Homosexuality and Scripture

It is so much better when people believe that the Bible is fundamentally true. Jason is doing a great job with the scriptures, but sometimes scriptural proof is not enough.
Murph

 

Not yet...I was doing that to save from copying and pasting. Sorry if it was not allowed. I was trying to combine the ideas and let them flow together but didn't want to destroy the integrity of your original posts.

I would rather not just yet, though, I think we might want to amend the rules then as I am sure you want to make some comments on what I just said. Either way, it is up to you. I feel I have made my points fairly clear.

jason

 

Sounds good.....1 summary coming right up...uhm...sometime soon.

jason

 

Let us further point out that God created male and FEMALE in the Garden...not another male. Man, as he has done with almost everything God has given to him, has perverted this original design according to the Apostle Paul.

 

I am going to use this as an outline to my summary as it contains some errors. I will do more pontificating at the end.

The bolded parts encompass both A and B from above, there by leading to C (A + B). I refuted it. If you failed to either read it or grasp it, that is not my fault.

While I agree that the Holy Spirit's conviction is needed to determine what is right and wrong (in those things which call for a subjective moral standard...homosexuality not being one of them just as premarital sex is not one of them)...and I agree with Jesus' commandment to love one another, I vehemently disagree with what you support. We are told, in absolute terms, that certain things are wrong. These things cannot be change, they cannot be justified and they cannot be argued away to suit your 'morality of the moment' mentality. There is an absolute standard by which we must live our lives.

Who said I said 'invalid' the adjective? Maybe it was the noun? Just kidding.

But ok...I would almost give this to you except you are wrong again.

Since a logical fallacy (such as slippery slope) constitutes a 'falsley based or reasoned' conlusion ...it seems my use of 'invalid' is actually just as correct as if I used your 'unsound'. Now...lets move on.

Let me point out that 'B' is totally missing from your equation above. Again (I pointed this out earlier in another post), if you must use your own argument, please use it correctly.

That being said. You are espousing a subjective moral system. How is it subjective? Because you 'feel it is right or wrong'. This is what subjective morality is all about. When one person can say if their actions are right or wrong based upon personal feelings, it is subjective. Seriously, this isn't rocket science

If you still don't understand what subjetive morality is all about, feel free to write me about it. I would be more than willing to go over it with you.

You are correct on one acount; you did claim it. Still, you cannot logically claim something to be true or not true based upon the number of times it is mentioned, the number of years it took to figure it out, the number of people it took to figure it out or the amount of money it took to get it. This is not even up for debate, it is just not true.

For instance: if I were to say that the atom bomb was a more important invention because of how much money it took to 'find' it than electricity, that would be stupid. We couldn't even have dreamed of atomic power or weapons without electricity. And yet, electricity took probably a billionth the money, a billionth the time and a billionth the man power.

How about a REALLY stupid example. Stupid, but it shows why you CAN'T claim what you did: Which is the better movie? Better in terms of writing, acting, directing and lasting power in our memories? The original Pshyco or Britney Spears' Crossroads? Well, I'll bet that almost everyone said Pshyco. Pshyco probably cost 1/100th the amount to make than did Crossroads.

See the point? Anyway....we are digressing...

Now...for my final, closing statement(s).

I have shown how your argument for what constitutes sin (your A + B = C) is invalid when taken by itself by:

1. Showing that A (given your guidlines) cannot stand on its own
2. Showing that B (given your guidlines) cannot stand on its own
3. Showing that C (given your guidlines) cannot stand even when concluded via A and B. This means that the collective A + B (given your guidlines) cannot stand by themselves.

I also assumed the intelligence of those reading this thread to be of a high degree...or at least high enought to plainy read the scripture passages given by several board members. These passages clearly list homosexuality as a sin (along with others). It is clear from scripture that homosexuality (of the sexual impurity sin...which is where it is classified) is a sin. To say otherwise spits on God's word, and in the face of God Himself.

I then continued to point out that Post-it himself didn't use his own arguments when trying to define what was sin. PI would either use only A or only B (Something I was chastized for, I might add). This is inconsistent.

I also continued to point out that the system that PI is proposing, though very nice looking for those wordly Christians, is actually something called subjective morality (see definition of subjective above). Mind you, there are subjective morals...that is without a doubt (think: gossip of PI's arguments), but if we have a CLEAR list of things which are wrong, they are not to be taken as subjective. Those defined as wrong are UNIVERSALLY wrong. I used this to show how PI's position can be invalidated (oh, I'm sorry...unsoundidated...or something like that) by applying his arguments to something that we both agreed was a sin; premarital sex. That simple example was enough to show his arguments to be false.

