Friday, May 20, 2011

Where did this come from?

Again, over at Catholic Answers we find the following under the Social Group forum, in the "Let's Empty Purgatory" thread...

"Jesus said if we pray this prayer 1,000 souls from purgatory are released: "Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the masses said throughout the world today, for all the souls in Purgatory, for sinners in the universal church, those in my own home and within my family. Amen."

Following this we have Catholics literally typing in this prayer. At this writing, there are 131 pages in this thread with an average of 9 to 10 prayers posted per page. A rough calculation would give us an average of 1,179,000 to 1,310,000 souls already freed through the efforts of these members. And if each of the members posted this prayer, at least, 10 times, they will be putting quite a serious dent on purgatory.

Purgatory aside (anyone who reads this thread KNOWS that purgatory is but a fable to me), can someone kindly point me to where Jesus made this promise? Seems to me that if Jesus did say it and valid support is provided, the purgatory debates are fini. Purgatory does exist!

But He really didn't say it, did He. So why say that He did?

And an oddity from Catholic Answers...

Perusing through Catholic Answers and I find the following under the "Ask an Apologist" forum...

"My son vomited after Mass this morning. We were on our way to the car when he felt sick and found a patch of grass. Because he was sick in the grass, I didn't dispose of anything, as I couldn't clearly make out any visible remains of the Eucharist. Can you tell me if this was the proper thing to do or should I have done something different?"

The reply given was...

"If there were any clearly visible and recognizable pieces of the Eucharist, and if you had something to use to protect your hands (e.g., a handkerchief or tissue), you would pick up those pieces in the cloth or tissue and take them to a priest or deacon for proper disposal. If not, then simply inform the parish office so it can ask its custodian to pour water over the vomit to dissolve it. Even if the Eucharist had already fully broken down by digestion (in which case the Real Presence no longer remains), the parish likely would want to clean up the lawn anyway."

Personally, I would have looked after the poor kid. Seems the vomit and the lawn got the better end of the deal.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

An Oddity from Family Radio



Those of you who have been keying in on Family Radio may have noticed some irony. One would think that if the Rapture is going to occur on May 21, 2011, and considering that it is "guaranteed" to happen, Family Radio should be in the process of winding down, getting ready to abandon ship. After all, it will all be a pile of rubble at some point before mid-October and, after all, isn't this what their followers are doing. Yet, with less than two days before the judgment, they still ask for monetary support to run Family Radio. Hmmmm..... Something tells me that come May 22, Family Radio and its ministries will slowly become a pile of rubble, when the Campingites come out of their fog and realize that another false prophet just had his way.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Twenty days in...


It's twenty days into the New Year and I wish all a belated "Happy New Year"! I hope to finish up with the dialogue I'm having with Kumtekmeon soon. I've had a lot on my plate thus far and I can't believe that we are already 20 days into the new year. So far, it has all the earmarks of a fast paced year (or maybe I'm just ultra busy). To be fair to "Kumtekmeon", he did send me quite the voluminous response some time back. I just haven't had the opportunity to respond. Yet, unfortunately for Kumtekmeon, he repeats the same old nonsense about the alleged "gay love story" between David and Jonathan. The argument always amazes me considering it's novelty. Throughout Judeo-Christian history, no one has EVER interpreted David and Jonathan as a homosexual couple, but leave it to liberal theologians and the homosexual agenda to make that attempt. It doesn't surprise me though, considering that nothing is sacred to those who wish to justify sin. Kumtekmeon fairs no better considering he tries to justify it all the same, but is met with futility and nothing more. Well, until I can muster the time to get to that response, I encourage all to read a couple of refutations on this assertion.
J.P. Holding's "Was King David gay?"
Also, there is a very well written article by Reese Currie with a concise refutation of pro-gay arguments. You can find it here: "Pro-Homosexual Arguments Examined."
It's sad to see homosexuals, such as Kumtekmeon, trying so desperately to justify their sin and still remain within the pale of Christianity. It is sadder to see the deception of others who attempt to give "answers" but provide nothing more than revisionism. And, yet, the saddest thing of all is when those who call themselves "Christians" preach a false gospel of false grace, false love, and false acceptance, and yet ignore that repentance and obedience is the evidence of true grace, true love, and true acceptance. Anything else is but pure idolatry. I can only hope that homosexuals, just as all sinners, can look beyond their own desires. Isn't that the carnal man? One who believes that God accepts our sin simply because we desire it. God is unchanging regardless of those who wish to change Him.
Peace,
CM

Monday, November 22, 2010

So, Where's the Evidence?


It's been awhile since I've posted. To be fair to Kumtekmeon, he responded back in the beginning of October. However, due to some time restraints, I haven't been able to respond until now. Yet, Kumtekmeon continues to confuse me regarding his assertions. He asserts them as fact, but provides nothing to support them. He cites Scripture, rebukingly, as if it applies to our dialogue, but it misses the mark entirely. We continue...

I am certain I responded to the points you stated. My interpretations of key verses are concrete. YOU on the other hand have failed to refute my points. It is ridiculous to argue about early church teachings, because NONE of that represented what Jesus taught.

This is almost laughable. The reader will note three things:

1. He provides no support for the interpretations he claims are “concrete.”
2. Kumtekmeon's “points” are based on silence (i.e. Jesus didn't say anything about it so it must be acceptable).
3. His ignorance towards those who were sanctioned by Christ to teach the gospel (Paul) and those who were taught by these apostles and disciples. To claim that “NONE” represent what Christ taught leaves one wondering “Well, who and what did Christ teach?

IT'S COMMON SENSE for those who are not in the norm to be treated as outcasts. Women were (and to a degree) still treated as inferior by the church - So what's your point.

This is a false comparison. One can say the same thing about bestiality—that those who desire to have sex with animals are treated as outcasts. And what about incest? Pedophilia? To equate this to the rights of women is fallacious. God evidently made women and ordained that a man and a women can be joined, they have a shared role, but God condemns the act of homosexuality.

