Ok... change my mind. It would be a relief.

[Goshin]

I don't have a personal hatred of gays or homosexuality.


I have a belief that the practice of it is sinful, because the Bible says so in many different scriptures.


I've heard people try to explain why those scriptures don't really mean what they say, or don't apply to modern homosexual relationships.


I've yet to hear a sufficiently compelling argument to change my mind.... but I'm going to admit to you that if I did, it would be a RELIEF. I could say "yay gay" along with everyone else and stop drawing all the hate that flies in when I point out what the Bible says about it.


So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin.

Now here's the catch.... it has to be Biblical, and theologically sound. This is about BIBLICAL truth and is a THEOLOGICAL question. Secular arguments will be disregarded. Psychology is not relevant. Biology is not relevant. Politics is not relevant.

It has to be based in Scripture and theologically sound. For instance, if someone asks me why I don't obey the OT prohibition on eating pig or shellfish, I can point to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and say "that's why; as a modern Gentile Christian I am not subject to most OT law, because God and the authority of the Apostles collectively says so."

Scriptural and theologically sound; have at it.


I'll be genuinely interested if anyone can come up with such an assertion, that will withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If you don't know the Bible quite well, I'd recommend you not even try: this is the big leagues, if you don't know what you're talking about it will be quickly pointed out.




Bear in mind this is the Religious Discussion Forum, and the rules regarding respectful discussion and no religion-bashing apply.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I don't have a personal hatred of gays or homosexuality.


I have a belief that the practice of it is sinful, because the Bible says so in many different scriptures.


I've heard people try to explain why those scriptures don't really mean what they say, or don't apply to modern homosexual relationships.


I've yet to hear a sufficiently compelling argument to change my mind.... but I'm going to admit to you that if I did, it would be a RELIEF. I could say "yay gay" along with everyone else and stop drawing all the hate that flies in when I point out what the Bible says about it.


So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin.

Now here's the catch.... it has to be Biblical, and theologically sound. This is about BIBLICAL truth and is a THEOLOGICAL question. Secular arguments will be disregarded. Psychology is not relevant. Biology is not relevant. Politics is not relevant.

It has to be based in Scripture and theologically sound. For instance, if someone asks me why I don't obey the OT prohibition on eating pig or shellfish, I can point to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and say "that's why; as a modern Gentile Christian I am not subject to most OT law, because God and the authority of the Apostles collectively says so."

Scriptural and theologically sound; have at it.


I'll be genuinely interested if anyone can come up with such an assertion, that will withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If you don't know the Bible quite well, I'd recommend you not even try: this is the big leagues, if you don't know what you're talking about it will be quickly pointed out.




Bear in mind this is the Religious Discussion Forum, and the rules regarding respectful discussion and no religion-bashing apply.

You expect others to provide you with a theological education?

The purpose of the Bible is not a law book. I suggest you begin your own, inner, theological quest, which is what the library known as the Bible is all about.

 

[Goshin]

You expect others to provide you with a theological education?

The purpose of the Bible is not a law book. I suggest you begin your own, inner, theological quest, which is what the library known as the Bible is all about.

You're the one who asserted I don't know the Bible, because I said I believed what it said.

I think the burden on proof is on you.


If you got nothing, then just say so.

 

[Unrepresented]

If you're looking for specific scriptural endorsement of same sex marriage, you're not going to have your mind changed, since the bible doesn't address that or most of the (relatively) complex social matters we currently engage. At some point (as with the rest of our modern lives) you'll have to read between the lines and determine the intent of the various authors.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I don't have a personal hatred of gays or homosexuality.


I have a belief that the practice of it is sinful, because the Bible says so in many different scriptures.


I've heard people try to explain why those scriptures don't really mean what they say, or don't apply to modern homosexual relationships.


I've yet to hear a sufficiently compelling argument to change my mind.... but I'm going to admit to you that if I did, it would be a RELIEF. I could say "yay gay" along with everyone else and stop drawing all the hate that flies in when I point out what the Bible says about it.


So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin.

Now here's the catch.... it has to be Biblical, and theologically sound. This is about BIBLICAL truth and is a THEOLOGICAL question. Secular arguments will be disregarded. Psychology is not relevant. Biology is not relevant. Politics is not relevant.

