Christian Forums

Wycliffs... I have been debating this subject in online forums for many years.

I have a wealth of information readily available at my fingertips.

I also am well aware of the Greek customs of the time.

Do you deny the existence of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, or the existence of the Sacred Band of Thebes??

Memyself... every family in the world has a gay family relative... whether they're open about it or know about it, is a different story.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:15:59
Memyself... every family in the world has a gay family relation... whether they're open about it or know about it, is a different story.

So, is that a yes? HE has a family member that he dearly loves who struggles with homosexuality.

Not that I'm aware of. 

Quote from: Red Baker on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 04:28:39

Quote from: kensington on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 02:17:42It's really simple if you seek to understand God and not to excuse sin. God called it "abomination" in numerous places in the word of God. 

I would not give that which is holy unto dogs.  Matthew 7:6  God called sodomites dogs in the scriptures, and dogs they are. The analogy fits perfectly~what do dogs do to each other?   All this guy is doing is laboring to provoke godly people to speak many things, and as Solomon warned us:

Proverbs 10:19

  .  "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin:  but he that refraineth his lips is wise."

He who speaks too much, will end up sinning.  Let this man go away to "his friends", and in the Judgement of the great day, present his case to the Almighty and see if he will hear him. 

Our Lord Jesus did not give in to such people:

Luke 11:53

  .  "And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things."

Our blessed Jesus never sinned with his words, even though the wicked labored vehemently to provoke him to sin with his words.  We just spent many post dealing with this very subject, let him go there and read our thoughts~ but he really does not care what the word of God said, only to cause righteous, God fearing people to hear his filth.   

WHY are we folk debating this guy?  You are nothing more than casting God's truth before dogs! Using the words of Jesus Christ. 

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:23:02
Not that I'm aware of.

might be a good idea to find out...

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:14:49
I also am well aware of the Greek customs of the time.

Then why bring them up?  It creates an apples to oranges comparison.  Not to mention, you're associating yourself with practices that are exploitative at best, and abusive by most measures.  This is not the strength of your argument.

Would you prefer to talk about the Romans?  It's more of an apples to apples comparison, since they weren't nearly so promiscuous, and were more condoning of true single-same-sex relationships.

But in that case, your point is just wrong.  Rome and several other cities of Italy suffered from horrible internal rot, largely as a result of their widespread homosexuality.  Shall we discuss the plagues of sexually transmitted diseases that ravaged them?  Or perhaps just the creeping population decrease that threatened to destroy the empire's power... until they outlawed it.

Rome is actually a very good case study, supporting my former point.  Starting in an environment free from any stigma, natural law eventually induces the population to outlaw and stigmatize homosexuality.

Jarrod

Memyself... I can clearly see where you're attempting to go with that.

It's completely irrelevant whether he has a family member or not who is gay.  It's not him, it is a very large and international group of the most highly studied scholars of Hebrew and Greek.

The words on this issue that are now printed in English Bibles using the word 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual behavior' have been found to be completely false and intentionally misleading.

Wycliffs, you said this: "Rome and several other cities of Italy suffered from horrible internal rot, largely as a result of their widespread homosexuality."  That is simply ridiculous and utterly false.

Homosexuality flourished and was accepted by the general public for over 1,300 years within the Greek culture, and for almost 900 years of Roman culture, without causing any 'downfall' of civilization as some people today claim will happen if homosexuals are able to get married.

Yet, within a little over 100 years after Christians at the time gained political dominance in Rome ('Christians' who were utterly unlike the loving and peaceful Christians of the first 300 years of Christianity), and had renamed Byzantium as Constantinople, the entire Classical civilization and culture (the birthplace of our own Western Civilization) collapsed... after they had forbade freedom of religion under pain of death, freedom of thought, shut down the Olympics, the theaters, the gymnasiums, and schools of learning. These were the same sort of self-styled 'Christians' who you see today demonizing gay people and attempting to stop them from marrying each other, or being free from their persecution. This is why the Founding Fathers were so wise to separate Church & State.

THE DEATH OF SECULAR SOCIETY:

They basically killed civic culture as it had been. The cities began to decline and fall into ruin. Public libraries were closed or abandoned since the majority of the citizens within 2 generations had lost the ability to read. Knowledge of sculpture, realistically depicted artwork, civil-engineering, and all that a robust and educated civic life engenders, withered and died. After all, you were told the world was going to end at any moment, and you didn't need to know anymore than what the religious authorities told or forced you to believe, let alone worry about 'secular' knowledge or interests.

The ancient world had been a relatively tolerant place in the world of religion. There were occasional bursts of persecution of this or that sect but as a rule many religions existed side by side. The fact that the Christians were persecuted at times, does not excuse what they did upon coming to power.