Your stance about 'church history ONLY serves to CONFIRM my position, because nothing you have spoken to addresses homosexuality in its general sense.

The issue isn't “homosexuality in the general sense” (whatever that means), but what Scripture teaches about homosexuality and what Christ, who is God and came to earth as a faithful Jew, would have adhered to and had breathed out (as God). The words of the Old and New Testaments are God's words and God's word condemns the sin of homosexuality. Kumtekmeon still hasn't acknowledge this, neither has he responded to this. Furthermore, its sheer verbiage to claim it “CONFIRMS” his position when, once again, he provides no support for his position (whatever that may be).

All you do is to be fixated on anal sex, as if vaginal intercourse is not also seen as sinful.

This is almost laughable as well. My posts are there for all to read and there is no “fixation”, let alone on anal sex. But let's indulge the humor, shall we. Vaginal intercourse, outside the realm of marriage, is sinful (its called fornication and adultery), but within the constructs of marriage it is not sin. Homosexual sex, in whatever form, is always sinful. That is my position, the position of God's word (the Bible), and the position of the historic Christian church. Kumtekmeon continues to make frivolous comparisons and false accusations.

IT IS NOT the sex God raises concerns about, it's the REASON/PURPOSE behind the sexual activity.

Again, where is the support for his assertion? One only has to read passages, such as in Leviticus 18:22, to find that God is very concerned about sexual purity. Context determines the meaning of the passage. The word “toevah” (translated “abomination”) is placed on homosexual sex (v. 22) in the context of adultery (vs. 20), child sacrifice (vs. 21), and bestiality (vs. 23). We can't simply ignore this and claim that the condemnation is based on “REASON/PURPOSE.” It is based on a just and holy God's abhorrence towards sin.

My research has confirmed TRUE the high level of pedophilia practiced by the people of Rome/Athens but it also reveals that whilst it was an acceptable practice for older (MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL) men to take young boys for sex, within that culture, two adult men who are involved sexually would be frowned upon and discriminated. These men were the true homosexuals. However, when the emperor outlawed pederasty, genuine homosexuals suffered the fate, as the Roman Catholic Church wrongly interpreted the bible and this is being played out today.

Kumtekmeon's research is obviously biased and ignores the fact that this wasn't merely a “Roman Catholic Church” thing. The condemnation was clearly there BEFORE there was a “Roman Catholic Church”, a catholic church, or even a church. Furthermore, one wonders why Kumtekmeon can't see that pederasty is an act between two males, regardless of age. To claim that these men were “heterosexual” who desired sex with boys (males) is to ignore that the act is “homosexual.” Note that he stresses “pedophilia” but ignores that the problem was strictly with boys. To put it rightly in perspective, the act was pedophilic, pederastic, and homosexual.

If I were you I would NOT be boasting about church history and what those UNINFORMED clergy wrote in 195 AD etc, because the history of the church holds so many negativities that I DON'T think you wish to be looked at.

Who's boasting??? As a student of church history, I am only pointing out the reality of God's people and the historic orthodox view of homosexuality. Kumtekmeon frivolously uses the word "uninformed", yet, once again, doesn't provide any evidence to corroborate the word. Furthermore, to bring up “negativities” doesn't impede or change the prohibition on homosexual acts. There were many "negative" things throughout the history of the church, yet none having to do with the issue of homosexuality. Why? Because it was ALWAYS understood to be sin based on God's Word. Thus, the prohibitions remained firm and unwavering. However, with Kumtekmeon's, one can almost smell the red herrings approaching.

The Roman Catholic church whose teachings you are holding onto is built on a FALSE foundation. YOU are also out of line.

All one has to do is READ my blog to find out how critical I am of the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, Kumtekmeon continues to ignore that my position isn't based on what a particular church teaches, but on Scripture itself. It just so happens that God's people, the ancient Jews and the early church, understood God's laws and these laws prohibited sin, such as homosexuality. If there is anyone “out of line” it is Kumtekmeon and his ignorance of Scripture.

As Christians, Jesus commanded us to go out into the world and preach ALL WHAT HE had taught us - NOT what Moses said, Not what Paul said, BUT WHAT HE had taught...

Wow!! It is "Kumtekmeon" who is doing the “picking and choosing” of what he claims Christ taught. Evidently, he assumes that Moses and Paul DIDN'T teach what Christ taught. In other words, the words of Scripture isn't what “Christ taught.” So where do we go to find out what “Christ taught”??? To Kumtekmeon??? Obviously not. He separates “what Christ taught” from the very men that God ordained to teach “what Christ taught.” Amazing!

...yet you have failed to follow Jesus commands and instead following after man's, but as Isaiah 5:14 says, ''Hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.'' Jesus said on the day of judgement many will say, Lord, I have healed the sick, cast out demons and have done many wonderful things in your name, YET Jesus reply is DEPART from me, I know you not!

This is simply “verse-slinging”, tossing Scripture around for impact rather than substance. I can toss the same Scripture at Kumtekmeon for the very same reasons and it merits nothing. What does count is interpreting Scripture within its context. Therein is where the true impact lies. What I find ironic is that he cites the prophet Isaiah. There's a contradiction here considering that, according to Kumtekmeon, we are to listen to what Christ taught and not Moses or Paul. So, is this to say that We can listen to Isaiah as well as to Christ? Do we need any more evidence of "pick and choose" theology on the part of Kumtekmeon. And, as a further testament of this irony, he cites Matthew 7:22-23 out of context. Who are those known of Christ? They are those who follow His word and, of course, His Word is none other then what you find in Scripture (including the laws against the sin of homosexuality).

So many of you boasting about your 'righteousness' need to think again. So far, from my observation, gay affirming churches are more focused on Jesus teachings than the traditional church. Think on that.

