Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

-sigh- It is sad that I feel I even have to clarify this, but given the intensity of Delight's apparent hatred of me, that last post was purely sarcastic.

I do not believe I am a duplicate Christ. I do not believe I am Christ, either. I do not believe I am a prophet or anything more than another Christian. I don't do wonders, miracles, or anything of the sort, and I do not deceive or teach falsely. I sin and repent, just like all other Christians, am saved, and believe in and serve the Trinity.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

See what I mean? Now I am a duplicate Christ.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Bryan90 - I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd prefer it if you did not call me a prophet. I am simply a human being who reads one part of Scripture a bit differently.

Normally, I'd just wave it off, but Delight and Steiner seem intent on making me into a false teacher or into Satan or something. Since they do not believe what you believe, you're the same as a pagan to them, and they'll just say, "Look - jh is a false teacher because a pagan is calling him a prophet." Delight already tried this on me using another person on here named Mike.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight - "Provoked? Why are you feeling provoked?"

Constantly belittling what I say or twisting it, putting my words in my mouth, making assumptions about my thoughts or motivations, saying that I don't have any Christian friends (which is not what I said - I said I could always use more), asking if my family is rolling over in their graves (thank you for assuming that they are dead and that there have been no recent deaths in the family)... Insults and provocation.

Maybe you do not understand what provocation is, but you should be able to realize that you are being the opposite of Christlike. You tear down people and you seem to "delight" in doing so, happily quoting Scripture for your own perverse justification rather than quoting Scripture for godly purposes. It is sickening.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight - For all your claims of Christianity, all your attempts to provoke and insult are not very Christlike. You seem to enjoy it, even. It is beyond sad.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer - "the baby in this case being God's original and only design for marriage."

I understand what you're saying. My only disagreement is the "and only" part. I don't see the language in those verses to support that limitation.

Delight - I have nothing new for you. Every question you've asked of me can be answered by looking at my past posts. If you have something new to ask, go look through my posts. If you can't find the answer, read through them again (I'm sorry if you have to do a little bit of work and actually read for a change). If you still can't find the answer, then go ahead and ask.

I am not a false teacher, and labeling people as such when you happen to disagree with them on anything is about as self-righteous as you can get. You are a hypocrite who values being right over being Scriptural.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight - By the way, I thought I should point out that Matthew 7:2 ALSO supports what I've said about sin and judgment being subjective:

"and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"

If you believe picking your nose is a sin and you judge others for picking their noses, then you'll be judged for picking your nose.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight -
"It is talking fully outright judging not merely verbally speaking"
"We haven't judged anyone until we carry out a penalty for the accused,"

I don't see anything in Matthew 7:1-6 about judging requiring penalties in order to be "judging" unless you're somehow interpreting the word "measure" as a penalty rather than actual measures (standards or rules used to judge). If I judge a height of something to be 2 feet tall using a measuring tape, I'm making a determination that has no penalty. Judges do not carry out the penalties - they say what the penalty should be. Condemning others is judging - plain and simple.

"what does a judge in a court of law do?"

I thought it was amusing that you talk down to my use of outside references when they don't fit your views, but you're more than happy to use them or quote other people using them otherwise.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight - "I have every right to do just that and expose false teaching!"

I agreed with steiner on that - that we can judge those in the church, and not those outside the church. As far as false teaching goes, that's your interpretation. I have supported every single one of my beliefs with Scripture. A false teacher would eventually get caught up in contradictions that he/she would be unable to resolve. I have pointed out more than a few times that you are ignoring Scripture that contradicts what you say.

"The Christians you have put off..."

I see, so 5 people disagree with me, and that must make me wrong? Is that the kind of criteria you use for believing in doctrine - if enough people agree with an idea, it's right? Think about how ridiculous that is. I could easily go out and invite 100 people who believe the same thing to come onto this forum and support what I say and you would be outnumbered 5 to 100. But I don't, because numbers do not make ANY idea any MORE or any LESS Scriptural.

