To answer the question of another thread... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-nicholas-phillips/the-bible-does-not-condemn-homosexuality_b_7807342.html
Excellent article, in my view. And more than something to debate from, it's just good to learn some things that most people wouldn't or maybe couldn't discuss.
How dare you bring other opinions into this site! Great article- let me quote it Romans 1:26-27 So, go ahead, throw out the Old Testament passages, some Christians might say (fool heartily  —  this was Jesus’ Bible after all). What about the New Testament? Enter St. Paul’s magnum opus, the Roman Epistle, and his “clear teaching” on same-sex behavior. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Steve Chalke makes the argument that “Idolatry, promiscuity and shrine prostitution are what Paul is addressing [here] in Romans 1  —  not same-sex relationships between faithful and committed partners.” Steve is right. This passage is clearly not about same-sex behavior carte blanche. It’s about gross misuse of power, Roman elitist overindulgence, and misguided over-sexualized spirituality. If you are looking to get really Biblical about this passage and all of these verses, go no further than James Brownson’s tremendous Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Jim is a New Testament scholar in Michigan who takes the Bible incredibly seriously. He thinks this passage is about excessive lust: the central problem with lust in Romans 1 is that it is an expression of idolatry in a specific sense: lust involves serving one’s own self-seeking desires rather than worshiping the one true God. But more so than just excessive lust and how the early Christian communities should reject it, Brownson argues that this lust was being exhibited at a colossal scale by members of the Roman imperial court.
I didn't see much substance in it. Could you quote the key statements? Besides we all know how unbiased HP is. It's not to say that I won't address any of their points because they're buased but it is to point out that you guys would attack me for linking to "biased" sites while you turn around and do the exact same thing. And also instead of making a new thread where I'm not likely to see why not post this in the thread already made for it?
Any argument that begins with "The word “homosexuality” didn’t even show up in English translations of the Bible until 1946,..." is automatically disqualified as sophomoric and stupid. The word schizophrenia did not exist before 1912, does that mean the medical condition did not exist before 1912? Or does that just mean people used a different word or phrase to mean schizophrenia? The rest of the huffpoo article is equally poor semantic BS, nothing more than propaganda from a rabid pro-LGBT media outlet which is an admitted mouthpiece for the "progressives". Jesus warned us that people would try to modify His Word in attempts to make it more palatable to a sinful society. Even in Jesus time, people tried to incorporate the latest social trends in order to gain a larger congregation (money) and to be liked by secularists. Don't fall for it. Jesus and God both said they hated those accommodators (Nicolaitans are one such group of accommodators). Follow their false teachings at your own peril.
The word describes a concept that didn't exist at the time the bible was written. so your attempt to discredit all those arguments is merely based on opinion, and emotional pleading. First the concept of schizophrenia did not exist. It was discovered that people are schizophrenic. Just like it was discovered that people can naturally be attracted to the same sex. So the argument is valid. (Translation) WAAAAA WAAAA WAAAA I dont like what they say WAAAA WAAA WAAAA propaganda WAAAA WAAAA WAAA progressives. Bless your heart dear. nobody has mentioned a single word uttered by Jesus. Anything you don't like is a false teaching, the beauty of theology, it's cobbled together in a cafeteria and proselytized as gospel truth.
You dodged the question yet again. Did the medical condition described by the word schizophrenia exist before 1912? Did the condition miraculously appear because someone invented a word for a non-existent medical condition? Or did the medical condition exist, and a better word was created to label the condition? Obviously, schizophrenia existed long before the word - the existence of schizophrenia is the reason that word was created. The same with homosexuality. Your argument is a complete FAIL.
The concept of schizophrenia didn't exist before it was a concept. Yes, just like any mention of schizophrenia, or viruses, or gas giant planets in the bible would be absurd and an obvious addition after such things were discovered. Just like it is with homosexuality. You actually just made my argument using schizophrenia. The authors of the bible didn't have any idea that humans can be naturally attracted to the same sex or that it is part of nature in general, just like schizophrenia, so any mention of it is really just post 19th century jerrymandering.
