Jennifer Knapp

[brent]

The bible is very clear on homosexuality.

Yet, if you'd actually done any research on the topic, you'd know that it isn't. From what I've studied, I believe that the Bible says homosexuality is sin. However, the Greek and Hebrew texts are not as clear as most assume.

You are nuts. The bible IS clear. If it isn't you are reading the wrong one or you are just ignorant.

Not all translations are the same, but that is what happens when homosexuals and the United Council of Churches have a say in the process. Of course they will skew things in their favor. They also tried to elevate the female, removing complete scriptural references.

[Shell]

Hmmmm...Those were fightin' words...It'll be interesting to see where this goes...

[p-freak]

I'm sorry, Brent, but this is going too far. Usually I refrain from these kind of debates, cause it's always a yes-no game and we know there are some people around here who will never change their opinion.

You may have your disagreements with gman and su (and I don't always agree with them either), but I think it's totally out of place to call su 'nuts' just because he believes something that doesn't really fit your evangelical worldview. In a discussion like this it would be better to come with detailed arguments than just shouting one-liners. You're promoting intolerance and 'judgmentalism' with an attitude like that.

The longer I've been living in the evangelical world, the more I realise that there's more to Christianity than just the evangelical way. Evangelicalism is just a way of thinking in the protestant church, which is only the latest big branch of the church, younger than eastern orthodoxy and roman catholicism. We're one family with three major branches, each one sprouting new twigs and leaves all the time. Let's not forget that we all grow from the same source. Yes, you may criticize, and every branch has its major faults, but we're still part of the same tree. Just being part of the evangelical sub-branch that likes to have very strong rational opinions, doesn't make your way of thinking the only truth.

(I might even agree with you on the issue of the debate.)

[separateunion]

Not all translations are the same, but that is what happens when homosexuals and the United Council of Churches have a say in the process. Of course they will skew things in their favor. They also tried to elevate the female, removing complete scriptural references.

Have you read the Greek and Hebrew texts? Done any research into them? I have a feeling you haven't, otherwise you would be able to argue something other than calling me nuts.

And you're obviously not understanding what I'm saying. The English text is CLEARER than the Greek and Hebrew. However, since the latter are the original documents, it's NOT as clear as most evangelicals think it is. In fact, most Christians who justify homosexuality go back to the early church debates over homosexuality and the fact that the original texts aren't as clear as modern Christianity thinks they are. This is how they argue in favor of homosexuality. I still disagree with them and side with the tradition established by the early church, since they already had this debate and came out on the side of homosexuality being a sin.

[separateunion]

Relevant.

[Shell]

Good grief, a good percentage of these folks don't seem to think there's anything wrong with this and even seem to be glad about it from what I can tell...Maybe I'm missing something here.

[separateunion]

Good grief, a good percentage of these folks don't seem to think there's anything wrong with this and even seem to be glad about it from what I can tell...Maybe I'm missing something here.

The members of that forum tend to be a bit more liberal, but the part that's relevant to where this discussion is gone is closer to the end of the thread. Look for posts by a guy named Ragamuffin.

[separateunion]

Start on page 8 with this post by Cockroach:

The Greek underlying the verses that seem to speak most clearly about homosexuality is not particularly clear. While the abundance of evidence makes it very unlikely that the Church's traditional position is wrong it should be recognized that "it's very clear" normally stems from someone reading an English translation in which the difficulty of the Greek has been removed through the imposition of the translator's viewpoint to clarify things. Those who disagree with the traditional position are almost certainly wrong - but they probably also know more about the debate than the majority of those who oppose them, and we should be careful not to feed the stereotype that a bit of reading comprehension would convert everyone to "open and accepting" by making statements about the clarity of unclear issues.

[brent]

Have you read the Greek and Hebrew texts?

Nothing personal folks. I was worried more about getting flack from using the word "ignorant".