"You put a call out to Bryan and Matucon to get into a doctrinal discussion with them."

A discussion that has nothing to do with homosexuality, and I don't recall you disagreeing with what I posted to them, so why are you bringing them up?

"You also requested early on to personally e-mail people on these posts."

Yes, because there were enough tangents going on that it was becoming hard to read and respond (I notice you happily ignored that I also suggested a different type of PUBLIC forum that better suited multiple simultaneous discussions.). Yet, I'm still here...

"No doubt to correct us..."

Thank you for assuming that you know my every thought and my every motivation.

"There is no context of idolatry only in Romans 1 but unbelief overall,"

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They didn't believe in God - they believed in a false idol. Paul did not call the worshippers homosexuals, he talked about the homosexual acts. The worshippers worshipped a fertility goddess/god and their homosexual acts were done for the purpose of idol worship. You are taking a very clear example and obfuscating it for your purposes.

"Remember Lev 18 and 1Cor 6:9?"

You mean 1 Corinthians 6:9 as in the one that doesn't really condemn homosexuality, but you insist on using it because you feel like the NIV translation is more accurate than the original text? And the verse from a list of laws that you apparently feel okay with disobeying some of? I have gone into detail on each of these verses and you have nothing to say except repeat your original belief.

"How you can separate homosexuality as something God approves of, NOW that's something!"

Because of what Jesus defines as sin.

"but insist on your own context,"

I have explained my beliefs in detail. You have not bothered to explain yours - you simply repeat your mantra over and over again, as if repetition will be a substitute for the gaps.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

steiner - "Do you not judge those who are within the church?"

Yes, you do, but you are passing judgment on those outside of the church. You are implying that because YOU believe something to be a sin, that another person cannot completely repent and become a Christian in the church unless they conform to what YOU believe. That is passing judgment on those outside the church.

You do not seem to be talking about judging those within the church already.

If you want to judge ME for something, that's fine. My beliefs are solidly found throughout all of Scripture, not just on pieces of it.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

steiner - "I am not aware of any scripture that mentions that Jesus did not uphold the law regarding unclean foods."

Actually, I referenced scripture in my previous post where Jesus declared that no food was unclean. The Pharisees were talking about unwashed hands, but Jesus expanded it into "no food is unclean." That's a pretty direct contradiction to the unclean foods mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:3-21.

Jesus also broke the 4th commandment by "working" on the Sabbath (which the Pharisees were also quick to point out in order to try to judge him).

"...they arrogantly thought that they were free to continue sinning..."

You misjudge what I am saying. I am not advocating for the practice of sin.

I have repeatedly said that while I believe you CAN -technically- continue sinning afterwards, it doesn't really reflect true repentance, which is a requirement for understanding and accepting the gift of salvation. True repentance requires a change of heart. If someone is buying into the "cheap grace" salvation that believer has mentioned a few times before, then they're probably not really repenting. Just like sin comes from the heart, true repentance also has to come from the heart, because it is about changing your attitude and choosing NOT to sin. Yes, we can fall back into sin, but ultimately, someone who has truly repented will try to correct their ways.

Again, I am not advocating the practice of sin, nor am I saying that sin does not exist (I have said repeatedly that it does, which you and Delight both seem to glaze over). What I -am- talking about is the definition of sin, and whether or not homosexuality falls into that category.

I do not feel that there is Scriptural support for a global condemnation of homosexuality - there is only traditional belief. You seem to be searching for Scripture that supports your traditional belief while ignoring all of Scripture that contradicts your belief. I have pointed out several Scriptures that do contradict your belief, and you ignore them. So far, I have had no problems defending what I believe. You seem to be unable to defend against what I am pointing out, and instead try to attack my belief. At some point, hopefully you realize that my belief is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, because there is no single piece of Scripture that has not agreed with what I have said already.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 1:
Delight - "I think I was right on the very first post I wrote to you...'you do not know the Author'."

