Homosexual activists know the importance of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "gay" has helped homosexual activists push their dishonest agenda on unsuspecting people.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
One of the aspects of Mr. Campolo's ministry I most respect and admire is that eventhough he believes homosexuality to be sinful, he is tolerant, respectful and understanding of Christians who believe otherwise. It's an example of which MANY more Christians need to take note.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
"... the fact He emphasized His coming does not give you the right to play God."
This is a HIGHLY ironic accusation since YOU'RE the one stating your view and our Lord's will as though they were the same thing. Too many genuine and self proclaimed Christians do so. It's why they typically DON'T handle the dissenting beliefs of others very well.
"Anyone who says scripture is not God-breathed is denying Jesus is God."
Christ is perfect people are not. It is people who wrote, copied, printed canonized, translated, revised, and interpeted scripture making up the Bible. Stating the source we have of our Lord and His Son may not be perfect is NOT to deny either.
And one question I have for you is:
Do you believe all of Mosaic Law comes from our Lord?
If you say "yes," you'd be mistaken and would yourself be denying Christ.
Rom 1 not only says that sodomy is worthy of death but those who condone it are just as worthy .
What the real issue here is the divinity of Christ. if Christ is God then the words of the apostles are just as much the words of God as Moses and the prophets ar
Anyone who tries to say Jesus did not condemn sodomy is saying Jesus is not God. Sodomy is a forgivable sin, denying Christ is not. Hell will be full of nice people who accepted "gay people" . Christianity is not politically correct.
"Rom 1 not only says that sodomy is worthy of death but those who condone it are just as worthy ."
In Rom. 1, Paul speaks of a group who abandoned our Lord and committed acts that most all, regardless of orientation would have condemned. IF the acts described in the passage had been among UNmarried men and women, it's doubtful Paul would have been considered any less "vile." Yet it's equally doubtful the record of the acts would be exploited to condemn all hetero relationships... (Cont.)
"What the real issue here is the divinity of Christ. if Christ is God then the words of the apostles are just as much the words of God as Moses and the prophets ar"
Neither Moses nor the apostles were God. They were all human and not invounerable to human error. The apostles were nearly all guilty of sins against Christ Himself ranging from abandonment, to denial to betrayal. And Christ pointed out an error of Moses in Matt. 19:8-9 when he (Moses)... (Cont.)
Puting words into the mouth of your creator is unwise. He never said Moses was wrong, He said Moses allowed divorce because the hardness of the hearts of the Jews. You are either completely brainwashed, mentally challenged, or a pathological liar if you say Christ did not 100% affirm the teachings of Moses and the prophets.
Unless you can show me where Christ said Moses disobeyed about marriage you have shown yourself to be a pathological liar.
"Puting words into the mouth of your creator is unwise."
You mean in the way it seem you're doing when you try to "prove" Christ condemned all same gender relationships by simply advocating hetero unions in Mark?
"He said Moses allowed divorce because the hardness of the hearts of the Jews."
Yes it was MOSES who made this concession, going AGAINST the will of our Lord. Lying, brainwashing as well as your other accusations don't change the simple fact that Matt.19:8-9 prettymuch kills...
Again, Christ was referring to the prophecies made of His coming, NOT about everything the prophets stated. And again you seem to be ignoring the last four words of Matt. 19;8 when asked about the law Moses and NOT our Lord commanded in regard to divorce: "...but from the beginning IT WAS NOT SO." In other words, the law Moses made was NOT our Lord's. This leaves us to wonder what OTHER laws may have come from Moses himself that Christ didn't address.
That is not what the Bible says, that is you twisting scripture to fit your perversion. He said ALL and ALL means all. Yes the context was His coming but to doubt that ALL means ALL is to say you have the right to decide what part of the statement Christ made was true, you have usurped the power of God Almighty, that is most unwise. O fools, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken
Read slowly, your reading comprehension has been found wanting.
"That is not what the Bible says, that is you twisting scripture to fit your perversion. He said ALL and ALL means all."
Assuming for a sec your personal view is true, where then did the prophets say anything regarding same gender unions?
"...to doubt that ALL means ALL is to say you have the right to decide what part of the statement Christ made was true, you have usurped the power of God Almighty"
Disagreeing with your view as to what Christ meant by "all" is NOT usurping our Lord's power.
Again , He said they were fools not to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken , the fact He emphasized His coming does not give you the right to play God.
This was about His second coming. Again , do you deny the flood?
Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Christ denied Moses in Matt. 19:8-9, and thus, according to your interesting view, seems to have denied Himself. "Luke 16:31" And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Just as you're not persuaded by Christ who Himself rose from the dead after He stated a law of Moses was not intended "...from the beginning."
You are not only a pathological liar but a snob as well. your atheistic belief in evolution forces you to believe you are smarter than people in the past who had to be lied to .
In the early days of our country finishing college at 16 was not unusual, at 11 not unheard of. At the age of 14 J. Quincy Adams was made ambassador to the court of Catherine the Great, he was fluent in 7 languages .
Few college grads could pass the 8th grade final from 1900.
"...your atheistic belief in evolution forces you to believe you are smarter than people in the past who had to be lied to"
You may simply be confusing me with another poster. Then again, you presume too much on our Lord's part so it should be no surprise you'd do the same with me since I haven't spoken of evolution.
"The penalty for telling a lie about what Christ said is plainly stated in the last chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ."
If you do not believe in evolution say so and I will recant . The reason for my assumption is it is so blatantly clear you you are regurgitating the party line , all your arguments against scripture are canned responses atheists use and all atheists are evolutionists.
i don't presume anything about my Lord, we do not worship the same God.
What lie, that is the fallacy of the sweeping generality.
The penalty for telling a lie about what Christ said is plainly stated in the last chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. your name is removed from the Book of Life.
...Your argument. And apparently all you can do is declare it's states the OPPOSITE of what it all TOO likely does in your effort to refute Christ Himself.
"Rom 1 not only says that sodomy is worthy of death but those who condone it are just as worthy ."
In Rom. 1, Paul speaks of a group who abandoned our Lord and committed acts that most all, regardless of orientation would have condemned. IF the acts described in the passage had been among UNmarried men and women, it's doubtful Paul would have been considered any less "vile." Yet it's equally doubtful the record of the acts would be exploited to condemn all hetero relationships... (Cont.)
Jesus confirmed that every jot and title of the Old Testament was true. The argument that Jesus never denounced sodomy is as dishonest as it is childish.
The words of Paul were just as inspired as those of Moses , to try and say the word's of Paul are not the words of God is to deny Christ's very divinity.
Gays are welcome in any truly Christian church but if their actions are overlooked or , God forbid, accepted that church is not Christian .
...Wrote the law for divorce to appease his people rather in obedience to our Lord. As inspired, wise and intelligent as they all may have been, they were still human, meaning mistakes very well could have happened. .
-In light of the fact that there are clear principals of exegesis which emphasize the role of theme& context, it's shocking you insist on this. It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise.This theme is established in the genesis account of the male/female relationship and later re- inforced by Jesus who also condemns divorce. Nowhere are men EVER called 'Echad'
"It is not exploitation. On the contrary,it's what is known as THE CLEAR & SELF-EVIDENT INTENTION OF THE TEXT,,,"
In other words, it's the more widely accepted interpetation that counts regardless of wheather it's ultimately right or wrong. "...(as any reputable concordance and commentary makes clear)" "Reputable" meaning that you see eye to eye with it?
@clay56 - "In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul uses two Greek terms. One means "soft" and the other is two words fused together and has been SO seldom used it's meaning cannot be generally agreed upon."
So, clay are you stating that if the 'meaning' of this 'rare' word were made clear to you, you would immediately change your views and perspectives regarding the acceptability of homosexual behaviors and the authentic nature&relationship of men and women as demonstrated in the general theme of Bible teachings?
"Anyone who tries to say Jesus did not condemn sodomy is saying Jesus is not God."
Too many gay Christian opponents try to insert their personal views into the Gospels perhaps not in spite but BECAUSE of the fact Christ said nothing about it. They need SOMETHING, even if they have to manufacture it themselves in what is arguably the most important part of the Bible to "justify In so doing, they risk problem with our Lord involving the Nineth Commandment which Christ upheld in Matt. 19:5.
So every Christian Scholar in history before the last half of the 19th century were less qualified than you? Please be serious, Jesus Christ confirmed all of God's word is true . The Holy Spirit inspired the words of Paul . No intellectually honest person could make the argument that Jesus did not consider sodomy a mortal sin.
In Roman's one leaves no doubt that men having sex with men or women w/ women is worthy of death as is condoning it. You are grasping at straws.
"So every Christian Scholar in history before the last half of the 19th century were less qualified than you?"
You mean your reasearch doesn't extend beyond that time period? It indeed explains much.
"No intellectually honest person could make the argument that Jesus did not consider sodomy a mortal sin."
Nor, HONESTLY state He condemned something as sinful He said nothing about. And Rom. again speaks to a group involved in a pegan orgy, NOT reflective of all same gender relationships..
My personal views are irrelevant. The Bible tells us to interpret scripture w/ scripture. It was the pre-Incarnate Christ who called down the fire and brimstone on the cities of the plain.
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Your knowledge of scripture is non-existent, all you are doing is copying the party line. If sodomites do not repent they will have damned themselves.
"My personal views are irrelevant." Why then state them as if they were devine absolutes? And the story of Sodom revolves around the Hebrew term for the word "know" which has ELEVEN different definitions. Yep, single word with MANY definitions is being exploited in the condemnation of all same gender relationships
"He upheld marriage between one man and one woman...."
Again to uphold it for one orientation does not neccessarily mean He forbade it for another. To say such is to presume too much on our Lords behalf.
"if you say He was wrong you are saying He is not God and have damned yourself if you do not repent."
Im saying you're not neccessarily right making the presumption on His behalf that you have. And Im never more prayerful for the non-Christian, agnostic or the athiest than I am the... (Cont.)
"You logic: Jesus never daid the moon's center was not green cheese and no ones ever seen it so it must be so."
And your logic: Christ spoke highly of hetero marriage which MUST mean He ABSOLUTELY condemed all same gender unions.
"You are denying the divinity of Christ, you are damning yourself."
I disagree with your view which you'd evidently have others believe could be nothng BUT His will. And I remain prayerful of your statements second guessing our Lord on the type... (Cont.)
Clay, again I think U are again being evasive & failing to answer the question which I first asked you to this question. If the fact is that the meaning of this word is contrary to what you allege and fails to support your allegations would you renounce and denounce your support of gay false doctrines& teachings. I have NO PROBLEM w/admitting that I am wrong on ANY issue if the facts warrant such (establishing Paul was not speaking of homosexualism). Where on Campolo page was this raised?
