Homosexual groups advocate at Christian colleges with Christian Council blessing

Main Entry: 1ad ho•mi•nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made (courtesy of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Rather than showing from the Scriptures where my exegesis is faulty, Scott has falsely and libelously accused me of reading into the text that which is not there.</font>[/QUOTE]No. I have accurately accused you of falsely interpretting this scripture based on a) your ignoring and dismissing of Paul's exception for abandonment, b) your dismissal of Christ's exception for fornication, and c) for your insistence that even those who were at fault can never be fully forgiven for having divorced.

There is no scriptural context for a homosexual relationship. There is a scriptural context for marriage... and even marriage of those who have been divorced.

Divorce can be a sin. But there is no basis for asserting that it is a sin that cannot be forgiven to the extent that the person need not pay for it for the rest of their life.

You never seem to get around to citing those great "conservative" theologians who agree with 19th century liberals that Genesis could not be a literal narrative... even though it is written in the form of a literal narrative.

Ah, so now if we disagree with you forcefully, you are a victim? Not nearly so much as the text of scripture is when you finish with your pen knife.

Actually it fails since it depends on a direct cross reference being summararily discarded.

 

Main Entry: 1ad ho•mi•nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made (courtesy of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Rather than showing from the Scriptures where my exegesis is faulty, Scott has falsely and libelously accused me of reading into the text that which is not there.</font>[/QUOTE]No. I have accurately accused you of falsely interpretting this scripture based on a) your ignoring and dismissing of Paul's exception for abandonment, b) your dismissal of Christ's exception for fornication, and c) for your insistence that even those who were at fault can never be fully forgiven for having divorced.

There is no scriptural context for a homosexual relationship. There is a scriptural context for marriage... and even marriage of those who have been divorced.

Divorce can be a sin. But there is no basis for asserting that it is a sin that cannot be forgiven to the extent that the person need not pay for it for the rest of their life.

You never seem to get around to citing those great "conservative" theologians who agree with 19th century liberals that Genesis could not be a literal narrative... even though it is written in the form of a literal narrative.

Ah, so now if we disagree with you forcefully, you are a victim? Not nearly so much as the text of scripture is when you finish with your pen knife.

Actually it fails since it depends on a direct cross reference being summararily discarded- in spite of the fact that it is soundly supported by the MS evidence.

 

How dare you post such an outrageous and libelous misrepresentation of the belief and teaching of another member of this message board?</font>[/QUOTE]You mean other than this not being a misrepresentation of what you have posted on this message board?

You have scoffed at the notion of a Flood or that Genesis 1-11 can possibly be literal. You only derive this "interpretation" about divorce by dismissing one of the other gospels for daring to contradict your opinion by including the "exception"... that is accurately called manipulation.

Thus saith Craig: "All divorced people living with their current spouse in accordance with NT commands concerning the institution of marriage are in perpetual adultery." Scripture doesn't say that... but scripture not saying something has yet to stop you from asserting your own version of the "truth" and condemning those who dare trust the plain text instead. </font>[/QUOTE]Rather than showing from the Scriptures where my exegesis is faulty, you have falsely and libelously accused me of reading into the text that which is not there. You have also used an ad hominem argument by referring to my agreement with the current conservative (but not fundamentalist) scholarship on the first eleven chapters of Genesis. If you believe that my interpretation of the Greek text of Mark 10:1-12 is faulty, show me where in the Greek text I am in error, but don’t post ad hominem attacks to refute my interpretation of the Greek text of Mark 10:1-12. As is the case with everything that I and every other member of this message board posts, my interpretation of the Greek text of Mark 10:1-12 stands upon its own merit.

In several other threads I have dealt with each and every New Testament passage on the subject of divorce and remarriage and I have shown from the Greek text of each one of them that they are all in agreement with the plain and literal teaching of our Lord in Mark 10:1-12.

And just as the homosexuals can come on campus and falsely justify their sin on the basis of Scripture, so can those who are living in an adulterous relationship with a second spouse while their first spouse is still alive come on Christian messages boards and falsely justify their sin on the basis of Scripture.

 

I would agree with Scott.

Since you do not believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are literal, then by your own reasoning, God could not have said 'For this cause shall a man leave his mother and his father and cleave to a wife; and the two shall become one flesh'

That being said, then by your own logic, you call Jesus a liar. For He said it was from the beginning.

So, either the Genesis account is a real literal account and Jesus spoke the truth, or, both are false.

 

Jesus never said Genesis was to be read literally. Show me the RED LETTERS. It's a nice bedtime story for children and maybe contains some true history. But, I am embarrassed by those who suggest it is literal. Not all Baptists or even major leaders within the Baptist faith believe it is, and neither do I. Go sell your magic potion to somebody else.

To suggest I must discard Jesus if I discard a literal translation of Genesis is blasphemous.

 

Scott J. wrote,

Please don’t post fictitious information on this message board. Ignoring and dismissing are mutually exclusive and I have done neither. Paul made no exception for abandonment. He wrote,

1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
16. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
17. Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.
18. Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.
19. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
20. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
21. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.
23. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
24. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
25. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
26. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.
29. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none;
30. and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess;
31. and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
32. But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
33. but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34. and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.
36. But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.
37. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.
38. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
39. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
40. But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

In very recent years some individuals have imagined that there is an exception clause in 1 Cor. 7:15 allowing for both divorce and remarriage to a different spouse while the first spouse is still alive. However, neither divorce nor remarriage are mentioned in this verse.

15. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

All that Paul allows in this passage is for the Christian to allow their non-Christian spouse to leave is they so desire. There is no divorce permitted here, and most certainly there is no possibility of re-marriage on the part of the Christian for the Christian is still married regardless of the fact that the spouse has moved out (v. 39). And, of course, the spouse who moved out is also still married and will remain married until death dissolves the union (v. 39).

(All Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995. The emphases in bold type are my own)

(continued below)

 

Here are the red letters. You can look them up in your own Bible.

Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

By your own logic, you are the one that is blaspemous, are you not?
DHK

 

I have neither dismissed nor ignored the alleged exception clauses permitting divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery. And you know that because I posted the following words in another thread in which you read the words and replied to them.

Matt. 19:9. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The phrase “except for immorality” was apparently unknown to the early church, and many scholars believe that this phrase is either an intentional redaction or a scribal gloss from Matt. 5:32 where the context is quite different. And, of course, this phrase contradicts the very clear teaching of our Savior in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, and Paul in 1 Cor. 7:10. Notice the reaction of Jesus’ disciples to His teaching in Matt. 19:9,

Matt. 19:10. The disciples *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."
11. But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

Had Jesus actually allowed an exception to his teaching on marriage and divorce like the Mosaic Law had done, the disciples would most certainly not have had this reaction. Quite clearly what they heard Jesus teach them here did not include an exception clause, and Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, and 1 Cor. 7:10 all agree with this.

(All Scriptures are from the NASB, 1995)

 

Amen, DHK!

It is a shame when people who claim to be Baptist do not hold to the Baptist beliefs, nor believe the Word of God from cover to cover.

 

DHK: Game, set, and match!

 

Here are the red letters. You can look them up in your own Bible.

Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

By your own logic, you are the one that is blaspemous, are you not?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Very funny! Jesus did not tell us in this passage that we are to interpret the epic stories in the Book of Genesis as historical accounts of actual events. What He did tell us is to apply the message of Genesis to our lives, and that message does not allow for divorce and remarriage!

Matt. 19:6. "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (NASB, 1995)

 

That IS IN FACT dismissing it. It matters not at all that you use someone else's opinion to justify it.

Per.... you, not the text.

 

Ahhh, but some marriages are not of God. Sometimes men jump out before God and marry someone that God did not intend for them to marry.

 

Epic stories and Baptists beliefs are two VERY different things! Believing what the Bible teaches and believing absolutely ludicrous interpretations of it that have been incontrovertibly proven false are also two very different things. The absolutely grossest of willful ignorance of the Book of Genesis does not glorify God—it glorifies Satan and it is responsible for countless multitudes suffering for eternity in the fires of hell because a bunch of uneducated fools have made a mockery of the Bible and the Christian faith.

 

I don't know what you find funny Craig.
Jesus wasn't telling a story, an epic, a legend, or any other such thing. He was teaching and speaking the truth. He was teaching truth from the historical truth taught in the historical account of Genesis, and there is nothing in his words to indicate otherwise. He says nothing about the account not being historical. He, in fact, gives every indication that it is historical. He refers to Moses and the law as actual events not fictional. It indeed is an historical account. Prove by Jesus words otherwise.
DHK

 

... but nonetheless they ARE MARRIED!

 

But if God did not put them together, the 'let no man tear them asunder' does not fall into place here.

 

The only "funny" part is the gymnastics performed by folks like you trying to make the Bible believe what you say instead of believing what it says.

Genesis 1-11 is written in the style of a narrative. Not poetry. It is never treated anywhere in scripture as an allegory or "epic story". It is treated universally as a historical account of people, places, and events.

Sort of like He said "morning and evening", huh? But since that disagrees with you it can't be literally true.

The difference is that God on the one hand is describing what He did. On the other, He is describing what He willed man to do.

God cannot fail nor lie... and He is perfectly capable of creating the world just as He said clearly in His Special Revelation... in spite of your errant interpretations of general revelation.

OTOH, man can and does fail... to include in marriage. That simply doesn't mean that one person is not innocent or even that the guilty party can never be genuinely and completely forgiven.

 

I don't know what you find funny Craig.
Jesus wasn't telling a story, an epic, a legend, or any other such thing. He was teaching and speaking the truth. He was teaching truth from the historical truth taught in the historical account of Genesis, and there is nothing in his words to indicate otherwise. He says nothing about the account not being historical. He, in fact, gives every indication that it is historical. He refers to Moses and the law as actual events not fictional. It indeed is an historical account. Prove by Jesus words otherwise.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Prove them otherwise? That is very easy to do,

A few facts about Noah’s Ark:

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

The story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

 

A convenient red herring Craig.
Start another thread on the ark.
Where in Matthew 19:1-13 does Jesus mention the ark.
Stick to the passage at hand. Where in Mat.19:1-12 does Jesus indicate that he is teaching allegorically, or not teaching from the historical event of Moses, the law, and referring to the laws of divorce that God gave Moses. Prove that these are just legends and not the actual events from the context of Matthew 19. No red herrings please.
DHK