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

[Goshin]

Happy Thanksgiving to all, btw, regardless of your sexual preferences or views on same.

 

[RGacky3]

That shows that most marriages will be between men and women, but where does that restrict it to only men/women?

it doesn't say most marriages will be between men and women.

It defines marriage as male and female, God created them male and female, and thus came marriage, the differences in the sexes were the defining issue. So outside of that you don't have marriage ... according to Jesus' Logic.

 

[RAMOSS]

it doesn't say most marriages will be between men and women.

It defines marriage as male and female, God created them male and female, and thus came marriage, the differences in the sexes were the defining issue. So outside of that you don't have marriage ... according to Jesus' Logic.

I don't know if looking at that in context that is what it does. It appears to me that is the interpretation you assume going into it.

 

[RGacky3]

I don't know if looking at that in context that is what it does. It appears to me that is the interpretation you assume going into it.

If you take that out of the argument the argument makes no sense at all.

The Logic of Jesus' argument is totally gone if you try and take the differences between the genders that God created out of it, of coarse Jesus was not arguing AGAINST gay marriage or anything like that, but the Logic of the argument Depends on marriage being a creational issue and being based on the bringing together of the 2 sexes.

 

[RAMOSS]

If you take that out of the argument the argument makes no sense at all.

The Logic of Jesus' argument is totally gone if you try and take the differences between the genders that God created out of it, of coarse Jesus was not arguing AGAINST gay marriage or anything like that, but the Logic of the argument Depends on marriage being a creational issue and being based on the bringing together of the 2 sexes.

The words you did here do not sound like 'logic' to me, but rather seem filled with metaphysical arguments that, well, seem more presumption than actually using the words attributed to Jesus.

 

[RGacky3]

The words you did here do not sound like 'logic' to me, but rather seem filled with metaphysical arguments that, well, seem more presumption than actually using the words attributed to Jesus.

4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Tell me how that can have ANY coherant meaning if you are going to pretend there is no point to the differences between male and female in creation and God bringing them together ....

I'm talking about a textual argument of some sort of logical coherance ... i.e. A thus from that B follows.

The argument is this.

1. God made them male and female.
2. Comanded man to be joined to female.
3. The 2 (male and female) are made one flesh by God.
4. Thus marriage is the bringing together of male and female by God.
5. Thus no one has authority to seperate them.

This is the argument Jesus is making .... You can say "no, no, no, that's just interpretation," all you want ... but unless you can give a different coherant exegesis, then we have to stick with the plain Reading of the text.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

We know that all manner of immoral behavior has come to be common an and accepted as normal in our society, even though many of us still know better.

When's the last time you heard of anyone losing their job, or having their business threatened or sued, for suggesting that adultery is wrong?




Mine's the side that recognizes what marriage is, what it has always been, and what it will always be; as opposed to the side that is trying to radically redefine it into something that it has never been, and can never be.

See I believe that you, and the religion you follow have every right to define marriage how you wish, I also believe others and thier religion, lack therof or otherwise have a right to define it they way they wish.

The moment however one side tries to impose thier will on the other, i.e. trying to force the catholic church to perform gay marriages, I am absolutely opposed, as I am opposed to a christian church trying to tell to gay people that they can't call thier relationship "marriage".

Freedom is a bitch you may not like something, but if it's not infringing on your rights, it's really not something you can impose your will on another for without infringing on thier rights.

Again, I am for government recording "civil unions" gay or straight. what ever ceremony and whatever you want to call it to consencrate it before your god or otherwise is between you, and your church.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

And there's the problem. We're devolving into a society where marriage—of of the most foundational and institutional institutions of any stable human society—will be considered something that is just “a word [that] really doesn't mean much in todays society”. Too many people are failing to acknowledge or understand the destructive impact that this is already having, and will yet have, on our society.

I've been married to my wife for 15 years. I don't need papers from the government or for gay people to not call themselves "married" in order for my marriage to stay legit, or strong.

 

[RAMOSS]

4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Tell me how that can have ANY coherant meaning if you are going to pretend there is no point to the differences between male and female in creation and God bringing them together ....