During the years 342 CE to 395 CE all this changed when Christianity established itself as the only religion in the Roman Empire and launched an all out campaign of religious terror against all other sects.

It was not until the Roman world was forcibly converted, and succumbed to an unforgiving and dictatorship-like form of Christianity (completely unlike the earlier peaceful and loving form of Christianity that had existed for 300 years), that we began to embark upon the Dark Ages.

PERSECUTION OF HOMOSEXUALS BEGINS:

On December 16, 342 AD, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, under advice from their bishops, issued the following edict.. a law specifically outlawing marriages between men, and reads as follows:

"When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men, what does he wish, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be guilty, shall be subjected to exquisite punishment." (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

Christian emperors Theodosius and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390, under the advice of their bishops, issued the following edict.. an edict that would begin an evil persecution towards gay people that would last well over 1,600 years:

"All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind by being burned to death in the public sight of the people." -Codex Theodosius IX. Vii. 6

What follows are quotes from the legal code of the Roman Empire as set forth by the Emperor Theodosius at the request of Christian leaders to crush competing religions. The legal persecution of non-Christian religions by Rome marked the beginning of a wave of religious terror that would remain in place until the eighteenth century.

THE BURNING OF NON-CHRISTIAN BOOKS:

"All writings whatever which Porphyry or anyone else has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, shall be committed to the fire." -- Emperor Theodosius I.

LAW BANNING ALL RELIGIONS OTHER THAN CHRISTIANITY:

"We command that all those proved to be devoting themselves to sacrificing or worshiping images be subject to the penalty of death." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.6

"It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. ... The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.1.2.

EDICTS AGAINST NON-CHRISTIAN WORSHIP:

"No one shall consult a soothsayer, astrologer or diviner. The perverse pronouncements of augurs and seers must fall silent. ... The universal curiosity about divination must be silent forever. Whosoever refuses obedience to this command shall suffer the penalty of death and be laid low by the avenging sword." -- Codex Theodosianus, IX.16.4"The ability and right of making wills shall be taken from those who turn from Christians to pagans, and the testament of such an one, if he made any, shall be abrogated after his death."-- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.7.1.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES:

"It is decreed that in all places and all cities the [pagan] temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes."-- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.10.4.

Thankfully society at large is now freeing itself from these type of self-professed 'Christians', who are full of hatred and condemnation towards anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow view of reality, and who caused the Dark Ages to begin in the first place. Their mind-set is of the same type as those described above. Thankfully as well, more and more 'true' Christians have seen the errors of their ways on this issue and now openly and lovingly welcome gay souls and their loved ones, for the unique way that God created them.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:40:09
Memyself... I can clearly see where you're attempting to go with that.

Good.  I wasn't trying to be sneaky...

I would be highly suspect (obviously) with someone who was attempting to "correct" the Word of God...and I would want to know what the motivations were to do so.  The bible is VERY clear in its warning not to cause a brother or little one to stumble.  And, it is also clear in its warnings to teachers about how they lead those "under" them.

It would break my heart to see so many fall due to an agenda that wasn't as godly as it appeared.  That is how Satan works.  He is the great counterfeiter.

QuoteIt's completely irrelevant whether he has a family member or not who is gay.

I disagree. Its very relevant, because he just may have an agenda.

QuoteIt's not him, it is a very large and international group of the most highly studied scholars of Hebrew and Greek.

The words on this issue that are now printed in English Bibles using the word 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual behavior' have been found to be completely false and intentionally misleading.

If you'll pardon me, I'll just stick with what's been and trust that God knew what He was doing in the translating and preserving of His Holy Word.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 13:38:23
No, I have not 'lost' this discussion.  I realize saying that makes you feel better, so say that while looking in a mirror.. it'll feel even better, I'm sure.

The reality is that I've stated that we simply disagree, listed an enormous amount of detailed direct translations that support what I say, while you have not, and cannot handle that.

no, you haven't.  you've posted enormous amounts of misinformation.  That others here know the scripture better than to just fold and say 'oh my goodness, you must be right!'  probably isn't what you expected.

While you might have a ton of info (from someone else) compiled together,  you obviously don't know Christ - or the simplicity of Him.  While you're  twisting and turning word meanings of a few specific words,  Jesus comes back with just a few that knock what you've posted out of the water.  Simply that - sex outside of marriage is a sin and sex is only not a sin if between 1 man and 1 woman in marriage.   It doesn't matter who or how many go against the word of God,  it doesn't magically then make it the word of God  by majority action.

What you evidently don't realize is that many, many churches/denominations and millions of people that go to them, teach from them, sit in them all across the world don't know Christ.  They aren't Christians - even tho they say they are.   There are dead churches everywhere - not teaching the truth of God's word.  Many of those churches you listed teach what will tickle the ears of its members,  not what God has to say to us.  And millions blindly listen and follow.  Jesus warned about false teachers over and over, as did the apostles.  It is our responsibility to know His word so that we don't fall for the lies and to stand up for the truth.