It has to be based in Scripture and theologically sound. For instance, if someone asks me why I don't obey the OT prohibition on eating pig or shellfish, I can point to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and say "that's why; as a modern Gentile Christian I am not subject to most OT law, because God and the authority of the Apostles collectively says so."

Scriptural and theologically sound; have at it.


I'll be genuinely interested if anyone can come up with such an assertion, that will withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If you don't know the Bible quite well, I'd recommend you not even try: this is the big leagues, if you don't know what you're talking about it will be quickly pointed out.




Bear in mind this is the Religious Discussion Forum, and the rules regarding respectful discussion and no religion-bashing apply.

I'd make just one comment in this regard. I'm not a religious person, at this point in my life, but I do remember a passage of scripture that has guided my adult life pretty much - to paraphrase "judge not, lest ye be judged too". That pretty much sets it up for me. If there is a God, he/she is the one who judges the actions of his children - his children don't get that privilege/responsibility. Therefore, for me, I'll concentrate on living my life in a Christian manner as best I can and leave others to live their lives in the way they feel is right for them. It's the Christian thing to do.

 

[Goshin]

If you're looking for specific scriptural endorsement of same sex marriage, you're not going to have your mind changed, since the bible doesn't address that or most of the (relatively) complex social matters we currently engage. At some point (as with the rest of our modern lives) you'll have to read between the lines and determine the intent of the various authors.

I'm not talking about SSM or whether it should be legal; as I said, this is about religious beliefs and theology, not law or politics.


And that approach would be fine if the Bible were silent on the subject, or even if it were strictly an OT thing, but it isn't.



Romans 18
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.



1 Corinthians 6:9-11 King James Version (KJV)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.



1 Timothy 1:10King James Version (KJV)

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 

[Goshin]

I'd make just one comment in this regard. I'm not a religious person, at this point in my life, but I do remember a passage of scripture that has guided my adult life pretty much - to paraphrase "judge not, lest ye be judged too". That pretty much sets it up for me. If there is a God, he/she is the one who judges the actions of his children - his children don't get that privilege/responsibility. Therefore, for me, I'll concentrate on living my life in a Christian manner as best I can and leave others to live their lives in the way they feel is right for them. It's the Christian thing to do.

I'm not talking about me or my judgment of anyone.

I'm talking about the Bible's judgment of it, as in the scriptures above.


This isn't "Goshin says Gay is Bad". Goshin doesn't really care, personally.


This is about what the Bible says, and whether there is a theologically sound reason for a Christian to ignore the NT scripture that says homosexual activity is a sin.

 

[Unrepresented]

I'm not talking about SSM or whether it should be legal; as I said, this is about religious beliefs and theology, not law or politics.


And that approach would be fine if the Bible were silent on the subject, or even if it were strictly an OT thing, but it isn't.



Romans 18
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.



1 Corinthians 6:9-11 King James Version (KJV)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.



1 Timothy 1:10King James Version (KJV)

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Paul and Timothy were Christians and accepted as canon, but never actually met Jesus, the central figure of the New Testament and Christianity. I don't know if all canon matters more to you as a Christian or specifically the teachings attributed to Jesus.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm not talking about me or my judgment of anyone.

I'm talking about the Bible's judgment of it, as in the scriptures above.


This isn't "Goshin says Gay is Bad". Goshin doesn't really care, personally.


This is about what the Bible says, and whether there is a theologically sound reason for a Christian to ignore the NT scripture that says homosexual activity is a sin.

Depends on your interpretation of the scriptural reference I gave - for me, it says it's not my place to determine if homosexual acts are right or wrong and since I'm not involved in homosexual acts I don't have to worry about it.

And to be clear, my comments had nothing to do with your views - they were my views only - that's part of the don't judge others philosophy I live by. See how that works?

 

[Goshin]

Paul and Timothy were Christians and accepted as canon, but never actually met Jesus, the central figure of the New Testament and Christianity. I don't know if all canon matters more to you as a Christian or specifically the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Yes, that argument has been made. The problem is if I throw that out because it is Paul and Timothy, then I ought rightfully to throw out ALL Paul and Timothy, gutting most of the NT that is considered canon.

This is not considered theologically sound by any mainstream church or theologian of which I am aware, so I am very uncertain about going there. The theological ramifications of utterly ignoring all Pauline scripture is enormous.

Paul was accepted by the Apostles as one of their number, and is generally believed and held to have Apostolic authority.


