I was at a conference in Red Lodge this weekend, and since there were only 11 TV Channels offered at the lodgings, I ran across this.

James, I would suggest "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" (amazon has it). You would probably find it extremely eye opening.

BTW, I am a Christian, but I study rather than take misinterpretations literally.

[This message has been edited by polar bear (11/21/2010)]

Polar Bear,

I do not need a book written by a man/woman such as "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" to tell me what the Bible says. I too study the Bible for myself and have done so for over 25 years.

Not to say that I am a scholar, but I do have a rule that I never go outside of the text until I come to my own conclussions based on the scripture and all that pertains to the subject at hand.

One must clearly and rightly divide the Word of truth in order to arrive at what God has to say. Gods word has only one interpretation and it must be our goal to arrive at that truth. If our conclussions are not logical then it is safe to say we missed the interpretation. The Bible tells us that no scripture is left to mans interpretation.

Also, allow me to be perfectly blunt, God is patient hoping that all would come to repentance. However, do not "interpret" patience for tollorance. God will not tollorate sin and homosexuality is clearly sin (Christian or not). It matters not if you are a believer in Jesus Christ or not because everyone will be judged by the same standard in the end.

As a preacher of the gospel I in no way will show tollorance to sin and would expect the same from the congregation where I preach if I were to continue in unrepented sin. I will however show patience and love to sinners which I am chief among. That being said, call me what you wish but I would rather be labeled as hard nosed, or legalistic, or even intollorant, than to answer to God for not preaching the truth and calling men to repentance and salvation through Jesus.

Also, there are many refferences in OT scripture that have no bearing on the world today since we no longer live under the old covenant but are now under the law of Liberty found in Christ.

BTW Wendy: I never did decide to be hederosexual...it's called following "nature" (Read Romans Ch: 1; of course if you do not believe inspired Scripture has the final authority then it will not matter).

Nature tells us that the natural thing to do is to desire the opposite when it come to a sexual partner. Contrary to popular Psychology, Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Everything begins and ends with our thinking and the choices we make in life. I can not buy the argument that it is genetic any more than I can buy the argument that alcoholism is a disease...(Contact me privately on the alcoholism if you want to hear my own personal story and I think you will agree). So if alcoholism is a choice then why not homosexuality?? Just a thought.

Hope everyone has a great and Happy Thanksgiving and may God richly bless you and your family throughout the holidy season.

God bless and keep working in the Word, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (11/24/2010)]

Just a thought.

And a very small-minded one at that.

So, if being gay is choice, then being straight is a choice. When did YOU decide to be straight? DId you sit down and review the possibilities? Evaluate which worked best for you careerwise? Ask your friends for their opinion?

Of course not! Your heterosexuality (if you are heterosexual) is innate. You knew when you were fairly young to whom you were attracted, without a "choice" being made. Why you think it is different for homosexuals is an example of narrowmindness.

Mind you, your job title is narrow-minded bigot so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

So, if what Jesus says is so important, why aren't you working to outlaw re-marriage after divorce?

Don't bother to answer. I won't be listening.

I never did decide to be hederosexual...it's called following "nature"

Well, that's helpful, considering homosexual behavior has been observed throughout nature, in over 1,200 species. But I'm sure those giraffes made a "choice" right?

"And a very small-minded one at that."

First of all I never intend to stoop to name calling and such. If you are not adult enough to have an intellegent thread without calling namesthen so be it, your welcome to take your toys and leave.


"So, if being gay is choice, then being straight is a choice. When did YOU decide to be straight? DId you sit down and review the possibilities? Evaluate which worked best for you careerwise? Ask your friends for their opinion?"

Being straight is not a choice. When one follows the laws of natural order that is not a choice. Nature says that I must breath in order to live. Do you choose to breath or is it something you do without having to think of it?? The only reason I would need to ask for opinions as to how to live my "lifestyle" is if it were something that I questioned if it were right from the start. See your own logic does not hold up under the slightest scrutiny.


"Of course not! Your heterosexuality (if you are heterosexual) is innate. You knew when you were fairly young to whom you were attracted, without a "choice" being made. Why you think it is different for homosexuals is an example of narrowmindness."

Wrong again. See you assume where you have no knowledge. I never had a clue as to what was "attractive" (old school). It is something I learned as I grew in knowledge as a child and saw how the relationships between men and women were in comparison to those who I knew to be gay. Only it was many years after that I realized they were gay as I did not know what it was called at that time in my life. However, even before I knew what to call it I knew it was not right in my own concience. It is our responsibility as adults to teach our children the natural laws and truths and not allow society to dictate what so called truth is. Children don't have a clue what gay and straight is until they learn it. Before that their natural attraction it to the oposite sex until influence from an outside source.