You might want to go back to where you posted about 'repeated pairs or triads made up of synonyms or near synonyms' and look it up to see what it says.  Or give the 'version' you used.  I've checked a few and don't come up with what you posted.

Then there was this that you posted - 'After all, it had been recognized as 'normal' human behavior for thousands of years at the time Christianity burst onto the scene, and they wouldn't have made many converts if they were going to attack or kill (homosexual) people who the majority at the time found perfectly natural.'

Christianity BURST onto the scene - huh?  Did the balloon of Christianity just appear one day and pop?  I don't think so...

making converts -  maybe you could tell us how 'they'  made converts?  And who 'they' are that were attacking and killing homosexuals people.

Jesus didn't find their activity to be natural.  And He is the one we follow.

Fascinating skeeter.  That said, obviously we'll have to agree to disagree on who is ignoring truth here.

Memyself, if you want to continue believing in a lie because it validates your desire for homosexuality to be a sin, go right ahead.

Aaron--

Can I ask a question? Really consider it. And it is: why are you visiting a Christian Message Board in the first place? Is it because
you are a Christian? Or is it that something is deeply bothering you? Atheists visit Christian boards to argue mainly because the
voice in the back of their head will not go away ("What if there really is a God?").  They will not admit that--but if they TRULY believed
what they claim they wouldn't even bother to visit a Christian board any more.

If I really don't believe something, what is the use in arguing about it? I don't have to argue with anyone about whether the Easter
Bunny exists, because I know he doesn't exist.

I bring this point up because you are coming to a board where you know that 99% of the responses will not line up with your beliefs. So,
then, why are coming to the board? Perhaps it is because God is still convicting you---in the back of your head is the recurring thought
"what if what it says in the Bible really is true? What if homosexuals really will not inherit the Kingdom of God??"

You go to those who believe as you do for "assurance", but something nags at you. You can't let it go. So you must confront those
that have an opposite opinion of yours to "re-assure" yourself that your stand is correct. You need to re-assure yourself that you
are not living in sin. But the problem is, as long as you take that stand you are living in sin, and that nagging doubt is going to stay
with you---and praise God for that!  The Lord doesn't want anyone to perish! He wants you to turn and repent of those things that you
know in your heart of hearts are wrong. As I mentioned before, Jesus loves you very, very much--so much that he died for the very sins
you try to hold on to!  Turn to the Lord----he is filled with great compassion and lovingkindness.

Hi fish,

Yes, it is because I am a Christian, no, I'm not deeply bothered, or in any emotional pain, and because like many other millions of Christians who have discovered the lie they were taught on this issue, I want to share the truth with other Christians so they can be aware as well. It is not important to me if 99% here disagree with me.  I assure you that on other Christian sites, many do.

It's up to you to seek the truth on this, or to blindly follow whatever you've been indoctrinated with, without troubling yourself to find the answer because then you'd have to go outside of your safety-net.

That is between you and God.  But consider this carefully... when you eventually meet God and you find out that someone tried to show you that what you had been taught was a falsehood created by men with prejudice and evil in their hearts, and that such false teachings that you followed caused many people torment, persecution and to even commit suicide, and yet you ignored them...you will have to account for that.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:15:59
Memyself... every family in the world has a gay family relative... whether they're open about it or know about it, is a different story.

Thats just not true.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:58:36
Memyself, if you want to continue believing in a lie because it validates your desire for homosexuality to be a sin, go right ahead.

Its not only a sin its an abomination.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:42:51
Wycliffs, you said this: "Rome and several other cities of Italy suffered from horrible internal rot, largely as a result of their widespread homosexuality."  That is simply ridiculous and utterly false.

Which you refute by... quoting exactly what you said before?   

Chart from wikipedia:

See the point where the population fell off a cliff?  That's where the Goths sacked the city and killed everyone.  See the part before that with the steady decrease?  That's your golden age of the "Empire."  It starts at the point of Augustus legal reforms.  Population clearly decreased during the period in question.

There's more than one reason for that, but homosexuality is one root cause.  During the early days of the empire, the Romans practiced it in a more "Greek fashion" by only involving themselves in p*daresty, and that only with slaves.  When they later became licentious in homosexual practice, the Roman culture declined.  Maybe it's time to quote a history book?

"The biological suicide of the Roman upper classes" [weakened] "the traditions of classical civilization" (McNeil, The Rise of the West, 1991, p. 328).