First of all, we don't have pure Greek texts. The originals were more like a Yiddish, a combination of the working man's Greek adapted by Hebrew speaking people. You have to use a lexicon. I do not know Hebrew first hand. I have a few Jewish and Messianic Jewish friends that know it as well as anyone can in the 21st century. I use the English translations they use when talking to English only people. Both of these people agree (mostly) upon the same OT, but obviously differ on the NT completely. Duh. I do also have lexicons and concordances, but concordances are sometimes wrong because they do not consider the cultural context in many cases.

Even if the bible was not as clear as it is, we still have:
1. the name of God and see the importance of it, how man and woman together form the name, thus describing God.
2. the framework of creation, the ordination of marriage, the definition of marriage, etc.
3. the function of nookie in marriage only, not with the same gender, not with the beasts of the field. We are to be fruitful and multiply.
4. the documentation that nookie out of marriage brings pain, suffering mentally, physically, politically, spiritually.
5. we see Sodom and Gamorrah destroyed because of homosexuality and failure to stop and accept God. People have spun this to be because of rape or rebellion alone, but that is not what the bible says. Josephus even documents that the city was known for it's homosexuality and that was why people knew it to be destroyed then. Who would know better, people who lived around it then, or someone reading a book now?
6. we see many places in scripture where the man is supposed to be the man and the woman is to be the woman in form and function.

The more I hear of people studying words to death the more I hear that they are missing the spirit and the message of the text. We will likely not have a word for word translation into English...ever. English is too crude and ever changing. But we can grasp the thought for thought message.

How much thought will it take for people to see that anything beyond the husband and wife is wrong, a perversion of the framework established from the beginning? Jesus is the groom and the church is the groom? No. The bride. Come on people. How much do you REALLY want to dilute the scripture until it has lost it's message?

If homosexual nookie was meant to be, God would have made sex organs to accommodate. If it was meant to be, it would not be dangerous, resulting in all kinds of cancers, lesions, sores, infections, HIV and AIDS. How loudly simple does it have to be? If it were normal, people that dabble in it would not have to feel guilty or shameful the first go round. They would not have a conscience that tells them it is wrong.

The bible does NOT reference homosexuality as a state of another cross gender, inclination, etc. It only forbids the act known in the the Torah as mishkav zakhar. Because the bible only addresses the action, we can determine that those actions, like all other sinful actions, have a biochemical and spiritual affect that is passed down through the bloodline.

I don't have all the answers "why". All I have is a text from God saying "DON'T". That's all I need. I don't know why I LOVE huge knockers. But I do. I have a text that says do not lust, do not take another man's wife, do not take anyone outside of marriage, etc. Nowhere in scripture does it say, "Do not gaze upon bountiful hooters." But I have the spirit of the message, the thought, relayed to me so that I get the point. We don't have to have every situation spelled out for us. Doing whatever we want and rationalizing it because our version of the bible is not specific is actually like teenage rebellion, which the bible says is akin to witchcraft.

[brent]

Good grief, a good percentage of these folks don't seem to think there's anything wrong with this and even seem to be glad about it from what I can tell...Maybe I'm missing something here.

The members of that forum tend to be a bit more liberal, but the part that's relevant to where this discussion is gone is closer to the end of the thread. Look for posts by a guy named Ragamuffin.

Any guy named Ragamuffin is linking himself to the endorsement of the Ragamuffin gospel, which is heresy and a perversion. So, how fitting that a lover of one perversion would be so willing to give way to another.

If you had research you had done, I would read it. I do not read what others copy or link to. I have no way of knowing what you know or seeing what your thought process. Without that, there is no place to start dialogging.

[separateunion]

Any guy named Ragamuffin is linking himself to the endorsement of the Ragamuffin gospel, which is heresy and a perversion. So, how fitting that a lover of one perversion would be so willing to give way to another.

Of course, I disagree with your assertion of Catholicism since you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Aside from that, disregarding what someone says because of their screen name is pretty ignorant.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that Ragamuffin is a Protestant (not a Catholic) and he would agree with what I've said about homosexuality, that being that the original texts are not as clear as modern Christians assume, but homosexuality is still a sin nonetheless.