"Mind you, your job title is narrow-minded bigot so I guess I shouldn't be surprised."

Well, more name calling!! Was it something I said. As I said before, I fully expect and welcome the critisism and name calling as that puts me in good company with my fellow laborors in Christ who have suffered the same and more. Love ya anyway.

"So, if what Jesus says is so important, why aren't you working to outlaw re-marriage after divorce?"

Evindently you know nothing about my view on that subject. It saddens me to see the divorce rate and to know how much it affects the church as well. I for one have only been married once (27 yrs) and plan to follow the guidlines of scripture if I were to ever find myself in that position. As for my teachings on the subject (which you obviously have no clue of) I teach exactly the way the Bible does.

"Don't bother to answer. I won't be listening."

Sure, we all belive that!!...note the sarcasm...

Happy Thanksgiving Amorette

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (11/24/2010)]

Are you comparing the logical thinking of mankind and the ability thereof to the uncontrolled sexual desires of the animal kingdom?? Well no wonder the world is flipped up side down. We have lost the very basic thinking and recognition of God and nature and that is exactly what Paul was talking about in Romans chapter one.

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (11/24/2010)]

BTW Wendy: I never did decide to be hederosexual...it's called following "nature"

Right, following nature. So homosexuals are purposely defying nature for some secret reason of their own? Have you ever talked to a gay person? Many will say that they knew they were gay in grade school. Why would an eight year old decide to defy "nature" and embark on a life sure to be much harder than necessary?

Or do you mean that God is somehow punishing people with homosexuality for some unknown sin they've committed or as a test of faith? What kind of god do you believe in anyway?

Following nature? Sure, and you've never seen a dog try to hump a man's leg. He's just following nature.

You don't need a book written by man or woman to help you interpret the Bible? I guess that means you are not a man or a woman and that you believe that the bible was written by God's own hand without intervention or aid of human beings.

What seminary school did you attend anyway? (Notice I did not say graduate from.)

"Have you ever talked to a gay person? Many will say that they knew they were gay in grade school. Why would an eight year old decide to defy "nature" and embark on a life sure to be much harder than necessary?"

I know and have known many people who are gay and yes, I have heard much of the same but that does not make it true. The root is in the thinking. No, eight year olds are not defying nature, they are allowed to follow passion with no guide. There is a difference. I am not expecting agreement but only to say there is another way to see it than what has been beat on the same drum for 20+ years.

"Or do you mean that God is somehow punishing people with homosexuality for some unknown sin they've committed or as a test of faith? What kind of god do you believe in anyway?"

I serve The God of heaven and no I am not saying He is punishing them for sin. But tell me this, can you count on more than one hand those who are gay who claim to be Christian (and I use the name loosely here)? The two do not usually mix because they are conflicting lifestyles.

"Following nature? Sure, and you've never seen a dog try to hump a man's leg. He's just following nature."

Again, surely you too are not comparing the natural uncontrolled sexual desires of the animal kingdom to the reasoning and logical thinking of the human race??

"You don't need a book written by man or woman to help you interpret the Bible? I guess that means you are not a man or a woman and that you believe that the bible was written by God's own hand without intervention or aid of human beings."

The Bible was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and has no comparison to anything else in print. It is a living document. Tell me of another that has litterally changed the course of human history more than the Bible??

"What seminary school did you attend anyway? (Notice I did not say graduate from.)"

I did not go to "seminary" as you call it. I did graduate from the Bear Valley Bible Institute Of Denver in 2002 with a BBS (Bachelors of Biblical Studies) degree. All that really means is I spent two years doing 128 credit hours of Bible ONLY classes. So again, you speak where you have no knowledge.

Have a great evening and Happy Thanksgiving, Jim

I wonder if the Bear Valley Bible Institute taught him what the following mean?

post hoc ergo propter hoc
non sequitur
petitio principii

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/24/2010)]

Question here for which I have no answer:

If sexual orientation is genetic, say like left-handedness, why is the population of homosexuals significantly higher in urban populations than in rural populations? Logically, homosexuality should follow a similar distribution to left-handedness which has a consistent population regardless of where those individuals live.

I think if you started polling gays in San Francisco you would find that a large number of them are from somewhere else.

