Please Explain: "Gay Christian"

[sojourner]

I don't know where your getting your definitions, but I see nothing of a "hammered out dome", even though the atmosphere (the first heaven) is indeed dome shaped.

Perhaps you could share you faulty resources with me, so I can inspect it for myself. You telling me what the ancients thought is meaningless if you don't show anything to back up what you say.

You somehow managed to slip out of answering all my examples.
With regard to the term raqiya, my information comes from graduate lectures in the creation myths by a published scholar who speaks Hebrew fluently.

Now... would like to address my points with some real argument? I'll even throw in another one for you:

There is absolutely nothing in the archaeological record to show a large group of Canaanites living in Egypt. Nor is there anything in the record to show an influx of a large group of foreigners into the indigenous culture of Canaan (as in the march into the Promised Land). Nothing. It didn't happen. The bible is factually WRONG on this point.

 

[Sonofason]

You somehow managed to slip out of answering all my examples.
With regard to the term raqiya, my information comes from graduate lectures in the creation myths by a published scholar who speaks Hebrew fluently.

Now... would like to address my points with some real argument? I'll even throw in another one for you:

There is absolutely nothing in the archaeological record to show a large group of Canaanites living in Egypt. Nor is there anything in the record to show an influx of a large group of foreigners into the indigenous culture of Canaan (as in the march into the Promised Land). Nothing. It didn't happen. The bible is factually WRONG on this point.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[Sonofason]

You somehow managed to slip out of answering all my examples.
With regard to the term raqiya, my information comes from graduate lectures in the creation myths by a published scholar who speaks Hebrew fluently.

Now... would like to address my points with some real argument? I'll even throw in another one for you:

There is absolutely nothing in the archaeological record to show a large group of Canaanites living in Egypt. Nor is there anything in the record to show an influx of a large group of foreigners into the indigenous culture of Canaan (as in the march into the Promised Land). Nothing. It didn't happen. The bible is factually WRONG on this point.

If you are going to make references to verses of the Bible you would like me to support, please show the name of the book, the chapter, and the verse you are trying to refute.

"Archaeologists have found that the walls of Jericho did indeed fall down, they date the destruction of the wall to the time of Joshua (c. 1400 BC).
- The first major excavation of Jericho was carried out by a German team between 1907 and 1909. They found piles of mud bricks at the base of the mound the city was built on.
- It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall, which had collapsed when the city was destroyed.
- The Bible says that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists have found evidence of a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible states. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report:"
Canaan Conquest in Biblical Archeology

 

[Ingledsva]

If you are going to make references to verses of the Bible you would like me to support, please show the name of the book, the chapter, and the verse you are trying to refute.

"Archaeologists have found that the walls of Jericho did indeed fall down, they date the destruction of the wall to the time of Joshua (c. 1400 BC).
- The first major excavation of Jericho was carried out by a German team between 1907 and 1909. They found piles of mud bricks at the base of the mound the city was built on.
- It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall, which had collapsed when the city was destroyed.
- The Bible says that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists have found evidence of a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible states. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report:"
Canaan Conquest in Biblical Archeology

There is a big problem with Christian Archaeologists looking for proof - and slapping Biblical names on anything that "appears" to comes close.


They later found the dates were WRONG, and this city had no fortifications "to knock down" when the Jericho story took place.



*

 

[Sonofason]

There is a big problem with Christian Archaeologists looking for proof - and slapping Biblical names on anything that "appears" to comes close.


They later found the dates were WRONG, and this city had no fortifications "to knock down" when the Jericho story took place.



*

And there is a bigger problem with atheist Archaeologists looking for a lack of proof, and slapping non-Biblical names on anything that "appears" to come close.

Why do you not cite your sources? At this point I'll just consider what you just said to be your own personal opinion, which is not really relevant to this conversation.

 

[Ingledsva]

And there is a bigger problem with atheist Archaeologists looking for a lack of proof, and slapping non-Biblical names on anything that "appears" to come close.

Why do you not cite your sources? At this point I'll just consider what you just said to be your own personal opinion, which is not really relevant to this conversation.

LOL! They did not fully understand the complexities of the Middle Bronze fortification system. Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site in the 1950’s and clarified,the nature of the revetment wall, and showed that the original dates were wrong.

Watzinger concluded that Jericho was unoccupied (and therefore obviously unfortified) during the Late Bronze period (c. 1550–1200 B.C.E.), the time when the Israelites first appeared in Canaan.


Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein too states - "Jericho had no trace of settlement during the thirteenth century B.C.E., and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century B.C.E., was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified."


*

 

[dgirl1986]

No, we really can't. The ancients thought that men were attracted to women and women were attracted to men. Therefore, when there was a same-sex attraction, something MUST be terribly wrong. It's why homosexual preference wasn't removed from the DSM until version IV in the 1990s.

Homosexuality appeared in ancient greece and greek mythology

 

[Sonofason]

LOL! They did not fully understand the complexities of the Middle Bronze fortification system. Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site in the 1950’s and clarified,the nature of the revetment wall, and showed that the original dates were wrong.

Watzinger concluded that Jericho was unoccupied (and therefore obviously unfortified) during the Late Bronze period (c. 1550–1200 B.C.E.), the time when the Israelites first appeared in Canaan.


Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein too states - "Jericho had no trace of settlement during the thirteenth century B.C.E., and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century B.C.E., was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified."


*

You telling me that Kathleen Kenyon showed that the original dates were wrong isn't showing me that the original dates were wrong. You'll have to do better then that.

I'm not saying you are absolutely wrong, but I so far see no reason to believe you whatsoever.

I see statements, but I see no proofs.

 

[McNap]

No, we really can't. The ancients thought that men were attracted to women and women were attracted to men. Therefore, when there was a same-sex attraction, something MUST be terribly wrong. It's why homosexual preference wasn't removed from the DSM until version IV in the 1990s.

So you're suggesting there weren't any homosexuals at all in the ancient times and that different sexual orientations evolved only later?

In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is clearly talking about men changing their nature. He sure is not talking about men who inherited a so called homosexual orientation. Neither is he talking about men transmitting homosexual behaviour on their children. I think he knew the difference between hetero and homosexual preference, since he's talking about men leaving (giving up) the natural use (function) of the woman.
Another translation says: They stopped wanting to have sex with women.
He was just writing about heterosexual heretics.
Gay boys, as we know them at the present time, don't ever want to have sex with women, so in the case of a gay boy there is no matter of stop wanting to have sex with women.
Paul wasn't writing about gay people, but he did write it so that even gay people would understand how horrible those heretics are.
In fact a heretic is a hetero who decides to become homo. They act as if sexual orientation is a choice. They are very dangerous.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I am gay, I am atheist, but I grew up in a "devout Christian home".

I understand that behavior is a choice; so I certainly understand that a celibate gay can be a Christian.

What I do not understand is the idea that a gay who is engaging in same sex relationships could, or would, identify themselves as Christian. It is a paradox to me.

We are well aware of the scriptures used to condemn homosexuality. The Old Testament, of course, condemned it. In the New Testament, Paul the Apostle called it "unnatural", made references towards homosexuality in the destruction of Sodom, and made it quite clear that "blah blah blah blah would not inherit the kingdom of Heaven", with homosexuality being on that list of blah blah blahs.

So: Gay Christians, specifically (it feels odd to type that; I feel like I'm typing an oxy moron), with the tenets of Christianity apparently so condemning of homosexuality, why do you find yourself drawn to it and how to you reconcile the apparent Christian doctrines that condemns us for what we are?

There are two camps on this issue. There are those that adhere to liberal theology (tend to be more pro-gay) and those that adhere to conservative theology. Both camps have their own approach as to how the Bible should be understood or interpreted. The best advice I can give you is to look at arguments from BOTH camps and look for logic and consistency, and then make your own conclusion. If you believe that God actually exists then praying about it wouldn't hurt. But if God doesn't exist or you're not sure, then why do you need such a useless book (in terms of moral instruction - or as useful as any other myth story) to validate your lifestyle? I would personally start with seeing if God exists to begin with, then I'd want to know which one, in which religion if religion applies, etc, etc, etc.

 

[sojourner]

Chapter and verse please.

I gave you the examples. You know so much more than Goat Herder Scholastics -- YOU look 'em up! I'm not going to do your grunt work.

 

[sojourner]

If you are going to make references to verses of the Bible you would like me to support, please show the name of the book, the chapter, and the verse you are trying to refute.