Once again we find rhetoric. I mean, who's boasting? I'm a saved sinner. My righteousness is like filthy rags to a holy God. I have absolutely NOTHING to boast about except for the mercies of God via the pure and holy sacrifice of Christ. I would imagine that the only reason Kumtekmeon believes "gay affirming" churches are more focused on His teaching is because they are “gay affirming.” It stands to reason that a church should be “Christ affirming.” Unfortunately for Kumtekmeon, to be Christ affirming would entail that one be “Scripture affirming” which leads right back to the prohibition on homosexuality. After all, Scripture is what Christ appealed to when refuting the Pharisees. Furthermore, Christ is the “Word of God made flesh” (John 1), the embodiment and the fulfillment of God's law. Once again, unfortunately for Kumtekmeon, the Word of God prohibits homosexuality, such as in Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13; Romans 1:21-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9 and the implications within Genesis 19; Judges 19; Ezekiel 16:49-50; and Jude 1:7. To be Christ-affirming would mean that one affirms those whom Christ chose to teach (such as Paul) as well as the teaching itself (such as those which condemn the sin of homosexuality). You simply can't get around it.

My aim at no time is to convince you, because gays DO NOT need approval from 'the Church' to live their lives because we as individuals are the church and NO ONE holds a patent on God.

Kumtekmeon's defiance of the church, of which Jesus himself ordained as the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), is here for all to see. Considering that Kumtekmeon wants to delineate between Christ's actual “words” and those of men like Paul and Moses, he doesn't seem to have read this verse...

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 18:15-19)

Clearly, the church has authority and, just as clearly, it is Christ who says so. His assertion that “individuals” are the church is misguided, as this verse attests. Collectively, we are the church and the church has authority over those who claim to be believers.

Jesus tells me in John 15 that the world loves its own, and hate those who belong to Him. So far it is gays and those who support gays are hated by the world/Church.

Once again, Kumtekmeon is guilty of verse-slinging. I can make a stronger argument that the world hates evangelical Christians, because it is they who uphold God's teachings (Scripture) rather than gays or gay supporters. One only has to look at liberal politics to see anti-Evangelical sentiments at work. Besides, Kumtekmeon's logic is faulty here. He seems to imply that if the world hates you than you must belong to Christ. Hate is not a common factor in the context of belonging to Christ. Rather, it is exclusive to those who preach Christ. Even his exegesis of John 15, to no one's surprise, is faulty. If you love Christ you keep His “commandments” (plural) just as He upheld the Father's “commandments” (plural). This is the thrust of the passage (vs.15). Hate is NOT the evidence that you abide with Christ.

But I am not surprised because Jesus said in ch16 that they will put us out of the church, and today if a pastor speaks in favor of homosexuals he or she is expelled from the church, so all these things must happen.

Once again, Kumtekmeon is guilty of eisegesis.(reading his position into the text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself). In John 16, Jesus is speaking to his Jewish followers. The word is “synagogue” and not “church.” Furthermore, the passage has nothing to do with homosexuals but, rather, those who follow Christ. Kumtekmeon makes it seem as if it is gays and gay supporters that will be put out of the church, but fails to see that one can be rightly put out of the church. If an individual is unrepentant and continues in his sin, he must be put out of the church. Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5 come to mind in support of this. Being expelled from the church is due to sin and not persecution as Kumtekmeon seems to imply.

Therefore, YOU may continue your HATE CAMPAIGN against gays, and those who support gays, BUT God has got our backs and no matter the torture, we shall overcome.

This is nothing but rhetoric. It is the “if you don't agree with me, you hate me” appeal-to-pity argument that many, not just homosexual advocates, use to gather sympathy for their cause. Sorry, but disagreement does not constitute hate. God has got “the backs” of those who obey Him and not those who attempt to re-create Him to their own liking.


Do you think all those suicides will go in vain? Do you think those who are burned alive, forced to live on the streets, mocked and jeered, scorned and fired from their jobs etc etc...will go in VAIN? God is a just God who is a friend to the helpless. So you may continue with your hate, I will follow Jesus' command and LOVE!

One can only look to those who loved Christ and were burned alive, dismembered, speared, tortured, disemboweled, sawed in half, crucified, beaten, etc. etc, etc. for the sake of the gospel. To see the inanity of the statement above. Kumtekmeon's “martyrs” pale in comparison and only serves to show what sin does—it brings consequences. As for the suicides, and I assume he is implying the recent suicides of gay teens who were bullied, to the Christian, this is unacceptable. No one, let alone a teen, should be bullied. As sad as this may be, what makes it all sadder is that teen suicide has been a problem in this country and many, not only gays, have been bullied to the point of suicide. The injustice of all this is that teen bullying and suicide has pretty much been obscure until the recent gay teen suicides. Although no one advocates suicide for any reason, it is a sign of the times that the gay issue would bring the subject of teen suicide into view and THAT is the real shame. So, although I mourn with anyone who's lost a love one, gay or otherwise, due to bullying, it isn't just a “gay” thing. Compassion is a Jesus thing and one the Christian strives to follow. To make it a “gay” issue and circumvent the reality of teen suicide as a whole, is ignorance at it's best, regardless of the verbal facade of “LOVE” and obedience. I remain firm, SCRIPTURE and Scripture alone is where we find God's voice, His commandments, and the unwavering anchor of His love towards His children. Yet, Kumtekmeon continues to re-create Scripture, implying that God's servants, such as Moses and Paul, aren't the conduits of God's revelation to man. He re-creates God into what he feels God should be and this is nature of idolatry.

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Another lesson in futility

Kumtekmeon continues to misunderstand the nature of Scripture, especially in light of the nature of Christ. He seems to be a "red letter" reader, thinking that Christ's words are only those stated in the red letters of a standard Bible, those uttered during His earthly ministry. What he obviously misunderstands is that the entirety of Scripture IS Christ's words, but isn't that the way it goes when attempting to justify sin? I don't mean to sound mean but it is what it is.

Kumtekmeon's words are in brown, mine's in black...