But kudos to you, that's the first remotely legitimate point anyone has raised.

 

[americanwoman]

I don't have a personal hatred of gays or homosexuality.


I have a belief that the practice of it is sinful, because the Bible says so in many different scriptures.


I've heard people try to explain why those scriptures don't really mean what they say, or don't apply to modern homosexual relationships.


I've yet to hear a sufficiently compelling argument to change my mind.... but I'm going to admit to you that if I did, it would be a RELIEF. I could say "yay gay" along with everyone else and stop drawing all the hate that flies in when I point out what the Bible says about it.


So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin.

Now here's the catch.... it has to be Biblical, and theologically sound. This is about BIBLICAL truth and is a THEOLOGICAL question. Secular arguments will be disregarded. Psychology is not relevant. Biology is not relevant. Politics is not relevant.

It has to be based in Scripture and theologically sound. For instance, if someone asks me why I don't obey the OT prohibition on eating pig or shellfish, I can point to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and say "that's why; as a modern Gentile Christian I am not subject to most OT law, because God and the authority of the Apostles collectively says so."

Scriptural and theologically sound; have at it.


I'll be genuinely interested if anyone can come up with such an assertion, that will withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If you don't know the Bible quite well, I'd recommend you not even try: this is the big leagues, if you don't know what you're talking about it will be quickly pointed out.




Bear in mind this is the Religious Discussion Forum, and the rules regarding respectful discussion and no religion-bashing apply.

One thing I like is the theme of loving one another or treating them as you would want to be treated, no matter what. Maybe it's not the best argument but I take it to say to love and accept everyone and treat them as though they are on the same level as you and let God sort out the wicked ones when the time comes.


1 Peter 4:8

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.


Hebrews 13:1-25

Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”



Luke 6:27-36
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

 

[Goshin]

Depends on your interpretation of the scriptural reference I gave - for me, it says it's not my place to determine if homosexual acts are right or wrong and since I'm not involved in homosexual acts I don't have to worry about it.

And to be clear, my comments had nothing to do with your views - they were my views only - that's part of the don't judge others philosophy I live by. See how that works?

Yes sir, and I respect what you are saying and in general I'm like that too... I don't usually stick my nose in other's business unasked, and if it ain't hurting me or an innocent I tend to mind my own business.


But it is widely held that "do not judge" is not meant to construe ignoring Biblical teachings about sin. I don't know of any mainstream church or theologian that agrees that "judge not" means "don't quote Bible verses about sin to people that might be doing what it says not to do."

But thank you for your honest expression of your viewpoint.

 

[Unrepresented]

Yes, that argument has been made. The problem is if I throw that out because it is Paul and Timothy, then I ought rightfully to throw out ALL Paul and Timothy, gutting most of the NT that is considered canon.

This is not considered theologically sound by any mainstream church or theologian of which I am aware, so I am very uncertain about going there. The theological ramifications of utterly ignoring all Pauline scripture is enormous.

Paul was accepted by the Apostles as one of their number, and is generally believed and held to have Apostolic authority.


But kudos to you, that's the first remotely legitimate point anyone has raised.

I'm not suggesting throwing out the entirety of their work, more prioritizing their words as early church leaders, rather than as being firsthand observers of the central namesake figure in the religion, just as the attention to much of the body of the OT isn't prioritized in terms of relevance to Christianity even if it is included in canon.

 

[Paschendale]

You believe it is sinful, therefore it is sinful for you to do it. Others do not believe that, and so it is not sinful for them. No religion lays down rules for the entire world, only for the followers of that religion. Hinduism's rules don't apply to Muslims, Muslim rules don't apply to Christians, Christian rules don't apply to Buddhists, etc.

This is especially true of Judaism, and thus its descendants, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism it is absolutely understood that the laws and rules given to Abraham and Moses by god were not intended for the whole world, but only for the Jews. Jews were to lead by example, but no one else actually had to follow them. Christianity and Islam, who worship the same Jewish god, who still lays out the same message, only intends these rules for those who follow him. Everyone else who doesn't believe isn't bound by them. They're certainly bound by other rules, but those rules are theirs and not from god.

The scriptural laws that you believe you should follow only apply to you because you believe. This is part of Judaism and thus of Christianity's heritage.

