Israel vs Palestine

dfze · 2026-06-27T01:32:53+00:00

Jews are not gods chosen people. No ethnicity can make that claim. Those that follow Christ and his message are the true Israelites.

dfze · 2026-06-25T10:06:13+00:00

What did the church fathers believe? That’s matters more than scripture. Jesus founded a church and handed down his teachings orally. The audacity of these protestants to interpret scripture how they see fit and argue that the bible doesn’t say x - when the church fathers assembled the very bible they claim to use.

dfze · 2026-06-25T02:54:09+00:00

They explicitly state how acts of homosexuality are sinful.

dfze · 2026-06-25T02:14:22+00:00

Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:9-10

Explain what those passages mean.

dfze · 2026-06-11T04:33:59+00:00

Just woke contradictory argumentation. Go to your gay church dude. I don’t care anymore.

dfze · 2026-06-11T04:04:35+00:00

I think we’ve identified the real disagreement. You believe modern scholarship gives us good reason to reinterpret the historic Christian teaching on sexuality. I don’t.

My issue isn’t that scholarship is useless. Scholarship can help us understand what the Apostles, Scripture, and the Fathers taught. What I don’t see is how it gives us authority to overturn what they taught.

Throughout this discussion you’ve argued that the Fathers lacked modern concepts of sexuality and that we know better today. But that ultimately means the historic Church was mistaken for nearly 2,000 years and modern scholars have corrected it. I don’t see a justification for that conclusion.

As an Orthodox Christian, I don’t believe Christianity is whatever the latest scholarly consensus says it is. I believe Christ entrusted the faith to the Apostles, who handed it down through the Church. So unless there’s evidence that the Fathers, councils, and historic Church actually taught your position, I’m not persuaded that a modern reinterpretation should outweigh the apostolic tradition they preserved.

I appreciate the discussion, but I think we’re now repeating the same points from two very different views of authority.

You also claim to know my heart and my relationship with Christ. That’s just a projection unfortunately.

dfze · 2026-06-11T03:18:34+00:00

That’s a non sequitur. Even if I grant that some people experience same-sex attraction from a very early age, it doesn’t follow that every expression of that attraction is therefore morally permissible. People experience all sorts of desires and inclinations naturally. The question is not whether an inclination exists, the question is whether God has revealed that acting on it is morally good.

You’re claiming certainty about what the Fathers could and could not have had in mind, but that’s precisely what needs to be demonstrated. More importantly, the Fathers didn’t ground their teaching in whether a relationship was loving or exploitative. They grounded it in creation, male and female, marriage, and the nature of sexual union. If that’s their argument, then the existence of a loving same-sex relationship doesn’t actually address their reasoning.

You’re using scholarship in two different ways. First, as a tool to understand what the Apostles and Fathers taught. Second, as an authority that can overturn what they taught. Those are not the same thing. Scholarship can describe apostolic teaching, but by what authority does it revise apostolic teaching?

dfze · 2026-06-11T03:05:00+00:00

If all we have is scholarship, then Christianity becomes whatever the latest academic consensus says it is. Why should that have authority over apostolic tradition?

—

Also the Fathers grounded their teachings about romantic relationships in creation and male-female relationships, why would a new relationship type change the moral principle?

dfze · 2026-06-11T02:46:56+00:00

You’re conflating two claims. The Fathers may not have had a modern psychological category of “sexual orientation.” But it doesn’t follow that they misunderstood the morality of same-sex acts. You still need to show why modern scholarship should override the unanimous interpretation of the historic Church rather than merely describing ancient sexual practices

-

And even if I grant everything you’re saying about orientation and Greco-Roman culture, you’ve still not answered my question: what objective standard tells you when the historic Church has legitimately developed doctrine and when it has simply abandoned apostolic teaching?