I refer you to Jesus' words in Matt 19 & Mark 10 by way of examination, yourself being a free-will moral agent. The infinite choice stands before you now and today. No one is guaranteed tomorrow ( even though we may attempt to create the illusion that we are). The fact is God condemns no man. Rather, every man makes his choices & castes his die. Paul said don't be deceived. because he knew people would wrongly CHOOSE HELL in self deception. This is the clear implication of the I Cor 6:9 intro
...Calling for women to be silent in church. and what came from his own reasoning as in the case of the care for widows and the unmarried in 1 Cor. 7:20. But he did not always do so. We therefore don't have a clear indication in Paul's epistles of what comes from our Lord and what comes from Paul himself.
"Gays are welcome in any truly Christian church but if their actions are overlooked or , God forbid, accepted that church is not Christian "
Your Bible knowledge is non existent . The context of the whole chapter {1 Cor 14 } where the Holy Spirit forbid women to speak in church is speaking in tongues.
Jesus Christ conformed creation, marriage , the flood , Jonah etc. and I have never met a queer who agreed w/ Christ. That is denying His divinity ..
The church is for sinners , everyone is welcome.but we don't let practising thieves guard the collection plate or sexual deviates work in the nursery.
This formal, exclusive recognition of one orientation is again based on YOUR subjective view of the passage. A person of any oirientation can speak highly of hetero marriage while still favoring same gender unions. Advocacy for the union of one orientation does, in and of itself, NOT mean prohibition of that for another. To state otherwise is to state to much on our Christ behalf.
Sodomy was the death penalty , your argument is as intelligent as denying Christ because dinosaur, computer and email are not in it. Queer unions did not exist.
God spelled out exactly what marriage in the OT and the Messiah confirmed it in the NT. One, man , one woman for life , period.
The vast majority of queers do not get married when they have a chance ,most who do are making a political statement. Their one goal is to destroy Christian morality.
You are just stonewalling. I have shown you where the Old and New Testaments condemns ALL sex between men and men , it never said anything about queer marriage because that is an oxymoron.
Marriage is spelled out in Genesis , Matthew , and Mark that it is by divine degree between one man and one woman.
You logic: Jesus never daid the moon's center was not green cheese and no ones ever seen it so it must be so.
You are denying the divinity of Christ, you are damning yourself.
on the contrary, few pple who know me would at all doubt that I am one of the most inquisitive, tolerant persons U could ever know- that doesn't mean that I have to agree with or have approbation of every kind of behavior. Your accusation are also inappropriate because for thousands of years the ethics& morals which I embrace speak equally ALL pple in kinds of situations & says the One who created you loves, cares & wants to give U abundant life If U are a thief, rapist murderer, gay no matter
@shieldsff We are supposed to become new creations in Christ. The old is to pass away and a new life is created. So the sick pathetic poofter sodomite is supposed to change his ways. Once you truly no Christ you can no longer carry on with that filthy life style. You can quote all the scriptures you want and it aint going change a thing. Sin is Sin and we have to stop committing sin.
"What lie, that is the fallacy of the sweeping generality."
Actually Im being quite specific since trying to shove an anti-gay teaching into Mark where Christ stated NOTHING about homosexuality IS misleading at the VERY least as is stating Christ upheld all of what Moses and others before Him stated when it's been shown He didn't.
"Do you believe in Noah's Flood? Jesus did."
Do you believe in the dietary restrictions imposed by Mosaic Law? Jesus did not.
Your arguments would be embarrassing coming from a child, it's moronic enough to use the argumentum ex silentio when such silence exist When it doesn't it makes one wonder how you got past the third grade.
Jesus affirmed all of scripture as God breathed and sex outside of marriage which He clearly defined as between one man and one women is fornication . Less than 2 % of queers get married where they can and God does not recognize those unions anyway, end of story!
"Your arguments would be embarrassing coming from a child,..."
If so, it's more embarrassing for you since you haven't been able to successfully counter such arguments.
"Jesus affirmed all of scripture as God..."
This argument stands debunked by Christ Himself most notably when He stated Mosaic Law was miswritten in Matt. 19:8-9. Evidently, since you're unable to refute Christ Himself, you're simply left with re-stating the same (false) statement.
Clay I am still waiting for you to explain the assumptions necessary to manufacture "dates" with isotopes.
This is par for the course with liberals, they are blatantly ignorant of the science and instead of admitting they are blindly religious they make false accusations.
Your anti-Chrustian , rant was refuted by Polycarp in the 1st century.
Moses made no mistake , scripture proves scripture. Jesus Christ plainly stated that if you do not believe Moses you burn in hell. -continued-
John 3-12 , John 4-6 and other places sink your old silly argument. If you don't believe Moses you don't believe Christ, plain and simple. You don't believe the Bible at all . Cutting and pasting ancient Enlightenment arguments does not impress me, I heard them all before you were born.
Jesus clearly stated why Moses allowed divorce, He never even implied Moses was mistaken . Just because something was allowed at times does not constitute a rubber stamp endorsement. -continued-
"Jesus clearly stated why Moses allowed divorce, He never even implied Moses was mistaken "
We're split big time there. He stated Moses wrote a law to placate his people rather than follow our Lord's will, a law that was not intended 'from the beginning."
"All of this is so stupid anyway, Moses was not infallible ,"
Agreed
"...even if he did make a mistake it would have no effect on the in-errancy of scripture."
So essentially, if Moses was wrong, scriptural "in-errancy" would make ... (Cont.)
Herod assumed that because Moses granted divorce at times t that Christianity , like Islam, treated women like cattle. When john the Baptist corrected him he was imprisoned and beheaded .
Although divorce was not approved of it insured the wife and children did not have to beg or steal to survive.
All of this is so stupid anyway, Moses was not infallible , even if he did make a mistake it would have no effect on the in-errancy of scripture. Earth to clay, come in please?
Part 2 ...That wrong into a right? "Earth to clay, come in please?" Still here don't worry. Wouldn't miss a minute of the HUGELY ironic and contradictary entertainment you've been broadcasting
"Jesus clearly stated why Moses allowed divorce, He never even implied Moses was mistaken " We're split big time there. He stated Moses wrote a law to placate his people rather than follow our Lord's will, a law that was not intended 'from the beginning." "All of this is so stupid anyway, Moses was not infallible ," Thank-you "...even if he did make a mistake it would have no effect on the in-errancy of scripture."
So even if Moses was wrong, scriptural "in-errancy" would make... (Cont.)
no doubt, this is a key source of your unfounded assertions&confusion.You are wrong that one's understanding of this sin as a matter of mere opinion.The teachings of the Apostles make clear that no sound teaching or doctrine is of of anyone's private interpretation.It continues that if someone advances a "false teaching" tha person is,in fact, rejected of the Spirit of God & should under no circumstances be heeded (see Galatians). I think we trust established scholarship over UR wish fantasies
-In light of the fact that there are clear principals of exegesis which emphasize the role of theme& context, it's shocking you insist on this. It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise.This theme is established in the genesis account of the male/female relationship and later re- inforced by Jesus who also condemns divorce. Nowhere are men EVER called 'Echad'
well said- I have previously recommended the Youtube debate with Dr. Michael Brown and Harry Knox. Dr. Brown does an outstanding,unassailable job of explicating and expounding the underlying judeo/christian ethical understanding of sexuality in God's view. Every one would do themselves a great favor listening to the deep wisdom of this man. The urgency of the Apostle Paul's warning in I Cor 6 "Not to be deceived..." (speaking to the brethren) makes sense because of those who call sin "love"
well said- I have previously recommended the Youtube debate with Dr. Michael Brown and Harry Knox. Dr. Brown does an outstanding,unassailable job of explicating and expounding the underlying judeo/christian ethical understanding of sexuality in God's view. Every one would do themselves a great favor listening to the deep wisdom of this man. The urgency of the Apostle Paul's warning in I Cor 6 "Not to be deceived..." (speaking to the brethren) makes sense because of those who call sin "love"
...People mentioned in Rom. 1:22-28 turned away from our Lord before participating in a pegan orgy as Rom. 1:23/25 strongly suggests. But if the people Paul mentions here had been engaged in heterosexual activity, would their affections been less vile? Would their acts have been exploited to condemn all heterosexuals, EVEN husbands and wives? It is this double-standard many hold of the different orientations that has arguably led to the VERY improper application of the passage.
Terrible distortion of what the Word says. Who wrote the Word Mr. Campolo? Is not Jesus God? The whole Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so you are going to hold up red letter words and twist them and set them up against God's Word? Sin is sin. People like you need to teach people to turn from sin, and turn at God's Rebuke (Pr 1:23), but if you want to twist God's Word, you are reminiscent of the enemy, Hath God really said?
",,,so you are going to hold up red letter words and twist them and set them up against God's Word?"
Many who hear messages they personally find objectionable make accusations of twisting WITHOUT explaining WHERE and HOW the "twisting" was done. In the process, they discredit the person they accuse FAR less than they discredit themselves.
@clay56 The twisting is that he sets the "red letter words of God" up against the rest of "the Word of God". There is no conflict in God's Word and it is twisting in the exact way the enemy did. "Hath God really said?" Did Jesus really say in His red letters? So what if Romans says it, or other scripture in God's Word, Did Jesus really say? You don't understand the similarities? I do not care if I am credited or discredited in anyone's eyes but God's. I study to show myself approved to Him
"The twisting is that he sets the "red letter words of God" up against the rest of "the Word of God" "
Im assuming by "red letter" you're speaking in the main of Christ's words which contain nothing of homosexuality. To exploit them as though they did is too arguably itself a form of "twisting." And if you've watched this and other vids, you'd know Mr. Campolo actually agrees with the generally accepted interpetation of Romans, making your accusation of him even more questionable.
On,the contrary,it is very clear that Paul is condemning all,sexual immorality IN GENERAL, consistent with the law of Moses (Paul was a jewish Pharisee prior to his conversion). In the context of his writings both in Corithians & in Romans,it's impossible that he was making any such distinctions as U allege, nor is there ANY proof that Paul is referring to so-called homosexual temple prostitution which has also been alleged, I encourage everyone here to check out the YT debate w/Dr Michael Brown
"On,the contrary,it is very clear that Paul is condemning all,sexual immorality IN GENERAL,"
Sexual immorality for Paul was any sexual activity outside of marriage as seen in 1 Cor. 7:1-9. And what's actually alleged is Paul's condemnation of all same gender unions. In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul uses two Greek terms. One means "soft" and the other is two words fused together and has been SO seldom used it's meaning cannot be generally agreed upon. Was he even addressing homosexuality here? The... (Cont.)
You provide no compelling defense of your assertions. You cite rather convoluted applied 'proof text' which mangles any recognized or reputable translation by greek/english scholars. And need I mention the very worst & most glaring of all of your failures as a Bible expositor here ?!? You have maligned God by attempting to understand His Word by ignoring context & basic principals of spiritual living.