Attacking my relationship with God does not make your belief any stronger.

"that all the Christians here vehemently oppose you"

All the Christians as in steiner and yourself? There are some that disagree with me, but you and steiner are the only ones that "vehemently opposing" me, and both of you do not seem to be able to defend your beliefs very well, and instead of thinking about all the other Scripture I point out, you choose to attack me instead.

"You don't know what sin is"

Like I said, I'm quoting Jesus and Paul in my definitions. You're choosing to ignore them.

"attempting to build a case against God and His people"

I am not building a case against Christians, MUCH less God. Why would I build a case against the One that I serve? Talk about nonsensical! :)

No, I am building a case against a specific, traditional, NON-SCRIPTURAL idea that you insist on defending. If you feel like you can judge the whole of me, my heart, and my relationship to God based on my belief about one specific idea, and completely ignore the rest of what I say, go ahead.

"What is even more puzzling, searching out the Scripture to defend someone else's sin."

It is puzzling because you have hardened your heart to the point where you do not see yourself searching out Scripture and pulling it out of context in order to support a traditional belief. Because I have no personal stake in this specific topic, it's easier for me to put aside the need to be right. When a particular belief becomes so strong, people have personal stake in being right. You are trying to be right. I am trying to be Scriptural.

"What are your motives in seeking out the unbelievers here and making your case for their sin so they will not be able to repent?"

Seeking out the unbelievers? Did I miss something? Did I post an advertisement in a magazine: "Unbelievers, come to this Christian discussion forum so I can absolve you of all your sins, no matter WHAT they are, for I am God!"

Come on, be realistic. We are Christians having a discussion about doctrine. It is an Internet forum open to everyone, but is probably frequented most by Christians. I have no say in who gets to read, nor have I ever invited anyone to this forum, or even linked to it.

What is my motive? My motive is to prevent other Christians from preaching condemnation based solely on traditional belief and supporting that belief by cherry-picking the Bible.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

PART 2: (for Delight)
What am I supposed to say to God when I get to heaven?
GOD: "Why didn't you say anything?"
ME: "I tried, but so many Christians already believed it."
GOD: "Why do you think they call it TRADITIONAL belief?"
ME: "They didn't like what I had to say."
GOD: "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."

What is your motive for ignoring so much Scripture and believing in this specific myth?
What is your motive for ignoring what Paul says about not judging others?
What is your motive for ignoring how Jesus defines sin?
What is your motive for ignoring how Paul echoes Jesus' definition of sin?
What is your motive for ignoring context?

"Not separate, included also in unbelief are all the other sins commited in unrighteousness"

That's interesting. I don't see homosexuality mentioned in the verses you quoted. It's almost like it SHOULD be in that list, but instead, it is separated out, as if it were in some other context. If you want to quote all of Romans 1, go ahead - it only supports what I've said. The only way you can support your belief with Romans 1 is to take the homosexual acts out of the context of idolatry and then try to tie them to the list of other evils that they performed in their idol worship.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight - "Sin cannot be based soley on man's intent from his finite senses; the human heart"

Hey, I'm just repeating back what Paul and Jesus have said. If you disagree with Paul and Jesus, that's your call. -shrug-

"Either the heart reigns or the Spirit guides."

I think it's more accurate to say "Either the FLESH reigns or the Spirit guides." The Spirit gives direction to the heart. Technically speaking, we all follow our hearts. When we spread the gospel, we're following the godly motivations that are in our hearts. If we let the flesh rule and turn us away from God, then that's a problem.

"...homosexuals walk in darkness following the rule of the heart."

That is a judgment that you are in no position to make. You do not know anyone's heart but your own. There's a reason that Paul specifically tells us not to judge others.

"That is why I read Roman 1 that UNBELIEF comes before homosexual behavior, this being just one one of the things God gives them over to."