If you had research you had done, I would read it. I do not read what others copy or link to. I have no way of knowing what you know or seeing what your thought process. Without that, there is no place to start dialogging.

There's no point in "dialogging" with you. You are close minded and the least objective member of this board. Even if I felt like it was worth spending time putting together the research to try to convince people on a message board, you've made it clear many times that you will fall back on your flawed, modern teaching and immediately brand anything that disagrees with it as "nutty" or "perversion". Of course, modern evangelicism has done plenty to pervert the gospel on it's own. I'll generally side with the church fathers over a version of Biblical theology that's only been around for 50 years.

[brent]

Any guy named Ragamuffin is linking himself to the endorsement of the Ragamuffin gospel, which is heresy and a perversion. So, how fitting that a lover of one perversion would be so willing to give way to another.

Of course, I disagree with your assertion of Catholicism since you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Aside from that, disregarding what someone says because of their screen name is pretty ignorant.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that Ragamuffin is a Protestant (not a Catholic) and he would agree with what I've said about homosexuality, that being that the original texts are not as clear as modern Christians assume, but homosexuality is still a sin nonetheless.

One thing at a time. Again, I DO know about Catholicism, and you cannot prove that what I know is wrong, because my studies come from the Catholics themselves. If you want me to post specific references I will certainly do so. If you do not agree with those Catholic references, then you are not disagreeing with me, but your own church's doctrines. In addition to finding out for myself, I have searched out and read the literary works of former nuns and priests who have accepted Christ for the first time and became true Christians outside of the church. They renounced the heresy of their past. You too should read these books. They know things most people don't because they were on the inside. If you think that the average joe knows the truth behind any organization you are wrong. It is not until you are one of the leasers behind the scenes that your eyes are opened. That was certainly true for me in business and in ministry, working for some of the big names you see on TV.

The Ragamuffin book was written by a new-age Charismatic Franciscan. Come on. Read about Manning yourself. He has admitted to the press that he is an unreliable source, lying about his past, his past rescue missions during Katrina, etc. He is a substance abuser and wrester of scripture. His book is not a Catholic book. I did not ever say that it was. Most Catholics would not agree with it I suppose. Why? He has added the new-age and spiritualism bs to it. Not even the Catholics would agree with that. Have you read the book? Can you prove it is correct? There is more proof that it is wrong. There is a bunch of word play going on.

Ok then. Thank you for the compliment. I am the least objective member concerning a discussion about sin and whether the sin of men "knowing" men and women "knowing" women is biblical. I have already given you more bible than what you have given. God never said to do it. He calls it an abomination. He calls it perverse. He calls it sin. What else do you need? Are you or someone you know a homosexual and in need of justification to feel better about yourself? What is the driving force behind your willingness to ignore the obvious and not see the big picture? Why do you require more elaboration from God. I think God answered loud and clear with HIV/AIDS did he not?

If you think your Catholic church fathers were right (and there were huge fights when they were deciding who was right and what the bible should and should not say) because their doctrine has been written for 50 years (which it hasn't, it has been much longer than that) then you should find another reason to believe. Satan has had his version of the truth since he was in heaven. It doesn't mean it's right. I know what you meant but time is irrelevant.

[separateunion]

One thing at a time. Again, I DO know about Catholicism, and you cannot prove that what I know is wrong, because my studies come from the Catholics themselves. If you want me to post specific references I will certainly do so. If you do not agree with those Catholic references, then you are not disagreeing with me, but your own church's doctrines. In addition to finding out for myself, I have searched out and read the literary works of former nuns and priests who have accepted Christ for the first time and became true Christians outside of the church. They renounced the heresy of their past. You too should read these books. They know things most people don't because they were on the inside. If you think that the average joe knows the truth behind any organization you are wrong. It is not until you are one of the leasers behind the scenes that your eyes are opened. That was certainly true for me in business and in ministry, working for some of the big names you see on TV.