While I completely think that the Biblical arguments more than sufficient for you (they provide very compelling moral and socio-historical grounds). I would offer you the following:
search the youtube vid entitled: "Daughter of a gay man speaks"
sorry clay, but the distortion here is really your misunderstanding. Firstly, you set-up a strawman argument by positing would Paul have condemned the sexual practice at issue IF it were hetero-sexual husbands& wives? That is an unjustifiable hypothetical by you- it's perfectly clear Paul was addressing homosexual actions.There is no double standard in the moral prescriptions against homosexuals because that behavior is a misapplication of sanctified sexuality just like adultery or prostitution
"it's perfectly clear Paul was addressing homosexual actions..."
It may be "perfectly clear" to anyone opposing all homosexuality BEFORE reading the passage. Paul was speaking of a group who had abandoned our Lord then engaged in a PEGAN orgy. This is NOT reflective of all homosexuals and certainly not gay Christians. If they had engaged heterosexual acts, Paul most likely would have been no less appauled. But the passage would TOO likely not have been exploited to condemn all... (Cont.)
@clay56 -Hey, pls help me out- sadly, I have to say we seem to be 'talking pass' each other here. I have offered several scripture citations (not just a 'proof text' ) including from the Gospels; I offered the traditional christian perspective on homosexual behaviors. I also referenced a credible debate here on youtube (Brown vs. Knox). Yet w/NO proof, you assert that one who holds my view is 'reading into the text". Really- are you not the one isolating this text. I have requested evidence for
You've offered your personal view of these passages, such does not constitute proof. The description and editing of the debate you mentioned is more than a bit one sided. And the "traditional" perspective many Christians have held of homosexuality doesn't always make it right, otherwise the the once traditional belief that the sun and stars moved around the earth based on what was perceived from the passages of Joshua 10:12-14 and... (Cont.)
@clay56 - "The description and editing of the debate you mentioned is more than a bit one sided. And the "traditional" perspective many Christians have held of homosexuality doesn't always make it right"
Sure clay, it perfectly clear by now that anything disagreeing w/' your desires, HAS to be wrong. I have yet to see anyone insist, however, that there is anything at all one-sided about that discussion as both parties are freely, civilly, and at length allowed to present their competing views
" it perfectly clear by now that anything disagreeing w/' your desires, HAS to be wrong."
Not saying you're neccessarily wrong only that I don't agree with your personal belief on this matter. And the description of the vid as well as the vid itself was NOT presented objectively.
@clay56 -(PtII) for your supposition that Paul was speaking of a (hetero?) group,which "engaged in pegan [sic] orgies".Recall, you then refer to a term Paul invoked in I Cor 6:9 imply the validity of UR position only to later assert that the meaning of the world in unknown. In the Romans text above, similarly you offer inferences but no proof of systemic exegesis supporting your conclusion.To argue as you do requires one to exclude Jesus' words on marriage for example in Matt 19 & Mark 10
"To argue as you do requires one to exclude Jesus' words on marriage for example in Matt 19 & Mark 10."
Not a bit.
Someone of any orientation could advocate hetero marriage just as Christ did and still be in favor of same gender relations. Many gay Christian opponents try to shove an antigay theme into the passage where none exists, inviting problems involving Matt 7:1-2 as well as the Nineth Commandment which Christ upheld in the eighteenth verse of the very chapter of Matt. you mentioned.
You 'proudly' mention [the] 'gay christian movement (even though God strongly condemns & resists the proud). Could you clarify that? Where in the Bible is it taught that Christians ought to distinguish themselves or establish their identity in Christ Jesus predicated on sexuality? In fact, we are told there is only one Lord,one faith & one baptism into the body of Christ Jesus. Is it not possible that U R deceived ? Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too
I disagree that that the greek word Apostle Paul uses "Arsenokoitai" lacks a consensus of meaning among reputable Bible scholars. I recommend the debate here on YT with Dr, Michael Brown & Harry Knox .Read Matt 19 and Mark 10. Paul wrote in the first century addressing an entire panoply of SPIRITUAL conditions. Paul had numerous terms to address the sins & ills of his day so your argument begs the question of why he chose THAT word. Also see the work of clinical psychologist Stanton Jones
...These passages pertaining to homosexuality. Though many may exploit Christ's teachings in both to make it seem as though there were. The two Greek words for "man" and "bed" are what Paul fused into a single term. But since he didn't define it, it's meaning can only be left to conjecture. As such, the term Paul coined doesn't neccessarily refer to a sexual situation any more than the term "chairman" neccessarily refers to a chair
...Would have been no less appauled as evidenced by 1 Cor. 7:2-9.
"Recall, you then refer to a term Paul invoked in I Cor 6:9 imply the validity of UR position only to later assert that the meaning of the world in unknown."
The point was and still is that the vagueness of the two terms, especially "arsenokoites" makes it none too certain Paul was speaking to homosexuality at all, let alone to all same gender relationships. Where is the NONconjectural proof otherwise?
I "assert" the simple fact that Rom. 1:23-28 does not speak to all same gender relationships. Not saying you absoolutely can't be right in your beliefs, but using such a passage to condemn all is VERY arguably exploitation"
It is not exploitation. On the contrary,it's what is known as THE CLEAR & SELF-EVIDENT INTENTION OF THE TEXT (as any reputable concordance and commentary makes clear) Neither the passage in Joshua nor the passage in Psalms alleges any such thing; Psalms speak metaphorically
"Neither the passage in Joshua nor the passage in Psalms alleges any such thing; Psalms speak metaphorically."
Those who taught the sun and stars moved around the earth exploited the passage Joshua to "prove" it. And Psalms may be regarded metaphoical now, but was believed and (mis)taught LITERALLY for MANY centuries.
"I disagree that that the greek word Apostle Paul uses "Arsenokoitai" lacks a consensus of meaning among reputable Bible scholars.
I respect your opinion but do not share it. Certainly there would be agreement on the terms among the majority who personally oppose homosexuality. But at one time a certain majority had their right arms raised shouting "Heil Hitler" and another with their fist raised screaming "Crucify Him!' And I read Matt. 19 and Mk.10 LONG ago. There is nothing in... (Cont.)
...Psalms 19:1-6 might well have persisted for much longer than they did.
And I "assert" the simple fact that Rom. 1:23-28 does not speak to all same gender relationships. Not saying you absoolutely can't be right in your beliefs, but using such a passage to condemn all is VERY arguably exploitation. And it looks like you've been skimming my posts a bit too quickly since I made no supposition Paul was speaking to hetero acts, but rather that if the acts had been hetero he... (Cont.)
You 'proudly' mention [the] 'gay christian movement (even though God strongly condemns & resists the proud). Could you clarify that? Where in the Bible is it taught that Christians ought to distinguish themselves or establish their identity in Christ Jesus predicated on sexuality? In fact, we are told there is only one Lord, one faith & one baptism into the body of Christ Jesus. Is it not possible that U R deceived ? Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too
Anything's possible as per Matt.19:26. Have you asked yourself this queston at some point in time?
"Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too."
Such fearmongering may be effective to a point until it's remembered that, unlike same gender relationships, Christ spoke to adultery, theft, and intoxication. In the case of pedophilia, are we to condemn all heterosexuals in the case of adult men attracted to small girls?
...Heterosexuals, even husbands and wives. But it IS sadly being used to condemn all same gender relations, even marriage eventhough it does NOT speak to all. Such therefore DOES indeed constitute a tragic double standard among too many Christians.
@clay56 - "In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul uses two Greek terms. One means "soft" and the other is two words fused together and has been SO seldom used it's meaning cannot be generally agreed upon."
So, clay are you stating that if the 'meaning' of this 'rare' word were made clear to you, you would immediately change your views and perspectives regarding the acceptability of homosexual behaviors and the authentic nature&relationship of men and women as demonstrated in the general theme of Bible teachings?
"...you would immediately change your views and perspectives regarding the acceptability of homosexual behaviors and the authentic nature&relationship of men and women as demonstrated in the general theme of Bible teachings?"
IF you could produce genuinely authenticated documents of the apostle Paul HIMSELF defining it, since the term has been disputed centuries before even the Bible as we know it let alone the various Bible dictionaries came into being.
"It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise."
Your opinion that Christ's advocacy of hetero unions MUST signify the condemnation of same gender relations is YOUR opinion, and a HIGHLY presumptuous one on His part at that.
"I do not care if I am credited or discredited in anyone's eyes but God's."
And it is with Him that many Christians may have their biggest problems when they very well COULD be violating the Nineth Commandment and Matt. 7:1-2 with unsubstantiated, questionable accusations.
@hollywdgarcia - correct- 'DISTORTION' is the operative word to keep in mind when clay attempts to 'read' (i.e., deny & re-translate without credentials ) the Bible
"'DISTORTION' is the operative word to keep in mind when clay attempts to 'read' (i.e., deny & re-translate without credentials ) the Bible."
This is generally the knee jerk response of many who can't see their personal view and our Lord's INFINATELY vast and complex will as anything BUT one and the same.
The C.D.C. (The center for disease control) 1. 85% of all male sexual transmitted aids cases are from homosexual contact. 2. Homosexual men have an H.I.V. Infection rate 60 times higher than general public. 3. 60% of all syphilis cases from homosexual & bisexual men. 4. The average life expectancy for a homosexual is 46yrs of age. It's wise & loving to oppose a man because of his destructive behavior. Others call it...intolerant!
Double standards only exist with man. There are no double standards where God Almigty is concerned. So don't go about hoodwinking yourself that practising sinners will go to heaven. God's word, the bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that ....." Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, etc...will inherit the kingdom of God." So if any person is living a LIFESTYLE OF SIN, he/she better quits it regardless of WHATEVER SIN it is.
Double standards only exist with man. There are no double standards where God Almigty is concerned. So don't go about hoodwinking yourself that practising sinners will go to heaven. God's word, the bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that ....." Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, etc...will inherit the kingdom of God." So if any person is living a lifestyle of sin, he/she better quits it regardless of whatever sin it is.
@opsvideo2008 . Since man invented the gods & their sci-fi novels, it's a funny way 2 get 'round it, isn't it? The bible's full of double standards. U pick & choose according 2 ur level of sadomasochism. Christianity is 1 of the greatest sins against humanity, reason, science, social & moral progress & those things are much more important than empty discourses from religious zealots or their multiple-personality-disorders (aka. Trinity) imaginary friends, blackmailing us with an eternal torture
@cre599 You are wrong because man did not invent God. Instead it is God who created man. When you say christianity is against science, such as against Galileo's assertion that the earth revolves around the sun, you are talking about catholicism, which is not true christianity but a man-made religion. What I say doesn't matter, it is what the word of God, the bible says that really matters. 1 Corinthians 6:9 clearly tells us that practising homosexuals won't be exempted from hell.
@opsvideo2008 No, you didnt get it. Your imaginary friend is an invention of man. Starting from the fabrication of the fictional best-seller, the fabrication of doctrines through time and the unjustified interpretations of visual and auditory hallucinations. You R told to believe things BY FAITH, meaning: because there's no evidence, rational arguments, of even if there is evidence against. That is fundamentally opposed to the most basic principles that rule the scientific method.