"Also, there are many refferences in OT scripture that have no bearing on the world today since we no longer live under the old covenant but are now under the law of Liberty found in Christ."

Finally someone said it. Now I can throw the Old Testament away- stop worshiping God and only worship Jesus. After all these years someone finally said it.

This is also the justification for killing Jews and hating gays.
Convenient- throw out what you don't want but keep what you need to explain away nothing. Do yourself a favor then and throw out Genius because it is has no bearing on the world today.

Richard, to follow up on what Levi had to say, it is quite straight forward really. Most homosexuals who grow up in small towns choose not to live their adult lives there because of several factors, such as small-mindedness, persecution, lack of dating opportunities, lack of social activities, limited number of others with whom they can share their experiences and lives, etc. Imagine, if you will, you living in a town that is 99% homosexual. I would venture you would move posthaste. It takes a very strong, secure individual to live their adult life in a small town as an openly gay person. The alternatives are to hide their true self (which, as is quite commonly known, does immense damage to both their mental and physical well-being), or move to someplace larger where they are accepted for who they are.

Before that their natural attraction it to the oposite sex until influence from an outside source.

This is unequivocally false. You cannot teach a child their sexuality. Your personal experiences are obviously very limited, or you have chosen to overlook anything that contradicts your beliefs. I am leaning toward the latter.

Again, surely you too are not comparing the natural uncontrolled sexual desires of the animal kingdom to the reasoning and logical thinking of the human race?

I get it. For animals, the natural thing is not a choice, but for humans the natural thing is a choice. Perhaps you should stop using the argument, then, that humans should start following nature in order to deny their homosexuality. You seem a little confused as to the definition.

Mr. Lynch, quite plainly, what accounts for the fact that gay teens are FOUR times as likely to attempt suicide as their straight counterparts? Are you saying that, since in your world view sexuality is a choice, it is EASIER to choose death than to choose to be straight? This makes ZERO sense! There is no logical way to justify this conclusion. Why would one DIE instead of simply choosing to be straight?

Absolutely illogical and unfeeling.

[This message has been edited by Denise Selk (11/25/2010)]

Since BVBID does not teach Latin I do not know what this phrase means.

post hoc ergo propter hoc
non sequitur
petitio principii

I also do not see where Latin is important to understanding the text of the Bible since it is written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic...The only reason I can see for Latin is to understand what men teach and how they have added to the scriptures over the centuries.

On another note; I love the way many who read my posts take it upon themselves to mis-quote or misunderstand what is clearly written. Somewhat how many read into the Bible what they want it to say.

NEVER did you hear me say to "throw" out any part of scripture as the Bible tells us that "...all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for correction, for reproof, for the training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good work..."

Just because a text is not relevant for LAW does not mean it is not good for learning, etc...

God bless, Jim

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (11/25/2010)]

post hoc ergo propter hoc
non sequitur
petitio principii

Well, I am not Vanna, but let me help you "buy a vowel".

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ropter_hoc

A non sequitur (English: It does not follow; pronounced /?n?n's?kw?t?r/) is a Latin term for a conversational and literary device, often used for comedic purposes. It is a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.

The use of non sequitur in humor can be deliberate or unintentional. Literally, the expression is Latin for "it does not follow."[2] It comes from the words "non" meaning not, and the deponent verb sequor, sequi, secutus sum, meaning to follow. In other literature, a non sequitur can denote an abrupt, illogical, unexpected or absurd turn of plot or dialogue not normally associated with or appropriate to that preceding it.

The non sequitur can be understood as the converse of cliché. Traditional comedy and drama can depend on the ritualization and predictability of human emotional experiences, where the Theatre of the Absurd uses disjunction and unpredictability.
This use of the term is distinct from the non sequitur in logic, where it is a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...n_sequitur

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BCE, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy. Begging the question is related to the circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning, though these are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...e_question

Apparently two years at Bear Valley doesn't get you any logic classes. Wasted your tuition in my opinion.

Richard,

I do not have a clue about what all that refers to. I am not schooled in that I expect and do not see it to be relevant to this thread as well. I do recall seeing the shortened term in reference to it somewhere along the way but it must have been something I saw in passing.

Wendy said:
"Apparently two years at Bear Valley doesn't get you any logic classes. Wasted your tuition in my opinion."

Wendy,
Again you speak where you have no knowledge...this seems to be a recurring theme with you.