When making a case against a group of people, it would do good to speak SPECIFICALLY to that group of people. Confusing homosexuality with pederasty only goes to show how BIAS and DECEPTIVE you are.

Wrong. Pederasty is still homosexual sex even if it is with boys. Remember, the issue is homosexual sex and not a man with homosexual feelings or tendencies. It is the acting on these feelings or tendencies, whether in thought or in deed, that Secondly, not every citation in the video was “specifically” about pederasty. Pederasty just happened to be the coveted form of homosexual sex at the time. By the way, the only bias and deception being presented is your comments, considering you’re not thinking this through.

Pederasty is what is considered pedophilia today.

Wrong again. Pederasty was “specifically” sex with boys. Pedophilia is sex wth children, both girls and boys.

Where is the evidence to show that homosexuals go about abusing children.

What is the sexual orientation of a man who has sex with boys? It isn’t “straight” I assure you. You do know how to google, don’t you.

You need to be enlighten to the reality that homosexuals ARE NOT only adults. So far we have 5 gay suicides in 3 weeks and they were all youth, NOT adults.

So what is the relevance?

So where is the link?

What “link” is it that you want?

Speaking to sexual immorality in the church and practices of anal sex among males, AND to sexual acts to that of lesbians ARE NOTHING NEW! Paul in Romans 1 pointed to these, BUT in order to support your homophobic agenda, have deliberately changed the context.

Why is it that when someone sees what is evident in Scripture and points it out, they automatically become “homophobes.” I believe the word is used frivolously and to vilify those who see it as sin. I’m no more a “homophobe” than you are. As to your statement regarding Paul, well, that’s odd? On the one hand you admit that Paul speaks of these, but on the other you say that the context has been "deliberately changed." How? I would dare you to consult any of the ancient church fathers who commented on Romans 1. Did they change the context? Rather, it is the gay interpretation that is novel and attempts to "change the context" to solace their lifestyle. Yet, historically, the ancient Jews and Christians understood Scripture to condemn the homosexual act as sin.

Citing men of old, even those who were apostles to John etc proves NOTHING!

LOL! It only proves that this is the way these passages were ALWAYS understood. It only proves that gay theology is nothing more than twisting Scripture. It is a hostile witness against those who claim that Scripture doesn't condemn the homosexual act.

Isn't it a fact that the books of the prophets were known to the Pharisees, YET they failed to recognize Jesus?

The story of the Pharisees is a story of rebellion. They were witnesses of Christ’s ministry, including His miracles, but were revealed to be hypocrites by Jesus. Because they rebelled doesn’t contrast with what the Scriptures state so clearly regarding homosexuality. Even the Pharisees would have agreed with the condemnation in Leviticus 18:22 as, of course, a condemnation of homosexuality. Their “misrecognition” has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with their rebellion. In the same way, those who attempt to use Scripture to validate what Scripture condemns are just as rebellious.

Isn't it a fact that the same bible we have today was had in Pre and Post Slavery time, YET blacks were not fully accepted into the church. Men are prone to mistranslate AND misrepresent the word of God.

That is a fallacious argument. Men using or misusing the Bible has no bearing on the truth that is WITHIN Scripture. Sure, the Bible can be used to validate a host of errors, but proper exegesis of Scripture leads away from the error.

So tell me what Jesus said and not what man said.

SCRIPTURE, the entirety of the word of God, IS WHAT JESUS SAID! I believe I corrected you on this before. Men wrote it as they were moved by God. The word is “theopneustos” which means God literally “breathed” it out as the prophets and disciples wrote His words. It came from the very mouth of God. Have you even read 2 Timothy 3:16? Do you believe that Jesus is God? I assume you do considering your question differentiates between Jesus and “man.” So, if Jesus is God, why is it that you do not recognize ALL of Scripture as being what Jesus "said"?

Isn't it funny how you can neither quote Jesus NOR any of His disciples to support your homophobic agenda!

Rather, it is funnier that you don’t seem to recognize that Scripture IS Jesus talking. ALL of Scripture are the words of Christ. Even the words of Leviticus and Romans. It’s ALL Christ! Have you even read John 1, where it speaks of Christ? It states that “in the beginning was the Word” and that the Word “was with God” and that the Word “was God.” Well, this “Word” became “flesh” and dwelt amongst us. It’s odd that you want specific words from Christ as evidence when the ENTIRE Bible is Christ’s specific words. You see, your argument isn’t with me, but with Christ! You just can’t seem to understand it because it goes against your position.

By the way, once again, there is no "homophobic agenda." You simply toss those words to attack the man and not the argument. You think that vilifying me lessens the impact of Scripture. It doesn't.

It is people like you why hatred and division remains.

There you go again equating disagreement to “hatred and division.” If one holds the conviction that homosexuality is condemned by God via Scripture and that it is rightly sin, he therefore becomes a hater and a divider according to your logic. You seem content in poisoning the well, but a sensible person would understand religious conviction enough to know that there is no wrong intent.

Jesus said ''Come unto me, ALL [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'' MAN cares about sexuality NOT God.

Jesus also inspired the words of Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 and sexuality remains an issue with God. The fact is that all SIN remains an issue with God, irregardless of your Scripture-tossing. Scripture-tossing, as you do here, doesn’t validate right belief and the verse you cite has nothing to do with sexuality and God.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Come on baby! Let's do the Twist...

Kumtekmeon responded to my blog post via a YouTube personal message. It seems that the combox doesn't allow for large responses. This is probably preferable. Comboxes are very limited and not format-friendly.

Most of Kumtekmeon's responses is second-handed considering he sent me a previously written response to an unknown person. Yet, considering the nature of the argumentation, I will have to treat it as if he's asserting that I'm arguing the same way. Why else would he send it to me? The reader will note that his argumentation is not new, but can be found on websites such as the Gay Christian Network or the Metropolitan Community Churches. Please pay close attention to the way Kumtekmeon interprets Scripture. Is it valid? Let the reader decide.