 

[Goshin]

One thing I like is the theme of loving one another or treating them as you would want to be treated, no matter what. Maybe it's not the best argument but I take it to say to love and accept everyone and treat them as though they are on the same level as you and let God sort out the wicked ones when the time comes.


1 Peter 4:8

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.


Hebrews 13:1-25

Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”



Luke 6:27-36
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Yes'm. Certainly the core message of the Bible is a message of love, and that aspect should never be ignored or neglected. Certainly we ought to treat everyone with love as much as is possible in this imperfect world.


But does love mean smiling and saying "have fun" when someone is driving down a road towards a broken bridge? Does it mean ignoring all wrongs, and never telling anyone "Hey, I wouldn't do that if I was you, you know the Bible says God don't like that." ?



Being nice to people even if you disagree with them is a good Christian virtue, I'd agree. I just don't think it means agreeing with them when the Bible appears to say they are wrong.

 

[Goshin]

You believe it is sinful, therefore it is sinful for you to do it. Others do not believe that, and so it is not sinful for them. No religion lays down rules for the entire world, only for the followers of that religion. Hinduism's rules don't apply to Muslims, Muslim rules don't apply to Christians, Christian rules don't apply to Buddhists, etc.

This is especially true of Judaism, and thus its descendants, Christianity and Islam. In Judaism it is absolutely understood that the laws and rules given to Abraham and Moses by god were not intended for the whole world, but only for the Jews. Jews were to lead by example, but no one else actually had to follow them. Christianity and Islam, who worship the same Jewish god, who still lays out the same message, only intends these rules for those who follow him. Everyone else who doesn't believe isn't bound by them. They're certainly bound by other rules, but those rules are theirs and not from god.

The scriptural laws that you believe you should follow only apply to you because you believe. This is part of Judaism and thus of Christianity's heritage.

I am not Muslim or Buddhist, therefore I am not overly concerned with what Islam or Buddha has to say about homosexuality. Nor would I usually think a Muslim or Buddhist would be overly interested in what my religion said about the matter.


Within this thread, I'm addressing what a Christian should believe about right and wrong based on Christian scripture and theology, and if there is any reason within that context to disregard the NT verses that say homosexual activity is a sin.

 

[kamikaze483]

You expect others to provide you with a theological education?

The purpose of the Bible is not a law book. I suggest you begin your own, inner, theological quest, which is what the library known as the Bible is all about.

I think a very logical, rational argument can be made for both sides on this. I believe that most people can not carry on a sensible, intelligent, rational discussion on religious issues when coming from different viewpoints.

Depending upon what persuasion of Christianity you subscribe to, the interpretation and theology are different. Furthermore, there is no way for me to convince you to change your mind. I think you already know that.

Here is a starting point for theological discussion:

1. The Old "Testament" (Covenant) was fulfilled by Jesus and replaced by the New "Testament." This is evidenced, theologically, by both statements by Jesus (which theologically carry more weight than biblical statements by apostles and others) and by the tearing of the curtain in the inner temple at the moment of Jesus' death. Theology differs depending on interpretation, so let me know if you disagree on this. Upon the enactment of the "new law," the Old Testament because a historical record of how God interacted with man prior to the time of Jesus. This basis of theology is where the Jewish faith and Christianity branched off from one another. Even the Ten Commandments- all of the Old Testament law was replaced, fulfilled and clarified by the New Testament.

2. All sins are equal. In each reference to homosexuality in the bible, it was mentioned in a list of other sins. All sins, regardless of type, result in damnation in the absence of salvation.

Do we agree there?

 

[Goshin]

I'm not suggesting throwing out the entirety of their work, more prioritizing their words as early church leaders, rather than as being firsthand observers of the central namesake figure in the religion, just as the attention to much of the body of the OT isn't prioritized in terms of relevance to Christianity even if it is included in canon.

Okay, that's an interesting perspective.

But even if I held that Pauline (and Timothy) scripture was of lesser priority than the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, say.... is there anything in the "higher priority" scriptures that directly contradicts the Pauline verses asserting homosexuality as sin?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I am Jewish, so the NT is not relevant to me. I have posted the theological reasoning of why there is nothing sinful about CONSENSUAL homosexual behavior and about homosexuality as an orientation many times. I will repost it here:

My argument, presented, is demonstrating why my religion, Judaism (and my sect, Reform Judaism) sees no issue with homosexuality or SSM.