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:42:51
Yet, within a little over 100 years after Christians at the time gained political dominance in Rome ('Christians' who were utterly unlike the loving and peaceful Christians of the first 300 years of Christianity), and had renamed Byzantium as Constantinople, the entire Classical civilization and culture (the birthplace of our own Western Civilization) collapsed... after they had forbade freedom of religion under pain of death, freedom of thought, shut down the Olympics, the theaters, the gymnasiums, and schools of learning. These were the same sort of self-styled 'Christians' who you see today demonizing gay people and attempting to stop them from marrying each other, or being free from their persecution. This is why the Founding Fathers were so wise to separate Church & State.

THE DEATH OF SECULAR SOCIETY:

They basically killed civic culture as it had been. The cities began to decline and fall into ruin. Public libraries were closed or abandoned since the majority of the citizens within 2 generations had lost the ability to read. Knowledge of sculpture, realistically depicted artwork, civil-engineering, and all that a robust and educated civic life engenders, withered and died. After all, you were told the world was going to end at any moment, and you didn't need to know anymore than what the religious authorities told or forced you to believe, let alone worry about 'secular' knowledge or interests.

The ancient world had been a relatively tolerant place in the world of religion. There were occasional bursts of persecution of this or that sect but as a rule many religions existed side by side. The fact that the Christians were persecuted at times, does not excuse what they did upon coming to power.

During the years 342 CE to 395 CE all this changed when Christianity established itself as the only religion in the Roman Empire and launched an all out campaign of religious terror against all other sects.

It was not until the Roman world was forcibly converted, and succumbed to an unforgiving and dictatorship-like form of Christianity (completely unlike the earlier peaceful and loving form of Christianity that had existed for 300 years), that we began to embark upon the Dark Ages.

There's not much to argue here.  Constantine and his chief henchman Eusebius were bad dudes, and IMO, not really Christians.  Constantine, for instance, was truly an adherent of Sol Invictus, and was not baptized until he was on his deathbed, and that purportedly only by force.  Their "toleration" and institutionalization of Christianity has done more damage to the true practice of Christianity than perhaps any other person in history, with the singular exception of Rabbi Akiva (who precipitated the break between Judaism and Christianity).

Jarrod

choseone... again, not true.  Here is a list of 'abominations', but for some reason, people like you don't seem to ever talk about them:

Leviticus 11:12 – Eating lobster, clams, shrimp, or any kind of shellfish is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:19 – Wearing clothing made two different fibers (such as polyester and cotton) is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:27 – Trimming the edge of your beard or cutting the hair on the side of your head is an abomination.

Proverbs 24:9 – Someone who scoffs at things is an abomination.

Proverbs 11:1, 20:10, 20:23 – False weights are an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:12 - Oppression of others is an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:13 – Lending with interest to a brother is an abomination.

Isaiah 1:13 – Burning incense for the Lord is an abomination.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:10:48
Hi fish,

Yes, it is because I am a Christian, no, I'm not deeply bothered, or in any emotional pain, and because like many other millions of Christians who have discovered the lie they were taught on this issue, I want to share the truth with other Christians so they can be aware as well. It is not important to me if 99% here disagree with me.  I assure you that on other Christian sites, many do.

It's up to you to seek the truth on this, or to blindly follow whatever you've been indoctrinated with, without troubling yourself to find the answer because then you'd have to go outside of your safety-net.

That is between you and God.  But consider this carefully... when you eventually meet God and you find out that someone tried to show you that what you had been taught was a falsehood created by men with prejudice and evil in their hearts, and that such false teachings that you followed caused many people torment, persecution and to even commit suicide, and yet you ignored them...you will have to account for that.

I wasnt indoctrinated at all.  Its all there in Gods word. Clear and simple and concise instructions about what godly marriage is and who is and isnt allowed to have sex. You are the one who is on deep deception and who has convinced themselves
that their sin isnt sin.It happens all the time in Christian circles, this self delusion so that people can carry on sinning .   

Wycliffs, yes... everyone fell of the cliff when the Christians of the time destroyed civic culture and started murdering anyone who disagreed with them.

The barbarians weren't everywhere... it was the destruction of classical civic culture that destroyed the Roman Empire.

The emperor Hadrian was Roman Emperor from 117 to 138 during the Pax Romana, and was one of the greatest emperors in their history at the time their civilization was flourishing.  He also was openly homosexual. Hadrian was regarded by some as a humanist and was philhellene in most of his tastes. He is regarded as one of the Five Good Emperors.

chosenone.. 'God's law' is not a simplistic and false English translation. I'm sorry you cannot look at the original Greek and Hebrew, and see your error.

Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Aaron---

I don't need to "seek the truth" on this subject. I already told you that I, myself, appear in the list of things mentioned in
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 as "evil". But the difference is, I have repented of the drunkenness mentioned there.
You seem to have no problem believing that thieves, murderers, slanderers, drunkards, etc. will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
But you are removing, or attempting to alter the words that refer to homosexuals in that same verse.