@opsvideo2008 . Christianity has always been against science because, like Carl Sagan entitled his book, Christianity has made the world a "demon-hunted world" while science has served as a "candle in the dark", dispelling myths & faith premises held out of gullible, ignorant and oppressive minds.. and if u think I am only thinking about 400-year-old disputes between Christianity & science, you are wrong 1 million times over. From evolution, medicine, euthanasia, mental health... it's nonstop!
@opsvideo2008 . But let's play along with your PARTICULAR biblical delusion & take the role of a gay-affirming Christian. The term of "homosexual" was born in late 19th century in a scientific context dealing with what we know as "sexual orientation". Which is determined by genes and environmental influences in the womb. How come you can read Paul, a 1st century writer (in Greek), talk about "homosexuality"? He didnt know what a "homosexual" or a "heterosexual" was. He only knew people had sex.
@opsvideo2008 . Have you ever heard of the concept of "biased translations?" Do you really think Paul wrote in 20th century English? Did you know the first time the word "homosexual" was put in the bible was in the 1940's, apparently. Homosexuality in ancient Greece took many forms, as well as in today. The same with heterosexuality. My heterosexual mom lives a total different lifestyle than the heterosexual woman in the Juan Ponce de Leon Ave. standing in the street at midnight.
@opsvideo2008 . Anyways, we R quick 2 cite Paul in these regards but when he says something inconvenient for us, we TOTALLY reject him (Ex: women must be silent & don't teach in public. Homeschooling for them). We also shouldn’t lose perspective & remember that few ppl had tried to form a front against homosexuality from a secular, scientific, social & economic view & had failed. MEANING that the only objection U have 2 homosexuality is founded on religious beliefs (aka. irrational beliefs)
@cre599 You are wrong because all the teachings of Paul which formed a lot of the New testament are to be taken seriously because he is not speaking in his own capacity but he is teaching all that he received from Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In his epistles, Paul does not allow women to teach the word of God in the church over men because in doing so they will usurp the spiritual authority which God gave to man. The bible doesn't prohibit women to be teachers of knowledge in schools.
@opsvideo2008 . Oh come on!! I hate it when ppl lie to me, know that I know and still go on with it. Paul didn't meet your zombie Jesus. He had an hallucination. Paul wrote aprox. 20 years after the so-called death of Jesus, & the gospels came AFTER Paul. Paul is the main inventor of Christianity. Your whole rationale is the same as the rationale of any other sect following the writings of a man... "they will usurp the spiritual authority which God gave to man".. WTF? At least I made you say it.
@cre599 You assume people are lying to you because you are ignorant of what the word of God teaches. In Acts 9:1-7 of the bible, the Apostle Paul ( then called Saul) had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ Himself who then made him His Apostle to the gentiles (non-Jews). In 1 Timothy 2:11-13, the Apostle Paul forbids a woman to teach the word of God or to have authority over a man but to be in silence. If you are a catholic, it is time for you to read the bible by yourself.
Agreed, it's MAN'S double standard of the orientations constituting the reason why all same gender relationships are condemned eventhough NEITHER 1 Cor. 6:9 nor Rom. 1:24-28 speak to all. And the word "homosexual" was in NO Bible prior to 1946 with its first printing in the Revised Standard Version.
I am an ex-Christian-now-atheist-antitheist gay and I think all of you Christians are hypocrite from beginning to end. NO ONE here wants to live according to what your delusional book of mythology says. Not even the most fundamentalist of you. You just pick and choose according to how sadomasoquist you are... And liberal Christians are guilty as well for their condescending attitude of "tolerance" and "respect" for irrational beliefs. You ppl dont have an idea of the harm you are doing.
@cre599 as a christian i completely understand where you're coming from. i call myself a christian only because i would like to think that i live like jesus would have wanted me to. but it disgusts me how the christian community treats gay people like yourself. it's absolutely disgusting. you are a beautiful person and you should be free to love whom ever you feel drawn to without anybody even feeling the need to bat an eye or think twice. but i wanted to tell you not ALL christians are bad
@kevinbothwell . Thanx 4 ur comment. I know not all Christians are bad, though I suspect the good ones R rare bugs XD :P I'm aware of this "Red Letters Christians" thing. I just hope liberal Christians stopped being so "politically correct" with the black sheep of their family: the ignorant, fearful & politically-socially oppressive Christians. I envy many gay friends with non-Christian families. They dont have to deal with the sin of Christianity I have to deal with.
@cre599 man...im so sorry that you have to live under that kind of roof...i promise you it will get better. christian or not. i firmly believe that if there is in fact a being, or some kind of god that has a personallity...it loves you. if there's not....i love you broseph :) we're all people, we're all the same, we all bleed the same blood and breathe the same air.
Had the participants mentioned by Paul in Rom. 1 been unwed and involved in heterosexual acts, would their affections have been any less "vile?" Would the recording of their actions have been exploited by others to condemn ALL heterosexual relationships? This it seems is the double standard many hold in regard to different orientations. At least Tony Campolo is tolerant and understandng of those like his own wife who disagree with him on the issue of Romans.
"Thank you for citing Romans 1. I don't think you can say the gospels are valid and Romans is not."
I think he's saying the Gospels are the MORE valid of the two.
"This does not alleviate the burden of sin that nonetheless homosexuals bear."
Many don't believe the orientation is sin in all cases. And eventhough Campolo does, he dosen't believe it should be looked upon more harshly than other sins especially since Christ said nothing about it.
Transcendance does not change the gospel. Thank you for citing Romans 1. I don't think you can say the gospels are valid and Romans is not. Pharisees, indeed, but that doesn't change the definition of sin. My sins are as bad as homosexuality. This does not alleviate the burden of sin that nonetheless homosexuals bear. Christ does not attack homosexuals any more than any other sin, nor does he excuse it, but by faith in His blood which, like any other sin condition, requires repentance.
"Campolo forgets that when Jesus doesn't address certain things, he upheld the basic teaching at that time."
Based on this presumption upon the part of Christ we'd have to conclude He upheld the "sin" of a woman's grabbing her husband's attacker by the groin (Deu. 25:11-12) or the "sin" of a woman's refusal to marry the man who rapes and impregnates her (Deu. 22:28-29). This is something I kthink Mr. Campolo probably hasn't forgotten.
Campolo forgets that when Jesus doesn't address certain things, he upheld the basic teaching at that time. Did he extend love to the homosexual? I believe he did, but that he doesn't directly address it as a valid argument is lunacy.
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists know the importance of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "gay" has helped homosexual activists push their dishonest agenda on unsuspecting people.
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
One of the aspects of Mr. Campolo's ministry I most respect and admire is that eventhough he believes homosexuality to be sinful, he is tolerant, respectful and understanding of Christians who believe otherwise. It's an example of which MANY more Christians need to take note.
clay56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
What in the Bible would even come close to condoning men "doing that which is unnatural"?
MPaulHolmes 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"... the fact He emphasized His coming does not give you the right to play God."
This is a HIGHLY ironic accusation since YOU'RE the one stating your view and our Lord's will as though they were the same thing. Too many genuine and self proclaimed Christians do so. It's why they typically DON'T handle the dissenting beliefs of others very well.
clay56 3 months ago
He also never addresses not punching old women.
MPaulHolmes 3 months ago
Jesus Christ rebuked the devil Himself with scripture. Anyone who says scripture is not God-breathed is denying Jesus is God.
Here are some related questions.
Do you believe in the 6 day creation ?
Do you believe the account of Jonah and the whale?
Do you believe the worldwide flood occurred?
I would bet 99% of queers do not, Jesus however did so to deny them is to deny Him.
1956warden 3 months ago
"Anyone who says scripture is not God-breathed is denying Jesus is God."
Christ is perfect people are not. It is people who wrote, copied, printed canonized, translated, revised, and interpeted scripture making up the Bible. Stating the source we have of our Lord and His Son may not be perfect is NOT to deny either.
And one question I have for you is:
Do you believe all of Mosaic Law comes from our Lord?
If you say "yes," you'd be mistaken and would yourself be denying Christ.
clay56 3 months ago
Rom 1 not only says that sodomy is worthy of death but those who condone it are just as worthy .
What the real issue here is the divinity of Christ. if Christ is God then the words of the apostles are just as much the words of God as Moses and the prophets ar
Anyone who tries to say Jesus did not condemn sodomy is saying Jesus is not God. Sodomy is a forgivable sin, denying Christ is not. Hell will be full of nice people who accepted "gay people" . Christianity is not politically correct.
1956warden 3 months ago
"Rom 1 not only says that sodomy is worthy of death but those who condone it are just as worthy ."
In Rom. 1, Paul speaks of a group who abandoned our Lord and committed acts that most all, regardless of orientation would have condemned. IF the acts described in the passage had been among UNmarried men and women, it's doubtful Paul would have been considered any less "vile." Yet it's equally doubtful the record of the acts would be exploited to condemn all hetero relationships... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 3 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 3 months ago
Part 2
...Even husbands and wives.
"What the real issue here is the divinity of Christ. if Christ is God then the words of the apostles are just as much the words of God as Moses and the prophets ar"
Neither Moses nor the apostles were God. They were all human and not invounerable to human error. The apostles were nearly all guilty of sins against Christ Himself ranging from abandonment, to denial to betrayal. And Christ pointed out an error of Moses in Matt. 19:8-9 when he (Moses)... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
You are Biblically illiterate.
Jesus Christ said the words of the prophets , including Moses were 100% true and anyone who disagrees is a fool. Luk 24:25
Moses did not make a mistake, God told him to say what he said about divorce.
He compared the truth of Moses's words with His own.
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me
Jesus Christ confirmed the divine nature of scripture . Again. you damn yourself.
Luk 24:44
1956warden 3 months ago
"Jesus Christ said the words of the prophets , including Moses were 100% true and anyone who disagrees is a fool."
This and the verses you cite was in reference to Christ Himself, who as much as stated Moses was NOT right about everything.
"Moses did not make a mistake, God told him to say what he said about divorce."
And according to Christ, he disobeyed our Lord and wrote something different to appease the people of his time.
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
Puting words into the mouth of your creator is unwise. He never said Moses was wrong, He said Moses allowed divorce because the hardness of the hearts of the Jews. You are either completely brainwashed, mentally challenged, or a pathological liar if you say Christ did not 100% affirm the teachings of Moses and the prophets.
Unless you can show me where Christ said Moses disobeyed about marriage you have shown yourself to be a pathological liar.
1956warden 3 months ago
"Puting words into the mouth of your creator is unwise."
You mean in the way it seem you're doing when you try to "prove" Christ condemned all same gender relationships by simply advocating hetero unions in Mark?
"He said Moses allowed divorce because the hardness of the hearts of the Jews."
Yes it was MOSES who made this concession, going AGAINST the will of our Lord. Lying, brainwashing as well as your other accusations don't change the simple fact that Matt.19:8-9 prettymuch kills...
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
All means all so you are lying.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
He never said Moses disobeyed , you are pathological , a sick puppy.