BVBID is a non-tuition Bible Institute and students are required to raise outside support to supply their needs while attending the two year program that is the equivalent of a four year bachelors level degree. So no, I did not waist my "tuition" nor did anyone waist any monies in supporting me during my studies there.

Also, since you also have no knowledge of me either you would not know that I have never claimed to be a scholar nor do I attempt to be. I am just a simple country preacher who relies on nothing but logic to make some sence of the world around while I am sojorning here awaiting the day when my Lord takes me out of this mess. Meanwhile I will continue to teach the whole council of God and proclaim the truth of His Word. No true man of God ever lived who did not suffer ridicule and persecution and I do not expect a free ride as well. No name you can call me will ever keep me from proclaiming the word. I do not expect everyone to believe and would be foolish to think all would agree or give me the same concideration they expect for stating me own beliefs.

I think I have said all that I need to on this thread and wisdom says move on, therefore I will do so. The Bible is clear on this subject and nothing more needs to be added. If you would like to discuss this subject further with me personally (or any of the subjects at hand) please feel free to e-mail me or call me anytime.

Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving day and remember to continue to give thanks throughout the year next as we have so much to be thankful for.

May God richly bless you,
Jim Lynch, Evangelist
Miles City Church of Christ
234-3775

[This message has been edited by James Lynch (11/25/2010)]

I am just a simple country preacher who relies on nothing but logic to make some sence of the world around

How is it again that logical thinking leads to the conclusion that it is easier to kill oneself than choose to be straight? I missed that logical answer.

I am just a simple country preacher who relies on nothing but logic to make some sence of the world around while I am sojorning here awaiting the day when my Lord takes me out of this mess. Meanwhile I will continue to teach the whole council of God and proclaim the truth of His Word.

Umm... in order to teach the whole council of God, wouldn't you have to know all that God knows? To believe that everything God knows has been communicated to us through the Holy Scriptures is a great example of something that is non-sequitar.

The purpose of the Scripture (Bible) is to reveal our sin (law) and God's good favor in forgiveness to us through Christ (Gospel). Nothing more nothing less. The Bible is not an instruction book on daily living, it is not a science book, etc. To use the Scripture other than for its true purpose is disingenuous at best. Rightly dividing law and gospel is critical to proper Biblical understanding.

You seem to follow the teaching of Zwingli that nothing is permissible unless it is explicitly stated as such in the New Testament. (i.e. use of musical instruments ). I would submit that the Scriptures, both OT and NT. teach the exactly the opposite. All things are permissible unless they are expressly forbidden.

I think you need to reconsider whether your drive-by "evangelism" is truly a fruitful and appropriate approach in the public square.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (11/26/2010)]

I would submit that the Scriptures, both OT and NT. teach the exactly the opposite. All things are permissible unless they are expressly forbidden.

I find this statement problematic. The OT contains very strict food laws and other restrictions that are considered unreasonable today even by serious bible scholars. Does this mean that if you eat shrimp you are sinning? If I were Catholic would I be confessing the gumbo I ate last week? What about Leviticus? It seems to me that when these restrictions are brought up in any discussion with Bible fundamentalists their only response is "Oh there they go again, quoting Leviticus." But they don't address the question. It's very frustrating to say the least.

If you have that kind of strict interpretation of the texts how are you reconciling the prohibition against wearing fabrics of two different threads with the fact that you probably wear mixed thread clothing everyday?

I think that this kind of dichotomy is partially a result of a lack of critical thinking skills. I think logic classes should be a requirement in all high school curricula.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (11/26/2010)]

If sexual orientation is genetic, say like left-handedness, why is the population of homosexuals significantly higher in urban populations than in rural populations? Logically, homosexuality should follow a similar distribution to left-handedness which has a consistent population regardless of where those individuals live.

NEWS FLASH - homosexuality does follow a similar pattern of distribution, being openly homosexual does not.

PS - When my left handed aunt and uncle adopted two children and each turned out to be left handed, I began to question whether left handedness is the result of nature or nurture. If you're a lefty, it's likely you cradle a baby in your left arm, leaving the baby's left arm free and the right arm pinned to your body. Once I spawn, I will test this theory. Daddy needs a lefty specialist. I will name him Darren Oliver.

Wendy:

There are three parts of the Law of God:

The spiritual law, codified in the ten commandments, which tell a person how to conduct their spiritual lives and which also teach us how to deal with our fellow man; the first table tells us how to relate to God, the second table how to relate to our neighbor;

The "civic" or government laws that dealt with the running of civil society with God as the head of that society and literally dwelling with the children of Israel;

The Levitical or ceremonial laws that included all the animal sacrifices and other ceremonies associated with the Levitical priests.