Kumtekmeon's words are in blue, mine's are in black. We begin...

Churchmouse, if my position on homosexuality and the bible was unmoving, you wouldn't have seen the need to address my points in detail. So please desist from undermining my position.

If you read through my blog you will see that I’m details-oriented to begin with, regardless of how strong or weak the counter-argument is. The truth is that I don’t see your argument as valid, especially when the weight of Scriptural exegesis and church history is firmly behind me. Your arguments are not new to me. They are novel, recent, and have been proven to lack exegetically. So, if it seems I’m “undermining”, its not intentional, it’s only because the facts of Scripture are contra your position.

Now (as expected) your FIRST point of reference points to Sodom, a city that was destroyed by God for a multitude of sins, AND NOT for the inhabitant of a few homosexuals who might've been living there at the time. However, you have chosen to follow in the LIE of man that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality. How ignorant can you be?

Whoa! You’re building a straw man. Would you care to show me WHERE I made the argument that Sodom was specifically destroyed for its homosexuality? It’s quite the contrary. Sodom was destroyed for its wickedness. The homosexual act these men attempted to perform was but one of the evils for which it was destroyed. For all we know, the men who attempted the rape might NOT have been homosexual, but the act of homosexuality itself was evidently abominable. Again, I’ll repeat this so you don’t get confused: Sodom was destroyed specifically for its wickedness. The Sodomites were not necessarily homosexual, but attempted to commit a homosexual act. It was the act itself that was abominable. Practicing homosexuals fair no better considering this act is a part of their lifestyle. The story of Sodom accentuates the “male on male” prohibition that was later defined in Leviticus 18:22. Still, God had already planned to destroy these cities BEFORE the men surrounded Lot’s home.

In addition Jesus' response to a specific question regarding marriage in a traditional setting in the [then] Jewish culture, IN NO WAY supports your twisted view on homosexuality. Let me hasten to remind you that Jesus pointed to what Adam said, 'A man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife.' BUT Jesus THEN spoke profoundly and universally by DECLARING that 'who God put together, let no man put asunder'. This is a GENERAL statement…

The only thing “twisted” is what you are doing to divine Scripture. You are clearly taking the Scriptures OUT of their context. Contextually, Matthew states…

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

What is it that God “joined together”? He joined a man (male) and his wife (female) to be “one flesh” and no man can take them apart. That is the context of the passage and not a “GENERAL statement.” You ignored the CONTEXT of the passage (marriage, divorce, and the created order in Genesis) and then isolated one word to make an argument that is foreign to the context. Doesn’t that tell you something about yourself?

…therefore Who are you to say Mary and Sarah were not joined together by God, especially now when they are celebrating their 50th anniversary of being together?

That’s pragmatism! Just because something “worked” doesn’t mean it is God ordained. If “Mary and Sarah” died in complete faithfulness to one another it doesn’t therefore follow that it was a God-ordained union. It only means that THEY were completely faithful to one another, yet were living in sin because God ordained it as sin.

What then is your measurement to determine the term 'joined together'?

Proper Biblical hermeneutics! Again, you read the CONTEXT of the passage and go from there. God doesn’t join what he doesn’t approve, namely homosexual marriage, due to the prohibitions He gives in His Word.

Churchmouse, I am here to point you to the truth, because for far too long you have been living a lie!

Beating your chest as if you had some form of forsaken “truth” isn’t doing you any favors. Again, one only has to read the Bible without inflicting their own biases to find that your interpretation really doesn’t hold any water. My guess is that you’ve been reading some gay theological material, maybe from some website. Yet, as I’ve said, these arguments are started with the intent of making Scripture fit the gay lifestyle rather than submit the gay lifestyle to Scripture.

Since Sodom is your primary base, let us examine it> (The below points were taken from a response I sent to another sometime ago).Let us examine Sodom. This was an ancient city or a place where people lived. Sodom was one of five cities which included Gomorrah, but these two are famous because of their destruction. Now tell me, HOW do you know someone is from NYC or say Nashville? By their inward and external characteristics.

If you are addressing these points to me (as you said, this response was to someone else), I would have to treat it as if it were to me. That said, I have no idea what it is that you are saying here. Not everyone from “NYC” or “Nashville” share the same “inward and external characteristics.” If you meant that folks in a given city share some sub cultural tendencies, such as accents and lifestyles, that might be true for a large portion, but it’s not the norm for all. For example, if a man from Dallas speaks with a thick Texas drawl and wears a cowboy hat, that might determine that he is from the South, but it’s fallacious to say that all men from Dallas speak with a drawl and wear cowboy garb.

Therefore, when one refers to someone as a Sodomite that person should be exerting characteristics of behavioral patterns existed or common to Sodom.

Well, there is only one commonality that the Bible gives us for Sodom, that being that ALL were wicked and that not even one righteous man could be found. Again, I have no idea what this has to do with our dialogue or how it factors in.

Now homosexual men are WRONGLY referred to as Sodomites in a negative manner (stemming from God's destruction). I specifically used the word wrongly, because the evidence regarding the character of a typical Sodomite DOES NOT lend itself to homosexuality. The story in Genesis did not tell us much about the people of Sodom OTHER than what took place at Lot's house.

Homosexual men are referred to as Sodomites??? In whose world? The word “sodomy”, which finds its roots in the actions of the Sodomites (the citizens of Sodom) means (according to the Merriam Webster dictionary)…

anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal

Note that it doesn’t say “a homosexual.” It’s only the act that is relegated to the word. Now, homosexuals engage in sodomy, but it isn’t unique to them. The same can happen between a man and a woman but that doesn't make them homosexual. And what about prisons? Men may rape one another, yet it doesn't mean that they are homosexuals. They are guilty of sodomy, but they surely aren't homosexual. Yet, this remains the stigma of Sodom that a word was formed with their actions (anal sex) in mind. This is also the stigma of homosexuals considering that sodomy is a large practice amongst them, but it in no wise means that the word “Sodomites” strictly pertains to homosexuals. Again, you are beating a dead horse because no one is making an argument for Sodom being a city of homosexuals. I don’t even know why you even brought this argument up.