Paul is stating very clearly that thieves, murderers, slanderers, drunkards, etc. must repent of their sins and turn to God. In that
same list is homosexuality.

You know, one day the Lord asked: "Fish153, I died on a cross for the sin you are trying to hold on to. I died for that drunkenness
and waste. Are you willing to let go of it and embrace ME instead? Repent, and I will give you victory--I will completely change your
life---I came that you might have life and have it more abundantly".

The Lord set me free from the sin that ruled me (alcoholism)-----and he can set you free also. The question you need to ask is: Who will be God in my life? Jesus or Homosexuality?  You can't serve them both.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 14:08:32
chosenon... nope.  I'm not being hateful.  I shared deep and scholarly information about the original Greek and Hebrew words on this subject, and when it became apparent that I'm not changing my position, and neither are certain others on here, some people apparently cannot do the usual mature thing that is done in these situations and leave it at: "We'll have to agree to disagree."

What you posted has been around for some time. And it's been debunked.  I have it on one of those memory sticks somewhere...  the rebuttal is probably as long as your p1 post.  Don't expect Christians to just abandon the word of God for this misinfo you have - anymore than US mega churches did when activists went thru out the country to them in person a few yrs back. (maybe they're still doing that)

you are calling people here hateful because they don't agree with you.   Well, you don't agree with them/us so why can't someone here call you hateful?  With skin that thin you won't get far here or on other forums.

Remember you are the one who posted here with this misinfo - if you keep posting why would you expect others here not to?  Because you tell them not to?  I don't think that's in the rules...

I'm sorry fish, but the words of Paul in their original Greek have already been gone over in extreme detail, which prove you wrong on this.  I suggest you go back and study them more deeply.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 15:58:36
Memyself, if you want to continue believing in a lie because it validates your desire for homosexuality to be a sin, go right ahead.

Why would I have a desire for it to be a sin?  It has nothing to do with me and what I want.   That's just a ridiculous, baseless, and laughable accusation.  *I* have no agenda.

Quote
Aaron--

Can I ask a question? Really consider it. And it is: why are you visiting a Christian Message Board in the first place? Is it because
you are a Christian? Or is it that something is deeply bothering you? Atheists visit Christian boards to argue mainly because the
voice in the back of their head will not go away ("What if there really is a God?").  They will not admit that--but if they TRULY believed
what they claim they wouldn't even bother to visit a Christian board any more.

If I really don't believe something, what is the use in arguing about it? I don't have to argue with anyone about whether the Easter
Bunny exists, because I know he doesn't exist.

I bring this point up because you are coming to a board where you know that 99% of the responses will not line up with your beliefs. So,
then, why are coming to the board? Perhaps it is because God is still convicting you---in the back of your head is the recurring thought
"what if what it says in the Bible really is true? What if homosexuals really will not inherit the Kingdom of God??"

You go to those who believe as you do for "assurance", but something nags at you. You can't let it go. So you must confront those
that have an opposite opinion of yours to "re-assure" yourself that your stand is correct. You need to re-assure yourself that you
are not living in sin. But the problem is, as long as you take that stand you are living in sin, and that nagging doubt is going to stay
with you---and praise God for that!  The Lord doesn't want anyone to perish! He wants you to turn and repent of those things that you
know in your heart of hearts are wrong. As I mentioned before, Jesus loves you very, very much--so much that he died for the very sins
you try to hold on to!  Turn to the Lord----he is filled with great compassion and lovingkindness.

  Wonderful post, Fish!

Skeeter, 'I' didn't call anyone hateful, another person on here said that to me... please don't make things up.

That said, it is people like you who are getting all bent out of shape because I don't agree with you, not me.

I've already stated repeatedly that I don't care if everyone here disagrees with me.  It's no skin off my back.

I'm not going on other people's posts and attacking them, or trying to forcibly change their minds.

It is 'you' and people like you who are coming onto my post, and who cannot seem to handle that I neither require your agreement, nor care whether you agree with me.

No one's 'forcing' you to read my post, are they?  If you don't like it, go and create your 'own' post saying how 'bad' you think Aaron Lindahl is.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:22:19
choseone... again, not true.  Here is a list of 'abominations', but for some reason, people like you don't seem to ever talk about them:

Leviticus 11:12 – Eating lobster, clams, shrimp, or any kind of shellfish is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:19 – Wearing clothing made two different fibers (such as polyester and cotton) is an abomination.

Leviticus 19:27 – Trimming the edge of your beard or cutting the hair on the side of your head is an abomination.

Proverbs 24:9 – Someone who scoffs at things is an abomination.

Proverbs 11:1, 20:10, 20:23 – False weights are an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:12 - Oppression of others is an abomination.