LOL, again you dodge the question. I know you know your argument is doomed. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder in which a person cannot distinguish what is real and imagination, they hear voices, suffer from depression, engage in substance abuse. Are you claiming that nobody suffered from that condition before 1912 when the English word "schizophrenia" was created? I hope you are not making such a ridiculous claim, people suffering from the mental condition we now call "schizophrenia" are documented well before 1912. The first "official" case of schizophrenia was in 1797 (patient was James Matthews). People suffering irrational and uncontrolled behavior are documented in the Bible, as well as ancient literature. Are you claiming that the condition labeled schizophrenia did not exist before the word? Then homosexuality did not exist before the word either. Are you claiming the concept of homosexuality was an invention of the 20th century when the word "homosexuality" was created? If you are, then the entire idea of homosexuality being genetic in any way just flew out the window - and you are actually arguing that homosexuality is a choice.
I actually answered it twice, you just didn't like my answer, so you started lying and saying I'm dodging it. You know my answer is factual. No (*)(*)(*)(*) sherlock No, that's just the strawman you keep putting up because you don't like the facts. Come on now, you are smart enough to know i never made such a claim. No, i made the claim that we didn't know what it was before we knew what it was. You are dead set on pushing thay strawman. No, 19th century, Sigmond Freud came up with the concept that peeler can be attracted to the same sex naturally. But concepts aren't inventions because they are ideas. No, not at all.
And once again you dodge the question. Its clear at this point that you know homosexuality was described in the Old and New Testaments, and homosexuality is clearly a sin. Other wise, you would answer the questions - you can't even repeat the questions in your replies, you edit them out because you know the questions alone destroy your argument.
No, i have now answered it 3 times. You make that false claim because you don't like the answer. Is it now? How? Oh, well you're wrong than because I answered it three times. I tend to trim the trollish nonsensical and emotional caterwalling from your posts. It doesn't benefit the argument. And you're wrong. You first think you can read my mind, but prove you can't read English when you say i dodged you're question. Though i answered it three times, and you further say that you can read my mind because i delete non argument garbage from your posts? [SARCASM]That proves it. [/SARCASM] Your logic is stone age at best. The concept of homosexual people didn't exist at the tone the bible was written. The concept of any mental disease didn't exist at the time the bible was written. So anything that speaks against either one was edited in. It had to be. So the bible said nothing about it until after people put it in there in the 19th century. So your argument doesn't amount to much, but please post some more poor argument, i will enjoy grinding them into dust.
Then answer the questions. I'll help you out: Schizophrenia is a mental disorder in which a person cannot distinguish what is real and imagination, they hear voices, suffer from depression, engage in substance abuse. Are you claiming that nobody suffered from that condition before 1912 when the English word "schizophrenia" was created? People suffering from the mental condition we now call "schizophrenia" are documented well before 1912. The first "official" case of schizophrenia was in 1797 (patient was James Matthews). People suffering irrational and uncontrolled behavior are documented in the Bible, as well as ancient literature. Are you claiming that schizophrenia did not exist before the word was created in 1912 when even the medical community admits the first well documented case of schizophrenia was in 1797? Are you claiming something does not exist before the word for it is created, and that nobody can discuss the situation until the word is created? The condition is first, then phrases and words are created to describe the condition. Are you claiming the concept of homosexuality was an invention of the 20th century when the word "homosexuality" was created? If you are, then the entire idea of homosexuality being genetic in any way just flew out the window - and you are actually arguing that homosexuality is a choice.
What is the matter with you? I have. This is something I'd normally delete because it isn't pertinent. I've answered this question three times, my answer isn't going to change. See past number six and post number 10 for the answer. So? No. No No, I'm claiming that the concept of a HOMOSEXUAL was DISCOVERED in the 19th century. I'm not claiming what you wish i was, the above is pointless rantings I'd normally delete.