The spiritual laws abide forever.

Since we do not live under a civil government headed by God, we cannot enforce the civil parts of the Law, although many of them have been passed down through English common law to our American justice system.

As for the Levitical laws, Hebrews explains in chapters 7 though 10, that we have had a change of priests under the New Covenant, doing away with all human priests and recognizing only Jesus as our High Priest.

"Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever." (Hebrews 7:23-28, NIV)

"But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:12-14, NIV)

Paul directly answers your question about whether we should keep other parts of the law such as sacrifices and sin offerings:

"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12, NIV)

We are not obliged to keep any of the law associated with the Levitical priesthood such as the the "ceremonial law".

Go eat some shrimp.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (11/26/2010)]

Thanks for the tutorial, Richard. I appreciate your thoroughness. Can you tell me how we are supposed to know which laws are "Levitical" as you call them and which are civic? Is there a clear division in the bible?

Gosh, Ricardo, you've sure changed your tune in the last few years. Want me to link to one of your Leviticus quotes you used in a rant against homosexuality?????

It's pretty coo

Many people, Christian people, even conservative Christian people, have changed their position on this issue after hearing four words: "Mom, Dad, I'm gay."

Hear! Hear!

Many people, Christian people, even conservative Christian people, have changed their position on this issue after hearing four words: "Mom, Dad, I'm gay."

And sadly, many disown their children after hearing these words.

You have to remember that the stuff you are talking about is for Jewish women only; as well as proselytes. There were no rules in the Gentile world. Well, maybe the cults of the times had their rules. The whole of the Old Testament is given to the Jews or Israelis, the people who followed Moses out of Egypt, and, their proselytes.

OK, who is this procreateing guy?

He is a "Life Coach" that is moving from FL to . You should sign up to be his first client. Maybe he can help you win more playing the ponies.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (11/30/2010)]

If only I still lived in

I definitely have issues and am certainly in need of a life coach.

What?

Oh, never mind.

One should study the book of Romans until one completely understands it. Read also Galatians 3.

What, no advertisement for your business?

Oooohhhhh!

Read, at the very least, Romans chapters 3 through 9, and, if you want a treat read the New Living Translation.

Only certain Christians!

Concerning homosexuality: I really does not matter what theory you own in order to practice your depravity, the result is all the same. You will burn in the end. Oh and by the way, "Why are all those people who call themselves gay so miserable, angry and unhappy?"

Thanks Coach!!

Dear Sir,

Please stay in Florida.

Thank you.

The End.

"Why are all those people who call themselves gay so miserable, angry and unhappy?"

Because of people like you. You're not smart enough to coach the life of a slug.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (12/2/2010)]

Or, should you prefer a cooler climate, can I recommend Idaho or Utah?

Actually, I have gay friends who are gay. Happy and cheerful, full of life and love and a delight to be around. Much better than the sour judgmental types.

Oh. How they love me!

[This message has been edited by Robert L. Reyff (12/2/2010)]

I am wondering if we can have Cactus Plains back in exchange for this guy

Keep talking, Reyff. The more people know about you the better.

The Bible also says that "by their fruits we shall know them". Jesus would never be exclusive therefore those who are in harmony with that will also not be exclusive. It makes me sad because I have a friend who belongs to Church of Christ and I honestly never knew this was their doctrine.

What I still don't get about guys like James Lynch, is that they have this unexplainable belief that these 66 books of the bible are "the word of God." Some dudes who started the catholic church picked these stories out, put them together, and called it the bible. They snatched up the Torah, some other old-timey stuff (44 books), and jammed it together with some letters by Paul, and a few other accounts of Christ's life, written way after he died (22 more books). They left out some of the accounts of his life, like the Gospel of Thomas by way of an example. Must not have fit their theory. I mean, its complete insanity to accept just the "bible" as the sole word of God, even if you do believe in God. Here Lynch is, on this thread, citing to a bunch of stories as "proof" of something. I mean, its like the Mormons citing to their own made up bible-lite stories. WTF? Or should we believe the Allah stories and Mohammed ascended to heaven from a rock on the site of the Jewish temple? Its all pure comedy. But go on Lynch, keep quoting. I am going to start quoting my own sources, that I determine are true based on faith. And if you don't believe my story, then you "will burn for it" as you like to claim.