We have been told from childhood, be it directly OR indirectly, that a group of GAY MEN went to Lot's house wanting to have sex with the 2 male strangers who were staying there, and we have grown to accept this account as true. HOWEVER, if we actually read the bible AND apply basic comprehension, we will see that we have been MISLED.

If one reads the Bible and applies basic comprehension than the account of Sodom stigmatizes the homosexual act, verses such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn homosexuality, Romans 1 condemns it as well, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 becomes blatant. If one gets technical and applies the principles of basic hermeneutics the argument becomes stronger against homosexuality.

No, once again, you are building a straw man. I don’t know what “childhood” has to do with this, but I assure you that no one tucked me into bed and read me the story of “The Evil Gay Men from Sodom.” Again, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in the story and many homosexuals are only guilty in that they practice the sexual actions of the Sodomites. Yet, to correct another misconception of yours, it isn’t the account of Sodom and Gomorrah that is our “ace in the hole” regarding homosexuality, but what Scripture states as a whole. There are passages within Scripture that are more direct in their condemnation of homosexuality than merely focusing on Genesis 19.

God had sent those 2 angels in the form of man to DESTROY Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness. In Genesis, the act of wickedness was not specified, and the story went on to climax at Lot's door. NOW, we've always been given the imagery of an all male gay mob at Lot's door, BUT that's a lie, because Genesis 19:4 reads: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter.This clearly tells us that it was not only men at Lot's door WOMEN AND CHILDREN were also there. Why? Because what was taking place was a cultural practice of dealing with strangers; The people of Sodom did not take kindly to strangers coming into their city. Lot lived on the outskirt of Sodom and apparently someone saw the men entering Lot's home and informed the 'officials' who rallied and led the entire town to Lot's door in order to carry out their unkind tradition.

Still, I must point out that your words here are stated with a claim I never made. I never asserted that the Sodomites were all gay men. That is a straw man that you continue to beat. Let’s get some clarity on this: I only pointed out that the actions of the men from Sodom constitute the homosexual act. It is the homosexual act that is abominable to God.

Now we've been told the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the strangers, I have NO OBJECTION, except for the kind of sex intended. If a man rapes a woman, it is still SEX he had with her. This is exactly what the men of Sodom intended to do to the strangers: they wanted to rape them. How do I know this? Genesis 19:9 reads: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now WILL WE DEAL WORSE WITH THEE, THAN WITH THEM. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near TO BREAK the door.

Actually, what you cite here DOESN’T relay what they planned to do to the men. The intent of homosexual rape is found in verse 5, where the men wanted to “know” them. Now, if you attempt to make a case that “know” doesn’t necessarily mean “to have sex with”, walk very carefully because I can prove very conclusively that “know” is a sexual term within this context.

The use of the word worse TELLS that the men of Sodom planned to be abusive to the strangers. From this account can you SERIOUSLY show me how this action relates to the characteristics of Homosexuals. Do gays go about beating down doors demanding strange men be brought out so that they rape them? NO! In fact the mere thought of Lot suggesting his virgin daughters to calm the mob CONFIRMS that those men were not homosexuals, because homosexuals ARE NOT attracted to women, so Lot's (on knowing the 'nature' of the PEOPLE) suggestion CONTRADICTS any idea of the men being gay.

You continue to argue as if I asserted that these were gay men. Please point me to where I made the assertion. The proper exegesis of Scripture proves that the homosexual act is the “worse” part of the story. “Rape” isn’t the key point because Lot offers his daughters to be raped. It is the sex between men that really stands out. How do we know this? Because Lot calls this an “evil deed” and attempts to counteract it by offering his daughters (females) in their stead. So, within that context, rape isn’t the “evil deed” within the passage. Some have attempted to argue that the “evil deed” is the rape of angels, but that can’t be because none were aware that these were angels, even Lot (see verse 5 where the angels were clearly called “men”). Evidently, the “evil deed” is the homosexual act—men having sex with men. Regardless of their sexual orientation, the act is prominent in the passages. Again, context is the key to properly understanding the account.

Furthermore, Judges 19 TELLS a similar story of men from a certain city wanting to rape a strange man, luckily for him they agreed to take his concubine instead and they raped and abused her to her death!

You are only making my case for me. Yes, the same incident happens in Judges 19, but here lies the difference—the homosexual act was NOT carried out. But it wasn’t without consequence because it resulted in a war with the Benjaminites. See the difference? In Genesis 19 the men of Sodom intended to perform the act and were destroyed, but the men in Judges 19 didn’t follow through. Humiliation couldn’t have been the driving force considering that sexual copulation remains the intent of the act or else why would the “certain sons of Belial” settle for the woman. Evidently, sex appeased the men. There are clear differences between the two accounts and the homosexual act remains prominent as the “evil deed” in BOTH accounts.

This is an example of what might've happened to the strangers IF the people of Sodom had their way. Such behavior in no way reflects that of homosexuals. YES there are gay men who have committed rape, LIKEWISE straight men have committed rape. BUT the hypocrisy is that when a man rapes a woman he is a rapist, but when a man rapes a man he is a homosexual?

To the contrary, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in BOTH stories, but is not carried through in the latter, regardless of whether it is forced upon (such as rape) or not. The parallels you make sidestep the real issue. Even the parallels are not properly constructed. For instance, if a man forces himself sexually on a woman, of course! He is a rapist. If a man forces himself sexually on another man, of course! He is still considered a rapist. Yet, I have never heard anyone in any court of law state that the man is guilty of “homosexuality” if the rape of another man occurred. Sodomy, yes, guilty of homosexuality, no. You are way over the top on this one.

So far I have shown you that a Sodomite IS NOT a homosexual, because the character expressed from the people of Sodom does not match that of typical homosexuals.

