>> ^petpeeved:

Unless you are feeling masochistic, skip to 8:40 for INDISPUTABLE audio of REAL, LIVE ANGELS speaking to this most holy of men via what sounded to me, admittedly a card carrying member of the vile atheist movement, like a loud rattle from an air duct.
Bonus hilarity when Hinn mistakenly asks his sound engineer to "play it again" then quickly corrects himself by saying "Lord, do it again Lord! Do it again!"


Wow, good catch. It's actually a bit further along than 8:40, but just wow...

Unless you are feeling masochistic, skip to 8:40 for INDISPUTABLE audio of REAL, LIVE ANGELS speaking to this most holy of men via what sounded to me, admittedly a card carrying member of the vile atheist movement, like a loud rattle from an air duct.

Bonus hilarity when Hinn mistakenly asks his sound engineer to "play it again" then quickly corrects himself by saying "Lord, do it again Lord! Do it again!"

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

>> ^shinyblurry:

Paul states it is better to be single.

Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?
>> ^shinyblurry:
As far as homosexuality doing no harm, I beg to differ. People who practice it have a higher rate of disease, as well as alcohol and drug abuse, depression, suicide and domestic violence.

True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You might say that is because of discrimination, but you would be wrong. In a place like the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legalized and broadly accepted, the rates are actually worse.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That's really just scratching the surface. We haven't gotten to the impact that the breakdown of traditional values and the family has on the country as a whole.


Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

No, that's what guests on this show sound like. Sigh, our biggest embarrassment aside from Piers Morgan, Jeremy fucking Vile

>> ^bareboards2:

That biological imperative to reproduce may be abhorrent, but it still lives pretty strong in some men and women. Monogamy isn't natural for everyone. Some folks just can't do it. To pretend otherwise leads to heartbreak. Let's be honest about it.

The biological imperative to reproduce isn't abhorrent at all. What I was specifically referring to (in an admittedly oblique way) was the instinct in males to copulate with females regardless of their wishes. As utterly vile as we regard, rape is common in the natural world.

>> ^Jinx:

Why is his past private relationships relevant? And I don't know the full story, but how exactly did he treat his ex-wife poorly?
I have nothing against open relationships/marriage. People can arrange their relationships however they please. The expectation that your politicians should have flawless love lives is just unrealistic and unfair. Again, I don't know the specifics so maybe he did something particularly vile, but on the whole I don't think politicians personal lives should be dragged up.


I entirely agree with you, except that this is Newt Gingrich, who led the impeachment against Clinton for (lying about) his own affair.

Why is his past private relationships relevant? And I don't know the full story, but how exactly did he treat his ex-wife poorly?

I have nothing against open relationships/marriage. People can arrange their relationships however they please. The expectation that your politicians should have flawless love lives is just unrealistic and unfair. Again, I don't know the specifics so maybe he did something particularly vile, but on the whole I don't think politicians personal lives should be dragged up.

Hes such a vile creature.

>> ^Payback:

The Holocaust = Problem Reaction Solution.


the hegelian dialectic.talk about a vile tool but effective.

The OWS proof is in the pudding. Thier 'rap sheet' is an odious pile of thefts, sexual assaults, property damage, threats against police, and many other things far too numerous to list. Oh - wait - you can...

http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

OWS had a purpose at one point. As time went on it collapsed into a bunch of hooligans even more crass and vile than the yobs in the UK earlier this year. They are what they are - Cap'n H or not.

And OWS does not have a message. No matter how much you or anyone else may try and protest otherwise, OWS never once articulated a unifying message that they all got behind except "we're the 99%". It is not a disingenous statement to make, because it is uncontested truth. In fact, OWS was quite proud of the fact that they had deliberately avoided putting forward any sort of message.

Not sure why you're trying to deny this. OWS shot itself in the foot in that regard. But it's hard to put forward a unifying message when your 'movement' is comprised of about a thousand different factions.

I'm going to be sick now. That article about the police fabricating drug charges is vile.>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
The cops need to get on the other side of things. They're getting screwed by the system too.
F ck cops. They are not your friend. Interesting word choice, btw.

Behold, an honest sifter!

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^bobknight33:
Why feel bad about this? Its capitalism.
If you could weasel 75k out of someone to build a play house would you?

>> ^BoneRemake:
Disgusting vile people with too much money. I want to burn them down just to feel better.


Because I am a communist.

>> ^bobknight33:

Why feel bad about this? Its capitalism.
If you could weasel 75k out of someone to build a play house would you?

>> ^BoneRemake:
Disgusting vile people with too much money. I want to burn them down just to feel better.



No.

>> ^bobknight33:

Why feel bad about this? Its capitalism.
If you could weasel 75k out of someone to build a play house would you?

>> ^BoneRemake:
Disgusting vile people with too much money. I want to burn them down just to feel better.



Because I am a communist.