1956warden 3 months ago
"Luk 24:25
Again, Christ was referring to the prophecies made of His coming, NOT about everything the prophets stated. And again you seem to be ignoring the last four words of Matt. 19;8 when asked about the law Moses and NOT our Lord commanded in regard to divorce: "...but from the beginning IT WAS NOT SO." In other words, the law Moses made was NOT our Lord's. This leaves us to wonder what OTHER laws may have come from Moses himself that Christ didn't address.
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
That is not what the Bible says, that is you twisting scripture to fit your perversion. He said ALL and ALL means all. Yes the context was His coming but to doubt that ALL means ALL is to say you have the right to decide what part of the statement Christ made was true, you have usurped the power of God Almighty, that is most unwise. O fools, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken
Read slowly, your reading comprehension has been found wanting.
1956warden 3 months ago
"That is not what the Bible says, that is you twisting scripture to fit your perversion. He said ALL and ALL means all."
Assuming for a sec your personal view is true, where then did the prophets say anything regarding same gender unions?
"...to doubt that ALL means ALL is to say you have the right to decide what part of the statement Christ made was true, you have usurped the power of God Almighty"
Disagreeing with your view as to what Christ meant by "all" is NOT usurping our Lord's power.
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
Again , He said they were fools not to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken , the fact He emphasized His coming does not give you the right to play God.
This was about His second coming. Again , do you deny the flood?
Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
You deny Moses. you deny Christ!
1956warden 3 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You deny Moses. you deny Christ!" Christ denied Moses in Matt. 19:8-9, and thus, according to your interesting view, seems to have denied Himself.
"Luke 16:31" And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Just as you're not persuaded by Christ who Himself rose from the dead after He stated a law of Moses was not intended "...from the beginning."
clay56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You deny Moses. you deny Christ!"
Christ denied Moses in Matt. 19:8-9, and thus, according to your interesting view, seems to have denied Himself. "Luke 16:31" And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Just as you're not persuaded by Christ who Himself rose from the dead after He stated a law of Moses was not intended "...from the beginning."
clay56 3 months ago
Part 2
...Gender marriage as well as our Lord's position on it has ZERO documentation. It's an interesting "story" nonetheless. :)
clay56 3 months ago
Respond to this video...
You are not only a pathological liar but a snob as well. your atheistic belief in evolution forces you to believe you are smarter than people in the past who had to be lied to .
In the early days of our country finishing college at 16 was not unusual, at 11 not unheard of. At the age of 14 J. Quincy Adams was made ambassador to the court of Catherine the Great, he was fluent in 7 languages .
Few college grads could pass the 8th grade final from 1900.
1956warden 3 months ago
"...your atheistic belief in evolution forces you to believe you are smarter than people in the past who had to be lied to"
You may simply be confusing me with another poster. Then again, you presume too much on our Lord's part so it should be no surprise you'd do the same with me since I haven't spoken of evolution.
"The penalty for telling a lie about what Christ said is plainly stated in the last chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ."
Then you'd best stop doing so, shouldn't you?
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
The argument from silence is fallacious.
If you do not believe in evolution say so and I will recant . The reason for my assumption is it is so blatantly clear you you are regurgitating the party line , all your arguments against scripture are canned responses atheists use and all atheists are evolutionists.
i don't presume anything about my Lord, we do not worship the same God.
What lie, that is the fallacy of the sweeping generality.
Do you believe in Noah's Flood? Jesus did.
1956warden 3 months ago
"The reason for my assumption is it is so blatantly clear you you are regurgitating the party line ,"
Are you sure you're not making such statements out of frustration or anger because an argument of yours was shown to be refuted by Christ Himself?
"The argument from silence is fallacious."
I state Christ mentioned nothing about homosexuality to those who would attempt to exploit His teachings to FALSELY say He did.
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
The penalty for telling a lie about what Christ said is plainly stated in the last chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. your name is removed from the Book of Life.
1956warden 3 months ago
Part 2
...Your argument. And apparently all you can do is declare it's states the OPPOSITE of what it all TOO likely does in your effort to refute Christ Himself.
clay56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Rom 1 not only says that sodomy is worthy of death but those who condone it are just as worthy ."
In Rom. 1, Paul speaks of a group who abandoned our Lord and committed acts that most all, regardless of orientation would have condemned. IF the acts described in the passage had been among UNmarried men and women, it's doubtful Paul would have been considered any less "vile." Yet it's equally doubtful the record of the acts would be exploited to condemn all hetero relationships... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
Jesus confirmed that every jot and title of the Old Testament was true. The argument that Jesus never denounced sodomy is as dishonest as it is childish.
The words of Paul were just as inspired as those of Moses , to try and say the word's of Paul are not the words of God is to deny Christ's very divinity.
Gays are welcome in any truly Christian church but if their actions are overlooked or , God forbid, accepted that church is not Christian .
Read all of Rom1
1956warden 3 months ago
"Jesus confirmed that every jot and title of the Old Testament was true."
Not quite.
He overturned the Hebrew dietary laws and in Matt. 19:8-9 Mosaic Law was not devinely intended
"from the beginning," this brings laws He did not address like homosexuality into question.
"...to try and say the word's of Paul are not the words of God is to deny Christ's very divinity."
To his credit, Paul tried to be clear about what he was passing down from our Lord as he did in 1 Cor. 14:34-37 in...(Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
Part 3
...Wrote the law for divorce to appease his people rather in obedience to our Lord. As inspired, wise and intelligent as they all may have been, they were still human, meaning mistakes very well could have happened. .
clay56 3 months ago
Hey again, Shields,
I saw your answers to my posts on the "Oprah" page. Would you still prefer to talk here?
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
-In light of the fact that there are clear principals of exegesis which emphasize the role of theme& context, it's shocking you insist on this. It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise.This theme is established in the genesis account of the male/female relationship and later re- inforced by Jesus who also condemns divorce. Nowhere are men EVER called 'Echad'
shieldsff 5 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 5 months ago
"It is not exploitation. On the contrary,it's what is known as THE CLEAR & SELF-EVIDENT INTENTION OF THE TEXT,,,"
In other words, it's the more widely accepted interpetation that counts regardless of wheather it's ultimately right or wrong. "...(as any reputable concordance and commentary makes clear)" "Reputable" meaning that you see eye to eye with it?
clay56 5 months ago
@clay56 - "In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul uses two Greek terms. One means "soft" and the other is two words fused together and has been SO seldom used it's meaning cannot be generally agreed upon."
So, clay are you stating that if the 'meaning' of this 'rare' word were made clear to you, you would immediately change your views and perspectives regarding the acceptability of homosexual behaviors and the authentic nature&relationship of men and women as demonstrated in the general theme of Bible teachings?
shieldsff 5 months ago
Hey Shields,
You posts appear on the, "Oprah, Being Gay is A Gift From God" page as well. They have been answered there.
clay56 5 months ago
@clay56 pls. respond here Clay because I could not find your post there. thanks
shieldsff 5 months ago
"Anyone who tries to say Jesus did not condemn sodomy is saying Jesus is not God."
Too many gay Christian opponents try to insert their personal views into the Gospels perhaps not in spite but BECAUSE of the fact Christ said nothing about it. They need SOMETHING, even if they have to manufacture it themselves in what is arguably the most important part of the Bible to "justify In so doing, they risk problem with our Lord involving the Nineth Commandment which Christ upheld in Matt. 19:5.
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
So every Christian Scholar in history before the last half of the 19th century were less qualified than you? Please be serious, Jesus Christ confirmed all of God's word is true . The Holy Spirit inspired the words of Paul . No intellectually honest person could make the argument that Jesus did not consider sodomy a mortal sin.
In Roman's one leaves no doubt that men having sex with men or women w/ women is worthy of death as is condoning it. You are grasping at straws.
1956warden 3 months ago
"So every Christian Scholar in history before the last half of the 19th century were less qualified than you?"
You mean your reasearch doesn't extend beyond that time period? It indeed explains much.
"No intellectually honest person could make the argument that Jesus did not consider sodomy a mortal sin."
Nor, HONESTLY state He condemned something as sinful He said nothing about. And Rom. again speaks to a group involved in a pegan orgy, NOT reflective of all same gender relationships..
clay56 3 months ago
Respond to this video...
My personal views are irrelevant. The Bible tells us to interpret scripture w/ scripture. It was the pre-Incarnate Christ who called down the fire and brimstone on the cities of the plain.
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Your knowledge of scripture is non-existent, all you are doing is copying the party line. If sodomites do not repent they will have damned themselves.
1956warden 3 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"My personal views are irrelevant." Why then state them as if they were devine absolutes? And the story of Sodom revolves around the Hebrew term for the word "know" which has ELEVEN different definitions. Yep, single word with MANY definitions is being exploited in the condemnation of all same gender relationships
clay56 3 months ago
Respond to this video...
He upheld marriage between one man and one woman. if you say He was wrong you are saying He is not God and have damned yourself if you do not repent.
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
1956warden 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"He upheld marriage between one man and one woman...."
Again to uphold it for one orientation does not neccessarily mean He forbade it for another. To say such is to presume too much on our Lords behalf.
"if you say He was wrong you are saying He is not God and have damned yourself if you do not repent."
Im saying you're not neccessarily right making the presumption on His behalf that you have. And Im never more prayerful for the non-Christian, agnostic or the athiest than I am the... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
"You logic: Jesus never daid the moon's center was not green cheese and no ones ever seen it so it must be so."
And your logic: Christ spoke highly of hetero marriage which MUST mean He ABSOLUTELY condemed all same gender unions.
"You are denying the divinity of Christ, you are damning yourself."
I disagree with your view which you'd evidently have others believe could be nothng BUT His will. And I remain prayerful of your statements second guessing our Lord on the type... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
Clay, again I think U are again being evasive & failing to answer the question which I first asked you to this question. If the fact is that the meaning of this word is contrary to what you allege and fails to support your allegations would you renounce and denounce your support of gay false doctrines& teachings. I have NO PROBLEM w/admitting that I am wrong on ANY issue if the facts warrant such (establishing Paul was not speaking of homosexualism). Where on Campolo page was this raised?
shieldsff 5 months ago
I refer you to Jesus' words in Matt 19 & Mark 10 by way of examination, yourself being a free-will moral agent. The infinite choice stands before you now and today. No one is guaranteed tomorrow ( even though we may attempt to create the illusion that we are). The fact is God condemns no man. Rather, every man makes his choices & castes his die. Paul said don't be deceived. because he knew people would wrongly CHOOSE HELL in self deception. This is the clear implication of the I Cor 6:9 intro
shieldsff 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I refer you to Jesus' words in Matt 19 & Mark 10 by way of examination, yourself being a free-will moral agent. "
Already answered on the "Oprah" page.
clay56 4 months ago
Part 2
...Calling for women to be silent in church. and what came from his own reasoning as in the case of the care for widows and the unmarried in 1 Cor. 7:20. But he did not always do so. We therefore don't have a clear indication in Paul's epistles of what comes from our Lord and what comes from Paul himself.