No one is arguing that a Sodomite is a homosexual, so you really haven’t shown me anything. You really need to pay attention to what I have asserted and stop making up an argument I never made.

So who are Sodomites? Well according to GOD in Ezekiel 16, He identified Sodomites by their sins, as their sinful nature characterizes the people in general, unlike today where you find a mixture of righteous and unrighteous existing 'together' in one city. All the people of Sodom except for Lot and his household indulged in sin which became their character. Thus, God said in Ezekiel 16:49 - BEHOLD, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

The Sodomites were the people of Sodom, plain and simply. God points them out for their wickedness, but he also delineates that they committed an “abomination” (singular). This abomination is alluded in Ezekiel 16:50 and in Jude 1:7. Hmmm…yet, you cite Ezekiel 16, focused on the inhospitable treatment of others, but danced around the “abomination” aspect of it. No one denies that hospitality was an issue, but did you notice verse 50 which reads “…and committed abomination before me.” It isn’t all about “inhospitality” but the conjunction “and” makes a distinction between the other sins and the abomination. There is only one other thing that is clearly abominable in Scripture and we both know what that is.

Here you have it, ACCORDING to God Himself, a Sodomite is someone who is well off , yet unkind, selfish, idle. Is it fair to say such traits are ONLY exhibit by Gays OR isn't it a FACT that Heterosexuals are also guilty of such traits? Bear in mind that Jesus made reference to Sodom on two occasions and AT NO TIME He accused homosexuals of Sodom's destruction. So my question is, Whose report are you following? Certainly, NOT God's!

Once again, this is just bad argumentation. Jesus didn’t make references to many things and the Bible isn't exhaustive. Are we to assume that when Jesus doesn't mention something than it’s not sinful? Just because Jesus didn’t delineate the homosexual aspect of Sodom doesn’t mean that it wasn’t abominable in God’s eyes. And you still seem to ignore that apart from being "unkind, selfish, idle" the Sodomites were guilty of an abomination. Keep that in mind because you are trying to argue from silence.

Churchmouse, you went on to speak foolishly about Leviticus 18:22 referring also to homosexuals. READ THE BIBLE for once in your life! Where is the evidence that being gay is a learnt behavior?

It refers to men having sex with other men. Homosexuals fall in by default. Once again, you are beating a straw man because I never said it was “learnt behavior.” If you cannot see what is so plainly in Leviticus 18:22 then the foolishness falls with you. As for reading the Bible, I would venture to say that our dialogue is public record by virtue of this blog. The reader can determine for himself if my Bible knowledge lacks or if it is spot on. Furthermore, they can determine for themselves if your verbosity (calling me foolish, “blinded your mind”, your condescension, etc.) is warranted. In other words, they can read our dialogue and determine what is being said, bypassing all the verbosity. I’m okay with that.

Who is training boys and girls in the most homophobic countries, BEFORE the advent of Television and internet and other forms of media on how to be gay? RIDICULOUS!

I have never asserted that the media is training our children to be gay. Are you asserting that they are? What is truly “RIDICULOUS” is how you continue on with an argument I never made. Once again, I dare you to show me where I claimed such a thing.

I asked such questions because if you had read the passage you would've seen that the laws God gave in that passage were DIRECT reactions to customs/practices the Jews picked up from the Egyptians and Canaanites, so you need to show me that being gays is learnt in order to render that Leviticus verse valid! In addition the structure of the law itself raises contradictions BUT your desperation to accurse gays have blinded your mind.

LOL!! Once again you show your naïveté regarding Scripture and human nature. God wanted His people to be separate from the practices of the heathen, but still persisted due to their own sinful natures. This included homosexuality. It doesn’t have to be “learnt behavior” but rather succumbing to their sinful natures. I would like to see what you mean by the Law “raising contradictions” because it sounds like you would resort to an “out” if need be. In other words, even if Leviticus does condemn the act (which it does) you will attempt to find a way around it. That won’t happen.

I will continue on your follies tomorrow (hopefully).

It will be just another opportunity to address the issue and show how Christianity and homosexuality are not compatible.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Excuses, excuses....

Over at youtube, a poster by the name of "Kumtekmeon" replied on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. This was after I responded to "dreamequality", a gay man who deleted his first channel only to resurrect it with, yet, another one. "dreamequality" persists in his twisting of Scripture and in his attempts to legitimize homosexuality via the Bible. Considering that Scripture IS VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality, I responded. Yet, Kumtekmeon reiterates the very same novel arguments, by which it seems he is only trying to convince himself.

Kumtekmeon's words in blue, mine's in black...

You saying that the law against homosexuality (which NEVER existed) still reamins in the NT yet you cannot show me where Jesus at anytime uphold such a law! Saying something DOES NOT make it true WITHOUT FACTS! As said before the bible does not condemn homosexuality..

Never existed??? From the sin of Sodom (Genesis 19) all the way to Christ’s reiteration of who marries under the creation order (Matthew 19:4-6), you have nothing but a condemnation of homosexual perversion. Furthermore, regardless of how evil men attempt to twist them, the Scriptures are clear in that men are not to lay with men as they do with women (Lev.18:22, 20:13). Now, I have heard many homosexuals attempt to bypass what Scripture clearly states by claiming that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. In other words if Christ didn’t “verbally” state it in the New Testament then there's nothing wrong with it. That’s fallacious at best. Christ wasn’t exhaustive during His earthly ministry. He didn’t say something about everything. Yet, we do know that He always appealed to the Old Testament Scriptures as the Law of God. Furthermore, we also know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is God-breathed (the Greek word is “theopneustos”, meaning that it finds its origin directly from the mouth of God), thus ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is spoken by God. God spoke through men, they being the vessels used to convey what what He breathed out (2 Peter 1:20). The prophets didn’t write what they “interpreted” from God, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what God had said. Now, take this to its conclusion:
1. Jesus is God
2. God spoke through men who, in turn, wrote what God spoke (Scriptures)
3. God condemned homosexuality in various verses (transitioning from the Old Testament—Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22, 20:13—over to the New Testament—Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
4. Thus, Jesus, who is God, condemns homosexuality.