Ezekiel 18:13 – Lending with interest to a brother is an abomination.

Isaiah 1:13 – Burning incense for the Lord is an abomination.

There are SO many verses that clearly teach what is and isnt right when it comes to marriage and sex. ALL of Pauls teaching on marriage refers to a husband and wife, a man and a  woman. No where in the Bible is marriage or any sexual relationship allowed between 2 men or two women.
It makes me so sad that you and others like you are being so deceived. God wants to heal and restore those who are gay, but until they will repent and admit their sin He cant work.

Hi chosenone,

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

The following is the love story of David and Jonathan, which thousands of Christian congregations and many denominations now use as a model of same-sex love and commitment for two men.

(Since this particular translation had to be as detailed and comprehensive as possible to withstand the disbelief of those who will attempt to deny its truth... it's fairly long... so it's intended only for those who have the comprehension level, interest, or patience, to read it) ('Strong' refers to Strong's lexicon which is used by theologians around the world for accurate Hebrew translations.. 'OT' of course refers to Old Testament, 'NKJV' stands for New King James Version and 'NRSV' refers to New Revised Standard Version')

In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David's beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David "was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh 'ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro'i, #2896, #7210]." (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as "a handsome [to'ar, #8389] person" (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was "a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar'eh, #3303, #4758]" (17:42, NKJV).

Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob ("beautiful, handsome" in both cases), along with to'ar and mar'eh ("[in] figure or shape"). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro'i (#7210, "a ... sight [to behold]) and admoni and 'ayinim, translated as "ruddy" and "eyes" respectively in the NRSV.

Jonathan's intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David's good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, "Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh]." Then (v. 3), "Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul." Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that "Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul." (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan "delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly" in David" (NKJV).

So, in response to three references to David's beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan's love for him – two of them twice using the verb "love" and the third using the related verb "delights [in]." Strong's lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means "to have affection for (sexually or otherwise)," along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of "love" (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, "He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160]." (NRSV)

The Bible records three spiritual unions that Jonathan and David made together. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: "Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: 'as himself,' nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: 'tunic'], and even his sword and his bow and his belt." The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, "the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul" (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of "loved," "bound [to]" (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan's love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself).

Jonathan's intense attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire "giving away [of] one's own self,".. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): "Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.' Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life." (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

20:42 (NRSV) records, "Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, 'The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.'" The repetition of aheb/ahaba ("love/loved") and of nephesh ("as [much as] his own life") in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): "Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord..." the pact made in 23:18 is not merely "a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact" described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and "lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything." The third pact is understood as a "fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship." In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

Just as three times our attention is directed to David's beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan "loved" David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word 'love' in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb ("loved/fallen in love"), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as "Michal had fallen in love with David", or "...fell in love with David" Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take "great delight [kaphes] in David" (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love.

This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob's daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with "was drawn to," v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used in Hebrew to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including "loved" (aheb), "heart" (nephesh) and "delighted [in]" (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of "longs [for]" (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: "bound [to]"), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).

In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David lived together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel's army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul's jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David's life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen.

Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.'" (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king's table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

Although the first part of Saul's insult has usually been translated like "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!" (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, "You son of a slu.!" or "You son of a bi...!" Interestingly, Lucian's version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe ("effeminate man") here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well.

Then, the second part of this insult reads, "Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]..." (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning "to choose."

The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads "...and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]" (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including 'erwa ("nakedness"), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth ("shame"), which is almost always used in a sexual context.

One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully (to his father at least) – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:38:40
Hi chosenone,

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

The following is the love story of David and Jonathan, which thousands of Christian congregations and many denominations now use as a model of same-sex love and commitment for two men.

(Since this particular translation had to be as detailed and comprehensive as possible to withstand the disbelief of those who will attempt to deny its truth... it's fairly long... so it's intended only for those who have the comprehension level, interest, or patience, to read it) ('Strong' refers to Strong's lexicon which is used by theologians around the world for accurate Hebrew translations.. 'OT' of course refers to Old Testament, 'NKJV' stands for New King James Version and 'NRSV' refers to New Revised Standard Version')

In the early material on David (1 Sam 16-17), three times the narrator calls attention to David's beauty – more times in the Bible than in any other case. First, the prophet Samuel notes that David "was ruddy [admoni, Strong #132], and had beautiful eyes [yapheh 'ayinim, #3303, #5869], and was handsome [to behold, tob ro'i, #2896, #7210]." (16:12, NRSV) Then, when a young court servant recommends David to Saul, he describes him (among other things) as "a handsome [to'ar, #8389] person" (16:18, NKJV). Finally, the giant notes that David, his opponent, was "a youth, ruddy [admoni] and good-looking [yapheh mar'eh, #3303, #4758]" (17:42, NKJV).