"Gays are welcome in any truly Christian church but if their actions are overlooked or , God forbid, accepted that church is not Christian "
Though worthy of respect, this is... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
Your Bible knowledge is non existent . The context of the whole chapter {1 Cor 14 } where the Holy Spirit forbid women to speak in church is speaking in tongues.
Jesus Christ conformed creation, marriage , the flood , Jonah etc. and I have never met a queer who agreed w/ Christ. That is denying His divinity ..
The church is for sinners , everyone is welcome.but we don't let practising thieves guard the collection plate or sexual deviates work in the nursery.
1956warden 3 months ago
Part 3
...Another personal view. The NT itself does not condemn all kinds of same gender unions such as marriage.
clay56 3 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
Another fairy story , there is only one union Jesus recognized, these are His words.
Mar 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
1 man, 1 woman , no exception
1956warden 3 months ago
"...there is only one union Jesus recognized,..."
This formal, exclusive recognition of one orientation is again based on YOUR subjective view of the passage. A person of any oirientation can speak highly of hetero marriage while still favoring same gender unions. Advocacy for the union of one orientation does, in and of itself, NOT mean prohibition of that for another. To state otherwise is to state to much on our Christ behalf.
clay56 3 months ago
Respond to this video...
Sodomy was the death penalty , your argument is as intelligent as denying Christ because dinosaur, computer and email are not in it. Queer unions did not exist.
God spelled out exactly what marriage in the OT and the Messiah confirmed it in the NT. One, man , one woman for life , period.
The vast majority of queers do not get married when they have a chance ,most who do are making a political statement. Their one goal is to destroy Christian morality.
1956warden 3 months ago
Part 2
...Much on their behalf as to why they get married just is you do with Christ each time you say He condemned the act.
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
You are just stonewalling. I have shown you where the Old and New Testaments condemns ALL sex between men and men , it never said anything about queer marriage because that is an oxymoron.
Marriage is spelled out in Genesis , Matthew , and Mark that it is by divine degree between one man and one woman.
You logic: Jesus never daid the moon's center was not green cheese and no ones ever seen it so it must be so.
You are denying the divinity of Christ, you are damning yourself.
1956warden 3 months ago
"...your argument is as intelligent as denying Christ because dinosaur, computer and email are not in it. Queer unions did not exist."
Our Lord's will and your personal view of it aren't neccessarily or entirely not one and the same. Disagreeing with that view is not denying chris
"The vast majority of queers do not get married when they have a chance ,most who do are making a political statement."
"How can they since most states don't have same gender marriage?"
And you presume too... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
Part 2
...Christian who second guesses our Lord on matters of ultimate judgement ONLY He can make.
clay56 3 months ago
Part 2
...Of condemnation ONLY He can pass down.
clay56 3 months ago
on the contrary, few pple who know me would at all doubt that I am one of the most inquisitive, tolerant persons U could ever know- that doesn't mean that I have to agree with or have approbation of every kind of behavior. Your accusation are also inappropriate because for thousands of years the ethics& morals which I embrace speak equally ALL pple in kinds of situations & says the One who created you loves, cares & wants to give U abundant life If U are a thief, rapist murderer, gay no matter
shieldsff 3 months ago
@shieldsff We are supposed to become new creations in Christ. The old is to pass away and a new life is created. So the sick pathetic poofter sodomite is supposed to change his ways. Once you truly no Christ you can no longer carry on with that filthy life style. You can quote all the scriptures you want and it aint going change a thing. Sin is Sin and we have to stop committing sin.
17188669revfredfeelg 3 months ago
"What lie, that is the fallacy of the sweeping generality."
Actually Im being quite specific since trying to shove an anti-gay teaching into Mark where Christ stated NOTHING about homosexuality IS misleading at the VERY least as is stating Christ upheld all of what Moses and others before Him stated when it's been shown He didn't.
"Do you believe in Noah's Flood? Jesus did."
Do you believe in the dietary restrictions imposed by Mosaic Law? Jesus did not.
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
Your arguments would be embarrassing coming from a child, it's moronic enough to use the argumentum ex silentio when such silence exist When it doesn't it makes one wonder how you got past the third grade.
Jesus affirmed all of scripture as God breathed and sex outside of marriage which He clearly defined as between one man and one women is fornication . Less than 2 % of queers get married where they can and God does not recognize those unions anyway, end of story!
1956warden 3 months ago
"Your arguments would be embarrassing coming from a child,..."
If so, it's more embarrassing for you since you haven't been able to successfully counter such arguments.
"Jesus affirmed all of scripture as God..."
This argument stands debunked by Christ Himself most notably when He stated Mosaic Law was miswritten in Matt. 19:8-9. Evidently, since you're unable to refute Christ Himself, you're simply left with re-stating the same (false) statement.
And your statement about same... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
Clay I am still waiting for you to explain the assumptions necessary to manufacture "dates" with isotopes.
This is par for the course with liberals, they are blatantly ignorant of the science and instead of admitting they are blindly religious they make false accusations.
Your anti-Chrustian , rant was refuted by Polycarp in the 1st century.
Moses made no mistake , scripture proves scripture. Jesus Christ plainly stated that if you do not believe Moses you burn in hell. -continued-
1956warden 3 months ago
"Clay I am still waiting for you to explain the assumptions necessary to manufacture "dates" with isotopes."
Looks like you're trying to divert attention away from the argument you failed to make about Christ upholding every law of Moses.
"John 3-12 , John 4-6...
Doesn't help your "argument" a bit since neither speak to same gender relationships.
"You don't believe the Bible at all . "
Ironic since your refuting Christ's words in Matt. 19:8-9 places your own belief in question.;
clay56 3 months ago
@clay56
John 3-12 , John 4-6 and other places sink your old silly argument. If you don't believe Moses you don't believe Christ, plain and simple. You don't believe the Bible at all . Cutting and pasting ancient Enlightenment arguments does not impress me, I heard them all before you were born.
Jesus clearly stated why Moses allowed divorce, He never even implied Moses was mistaken . Just because something was allowed at times does not constitute a rubber stamp endorsement. -continued-
1956warden 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Jesus clearly stated why Moses allowed divorce, He never even implied Moses was mistaken "
We're split big time there. He stated Moses wrote a law to placate his people rather than follow our Lord's will, a law that was not intended 'from the beginning."
"All of this is so stupid anyway, Moses was not infallible ,"
Agreed
"...even if he did make a mistake it would have no effect on the in-errancy of scripture."
So essentially, if Moses was wrong, scriptural "in-errancy" would make ... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
exactly.
shieldsff 3 months ago
@clay56
Herod assumed that because Moses granted divorce at times t that Christianity , like Islam, treated women like cattle. When john the Baptist corrected him he was imprisoned and beheaded .
Although divorce was not approved of it insured the wife and children did not have to beg or steal to survive.
All of this is so stupid anyway, Moses was not infallible , even if he did make a mistake it would have no effect on the in-errancy of scripture. Earth to clay, come in please?
1956warden 3 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2 ...That wrong into a right? "Earth to clay, come in please?" Still here don't worry. Wouldn't miss a minute of the HUGELY ironic and contradictary entertainment you've been broadcasting
clay56 3 months ago
"Jesus clearly stated why Moses allowed divorce, He never even implied Moses was mistaken " We're split big time there. He stated Moses wrote a law to placate his people rather than follow our Lord's will, a law that was not intended 'from the beginning." "All of this is so stupid anyway, Moses was not infallible ," Thank-you "...even if he did make a mistake it would have no effect on the in-errancy of scripture."
So even if Moses was wrong, scriptural "in-errancy" would make... (Cont.)
clay56 3 months ago
no doubt, this is a key source of your unfounded assertions&confusion.You are wrong that one's understanding of this sin as a matter of mere opinion.The teachings of the Apostles make clear that no sound teaching or doctrine is of of anyone's private interpretation.It continues that if someone advances a "false teaching" tha person is,in fact, rejected of the Spirit of God & should under no circumstances be heeded (see Galatians). I think we trust established scholarship over UR wish fantasies
shieldsff 3 months ago
-In light of the fact that there are clear principals of exegesis which emphasize the role of theme& context, it's shocking you insist on this. It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise.This theme is established in the genesis account of the male/female relationship and later re- inforced by Jesus who also condemns divorce. Nowhere are men EVER called 'Echad'
shieldsff 3 months ago
well said- I have previously recommended the Youtube debate with Dr. Michael Brown and Harry Knox. Dr. Brown does an outstanding,unassailable job of explicating and expounding the underlying judeo/christian ethical understanding of sexuality in God's view. Every one would do themselves a great favor listening to the deep wisdom of this man. The urgency of the Apostle Paul's warning in I Cor 6 "Not to be deceived..." (speaking to the brethren) makes sense because of those who call sin "love"
shieldsff 3 months ago
well said- I have previously recommended the Youtube debate with Dr. Michael Brown and Harry Knox. Dr. Brown does an outstanding,unassailable job of explicating and expounding the underlying judeo/christian ethical understanding of sexuality in God's view. Every one would do themselves a great favor listening to the deep wisdom of this man. The urgency of the Apostle Paul's warning in I Cor 6 "Not to be deceived..." (speaking to the brethren) makes sense because of those who call sin "love"
shieldsff 3 months ago
Campolo is just another one of Satan's ministers. Just like John Spong, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Joel Osteen, and many others. We need more Bereans!!!
EPESDART 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Campolo is just another one of Satan's ministers. Just like John Spong, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Joel Osteen, and many others."
Since he personally believes gays are called to celebacy by our Lord, how is this so?
clay56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Campolo is just another one of Satan's ministers. Just like John Spong, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, Joel Osteen, and many others."
Since he personally believes gays are called to celebacy by our Lord, how is this so?
clay56 5 months ago
Part 2
...People mentioned in Rom. 1:22-28 turned away from our Lord before participating in a pegan orgy as Rom. 1:23/25 strongly suggests. But if the people Paul mentions here had been engaged in heterosexual activity, would their affections been less vile? Would their acts have been exploited to condemn all heterosexuals, EVEN husbands and wives? It is this double-standard many hold of the different orientations that has arguably led to the VERY improper application of the passage.
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
@clay56 Your point is not applicable.
EPESDART 5 months ago
Terrible distortion of what the Word says. Who wrote the Word Mr. Campolo? Is not Jesus God? The whole Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so you are going to hold up red letter words and twist them and set them up against God's Word? Sin is sin. People like you need to teach people to turn from sin, and turn at God's Rebuke (Pr 1:23), but if you want to twist God's Word, you are reminiscent of the enemy, Hath God really said?
hollywdgarcia 5 months ago 2
",,,so you are going to hold up red letter words and twist them and set them up against God's Word?"