Of course, this is built on the premise that Jesus is God. If you don’t believe He is than I guess I really can’t help you. Yet, you appealed to Christ as the authority. Which is it?

What you've been taught to be homosexuality IS NOT dealing with homosexuality

Rather, what YOU’VE been taught (by those who which to legitimize this perversion) is not true. Historically, God’s people (the Jews and the early church) understood that it was homosexuality that God speaks of within the Scriptures. The interpretations you’ve accepted are novel at best, attempted by men who seek to justify their sin.

I hope you know that by accepting Leviticus 18 to be speaking to homosexuality, that you are in turn labeling God BIASED and CONTRARY! This is so because what reason is given as to why God then DID NOT condemn lesbianism. I know you love to point to Romans 1, BUT that's centuries after.

Again, ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is inspired by God. Whether it is Leviticus or Romans, it ALL comes from God. To claim that it is men that Leviticus speaks of (at the exclusion of women) is arguing semantics. Again, the Jews always understood this to be perversion and against God’s law. This finds its logical conclusion in Romans 1, where it points out what the Jews (and now the Gentiles) have always understood— that regardless of homosexuality or lesbianism—it remains WRONG.

Also You are saying God did not care about homosexuality among the other nations except the Jews.

What I said that God’s laws were meant to keep a people (Israel) separate from the rest of the world and consecrated unto Him. Salvation belonged to the Jews and they were to be a light to the world. Homosexuality?? Eveyone else was a pagan and these perversions were rampant. Of course, some of these laws have changed in this age of grace, but the condemnation against homosexuality remains.

You have got yourself in a pickle as in Acts Peter declared NOT to put the YOKE around the gentiles neck!

LOL! Where did Peter say that and what has this to do within the context of homosexuality? Are you saying that sin cannot be clarified for fear that it would become a “yoke”??? Are you serious?

In relation to the By-Laws in Leviticus 18, IF you read the entire passage you will see that those laws came about as a DIRECT result of customs and practices the Israelites picked up in Egypt and Canaan, which includes, men sleeping with men AS WITH women.

Firstly, these weren’t “by-laws” but LAWS. Secondly, whether it was a result of “customs and practices” or not, is pointless, considering that it remains a detestable act to God. That’s the point and, to your behest, you are making it for me. Lastly, I sense that you are attempting to draw a parallel between a man who lies with a man versus a man who lies with men and women. Are you saying that bisexuals are what God speaks of here and not pure homosexuals? What is the “abomination” being spoken of here? I think that a cursory reading of the verses shows that homosexuality, in any form, is what is being spoken of here. Why? Because of God’s created order—men and women—and His intent for us (Genesis 2:24-25, which again is reiterated BY CHRIST in Matthew 19:4-6). This is why homosexuality is an abomination to Him and a perversion of His divine order.

Am I to believe homosexuality is a learnt behavior? Are you saying that religious boy back in 1919 in Virginia was trained by his Baptist parents on how to be gay?

Not at all! Is adultery “learnt behavior”? Is stealing “learnt behavior”? It all boils down to the depraved nature of man. Apart from God we are ALL condemned because of sin. We all struggle with sin, some our entire lives, but we consecrate our lives to Him and allow Him to work within us, shunning sin at all cost. Our wills bound by His grace. It all goes to what Paul stated concerning the Potter (God) and the clay pots (men). Are we going to ask God why He made us the way we are? Do we have the right? Have you read Romans 9? God does as He wills and for His purpose. We are at His mercy.

It is not a crime to apply common sense to your logics.

Who said it is my “logics” [sic]? I simply read Scripture and deduce that man is sinful and capable of anything. What makes it worse is when men take God’s Holy Word and attempt to justify their sinful nature. Woe to those who do so. Just as you said, it isn't a crime to apply common Scriptural sense to your logic.

Let me show you that I DO understand scriptures. At NO TIME God condoned sex with animals, this is so because animals are of a DIFFERENT FLESH!

I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say here or how you deduce that “different flesh” is what God means by all this. If I use your line of logic, I can easily say that God doesn’t condone “male on male” sex because they are of the SAME GENDER. I contend that you really don’t know Scripture and are interpreting it at a whim, as you clearly show with the statement above. Again, the prohibitions found in the verses are homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. You would decry incest and bestiality even today, why not homosexuality? Selectivity doesn’t trump truth.

God did not show any objection to Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah, it was in Moses time such a law came into being.

As you stated, this was BEFORE the law and is clearly delineated in Scripture. After all, where did the wives of Adam and Eve’s sons come from? God’s purpose allowed for this at one time, but changed afterward. However, looking at the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God clearly detested this sin even BEFORE the Law came into place.

As you so rightly said in OT God separated Israel from the gentiles BUT this was a failure which is why Jesus had was to come with a new covenant.

BUT Christ reiterates God’s order (again Matthew 19:4-6) and the New Testament (again, which comes from the mouth of God) condemns homosexuality. Thus, the new covenant doesn’t legitimize the homosexual act but condemns it. You are without an excuse, even in the new covenant.

Homosexuality WAS NEVER addressed in the OT you need to prove that!

I don’t know how clear it has to be for you. The verses that I have cited (add 1 Timothy 1:8-10 into the mix as well) are a condemnation of homosexuality. No amount of eisegesis is going to change this sin into an acceptable practice. Furthermore, careful exegesis of Scripture, such as when employing Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16:49-50 (not merely vs. 49 as many gay-advocates love to quote) add to a serious condemnation of homosexuality. Furthermore, the historical understanding of these verses (the early Jews and the early church) goes against you as well. If you cannot see it, that’s not my problem, but my guess is that you know exactly what I’m talking about. You may not like it, but you know it and, therefore, you're left without an excuse.
 
Who links to my website?