Jan 1 is my birthday. Try to celebrate that. Everything closed, including restaurants. Don’t care for sports, so no TV either. Thank heavens for Netflix.
Joe - you may not have noticed but this is a comic. Don’t get uptight over halos and dates - it is really going to be 2010 in a few days and not 2016 or 2017 - after all we don’t want to miss the end of the world in 2012 now do we? And puleeze don’t complain about 3 wise men. And don’t get upset how Mike draws angels or devils - it is a comic. Chill - Relax and enjoy it.
Joe - the yesterday was a posting problem with the system - there were problems with connections and such so I was getting cut off - please accept my apology for the forced multiple posts - that is not my style.
But, why have you claimed I hate homosexuals? I have made no hateful statement other than calling homosexual behavior or the act itself a sin - which you agreed was a sin but only when tied to idolatry. My issue was it is not location that is the abomination but the act. If a person has a desire for another male, that does not make them homosexual, it is only when they carry out the desire in the form of an act. Could there be a point though where the desire for another person of the same sex turns into lust and is acted upon and does that lust then constitute a form of idolatry? What then of acts with multiple partners? Open relationships?
Joe concerning Liddell-Scott, I clearly understand why you use that for your definition. I use that source as well, but not as my sole majority source. I also compare that to other standard sources. Please consider checking the following: Friberg, Barclay-Newman, Louw-Nida, Thayer, Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie, Gingrich as well as Strongs for Greek sources - oh and Drs. William & Robert Mounce. You will find all of them agree with what I have commented on in the past relating to 1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10. So at this point you seem to have the “soft” source as I suspected. I would also suggest checking Dr. Dan Wallace of DTS. These 3 professors are more current than Liddell-Scott and also agree with the definitions provided by my resources.
Now to your smoke screens - The NT reiterates certain prohibitions. Certain ones were considered abrogated - such as dietary laws - you know that - so why make an issue of Pork? You also know the reasons for the other laws and why they were not re-emphasized. What seems to bother you to no end is Paul’s re-emphasizing some specific moral laws and the condemnation of homosexuality (the act not the person) in the 1 Cor 6:9 passage and again in 1 Tim 1:10.
I can assume there is no issue with the ancient church father’s statements quoted from Bercot that disagreed with your position since they would also disagree with Liddell-Scott – I wonder why they did not take them into account when they applied their research since they seem to be omitted in their notations.
I also suggest folks listen to this MP3 by William Lane Craig he does a much better job of explaining my position than I do and has some interesting statistics and the question itself should arouse interest:
http://www.rfmedia.org/RFaudiovideo/RFpodcast/CanaChristianbe_Homosexual.mp3
You may have to do a copy/paste with the whole link.
I also note that you also appear to have an axes to grind with independent universities (ORU maybe?) and the SBC as well? I have Dr Zodhiates H-G Key Study Bible in the NASV - so he uses multiple versions to correct your comment and I did not use that book as a reference. I would not claim he was always correct, but was showing you I use multiple resources.
Finally, I have consistently requested you explain how or why God would consider an act an abomination in an idolatrous situation but would consider it holy or righteous apart from that location. I assume from your consistent silence you agree it is not holy. I would suggest you read J. C. Ryle’s book on “Holiness”. Use that resource to define the term and concept.
No joke. Our church abides by the Bible. God’s word. And this is a silly strip.
My three sons here in Wichita, KS restuarants will be open.
Only like some of the malls will close early New Years Eve so other can get ready to welcome New Years Day.
At least you have the start of the year where as mine is at the end of the year.
I don’t like sports either.
Joe, I found the definition - you might recognize it:
“Hermeneutics’ refers to the proper study of literature in the context in which it was originally written. ” ( This claim of hermeneutics seems to be a popular attack of yours. But this brings us back to my 90 - 190 AD sources and especially those who used the words after Paul. They were contemporaries and those contemporaries say the behavior as a sin and used the same words as defined by my multiple lexical sources.)
I want to followup on some other quotes of yours.
I also found this statement along with the hermeneutics statement: “I don’t consider same-gender sexual activity to be a ‘homosexual sex act’ unless at least one of the couple is actually a homosexual. ” (Interesting you were called to explain yourself on how same-gender sex was not a homosexual sex act and never responded again.)