First, here is my treatment on the two Leviticus passages:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

The section of the Torah where these passages were taken refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

Now, my discussion of Sodom and Gommorah:

So everyone knows, Sodom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all. It was hospitality and protection. God punished those two cities because they were inhospitable, including towards his two angels that he sent. The "sodomy" that he was referring was NOT homosexuality, but was RAPE. The homosexuality misinterpretation comes from the fact that the angry mob wanted to rape (male homosexuality) the angels that visited Lot. This was a very common method of humiliation that was used at the time, especially amongst Pagans towards their enemies. During this time period, we had a patriarchal society, so, with the men in charge, humiliating and intimidating them was more effective. God's warning is that sodomy... RAPE, especially homosexual RAPE, is sinful... hence his destruction of those two cities where that practice occurred. The story says nothing about consentual homosexual behavior.

So, in conclusion, my religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.

referring posts:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/99998-homosexuality-sinful-and-unnatural-25.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/99998-homosexuality-sinful-and-unnatural-48.html#post1059558797

 

[Goshin]

I think a very logical, rational argument can be made for both sides on this. I believe that most people can not carry on a sensible, intelligent, rational discussion on religious issues when coming from different viewpoints.

Depending upon what persuasion of Christianity you subscribe to, the interpretation and theology are different. Furthermore, there is no way for me to convince you to change your mind. I think you already know that.

Here is a starting point for theological discussion:

1. The Old "Testament" (Covenant) was fulfilled by Jesus and replaced by the New "Testament." This is evidenced, theologically, by both statements by Jesus (which theologically carry more weight than biblical statements by apostles and others) and by the tearing of the curtain in the inner temple at the moment of Jesus' death. Theology differs depending on interpretation, so let me know if you disagree on this. Upon the enactment of the "new law," the Old Testament because a historical record of how God interacted with man prior to the time of Jesus. This basis of theology is where the Jewish faith and Christianity branched off from one another. Even the Ten Commandments- all of the Old Testament law was replaced, fulfilled and clarified by the New Testament.

2. All sins are equal. In each reference to homosexuality in the bible, it was mentioned in a list of other sins. All sins, regardless of type, result in damnation in the absence of salvation.

Do we agree there?

Pardon, you quoted someone else but seemed to be addressing my original point. Were you addressing me, or the other poster?

 

[Goshin]

I am Jewish, so the NT is not relevant to me. I have posted the theological reasoning of why there is nothing sinful about CONSENSUAL homosexual behavior and about homosexuality as an orientation many times. I will repost it here:

I still have my copy of this that you PM'ed me a couple years ago, when we were discussing it.


It's an excellent treatise on an alternative viewpoint, and if I were Jewish I'd probably agree with you.


As it is, I find the arguments interesting, but not quite the sort of thing that would change my mind.


Might have more to say later; I've got to run into town.

 

[Unrepresented]

Okay, that's an interesting perspective.

But even if I held that Pauline (and Timothy) scripture was of lesser priority than the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, say.... is there anything in the "higher priority" scriptures that directly contradicts the Pauline verses asserting homosexuality as sin?

To my knowledge (I am admittedly not a biblical scholar) nothing Jesus said contradicts their statements, but I also would note the omission of direct discussion on the matter to be valuable. If we're to believe this was a significant issue, surely more significance would've been placed on it by the central figure, no?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't have a personal hatred of gays or homosexuality.


I have a belief that the practice of it is sinful, because the Bible says so in many different scriptures.


I've heard people try to explain why those scriptures don't really mean what they say, or don't apply to modern homosexual relationships.


I've yet to hear a sufficiently compelling argument to change my mind.... but I'm going to admit to you that if I did, it would be a RELIEF. I could say "yay gay" along with everyone else and stop drawing all the hate that flies in when I point out what the Bible says about it.


So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin.

Now here's the catch.... it has to be Biblical, and theologically sound. This is about BIBLICAL truth and is a THEOLOGICAL question. Secular arguments will be disregarded. Psychology is not relevant. Biology is not relevant. Politics is not relevant.

It has to be based in Scripture and theologically sound. For instance, if someone asks me why I don't obey the OT prohibition on eating pig or shellfish, I can point to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and say "that's why; as a modern Gentile Christian I am not subject to most OT law, because God and the authority of the Apostles collectively says so."

Scriptural and theologically sound; have at it.