Here, the common language used throughout the OT to describe beauty is found again, including yapheh and tob ("beautiful, handsome" in both cases), along with to'ar and mar'eh ("[in] figure or shape"). However, new words in the David descriptions include ro'i (#7210, "a ... sight [to behold]) and admoni and 'ayinim, translated as "ruddy" and "eyes" respectively in the NRSV.

Jonathan's intense love and attraction to David: Not surprisingly, after making such an emphasis about David's good looks, the reader begins to find responses to this in the text. For example, in 1 Sam 18:1 we read, "Now when he [David] had finished speaking to Saul, the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was knit to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb, #157] him as his own soul [nephesh]." Then (v. 3), "Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him as his own soul." Later, when the two make a second covenant, we are told (20:17) that "Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he [Jonathan] loved [ahaba, #160] him; for he loved [ahaba, #160] him as he loved [aheb, #157] his own soul." (NKJV, underlining added) In addition to this, we are told in 19:1 that Jonathan "delighted [kaphes, #2654] greatly" in David" (NKJV).

So, in response to three references to David's beauty, there appear three references describing Jonathan's love for him – two of them twice using the verb "love" and the third using the related verb "delights [in]." Strong's lexicon notes that the aheb (#157) means "to have affection for (sexually or otherwise)," along with the related terms oheb (#159) and ahaba (#160), the last a feminine form. The male and female forms of "love" (verb and noun) appear to be used interchangeably in Scripture, e.g. in Song of Songs 2:4-5, the beloved [girl] says, "He [King Solomon] brought me to the banqueting house, and his intention toward me was love [#160]. Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love [#160]." (NRSV)

The Bible records three spiritual unions that Jonathan and David made together. The first covenant was made very shortly after they met. In 1 Sam 18:3-4 (NRSV), we read: "Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul [NIV: 'as himself,' nephesh]. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor [NIV, REB: 'tunic'], and even his sword and his bow and his belt." The preceding verses relate how after David had finished speaking with Saul, "the soul [nephesh] of Jonathan was bound [qashar] to the soul [nephesh] of David, and Jonathan loved [aheb] him as his own soul" (v. 1); and after this, Saul would not let David return home (v. 2). The emphasis here clearly is on the intense love Jonathan felt for David, expressed through the combined and repeated use of "loved," "bound [to]" (this used only once), and nephesh, which indicates the extent of Jonathan's love (as compelling as the love and interest one has toward oneself).

Jonathan's intense attraction to David appears in the narrative like a bolt out of the blue: spontaneous, intense, and earth-shattering for him. He expresses this love then by the giving to David all of the clothes he was wearing and all of the weapons he was carrying, the significance of which represented the entire "giving away [of] one's own self,".. i.e. the giving of his whole heart and self to David.

The second covenant was made near the end of their time together in Gibeah and is recorded in 1 Sam 20:16-17 (NRSV): "Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.' Jonathan made David swear again, by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life." (1 Sam 20:16-17, NRSV)

20:42 (NRSV) records, "Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, 'The Lord will be between me and you, and between my descendents and your descendents, forever.'" The repetition of aheb/ahaba ("love/loved") and of nephesh ("as [much as] his own life") in 20:17 is a very clear emphasis on this pact having strongly homoeroticized elements as well as political elements.

The third covenant was probably made several years later and is noted in 1 Sam 23:18 (NRSV): "Then the two of them made a covenant before the Lord..." the pact made in 23:18 is not merely "a simple extension or re-confirmation of the [earlier] pact" described in 1 Sam 20, for the later pact looks deeper into the future and "lays down the work distribution and relationship which is the center of everything." The third pact is understood as a "fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship." In fact, each of the three pacts, while containing a common core of expressed love and commitment, seems to differ from what was pledged before, and so advances in content and adds detail to their relationship.

Just as three times our attention is directed to David's beauty (16:12,18; 17:42), so also three times we are told that Jonathan "loved" David (18:1,3; 20:17). Even though there are different forms of the word 'love' in Hebrew, the exact same Hebrew word aheb ("loved/fallen in love"), used in 18:1 referring to Jonathan, appears also in 18:20 referring to the princess Michal, where it has been rendered as "Michal had fallen in love with David", or "...fell in love with David" Such a reading is bolstered by 19:1 which relates how Jonathan continued to take "great delight [kaphes] in David" (NRSV), since kaphes almost always appears in OT passages concerned with sexual desire and erotic love.

This interpretation is further bolstered by comparing the Jonathan and David relationship to that of Shechem and Dinah in Gen 34, where the Hevite prince falls madly in love with Jacob's daughter (underexpressed in the Hebrew, as usual, with "was drawn to," v. 3, NRSV). Here we have exactly the same language as appears in 1 Sam 18:1,3 and 19:1, used in Hebrew to describe erotic passion which has led to sexual union – including "loved" (aheb), "heart" (nephesh) and "delighted [in]" (kephes) (34:3,8,19, NRSV), as well as the idea of "longs [for]" (kasaph, v. 8; J. Green: "bound [to]"), although 1 Sam 18:1 uses a different verb for this (qashar).