And this: “And as an independent Pentecostal Evangelist (I am not ordained by a denominational church committee, but ordained the New Testament way by laying on of hands), my calling is to point folks to the real truth of the Gospel and what the power of the Holy Spirit is and does.” (Sounds more like a deacon ordination ceremony than an ordination for a pastor - Let me know if you need a formal ordination test for a pastor. And no, this is not what I was going to post.)
“I am not fettered by religion, which is based on a set of rules made up by human beings. Jesus set me free from following rules made for a specific group of people.” (Hmm - I thought the set of rules we followed came from the Bible - Jesus made me free from rules see verse ???)
“People say “The Bible tells how you can be a born-again Christian.” Well, there are NO instructions for ‘Christians’ in the Bible; and literally, Jesus said to those who asked about inheriting eternal life, “You must be born-from-above.” The two guys who asked thought Jesus meant “born-again” as in being born a 2nd time.” (My concern is the emphatic NO you used - want to rethink that after reading the epistles? - by the way the born from above is correct. I also agreed with you on several other postings - one on Noah and the Ark)
“I do not consider the Bible to be a book of myths. But, my faith is not in the book put together officially in 397 AD by a committee; my faith is in Christ Jesus.” (Ok so what books are in your Bible - the 66 or ??)
“Jesus was more than ‘only a man;’ physically speaking, until he rose from the dead, he was 100 per cent human. But, spiritually speaking, he was also 100 per cent the Son of God the father.” (I am assuming you do not adhere to the Deity of Jesus based on your phrasing - correct? Do you believe in the Trinity? Your wording was strange even for the original context)
“Some Bible-thumpers try to claim that being a homosexual is like being a criminal, a drug addict and/or an alcoholic. But, one has no choice in regard to his sexual orientation; but, one has to choose to be a criminal, a drug addict and/or an alcoholic. ” (But does not everyone have a volition to make a choice whether to do an action or not? Just as you have a choice to respond or not)
What amazes me is you will make some very clear and accurate statements but you do it with a hammer - which is why I pulled a lot of these quotes - it does get reactions but always seems to be in the form of an argument rather than friendly discussion. I am perfectly content to not persuade anyone since that job is left to the Holy Spirit.
I don’t recall making the statement about the Bible being the Word of God. If I had mad a reference in that manner - referring to the text, I would have said God’s word. I don’t have to look up anything since the Word was God Jn 1:1
As to doing what others tell you, you are doing exactly that by following your professors and by accepting only Liddell-Scott. I am amazed you don’t recognize this in yourself. You see yourself as a free thinker, but you are following a bias and are no different than my bias - we all have them and we all get them from somewhere.
Lastly have you noticed that I am the only one that wants to play with you? Your comments are generally ignored by folks because you state the obvious - see Argyle or lack tact and are argumentative - See Cornered. You would be more effective politely mentioning that angels don’t have wings and they don’t have halos and maybe mention the raiment they would wear and then maybe make a joke about the belts and suspenders by the artist must represent eternal security or some such concept. You certainly won’t change the way the artist draws the strip or other folks minds with your approach.
Thanks Doc - you guys have a great group and are ok. I don’t expect agreement - you may not recall, but we (the gang and I) have had discussions in the past and I am cool with that and the discussions were all very polite. Hope you all have a great new year.
Now Joe - you did use Liddell-Scott as your only legitimate reference source. Please don’t try and guess what I thought - you guessed wrong. I have the Liddell-Scott volume and all the others I referenced.
See Joe, it is not about where you went to school or who your teachers were (I have no issue if you went to ORU or not and I wouldn’t have known that if you had not posted it with Soulforce), but Most people want to know where we go for support of your positions - sort of like footnoting in a reference source. I provided mine - places you could go and look up, in fact I provided multiple sources. All you had was one lexicon and “The Gospel According to Joe”.
What bothers me more is when you don’t get your way you whine and cry that people aren’t playing well with you and being mean and say things you personally interpret as unkind. Example - Bulldog used a slang tern - but you also used one “gay” - had he used that slang term would you have not complained? I have seen your posts elsewhere and the process/tactic you use is claim superior knowledge with an arrogant tone. If offended by the response cry foul and ask for regulation. If not offended attempt to intimidate or berate. The pattern is all over the web.
kab2rb over 14 years ago
I know the feeling I will be having mine BD before the year is up. I will be working pt and not going anywhere after work.
