenda."

"Your one saving grace would be that the Almighty might not judge harshly the mentally challenged and then considers you to be one...May God's Truth seep into that dense material you call your skull."

"One canNOT study the Bible with an objective mind and come away believing that homosex behavior is not sinful. It just can't be done."

Amongst others. You may not have said that we hate God, but you HAVE implied or outright said that we're stupid, mentally deficient, unobjective and doing all this so that we can support a "gay agenda."

Discuss the point, don't demonize the Other.

Dan Trabue said...

And to digress with you a minute, you said:

"But to digress for a moment, which do you prefer: dropping bombs on an enemy's city in order to save lives on both sides even though innocent civilians of all ages will die, or continuing a war where many more times the city's population will ultimately die?"

I'm saying that it is always, always, always wrong to kill innocent people. I'm surprised that I have to make this argument amongst Christians.

You and the Bushes and McVeighs and the terrorists - for all your differences - are all united on this front: You're saying that SOMETIMES it is acceptable to kill innocents.

If that is your starting point, then it's just a matter of coming up with the justification.

We ought to always stand opposed to terrorism, oppression and the death and destruction of innocents. And if we participate in the above in order to stop the above, well, we've lost, haven't we?

Marshal Art said...

You haven't supported your position Biblically in a way that is logical and based on fact. You've inserted "facts" to support your argument. You make far more assumptions about Scripture than I ever have. That implies more than just seeking to please God. It either calls into question your intelligence or your intent. Compounding that is your inability to successfully counter may arguments. And yes, convincing should be a goal in these types of debates due to the final outcome for the debaters. It's far too important to just agree to disagree. That's a given, not a goal.

Dan Trabue said...

I'd suggest that I've come much closer to making the biblical case for gay marriage than you have for Christians participating in war.

The problem with making the biblical case for or against gay marriage is that it IS a silent issue in the Bible.

Whereas, those who support war-as-solution have gobs of biblical injunctions working against them. All you've been able to point to is the existence within Scripture of some instances where it appears God tells people to kill others.

But that is not a command to us. WE have other commands found within the NT and which you do much more dancing around than I have to on the gay issue since, again, any case for or against homosexuality in general or gay marriage in particular is just lacking much biblical "ammunition," since so little is said about it (if anything at all).

Dan Trabue said...

"You haven't supported your position Biblically in a way that is logical and based on fact."

I think I have extremely. Enough, anyway, to move me from your position, which I once held, to my current position. It didn't happen by chance and it sure didn't happen because I wanted to make the case for gay marriage or even of acceptance of gays (which I was opposed to going into my studies) as normative.

Marshal Art said...

"... but you HAVE implied or outright said that we're stupid, mentally deficient, unobjective and doing all this so that we can support a "gay agenda.""

I'm desperately trying to find a reason why anyone would support a blatant heresy. If all the above were true, it would at least account for it to some degree. Because there is certainly NO way Lev 18 suggests anything other than the forbidding of homo sex. Your "arguments" are fraudulent projections not based on anything objective or proven. One thing we know, is that since that time, there has been no support for that behavior in any way, shape or form. Yet NOW, in the 21st century, we have "scholars" that have uncovered the secrets even Moses did not know. Right. I can see why you could be persuaded.

"I'm telling you that my position is based on the Bible"

I know. I'm saying that you have basically made stuff up. There is nothing there that agrees with your position. From start to finish, the Bible has never sanctioned anything but traditional marital arrangements. I've asked for some tract or verse that would suggest otherwise and have been given nothing. But that's understandable seeing as how there IS nothing. So how can your position be based on the Bible? It can't. You have based it on outside sources that have subjectively interpreted rather than objectively interpreted the ancient manuscripts. If those interpretations were correct, there'd be some more obvious references in support of your position.

"I'm saying that it is always, always, always wrong to kill innocent people."

Exactly. YOU'RE saying it. We are taught not to murder. We are taught not to seek revenge or return evil with evil. Most, if not all, of these things are how we as individuals are to conduct ourselves. But are you suggesting that "turn the other cheek" means to allow oneself to be murdered? Are you suggesting that it means we are not to defend our people against foreign despots? Are you suggesting that Truman will not be welcomed into heaven because his actions killed thousands of our enemy's people in order to save ours as well as more of theirs? If you believe that "turn the other cheek" means that we should never defend ourselves, especially if defending ourselves requires killing, then we should all be wiped out within a generation or two. Peace has always been the result of one side giving up. That side that gives up usually does so to prevent annihilation. Annihilation comes because that side cannot prevent it by continuing hostilities. Up until Viet Nam, at least during the 20th century, our enemies have profited by unconditional surrender.

You also err in making the shameful comparison between Bush and terrorists. This is another place your mental deficiency shows. That you wallow in such moral relativism is shameful and woefully unChristian. Bush, and for that matter, Americans so far, have never targeted civilians as a primary target. We have gone out of our way to avoid collateral damage, even at the risk of our own soldiers' lives. To say that Bush has been the reason so many civies have died is the epitomy of stupidity. The bad guys have been killing their own like they were before we got there. So to say the following:

"I'd suggest that I've come much closer to making the biblical case for gay marriage than you have for Christians participating in war."

...is preposterous since you haven't you haven't succeeded in either arena. When Mark has a thread regarding war and killing, it will be much more obvious. As for homosexuality and homo marriage, there is all the edict we need in Lev 18. That is loud enough for anyone looking to live by God's Will. It is plain, it is clear. The implications are like a slap in your face. You prefer to pretend not to feel it. You hang your hat on what it doesn't say, and use it as a lame loophole for justification. You read between the lines where only blank space lies while ignoring the truth in the mandate of Lev 18.

You may have been opposed at one time, but you have since allowed yourself to be sweet talked by psuedo scholars like White and influenced by the face to face exposure of those of the lifestyle who pretend they can be good Christians while thwarting God's Will. The latter isn't the worst part. We all know people who are "just like us except..." That's not the point. But a nice guy who's a hit man is still a murderer even though he's nice around us. A nice guy who engages in homosexual behavior is still engaging in behavior God abhors no matter how involved in the church he may be.

I continue to pray for your poor perception and understanding of obvious Biblical Truth.

Dan Trabue said...

Right back at ya, bud.