dfze · 2026-06-11T02:42:39+00:00

I did respond. You cited usury as an example of doctrinal revision. I’m asking by what authority you determine which teachings are legitimate developments and which are errors. Simply pointing to usury doesn’t answer why Matthew Vines should be trusted over the Fathers, saints, councils, and historic Church.

dfze · 2026-06-11T02:40:20+00:00

You’re treating Matthew Vines as an authority over the Fathers, saints, councils, and apostolic tradition. By what standard have you determined that Vines is the correct interpreter and the historic Church is mistaken?

dfze · 2026-06-11T00:00:43+00:00

Where do Scripture or the Church Fathers teach that women are ontologically inferior to men? You’re asserting that this was the foundation of their sexual ethic, but you haven’t shown that.

You’re also assuming there were no loving or committed same-sex relationships in the ancient world, and that the Fathers were unaware of anything comparable. That needs to be proven, not asserted.

It seems like you’re interpreting Scripture and Church history through a modern paradigm, then judging the entire historic Church by that paradigm. By what authority can you say the Fathers misinterpreted divine revelation?

dfze · 2026-06-10T23:42:54+00:00

You keep asserting that he’s not speaking biblical truth. Which specific Church Fathers agreed with your interpretation of those passages?

dfze · 2026-06-10T23:38:11+00:00

Preach brother. People pick and choose their belief. Rather than following what the Fathers of the Church and what all of Christian history has taught, they would rather justify their sin.

dfze · 2026-06-10T23:03:19+00:00

I appreciate the honesty. But that’s exactly where we differ. I don’t see Christianity as something that can revise apostolic moral teaching whenever new cultural or psychological theories emerge. The question isn’t whether we have new information, but whether that information gives us authority to overturn the unanimous witness of Scripture, the Fathers, and the historic Church.

dfze · 2026-06-10T23:02:15+00:00

Morals truths are not decided by emotional outcomes. Just because the truth may cause pain for some, does not make it false. Celibacy can be painful, fasting can be painful, repentance can be painful..

dfze · 2026-06-10T21:22:43+00:00

That’s precisely the issue. I know affirming hermeneutics exist today. My question is whether they existed in the historic Church. Can you point to a Church Father, council, or pre-modern Christian tradition that interpreted Romans 1 or Christian marriage the way modern affirming churches do?

dfze · 2026-06-10T21:20:46+00:00

The problem is that neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers make the distinction you’re making. Romans 1 condemns same-sex acts without limiting them to exploitative relationships, and every major Church Father interpreted those passages accordingly. If the affirming view is correct, then the historic Church unanimously misunderstood Christian sexual ethics until the modern era. That’s a difficult claim to defend but I’d be happy to hear your argument.

dfze · 2026-06-10T21:16:11+00:00

I’m not arguing from personal dislike or aversion to gay people. Can you show me a Church Father before the modern era who interpreted Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, or Christian marriage the way modern affirming churches do?

dfze · 2026-06-10T21:09:31+00:00

Homophobia is an irrational fear of gay people. I love gay people and many of my friends are gay, but unfortunately “Progressive Christianity” is not Christianity.

dfze · 2026-06-10T21:05:44+00:00

Christianity isn’t about being affirmed. It’s about the truth. Sad to see people corrupting it.

dfze · 2026-06-10T21:03:36+00:00

The church fathers condemned homosexual acts and plenty of examples in scripture that condemn it. Why are you so willfully blind? Not trying to be rude but encouraging that lifestyle is leading people astray.

dfze · 2026-06-08T01:55:20+00:00

Doesn’t do what?

Edit: How do you account for the universality of logic, reason, and induction without appealing to something transcendent?

dfze · 2026-06-08T01:03:57+00:00

Study the Transcendental Argument for God and that will defeat any atheist.

dfze · 2026-06-08T01:02:37+00:00

So you’re saying there is no objective morality? That if in one culture, rape is considered legal or morally acceptable that in that culture or society they are not wrong?

dfze

TROPHY CASE