Mythreesons over 14 years ago
Jan 1 is my birthday. Try to celebrate that. Everything closed, including restaurants. Don’t care for sports, so no TV either. Thank heavens for Netflix.
ted.hering over 14 years ago
It took me a minute to figure out those halos weren’t funny hats.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe - you may not have noticed but this is a comic. Don’t get uptight over halos and dates - it is really going to be 2010 in a few days and not 2016 or 2017 - after all we don’t want to miss the end of the world in 2012 now do we? And puleeze don’t complain about 3 wise men. And don’t get upset how Mike draws angels or devils - it is a comic. Chill - Relax and enjoy it.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe - the yesterday was a posting problem with the system - there were problems with connections and such so I was getting cut off - please accept my apology for the forced multiple posts - that is not my style.
But, why have you claimed I hate homosexuals? I have made no hateful statement other than calling homosexual behavior or the act itself a sin - which you agreed was a sin but only when tied to idolatry. My issue was it is not location that is the abomination but the act. If a person has a desire for another male, that does not make them homosexual, it is only when they carry out the desire in the form of an act. Could there be a point though where the desire for another person of the same sex turns into lust and is acted upon and does that lust then constitute a form of idolatry? What then of acts with multiple partners? Open relationships?
Joe concerning Liddell-Scott, I clearly understand why you use that for your definition. I use that source as well, but not as my sole majority source. I also compare that to other standard sources. Please consider checking the following: Friberg, Barclay-Newman, Louw-Nida, Thayer, Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie, Gingrich as well as Strongs for Greek sources - oh and Drs. William & Robert Mounce. You will find all of them agree with what I have commented on in the past relating to 1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10. So at this point you seem to have the “soft” source as I suspected. I would also suggest checking Dr. Dan Wallace of DTS. These 3 professors are more current than Liddell-Scott and also agree with the definitions provided by my resources.
Now to your smoke screens - The NT reiterates certain prohibitions. Certain ones were considered abrogated - such as dietary laws - you know that - so why make an issue of Pork? You also know the reasons for the other laws and why they were not re-emphasized. What seems to bother you to no end is Paul’s re-emphasizing some specific moral laws and the condemnation of homosexuality (the act not the person) in the 1 Cor 6:9 passage and again in 1 Tim 1:10.
I can assume there is no issue with the ancient church father’s statements quoted from Bercot that disagreed with your position since they would also disagree with Liddell-Scott – I wonder why they did not take them into account when they applied their research since they seem to be omitted in their notations.
I also suggest folks listen to this MP3 by William Lane Craig he does a much better job of explaining my position than I do and has some interesting statistics and the question itself should arouse interest: http://www.rfmedia.org/RFaudiovideo/RFpodcast/CanaChristianbe_Homosexual.mp3 You may have to do a copy/paste with the whole link.
I also note that you also appear to have an axes to grind with independent universities (ORU maybe?) and the SBC as well? I have Dr Zodhiates H-G Key Study Bible in the NASV - so he uses multiple versions to correct your comment and I did not use that book as a reference. I would not claim he was always correct, but was showing you I use multiple resources.
Finally, I have consistently requested you explain how or why God would consider an act an abomination in an idolatrous situation but would consider it holy or righteous apart from that location. I assume from your consistent silence you agree it is not holy. I would suggest you read J. C. Ryle’s book on “Holiness”. Use that resource to define the term and concept.
kab2rb over 14 years ago
No joke. Our church abides by the Bible. God’s word. And this is a silly strip. My three sons here in Wichita, KS restuarants will be open. Only like some of the malls will close early New Years Eve so other can get ready to welcome New Years Day. At least you have the start of the year where as mine is at the end of the year. I don’t like sports either.
kab2rb over 14 years ago
This site usually doesn’t get that many comments and long ones to. Wow Mythreesons have a happy BD.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe, I found the definition - you might recognize it:
“Hermeneutics’ refers to the proper study of literature in the context in which it was originally written. ” ( This claim of hermeneutics seems to be a popular attack of yours. But this brings us back to my 90 - 190 AD sources and especially those who used the words after Paul. They were contemporaries and those contemporaries say the behavior as a sin and used the same words as defined by my multiple lexical sources.)
I want to followup on some other quotes of yours.
I also found this statement along with the hermeneutics statement: “I don’t consider same-gender sexual activity to be a ‘homosexual sex act’ unless at least one of the couple is actually a homosexual. ” (Interesting you were called to explain yourself on how same-gender sex was not a homosexual sex act and never responded again.)