If you want to separate out the homosexual behavior from its rightful context, again, that's your call. Hopefully you will someday recognize that you are putting the cart before the horse and ignoring large portions of the Bible in your attempts to justify your existing belief.

matucon and bryan90 - where did you go?

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

PART 1:
steiner - "to put it bluntly: you are lying"

Personal attacks don't really help your case.

I think I understand where you're coming from. Just for context and to establish common ground, here are some thoughts that we hopefully agree on:

1. Paul is speaking to Jews (among others), who are familiar with the OT law (which I'll refer to as just "the law").
2. Sin exists outside of the law. (Romans 5:13)
3. Prior to Jesus Christ, sin outside the law still resulted in death. (Romans 5:13-14)
4. The law exists to bring forth the realization of sin. (Romans 7:7 and a few others)
5. We are dead to the law (Romans 7:6), no longer under the law. (Romans 6:14).
6. The law is not nullified by faith in Jesus, but upheld. (Romans 3:31)
7. There is a deeper understanding of the law, not just literal. (Matthew 15:10,16-20 / Mark 7:18-23)
8. Everything is permissible, but not beneficial. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

Here is my understanding:

I used to get hung up on #6. What I was unable to do was correlate that with #7 and #8. If we are to uphold the law, then that means we need to uphold the laws about unclean foods, but per #7 and #8 which BOTH used unclean foods as examples, Jesus and Paul were both not upholding the law.

This is where practical purpose is introduced as a facet of the law. Per #4, law brought about a realization to the heart. In Romans, Paul talks about coveting, and says that after the law prohibiting coveting was known, his sinful nature brought about that sin of coveting. I'll go out on a non-Scriptural limb here and say that Paul probably coveted before he knew the law, but once he was made aware that it was wrong, it made him think of WHY coveting was wrong. Per Jesus' quotes in #7's verses, what made a man unclean was what came from the heart. There are actions that are almost always wrong because the heart has selfish/ungodly motives.

Now consider #5. Why would we uphold the law that that we are no longer bound to? I believe that it's because the practical, BENEFICIAL purpose of the law lends itself to godliness. To further that point, in Romans 2, Paul talks about the Gentiles not being exposed to the law like the Jews, but they still had the law written on their hearts. They may not have been following the letter of the law, but they were following what they felt was godly, and that was every bit as good as the old law.

So to me, the combination of all of these points (and all of the rest of the Bible, for that matter) points to the idea that the law is about godly intent and practical purpose. When you have evil intentions, then it doesn't matter if you're skirting around something that hasn't been specifically outlawed, it's still sinful. Similarly, when you do something with godly intentions, but it has not been specifically approved, it is like following the law that the Gentiles had on their hearts.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

PART 2:
To further the subjective nature of the law, consider Romans 14. Two men, one whose faith is weak in its strictness, and another whose faith is (implied) stronger in its permissiveness (keeping #8 in mind). However, God accepts them both.

Another example - I've come across Christians who are arrogant in their belief that church must be on Sundays, or that Saturday or Sunday must be a day of rest. Romans 14:6 says that God doesn't care about the name of the day - if someone has a strange work schedule that makes them work on weekends and Wednesday is their day off, well, then that person's Sabbath can easily be Wednesday.

SO, with all the subjectivity in mind, WE need to look at the law and extract the benefits as we see them. The law is not dead, because there are some things that still hold practical value today.

I have no problem eating shellfish. Another Christian once told me that shellfish are bottom-feeders so eating them would bring all the "trash" and germs into our bodies along with that meat (paraphrased - it was a long time ago). Part of me wanted to just argue against it because of my own belief (not to mention that the introduction of some germs/bacteria is beneficial to the wondrously crazy way our immune system was design). I smiled and stayed silent because it really didn't matter (plus there were non-believers in the room and arguing about it would not have been good for their perception of Christianity). If part of her faith included not eating shellfish for a specific reason, then at least she was doing it with godly intentions.