Many who hear messages they personally find objectionable make accusations of twisting WITHOUT explaining WHERE and HOW the "twisting" was done. In the process, they discredit the person they accuse FAR less than they discredit themselves.
clay56 5 months ago
@clay56 The twisting is that he sets the "red letter words of God" up against the rest of "the Word of God". There is no conflict in God's Word and it is twisting in the exact way the enemy did. "Hath God really said?" Did Jesus really say in His red letters? So what if Romans says it, or other scripture in God's Word, Did Jesus really say? You don't understand the similarities? I do not care if I am credited or discredited in anyone's eyes but God's. I study to show myself approved to Him
hollywdgarcia 5 months ago
"The twisting is that he sets the "red letter words of God" up against the rest of "the Word of God" "
Im assuming by "red letter" you're speaking in the main of Christ's words which contain nothing of homosexuality. To exploit them as though they did is too arguably itself a form of "twisting." And if you've watched this and other vids, you'd know Mr. Campolo actually agrees with the generally accepted interpetation of Romans, making your accusation of him even more questionable.
clay56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On,the contrary,it is very clear that Paul is condemning all,sexual immorality IN GENERAL, consistent with the law of Moses (Paul was a jewish Pharisee prior to his conversion). In the context of his writings both in Corithians & in Romans,it's impossible that he was making any such distinctions as U allege, nor is there ANY proof that Paul is referring to so-called homosexual temple prostitution which has also been alleged, I encourage everyone here to check out the YT debate w/Dr Michael Brown
shieldsff 5 months ago
"On,the contrary,it is very clear that Paul is condemning all,sexual immorality IN GENERAL,"
Sexual immorality for Paul was any sexual activity outside of marriage as seen in 1 Cor. 7:1-9. And what's actually alleged is Paul's condemnation of all same gender unions. In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul uses two Greek terms. One means "soft" and the other is two words fused together and has been SO seldom used it's meaning cannot be generally agreed upon. Was he even addressing homosexuality here? The... (Cont.)
clay56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You provide no compelling defense of your assertions. You cite rather convoluted applied 'proof text' which mangles any recognized or reputable translation by greek/english scholars. And need I mention the very worst & most glaring of all of your failures as a Bible expositor here ?!? You have maligned God by attempting to understand His Word by ignoring context & basic principals of spiritual living.
shieldsff 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
While I completely think that the Biblical arguments more than sufficient for you (they provide very compelling moral and socio-historical grounds). I would offer you the following:
search the youtube vid entitled: "Daughter of a gay man speaks"
shieldsff 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
sorry clay, but the distortion here is really your misunderstanding. Firstly, you set-up a strawman argument by positing would Paul have condemned the sexual practice at issue IF it were hetero-sexual husbands& wives? That is an unjustifiable hypothetical by you- it's perfectly clear Paul was addressing homosexual actions.There is no double standard in the moral prescriptions against homosexuals because that behavior is a misapplication of sanctified sexuality just like adultery or prostitution
shieldsff 5 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 5 months ago
"it's perfectly clear Paul was addressing homosexual actions..."
It may be "perfectly clear" to anyone opposing all homosexuality BEFORE reading the passage. Paul was speaking of a group who had abandoned our Lord then engaged in a PEGAN orgy. This is NOT reflective of all homosexuals and certainly not gay Christians. If they had engaged heterosexual acts, Paul most likely would have been no less appauled. But the passage would TOO likely not have been exploited to condemn all... (Cont.)
clay56 5 months ago
@clay56 -Hey, pls help me out- sadly, I have to say we seem to be 'talking pass' each other here. I have offered several scripture citations (not just a 'proof text' ) including from the Gospels; I offered the traditional christian perspective on homosexual behaviors. I also referenced a credible debate here on youtube (Brown vs. Knox). Yet w/NO proof, you assert that one who holds my view is 'reading into the text". Really- are you not the one isolating this text. I have requested evidence for
shieldsff 5 months ago
"I have offered several scripture citations..."
You've offered your personal view of these passages, such does not constitute proof. The description and editing of the debate you mentioned is more than a bit one sided. And the "traditional" perspective many Christians have held of homosexuality doesn't always make it right, otherwise the the once traditional belief that the sun and stars moved around the earth based on what was perceived from the passages of Joshua 10:12-14 and... (Cont.)
clay56 5 months ago
@clay56 - "The description and editing of the debate you mentioned is more than a bit one sided. And the "traditional" perspective many Christians have held of homosexuality doesn't always make it right"
Sure clay, it perfectly clear by now that anything disagreeing w/' your desires, HAS to be wrong. I have yet to see anyone insist, however, that there is anything at all one-sided about that discussion as both parties are freely, civilly, and at length allowed to present their competing views
shieldsff 5 months ago
" it perfectly clear by now that anything disagreeing w/' your desires, HAS to be wrong."
Not saying you're neccessarily wrong only that I don't agree with your personal belief on this matter. And the description of the vid as well as the vid itself was NOT presented objectively.
clay56 5 months ago
@clay56 -(PtII) for your supposition that Paul was speaking of a (hetero?) group,which "engaged in pegan [sic] orgies".Recall, you then refer to a term Paul invoked in I Cor 6:9 imply the validity of UR position only to later assert that the meaning of the world in unknown. In the Romans text above, similarly you offer inferences but no proof of systemic exegesis supporting your conclusion.To argue as you do requires one to exclude Jesus' words on marriage for example in Matt 19 & Mark 10
shieldsff 5 months ago
"To argue as you do requires one to exclude Jesus' words on marriage for example in Matt 19 & Mark 10."
Not a bit.
Someone of any orientation could advocate hetero marriage just as Christ did and still be in favor of same gender relations. Many gay Christian opponents try to shove an antigay theme into the passage where none exists, inviting problems involving Matt 7:1-2 as well as the Nineth Commandment which Christ upheld in the eighteenth verse of the very chapter of Matt. you mentioned.
clay56 5 months ago
You 'proudly' mention [the] 'gay christian movement (even though God strongly condemns & resists the proud). Could you clarify that? Where in the Bible is it taught that Christians ought to distinguish themselves or establish their identity in Christ Jesus predicated on sexuality? In fact, we are told there is only one Lord,one faith & one baptism into the body of Christ Jesus. Is it not possible that U R deceived ? Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too
shieldsff 5 months ago
I disagree that that the greek word Apostle Paul uses "Arsenokoitai" lacks a consensus of meaning among reputable Bible scholars. I recommend the debate here on YT with Dr, Michael Brown & Harry Knox .Read Matt 19 and Mark 10. Paul wrote in the first century addressing an entire panoply of SPIRITUAL conditions. Paul had numerous terms to address the sins & ills of his day so your argument begs the question of why he chose THAT word. Also see the work of clinical psychologist Stanton Jones
shieldsff 5 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 5 months ago in playlist Important Gay Stuff
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2
...These passages pertaining to homosexuality. Though many may exploit Christ's teachings in both to make it seem as though there were. The two Greek words for "man" and "bed" are what Paul fused into a single term. But since he didn't define it, it's meaning can only be left to conjecture. As such, the term Paul coined doesn't neccessarily refer to a sexual situation any more than the term "chairman" neccessarily refers to a chair
clay56 5 months ago
Part 3
...Would have been no less appauled as evidenced by 1 Cor. 7:2-9.
"Recall, you then refer to a term Paul invoked in I Cor 6:9 imply the validity of UR position only to later assert that the meaning of the world in unknown."
The point was and still is that the vagueness of the two terms, especially "arsenokoites" makes it none too certain Paul was speaking to homosexuality at all, let alone to all same gender relationships. Where is the NONconjectural proof otherwise?
clay56 5 months ago
I "assert" the simple fact that Rom. 1:23-28 does not speak to all same gender relationships. Not saying you absoolutely can't be right in your beliefs, but using such a passage to condemn all is VERY arguably exploitation"
It is not exploitation. On the contrary,it's what is known as THE CLEAR & SELF-EVIDENT INTENTION OF THE TEXT (as any reputable concordance and commentary makes clear) Neither the passage in Joshua nor the passage in Psalms alleges any such thing; Psalms speak metaphorically
shieldsff 5 months ago
"Neither the passage in Joshua nor the passage in Psalms alleges any such thing; Psalms speak metaphorically."
Those who taught the sun and stars moved around the earth exploited the passage Joshua to "prove" it. And Psalms may be regarded metaphoical now, but was believed and (mis)taught LITERALLY for MANY centuries.
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
clay56 5 months ago in playlist Important Gay Stuff
This has been flagged as spam show
"I disagree that that the greek word Apostle Paul uses "Arsenokoitai" lacks a consensus of meaning among reputable Bible scholars.
I respect your opinion but do not share it. Certainly there would be agreement on the terms among the majority who personally oppose homosexuality. But at one time a certain majority had their right arms raised shouting "Heil Hitler" and another with their fist raised screaming "Crucify Him!' And I read Matt. 19 and Mk.10 LONG ago. There is nothing in... (Cont.)
clay56 5 months ago
Part 2
...Psalms 19:1-6 might well have persisted for much longer than they did.
And I "assert" the simple fact that Rom. 1:23-28 does not speak to all same gender relationships. Not saying you absoolutely can't be right in your beliefs, but using such a passage to condemn all is VERY arguably exploitation. And it looks like you've been skimming my posts a bit too quickly since I made no supposition Paul was speaking to hetero acts, but rather that if the acts had been hetero he... (Cont.)
clay56 5 months ago
You 'proudly' mention [the] 'gay christian movement (even though God strongly condemns & resists the proud). Could you clarify that? Where in the Bible is it taught that Christians ought to distinguish themselves or establish their identity in Christ Jesus predicated on sexuality? In fact, we are told there is only one Lord, one faith & one baptism into the body of Christ Jesus. Is it not possible that U R deceived ? Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too
shieldsff 5 months ago
"Is it not possible that U R deceived?"
Anything's possible as per Matt.19:26. Have you asked yourself this queston at some point in time?
"Does the Bible encourage proud adulterers, thieves, pedophiles& drunkards too."
Such fearmongering may be effective to a point until it's remembered that, unlike same gender relationships, Christ spoke to adultery, theft, and intoxication. In the case of pedophilia, are we to condemn all heterosexuals in the case of adult men attracted to small girls?
clay56 5 months ago
Part 2
...Heterosexuals, even husbands and wives. But it IS sadly being used to condemn all same gender relations, even marriage eventhough it does NOT speak to all. Such therefore DOES indeed constitute a tragic double standard among too many Christians.
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
@clay56 - "In 1 Cor. 6:9, Paul uses two Greek terms. One means "soft" and the other is two words fused together and has been SO seldom used it's meaning cannot be generally agreed upon."
So, clay are you stating that if the 'meaning' of this 'rare' word were made clear to you, you would immediately change your views and perspectives regarding the acceptability of homosexual behaviors and the authentic nature&relationship of men and women as demonstrated in the general theme of Bible teachings?
shieldsff 5 months ago
"...you would immediately change your views and perspectives regarding the acceptability of homosexual behaviors and the authentic nature&relationship of men and women as demonstrated in the general theme of Bible teachings?"
