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.

2 comments:

kuyamanny said...

Birthday greetings Brother!

Churchmouse said...

Thanks Manny and God bless you and your family. Hope all is well and keep defending the faith "Tinubos" :-)

Peace,
Ray

 
Who links to my website?