Personally, I believe that the Israelites would have no concept of how to preserve shellfish as they were carried days over hot open desert, so God gave them a law that would protect them from getting food poisoning. Keeping in mind that a growing and constantly-moving tribe of people depended on HEALTHY population to be successful, it made quite a bit of practical, beneficial sense at the time.

To me, it seems like a lot of laws were about population control (especially increase in population). Example: the story of Onan talks about coitus interruptus, and that God killed him for it (probably for not following the instructions of Levirate marriage). So that is why I see Lev. 18:22 as a law that had great practical value in its time, and no longer holding the same practical, beneficial purpose today.

One last note - in Romans, Paul says to not pass judgment on others, and repeatedly reinforces the idea by talking about God's judgment superceding ours. If sin IS subjective to the person's heart, then judging others makes no sense, because what we consider to be a sin may not be a sin to them. If a homosexual reads the Bible and interprets the old law to be applicable to his/her actions today, then their choice to go against what they believe to be right is sinful. If they interpret the law not to be applicable, then they MIGHT not be sinning (it all depends on their heart).

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hi all. Hope everyone had a good Christmas!

believer - "no we can fall back on Jesus words that define God's original and only design for marriage, Matthew 19:4-7."

I understand your viewpoint, but it's difficult for me to look at that entire passage and see anything BEYOND a severe condemnation of casual divorce. Expand that verse selection to Matthew 19:3-9. Jesus was approached with a very specific question that related to a cultural practice (casual divorce - men would marry for selfish/sexual purposes, divorce and remarry multiple times, literally leaving "used" women in the dust).

Here are a couple details that COULD have been left out, but their inclusion supports what this passage is really about:

Verse 3: The Pharisees could have asked "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" but they tack on the "for any and every reason."
Verse 4-5: Jesus talks about equal importance - God created both genders, not just man.
Verse 6: "let man not separate" - another reference to cultural acceptance of the practice.
Verse 9: Another reason to believe that it's just about this practice - Jesus doesn't just stop at verse 8. He specifically refers to the practice itself - "ANYONE who divorces his wife...and marries another woman commits adultery."

Jesus is pretty specific with details here - this passage is about divorce. God doesn't separate married people if they are married in His sight, so casual divorce/remarriage is the same as cheating. That said, I don't see this passage as simply being about a definition of the only type of marriage.


steiner - I've said this a couple times before. We disagree on a more fundamental level. You think the O.T. law is still applicable today and should be followed - I think it was practical law for that time and for that group of people. If you want to debate that, then that's fine (there may be a better forum for it, though), but until we find common ground there, debating homosexuality is pointless.

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

(Also, the 90% was a playful jab.)

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Delight -
"I don't need to put words in your mouth, jh, you have many words. :)"
Touche.

"Have you not said homosexual sin outside marriage is the same sin for both homo/heterosexuals?"
Yes.

"Do we both agree that Scripture is absolutely ... SILENT on homosexual marriage?"
Yes. (I think this is the most we've ever agreed.)

"Do you support same-sex marriage by Government mandate?"
Government legality is not what I'm debating.

There was even heterosexual marriage before there was government-required paperwork - the government does not take the place of God in any way. It can simply insert paperwork into the process. If gay marriage were truly wrong per Scripture, then it wouldn't matter what the government allowed.

My concern is regarding the teaching that gay marriage (and thus homosexual acts) is forbidden by Scripture, when in fact Scripture is just silent on the matter, but we've developed doctrine on that silence and called it Scriptural. Where the Scriptures are silent, we can only fall back on Jesus's words that define sin.

I have to go run some more errands and we have company coming over tomorrow, so I may not be on for a while unless I can squeeze in some time. Just in case, I hope every one of you has a blessed and merry Christmas! Take care!

Media Misconceptions on Bible, Homosexuality

jhilgeman »

Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Delight - Since you seem to feel comfortable putting words in my mouth, I'll let you argue this one with yourself.