And this: “And as an independent Pentecostal Evangelist (I am not ordained by a denominational church committee, but ordained the New Testament way by laying on of hands), my calling is to point folks to the real truth of the Gospel and what the power of the Holy Spirit is and does.” (Sounds more like a deacon ordination ceremony than an ordination for a pastor - Let me know if you need a formal ordination test for a pastor. And no, this is not what I was going to post.)
“I am not fettered by religion, which is based on a set of rules made up by human beings. Jesus set me free from following rules made for a specific group of people.” (Hmm - I thought the set of rules we followed came from the Bible - Jesus made me free from rules see verse ???)
“People say “The Bible tells how you can be a born-again Christian.” Well, there are NO instructions for ‘Christians’ in the Bible; and literally, Jesus said to those who asked about inheriting eternal life, “You must be born-from-above.” The two guys who asked thought Jesus meant “born-again” as in being born a 2nd time.” (My concern is the emphatic NO you used - want to rethink that after reading the epistles? - by the way the born from above is correct. I also agreed with you on several other postings - one on Noah and the Ark)
“I do not consider the Bible to be a book of myths. But, my faith is not in the book put together officially in 397 AD by a committee; my faith is in Christ Jesus.” (Ok so what books are in your Bible - the 66 or ??)
“Jesus was more than ‘only a man;’ physically speaking, until he rose from the dead, he was 100 per cent human. But, spiritually speaking, he was also 100 per cent the Son of God the father.” (I am assuming you do not adhere to the Deity of Jesus based on your phrasing - correct? Do you believe in the Trinity? Your wording was strange even for the original context)
“Some Bible-thumpers try to claim that being a homosexual is like being a criminal, a drug addict and/or an alcoholic. But, one has no choice in regard to his sexual orientation; but, one has to choose to be a criminal, a drug addict and/or an alcoholic. ” (But does not everyone have a volition to make a choice whether to do an action or not? Just as you have a choice to respond or not)
What amazes me is you will make some very clear and accurate statements but you do it with a hammer - which is why I pulled a lot of these quotes - it does get reactions but always seems to be in the form of an argument rather than friendly discussion. I am perfectly content to not persuade anyone since that job is left to the Holy Spirit.
Have a good new year.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe,
I don’t recall making the statement about the Bible being the Word of God. If I had mad a reference in that manner - referring to the text, I would have said God’s word. I don’t have to look up anything since the Word was God Jn 1:1
As to doing what others tell you, you are doing exactly that by following your professors and by accepting only Liddell-Scott. I am amazed you don’t recognize this in yourself. You see yourself as a free thinker, but you are following a bias and are no different than my bias - we all have them and we all get them from somewhere.
Lastly have you noticed that I am the only one that wants to play with you? Your comments are generally ignored by folks because you state the obvious - see Argyle or lack tact and are argumentative - See Cornered. You would be more effective politely mentioning that angels don’t have wings and they don’t have halos and maybe mention the raiment they would wear and then maybe make a joke about the belts and suspenders by the artist must represent eternal security or some such concept. You certainly won’t change the way the artist draws the strip or other folks minds with your approach.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Thanks Doc - you guys have a great group and are ok. I don’t expect agreement - you may not recall, but we (the gang and I) have had discussions in the past and I am cool with that and the discussions were all very polite. Hope you all have a great new year.
Now Joe - you did use Liddell-Scott as your only legitimate reference source. Please don’t try and guess what I thought - you guessed wrong. I have the Liddell-Scott volume and all the others I referenced.
See Joe, it is not about where you went to school or who your teachers were (I have no issue if you went to ORU or not and I wouldn’t have known that if you had not posted it with Soulforce), but Most people want to know where we go for support of your positions - sort of like footnoting in a reference source. I provided mine - places you could go and look up, in fact I provided multiple sources. All you had was one lexicon and “The Gospel According to Joe”.
What bothers me more is when you don’t get your way you whine and cry that people aren’t playing well with you and being mean and say things you personally interpret as unkind. Example - Bulldog used a slang tern - but you also used one “gay” - had he used that slang term would you have not complained? I have seen your posts elsewhere and the process/tactic you use is claim superior knowledge with an arrogant tone. If offended by the response cry foul and ask for regulation. If not offended attempt to intimidate or berate. The pattern is all over the web.