In 1 Sam 18, Jonathan and David lived together in the capital city a number of months, perhaps up to a year, as David masters the arts of sword and bow (Jonathan at his side), gains real-life experience on the battlefield, and leads Israel's army to many glorious victories (18:16,27,30; 9:8). However, in chs. 19-20 time rapidly speeds up. As Saul's jealousy and rage toward David intensify, he hides his murderous attempts from Jonathan, while David's life becomes one of terror, trying to keep one step ahead of Saul and his henchmen.

Then, at a New Moon festival celebrated at court, Saul asked Jonathan why David was absent; and the prince explained that David had asked leave to join his family for an annual sacrifice in Bethlehem (20:6,27-29). "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth], and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.'" (1 Sam 20:30-31, NRSV). Then the enraged king hurled his spear straight at Jonathan, who jumped and fled in anger from the king's table, realizing, at last, what a dangerous and deadly position David was in related to his father.

Although the first part of Saul's insult has usually been translated like "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!" (18:30a, NRSV, cf. NIV, NRSV), the Hebrew is quite vulgar and would be more accurately rendered as, "You son of a slu.!" or "You son of a bi...!" Interestingly, Lucian's version of the Greek Septuagint adds gunaikotraphe ("effeminate man") here (Driver), an idea which Chrysostom reiterates (ca. 400); so the original Hebrew conveyed something of this element as well.

Then, the second part of this insult reads, "Do I not know that you have chosen [bachar] the son of Jesse to your own shame [bosheth]..." (18:30b, NRSV). Instead of the verb bachar (Strong, #977) in the Hebrew, meaning "to choose."

The importance of the third part of this insult, which reads "...and to the shame [bosheth] of your mother's nakedness ['erwa]" (18:30c, NRSV), cannot be denied. This final phrase is loaded, in fact, with sexual terminology, including 'erwa ("nakedness"), most often used in the OT to refer to the genitals and the repeated bosheth ("shame"), which is almost always used in a sexual context.

One really has to ask, what was Jonathan doing – nakedly, sexually and shamefully (to his father at least) – to receive such an insult as this? In fact, the language throughout 20:30 is so extremely sexually-charged it goes well beyond rationality to believe that we are not meant to interpret it in sexual ways.

For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any.

OH here we go, the old 'David and Johnathon had a gay relationship' nonsense. There is a massive difference between a close friendship with a good mate and a sexual relationship.  No one says we cant have close friends of the same sex as long as its a celibate one. 

Quote from: Aaron Lindahl on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:37:20
I'm not going on other people's posts and attacking them, or trying to forcibly change their minds.

And, no one is trying to forcibly change your mind either...you may feel attacked because people disagree with you, but you aren't.  I have still not been shown were I attacked YOU, but you sure accused me of it. 

QuoteIt is 'you' and people like you who are coming onto my post,

I'm sorry.  Were you not aware that by posting on a message board you would get replies?  Perhaps you would be happier starting your own blog and you could turn off the feature that allow others the freedom to express their opinions about what you write.

QuoteNo one's 'forcing' you to read my post, are they?  If you don't like it, go and create your 'own' post saying how 'bad' you think Aaron Lindahl is.

Oh brother.  More victim mentality.  Sigh. Nobody is saying "how bad Aaron is".  Just your theology.

"For those who will bend over backwards in an attempt to say it was only a 'friendship', I'd like them to share how many well-known examples they can provide of heterosexual male 'friends' who upon meeting each other for the first time, has one making a declaration of love for the other one, making 3 sacred covenants of 'love', devotion and spiritual union with each other over the course of time... disrobing completely and giving their clothes, weapons, and heart to their friend in the form of a covenant... having the father of one friend insult his son in an explicitly sexual manner over their relationship, and while also having one friend state that his love for him "surpasses the love he has for any woman."

By that reasoning... there should be hundreds of similar detailed, explicit, and well-known heterosexual examples readily available for someone to contribute... except, there aren't any."

Quote from: chosenone on Fri Dec 05, 2014 - 16:45:47
OH here we go, the old 'David and Johnathon had a gay relationship' nonsense. There is a massive difference between a close friendship and a sexual relationship as in a marriage type situation. No one says we cant have close friends of the same sex.

its heartbreaking how far this agenda is willing to sink isn't it, Chosen.    God have mercy on them!

memyself.. nope, I'm not a 'victim'... just stating how it is, so 'sigh' away to your heart's content if that makes you feel better.