1) I'm not a Catholic, so it's not my church. You're obviously not reading what I'm writing, because this is about the third time in the last week that you have made an assumption about me that I have clearly said the opposite about.
2) I have enough Catholic friends to know that what YOU believe is their doctrine is incorrect. Protestants have perverted Catholic doctrine to be what it is not. Now, I do not agree with all of Catholic doctrine and could never be one, but they certainly do not believe that the Pope is infallible or that works lead to salvation. Anyone who thinks that is obviously not well acquainted with what Catholics believe.
3) How many Christians have converted to another religion and stated that Christianity is full of falsehoods? I'd be willing to wager a good deal. Does that make them right? No.

The Ragamuffin book was written by a new-age Charismatic Franciscan. Come on. Read about Manning yourself. He has admitted to the press that he is an unreliable source, lying about his past, his past rescue missions during Katrina, etc. He is a substance abuser and wrester of scripture. His book is not a Catholic book. I did not ever say that it was. Most Catholics would not agree with it I suppose. Why? He has added the new-age and spiritualism bs to it. Not even the Catholics would agree with that. Have you read the book? Can you prove it is correct? There is more proof that it is wrong. There is a bunch of word play going on.

I have not read the book, but your complete misunderstanding of Catholicism is enough to make me doubt what you say. Even if it isn't a great book, so what? Does that make anything Mullins, or even a poster on a message board, say moot? Of course not. You're just looking for an excuse to not have to listen to what someone else says.

Ok then. Thank you for the compliment. I am the least objective member concerning a discussion about sin and whether the sin of men "knowing" men and women "knowing" women is biblical. I have already given you more bible than what you have given. God never said to do it. He calls it an abomination. He calls it perverse. He calls it sin. What else do you need? Are you or someone you know a homosexual and in need of justification to feel better about yourself? What is the driving force behind your willingness to ignore the obvious and not see the big picture? Why do you require more elaboration from God. I think God answered loud and clear with HIV/AIDS did he not?

Again, proof that you don't actually read what I write. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe that the Bible is as clear on the matter as modern Christians think it is. The Greek and Hebrew texts attest to this. The fact that the early church was unsure on the subject and had to debate about the issue of homosexuality as a sin further proves my point. I think that anyone who tries to justify their homosexuality using the original text is still wrong, but they've done more research than 99% of Christians who debate the topic.

If you think your Catholic church fathers were right (and there were huge fights when they were deciding who was right and what the bible should and should not say) because their doctrine has been written for 50 years (which it hasn't, it has been much longer than that) then you should find another reason to believe. Satan has had his version of the truth since he was in heaven. It doesn't mean it's right. I know what you meant but time is irrelevant.

One more time. I'm not a Catholic. How about you actually read what I write.

[Shell]

Okay, I get the point of that story-But he should have been told, "No, you won't go to hell if you repent and turn to God...And we all have things we need to repent of." That would have been the right answer. We shouldn't hate, we should make it clear God loves them, but we shouldn't let them think homosexuality is acceptable. It's not enough just to say homosexuality is wrong; it needs to be taken to the next step where they are told they can repent and turn from that lifestyle. The right way to deal with sin is to see it for what it is, repent and turn from it, and the church too often doesn't deal with sin correctly. Churches too often either condemn the person completely so that they don't believe anyone (including God) cares or ignore it and don't deal with it. Neither extreme is good.

[brent]

For the record, the Roman Catholic stance on salvation is and has been Jesus + the Catholic church alone = salvation. This is not scriptural. Anyone that does not hold to this doctrine is an anathema (cursed). Your friends may not be Roman Catholics. The prodestant church has not got this wrong by and large. We point to the reformation and the author who WAS a Catholic. We point to the sale of salvation, the doctrine of purgatory, buying people out of purgatory, etc, etc. We point to the fact that they consider the pope to be God on earth.

Edit:
I just asked a friend who is a devout Catholic and he acknowledged what I said as true and added:

Salvation is a process.
We come to God through the sacraments.
God gives us grace as we obey him.
Works are integral to justification.

They have a jacked up view of sanctification, justification and salvation.