I'll be genuinely interested if anyone can come up with such an assertion, that will withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If you don't know the Bible quite well, I'd recommend you not even try: this is the big leagues, if you don't know what you're talking about it will be quickly pointed out.




Bear in mind this is the Religious Discussion Forum, and the rules regarding respectful discussion and no religion-bashing apply.

"So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin. "


Do you eat cheeseburgers?
Leviticus 3:17
It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Bacon?
Leviticus 11:7
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Are you married? does you or your wife wear gold?
1 Timothy 2:9
“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.”


don't eat birds.

Leviticus 11:13–20 “These are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.”


Torn clothes:
Leviticus 10:6 “Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.”

Don't mix your fabrics.
Leviticus 19:19 “Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”


Careful how you cut your hair.
Leviticus 19:27 “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads.”


and then there is:
Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”


Why is this one far worse than some of the others I mentioned?

 

[Ontologuy]

I don't have a personal hatred of gays or homosexuality.


I have a belief that the practice of it is sinful, because the Bible says so in many different scriptures.


I've heard people try to explain why those scriptures don't really mean what they say, or don't apply to modern homosexual relationships.


I've yet to hear a sufficiently compelling argument to change my mind.... but I'm going to admit to you that if I did, it would be a RELIEF. I could say "yay gay" along with everyone else and stop drawing all the hate that flies in when I point out what the Bible says about it.


So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin.

Now here's the catch.... it has to be Biblical, and theologically sound. This is about BIBLICAL truth and is a THEOLOGICAL question. Secular arguments will be disregarded. Psychology is not relevant. Biology is not relevant. Politics is not relevant.

It has to be based in Scripture and theologically sound. For instance, if someone asks me why I don't obey the OT prohibition on eating pig or shellfish, I can point to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and say "that's why; as a modern Gentile Christian I am not subject to most OT law, because God and the authority of the Apostles collectively says so."

Scriptural and theologically sound; have at it.


I'll be genuinely interested if anyone can come up with such an assertion, that will withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If you don't know the Bible quite well, I'd recommend you not even try: this is the big leagues, if you don't know what you're talking about it will be quickly pointed out.




Bear in mind this is the Religious Discussion Forum, and the rules regarding respectful discussion and no religion-bashing apply.

I think the subtext of the OP, whether or not intended, is that if you must stay within a paradigm to disprove what that paradigm clearly presents, there'll really be no refutation of itself. In that regard, your challenge simply cannot be won by anyone attempting to meet it.

Even Captain Courtesy's presentation that's outside the New Testament requires that he make suppositions not in evidence in his religious texts themselves.

Many attempt to step outside The Bible and infer this or that from their learned experience with associated reference material about historical context to conclude "what the Bible is 'really' saying".

They do this because either they want to discount the scriptures or give themselves latitude in a matter while still keeping their religious text sacred.

Ultimately, the truth is not limited to one paradigm, but must be sought transcendently in other realms, such as science, in this matter.

A challenge occurs when we have one paradigm saying one thing and another paradigm saying another.

What do we do then?

For those dogmatically sticking to a limited paradigm for the truth, their ability to accurately discern it may be compromised.

But, in this particular case, I can understand where, for some, the fear of going to Hell may dissuade them from wanting to compromise with evil.

A Christian may say they want to yell "Yay gay!"

But their "faith" may not give them permission.

It will be interesting to see if anyone here is truly successful in showing you Biblical scripture that, interpreted as you would interpret it, so convinces you to commence that cheer-lead.

I don't think it's possible.

I mean, I'm concluding you've scanned an online concordance of all the relevant Biblical scriptures on the matter and made your conclusion.

If so, what more could anyone else do?

Interpret them differently?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Yes sir, and I respect what you are saying and in general I'm like that too... I don't usually stick my nose in other's business unasked, and if it ain't hurting me or an innocent I tend to mind my own business.


But it is widely held that "do not judge" is not meant to construe ignoring Biblical teachings about sin. I don't know of any mainstream church or theologian that agrees that "judge not" means "don't quote Bible verses about sin to people that might be doing what it says not to do."

But thank you for your honest expression of your viewpoint.

That's fair - and I'll readily admit that I'm prepared to judge those who break the laws of man and society, those being laws that all of us presumably sanction and support. I simply choose not to presume to know the entire import of the laws of God.