"Archaeologists have found that the walls of Jericho did indeed fall down, they date the destruction of the wall to the time of Joshua (c. 1400 BC).
- The first major excavation of Jericho was carried out by a German team between 1907 and 1909. They found piles of mud bricks at the base of the mound the city was built on.
- It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall, which had collapsed when the city was destroyed.
- The Bible says that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists have found evidence of a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible states. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report:"
Canaan Conquest in Biblical Archeology

Jeez, man! The Israelites in Egypt and the entrance into Canaan! The whole of Exodus and proceeding through Joshua, man! There is no archaeological evidence of Canaanites in Egypt, or of any major influx of a foreign invasion of Canaan.

 

[sojourner]

Homosexuality appeared in ancient greece and greek mythology

But not as an orientation.

 

[sojourner]

So you're suggesting there weren't any homosexuals at all in the ancient times and that different sexual orientations evolved only later?

No. I'm saying that they didn't understand homosexuality as an orientation. They understood it as willful turning away from natural desires. People were not viewed as "either heterosexual or homosexual." There simply was no definition like that. They viewed people as simply "sexual," and they either expressed that sexuality "naturally" or "unnaturally."

 

[Sonofason]

Jeez, man! The Israelites in Egypt and the entrance into Canaan! The whole of Exodus and proceeding through Joshua, man! There is no archaeological evidence of Canaanites in Egypt, or of any major influx of a foreign invasion of Canaan.

Please explain what Canaanites in Egypt has to do with the Israelites treading down the walls of Jericho? Please present your evidence, something, anything.

 

[sojourner]

Please explain what Canaanites in Egypt has to do with the Israelites treading down the walls of Jericho? Please present your evidence, something, anything.

I wasn't talking about Jericho. I was talking about the Israelites in Egypt. You were the one who dreamed up Jericho out of whole cloth. Jericho has nothing to do with my providing examples of stuff that the bible got wrong. Please try to keep up.

 

[Sonofason]

I wasn't talking about Jericho. I was talking about the Israelites in Egypt. You were the one who dreamed up Jericho out of whole cloth. Jericho has nothing to do with my providing examples of stuff that the bible got wrong. Please try to keep up.

No, you said "Canaanites in Egypt!", but that's okay. Go back and edit your post to make it say what ever it is you wanted it to say, and then post what ever it is you are actually requesting here.

 

[sojourner]

No, you said "Canaanites in Egypt!", but that's okay. Go back and edit your post to make it say what ever it is you wanted it to say, and then post what ever it is you are actually requesting here.

Don't try misdirection. It won't work. The Israelites were, historically, Canaanites. They supposedly came from Canaan to Egypt. But there is nothing in the archaeological record that shows they were ever there in large numbers. There is also nothing in the archaeological record to show that there was a large influx of people into Canaan (when the Israelites supposedly came marching home to the Promised Land). In other words, it didn't happen. The bible is historically wrong on this point.

 

[Ingledsva]

You telling me that Kathleen Kenyon showed that the original dates were wrong isn't showing me that the original dates were wrong. You'll have to do better then that.

I'm not saying you are absolutely wrong, but I so far see no reason to believe you whatsoever.

I see statements, but I see no proofs.

LOL! It is hilarious how you keep saying that when you don't like the answers.


Look it up outside "religious" archaeologists' work!


- ALL - work done since the original - including recent work with up to date equipment. - prove the original dating was WRONG!


Wood and Piotr Bienkowski debated this in the March/April 1990 issue of Biblical Archaeological Review.


"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 BC). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected."



*

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No, we really can't. The ancients thought that men were attracted to women and women were attracted to men. Therefore, when there was a same-sex attraction, something MUST be terribly wrong. It's why homosexual preference wasn't removed from the DSM until version IV in the 1990s.

Even if your reasoning was correct (ancients didn't know about sexual "orientation), I still see it falling short or being too simplistic to explaining same-sex acts. If the Jews banned MALE same-sex acts because they presumed that all men were attracted to women and women to man, then why didn't they also ban FEMALE same-sex acts? So gay or bi women could fulfill their sexual desires but gay men can't? This is unreasonable. Seems the Jews were more concerned about the penis which leads me to my next point.

I'm going to borrow from the argument from the design here and say that the Jews looked at sex as serving a purpose - with the male and female genitalia as being a design ( a complimentary one at that) to fulfill that purpose - to procreate or as God said "to MULTIPLY". Remember there was no birth control back then so sexual intercourse was an act where pregnancy would be expected compared to today's recreational use of sex. I believe this is also a likely interpretation if this is what the term "one flesh" refers to in relation to marriage.