IF you could produce genuinely authenticated documents of the apostle Paul HIMSELF defining it, since the term has been disputed centuries before even the Bible as we know it let alone the various Bible dictionaries came into being.
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
"It's clear from the words of the Lord Jesus HImself that the creation order was & is the uniting of man & female- that it is sinful & ungodly to agitate otherwise."
Your opinion that Christ's advocacy of hetero unions MUST signify the condemnation of same gender relations is YOUR opinion, and a HIGHLY presumptuous one on His part at that.
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
"I do not care if I am credited or discredited in anyone's eyes but God's."
And it is with Him that many Christians may have their biggest problems when they very well COULD be violating the Nineth Commandment and Matt. 7:1-2 with unsubstantiated, questionable accusations.
clay56 5 months ago
Comment removed
shieldsff 5 months ago
@hollywdgarcia - correct- 'DISTORTION' is the operative word to keep in mind when clay attempts to 'read' (i.e., deny & re-translate without credentials ) the Bible
shieldsff 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"'DISTORTION' is the operative word to keep in mind when clay attempts to 'read' (i.e., deny & re-translate without credentials ) the Bible."
This is generally the knee jerk response of many who can't see their personal view and our Lord's INFINATELY vast and complex will as anything BUT one and the same.
clay56 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The C.D.C. (The center for disease control) 1. 85% of all male sexual transmitted aids cases are from homosexual contact. 2. Homosexual men have an H.I.V. Infection rate 60 times higher than general public. 3. 60% of all syphilis cases from homosexual & bisexual men. 4. The average life expectancy for a homosexual is 46yrs of age. It's wise & loving to oppose a man because of his destructive behavior. Others call it...intolerant!
shieldsff 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Must be nice to read the Bible and ignore what it says."
And what part of it does this person in the vid seem to "ignore?"
clay56 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Must be nice to read the Bible and ignore what it says." And what part of it does the person in the vid seem to "ignore?"
clay56 5 months ago
Must be nice to read the Bible and ignore what it says.
LanningJon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Double standards only exist with man. There are no double standards where God Almigty is concerned. So don't go about hoodwinking yourself that practising sinners will go to heaven. God's word, the bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that ....." Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, etc...will inherit the kingdom of God." So if any person is living a LIFESTYLE OF SIN, he/she better quits it regardless of WHATEVER SIN it is.
opsvideo2008 9 months ago
Double standards only exist with man. There are no double standards where God Almigty is concerned. So don't go about hoodwinking yourself that practising sinners will go to heaven. God's word, the bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that ....." Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, etc...will inherit the kingdom of God." So if any person is living a lifestyle of sin, he/she better quits it regardless of whatever sin it is.
opsvideo2008 9 months ago
@opsvideo2008 . Since man invented the gods & their sci-fi novels, it's a funny way 2 get 'round it, isn't it? The bible's full of double standards. U pick & choose according 2 ur level of sadomasochism. Christianity is 1 of the greatest sins against humanity, reason, science, social & moral progress & those things are much more important than empty discourses from religious zealots or their multiple-personality-disorders (aka. Trinity) imaginary friends, blackmailing us with an eternal torture
cre599 9 months ago
@cre599 You are wrong because man did not invent God. Instead it is God who created man. When you say christianity is against science, such as against Galileo's assertion that the earth revolves around the sun, you are talking about catholicism, which is not true christianity but a man-made religion. What I say doesn't matter, it is what the word of God, the bible says that really matters. 1 Corinthians 6:9 clearly tells us that practising homosexuals won't be exempted from hell.
opsvideo2008 9 months ago
@opsvideo2008 No, you didnt get it. Your imaginary friend is an invention of man. Starting from the fabrication of the fictional best-seller, the fabrication of doctrines through time and the unjustified interpretations of visual and auditory hallucinations. You R told to believe things BY FAITH, meaning: because there's no evidence, rational arguments, of even if there is evidence against. That is fundamentally opposed to the most basic principles that rule the scientific method.
cre599 9 months ago
@opsvideo2008 . Christianity has always been against science because, like Carl Sagan entitled his book, Christianity has made the world a "demon-hunted world" while science has served as a "candle in the dark", dispelling myths & faith premises held out of gullible, ignorant and oppressive minds.. and if u think I am only thinking about 400-year-old disputes between Christianity & science, you are wrong 1 million times over. From evolution, medicine, euthanasia, mental health... it's nonstop!
cre599 9 months ago
@opsvideo2008 . But let's play along with your PARTICULAR biblical delusion & take the role of a gay-affirming Christian. The term of "homosexual" was born in late 19th century in a scientific context dealing with what we know as "sexual orientation". Which is determined by genes and environmental influences in the womb. How come you can read Paul, a 1st century writer (in Greek), talk about "homosexuality"? He didnt know what a "homosexual" or a "heterosexual" was. He only knew people had sex.
cre599 9 months ago
@opsvideo2008 . Have you ever heard of the concept of "biased translations?" Do you really think Paul wrote in 20th century English? Did you know the first time the word "homosexual" was put in the bible was in the 1940's, apparently. Homosexuality in ancient Greece took many forms, as well as in today. The same with heterosexuality. My heterosexual mom lives a total different lifestyle than the heterosexual woman in the Juan Ponce de Leon Ave. standing in the street at midnight.
cre599 9 months ago
@opsvideo2008 . Anyways, we R quick 2 cite Paul in these regards but when he says something inconvenient for us, we TOTALLY reject him (Ex: women must be silent & don't teach in public. Homeschooling for them). We also shouldn’t lose perspective & remember that few ppl had tried to form a front against homosexuality from a secular, scientific, social & economic view & had failed. MEANING that the only objection U have 2 homosexuality is founded on religious beliefs (aka. irrational beliefs)
cre599 9 months ago
@cre599 You are wrong because all the teachings of Paul which formed a lot of the New testament are to be taken seriously because he is not speaking in his own capacity but he is teaching all that he received from Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In his epistles, Paul does not allow women to teach the word of God in the church over men because in doing so they will usurp the spiritual authority which God gave to man. The bible doesn't prohibit women to be teachers of knowledge in schools.
opsvideo2008 9 months ago
@opsvideo2008 . Oh come on!! I hate it when ppl lie to me, know that I know and still go on with it. Paul didn't meet your zombie Jesus. He had an hallucination. Paul wrote aprox. 20 years after the so-called death of Jesus, & the gospels came AFTER Paul. Paul is the main inventor of Christianity. Your whole rationale is the same as the rationale of any other sect following the writings of a man... "they will usurp the spiritual authority which God gave to man".. WTF? At least I made you say it.
cre599 9 months ago
@cre599 You assume people are lying to you because you are ignorant of what the word of God teaches. In Acts 9:1-7 of the bible, the Apostle Paul ( then called Saul) had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ Himself who then made him His Apostle to the gentiles (non-Jews). In 1 Timothy 2:11-13, the Apostle Paul forbids a woman to teach the word of God or to have authority over a man but to be in silence. If you are a catholic, it is time for you to read the bible by yourself.
opsvideo2008 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Double standards only exist with man."
Agreed, it's MAN'S double standard of the orientations constituting the reason why all same gender relationships are condemned eventhough NEITHER 1 Cor. 6:9 nor Rom. 1:24-28 speak to all. And the word "homosexual" was in NO Bible prior to 1946 with its first printing in the Revised Standard Version.
clay56 9 months ago
I am an ex-Christian-now-atheist-antitheist gay and I think all of you Christians are hypocrite from beginning to end. NO ONE here wants to live according to what your delusional book of mythology says. Not even the most fundamentalist of you. You just pick and choose according to how sadomasoquist you are... And liberal Christians are guilty as well for their condescending attitude of "tolerance" and "respect" for irrational beliefs. You ppl dont have an idea of the harm you are doing.
cre599 9 months ago
@cre599 as a christian i completely understand where you're coming from. i call myself a christian only because i would like to think that i live like jesus would have wanted me to. but it disgusts me how the christian community treats gay people like yourself. it's absolutely disgusting. you are a beautiful person and you should be free to love whom ever you feel drawn to without anybody even feeling the need to bat an eye or think twice. but i wanted to tell you not ALL christians are bad
kevinbothwell 9 months ago
@kevinbothwell . Thanx 4 ur comment. I know not all Christians are bad, though I suspect the good ones R rare bugs XD :P I'm aware of this "Red Letters Christians" thing. I just hope liberal Christians stopped being so "politically correct" with the black sheep of their family: the ignorant, fearful & politically-socially oppressive Christians. I envy many gay friends with non-Christian families. They dont have to deal with the sin of Christianity I have to deal with.
cre599 9 months ago
@cre599 man...im so sorry that you have to live under that kind of roof...i promise you it will get better. christian or not. i firmly believe that if there is in fact a being, or some kind of god that has a personallity...it loves you. if there's not....i love you broseph :) we're all people, we're all the same, we all bleed the same blood and breathe the same air.
kevinbothwell 9 months ago
Had the participants mentioned by Paul in Rom. 1 been unwed and involved in heterosexual acts, would their affections have been any less "vile?" Would the recording of their actions have been exploited by others to condemn ALL heterosexual relationships? This it seems is the double standard many hold in regard to different orientations. At least Tony Campolo is tolerant and understandng of those like his own wife who disagree with him on the issue of Romans.
clay56 10 months ago
@gmhodge52 Thanks for not understanding a word.
5555miles 10 months ago
This video is deceitful. Romans chapter 1 is all I have to say about this.
sunnyrallen 10 months ago
"Thank you for citing Romans 1. I don't think you can say the gospels are valid and Romans is not."
I think he's saying the Gospels are the MORE valid of the two.
"This does not alleviate the burden of sin that nonetheless homosexuals bear."
Many don't believe the orientation is sin in all cases. And eventhough Campolo does, he dosen't believe it should be looked upon more harshly than other sins especially since Christ said nothing about it.
clay56 10 months ago
Transcendance does not change the gospel. Thank you for citing Romans 1. I don't think you can say the gospels are valid and Romans is not. Pharisees, indeed, but that doesn't change the definition of sin. My sins are as bad as homosexuality. This does not alleviate the burden of sin that nonetheless homosexuals bear. Christ does not attack homosexuals any more than any other sin, nor does he excuse it, but by faith in His blood which, like any other sin condition, requires repentance.
mewest2011 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Campolo forgets that when Jesus doesn't address certain things, he upheld the basic teaching at that time."
Based on this presumption upon the part of Christ we'd have to conclude He upheld the "sin" of a woman's grabbing her husband's attacker by the groin (Deu. 25:11-12) or the "sin" of a woman's refusal to marry the man who rapes and impregnates her (Deu. 22:28-29). This is something I kthink Mr. Campolo probably hasn't forgotten.
clay56 10 months ago
Campolo forgets that when Jesus doesn't address certain things, he upheld the basic teaching at that time. Did he extend love to the homosexual? I believe he did, but that he doesn't directly address it as a valid argument is lunacy.
gran