Concluding, I would like to say to Post-it. You are almost there. You have realized that there are subjective sins in Christianity. Some people fail to realize this point. The point you are missing, and it suprises me, is that there are also objective sins. These objective sins are always wrong, no matter the situation. Once you realize that both can live, and do live, in Christianity you will realize that homosexuality, along with fornication, premarital sex, drunkenness and some others posted earlier are of the objective variety. I'm glad we had this debate, and I am glad you got to see these arguments. I just pray that you will mull them over and think about them for a while...they do take some time to sink in. Again, I am MORE than willing to talk about this over email. As a matter of fact, I would like to. This topic can be rather daunty to tackle all by yourself. As someone who has been searching this topic for quite some time now, I would like to offer my assistance to you to go that final mile.

In Christ,
jason

 

This subject is a abombiation to God and should not even be discussed on a christian site debating whether it is right or wrong. God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. God instituted the family with man and woman. Satan has always been trying to distroy the family with this sin sick issue.

 

Mrs. KJV - this is why the Fundamentalist Forum was created, so that people who are not interested in contemporary theological debates would have somewhere to go without having to see those discussions.

Wherever you are on the theological spectrum, every major denomination except the Roman Catholic Church and the newly orthodox Southern Baptist Convention is having serious, in-depth discussion on this issue. There is one baptist body (the Alliance of Baptists) that has taken a welcoming and affirming stand, and another (the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) includes welcoming and affirming churches. In addition, several baptist seminaries have open admission policies.

Joshua

[ September 12, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

I wonder the reasoning: popular opinion, higher thinking, or spiritual enlightenment. What do you think Joshua
Murph

 

Oh and by the way thanks for advertising the new forum I wanted to but was afraid of getting jumped. Mrs. KJV may not be interested but her post indicated a good possibility.
Murph

 

Murph, I think there are aspects of biblical interpretation that change as culture changes. Unlike some, I believe that the Bible contains both timeless truth and culturally conditioned opinions. As our society's understanding of sexual orientation and the nature of love changes, the Church's changes as well.

This happened with astronomy when we finally moved from a geocentric understanding of the universe. Although you wouldn't know it here, it has happened with the bulk of Christianity on the topic of equality for women. It is happening on sexual orientation now.

Consequently, I think the primary factor is cultural change. I don't think that means that we are inappropriately using culture to interpret the Bible. I just think we're using culture to interpret those parts of the Bible which are cultural.

Joshua

 

According to Post-it's argument #1, if I chose to torture and dismember cute fuzzy animals for fun and sell Internet access to videos of these acts, then it isn't a "sin" as long as the Holy Spirit doesn't convict me of it.

 

Dude!
God is the same yesterday and today, right?!
Homosexuality was an ABOMINATION in the Old Covenant as well as under the New Covenant.
God doesn't change.
He can't HATE it one minute and then say, "Oh, well you're smart enough to figure this out on your own." God's Holy Spirit (part of the Trinity) cannot go against the Father's inclination to hate sin (specifically: homosexuality.)

Honestly! Post-it, you're merely trying to legitimize your own desires without considering God's Word, right?

One cannot hide their sins behind rhetoric!

 

Joshua, this is all well and good until you realize that this will apply to other topics in the same way. For instance, it is now customary in our culture for couples to live together before marriage (at least in my part of the country) and have premarital sex (this is actually advocated by non-christian premarital counselors to see if two people are sexually "compatible"). Now, our culture has changed to allow for the acceptance of premarital sex, but premarital sex is still a sin. So the question arises: "By what standard or authority do you (we) change what the bible says is a sin to adapt to culture?". I am sure you wouldn't say that premarital sex is ok, but by your own argument it would be.

1. A misunderstanging of astronomy was never a sin...
2. The stance on equality for women(in Christianity) hasn't changed, what changed is man's willingness to heed what God already said. We are actually still (as a religion) a bit off from it, I feel.

But, which parts are those? Again, without an objective standard to judge it, we will merely change what we want to change to suit our desires. This is wrong.

In Christ,
jason

 

post-it said:

I did not throw out the generalized list of sins given in the NT. I gave additional ways to detail those out into sin.

The fact that the Bible defines them as such isn't sufficient for you?

So your fuzzy animal example fails to counter what I presented.

You presented:

Syllogistically, this says:

P1. What is sin for a person is what the Holy Spirit places in his heart.
P2. The Holy Spirit has not placed homosexuality in some persons' hearts.
C. Therefore, for some persons, homosexuality is not a sin.

I can say with equal force in logic:

P1. What is sin for a person is what the Holy Spirit places in his heart.
P2. The Holy Spirit has not placed torturing cute puppies in some persons' hearts.
C. Therefore, for some persons, torturing cute puppies is not a sin.

Would you care to tell us why doing these obvious acts of crulety and promotion of such, are sin?

Oops, did I say puppies? I meant babies. Hypothetically, I have never been convicted by the Holy Spirit of my baby-torturing activities.

[ September 12, 2002, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]