I'm talking about a textual argument of some sort of logical coherance ... i.e. A thus from that B follows.

The argument is this.

1. God made them male and female.
2. Comanded man to be joined to female.
3. The 2 (male and female) are made one flesh by God.
4. Thus marriage is the bringing together of male and female by God.
5. Thus no one has authority to seperate them.

This is the argument Jesus is making .... You can say "no, no, no, that's just interpretation," all you want ... but unless you can give a different coherant exegesis, then we have to stick with the plain Reading of the text.

yes, that describes the average marriage. That does not say that it is the only type , but rather one that is taken as an ideal type, for 10th century bc Jews. That does nto take into account, for example, polygamy, which was practiced for quite along time.

 

[SheWolf]

So you're asking somebody to change your belief that homosexuality is a sin?


To me, it's kind of a funny request. What part of homosexuality does the bible say is a sin? The attraction the same gender is a sin? Romantically loving a person of the same gender? Or simply is it the act of having sex with the same gender? Does it matter if it's male-male or female-female?

I once met a young republican gay male and self described evangelic, said he was romantically involved with other males but they didn't practice sexual relations. He thought women were intended for marriage and family, but as a gay male, he should practice chastity. Kissing and holding other men where ok in his view.

I also met a Catholic man on another forum and he has the same views. He was in his 50s, said he was homosexual, but he had married a woman and had children (three I think), and that's how he lived in life. He never engaged in intercourse with another man, but he knew he was gay. He made his decisions because of his faith. He supported gay rights and hated to see LBGT people attacked on the board.

This aren't my views are arguments really. I am just ranting about religious gay males I have met, and how they personally viewed homosexuality and faith.

Perhaps to you, this sounds like the proper way for homosexuals to behave?

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.

 

[RGacky3]

yes, that describes the average marriage. That does not say that it is the only type , but rather one that is taken as an ideal type, for 10th century bc Jews. That does nto take into account, for example, polygamy, which was practiced for quite along time.

And Jesus' argument would go against polygamy as well ....

 

[chromium]

See I believe that you, and the religion you follow have every right to define marriage how you wish, I also believe others and thier religion, lack therof or otherwise have a right to define it they way they wish.

The moment however one side tries to impose thier will on the other, i.e. trying to force the catholic church to perform gay marriages, I am absolutely opposed, as I am opposed to a christian church trying to tell to gay people that they can't call thier relationship "marriage".

Freedom is a bitch you may not like something, but if it's not infringing on your rights, it's really not something you can impose your will on another for without infringing on thier rights.

Again, I am for government recording "civil unions" gay or straight. what ever ceremony and whatever you want to call it to consencrate it before your god or otherwise is between you, and your church.

Provide one example of a catholic church being forced to perform gay marriage. Freedom in this matter has until very recently been limited to the church. Please don't start with the persecution complex

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Provide one example of a catholic church being forced to perform gay marriage. Freedom in this matter has until very recently been limited to the church. Please don't start with the persecution complex

Not sure what you are on about here. *shrug*

 

[Goshin]

So you're asking somebody to change your belief that homosexuality is a sin?


To me, it's kind of a funny request. What part of homosexuality does the bible say is a sin? The attraction the same gender is a sin? Romantically loving a person of the same gender? Or simply is it the act of having sex with the same gender? Does it matter if it's male-male or female-female?

I once met a young republican gay male and self described evangelic, said he was romantically involved with other males but they didn't practice sexual relations. He thought women were intended for marriage and family, but as a gay male, he should practice chastity. Kissing and holding other men where ok in his view.

I also met a Catholic man on another forum and he has the same views. He was in his 50s, said he was homosexual, but he had married a woman and had children (three I think), and that's how he lived in life. He never engaged in intercourse with another man, but he knew he was gay. He made his decisions because of his faith. He supported gay rights and hated to see LBGT people attacked on the board.

This aren't my views are arguments really. I am just ranting about religious gay males I have met, and how they personally viewed homosexuality and faith.

Perhaps to you, this sounds like the proper way for homosexuals to behave?

If you'd read more than the first post, you wouldn't have had to ask 90% of that. I'm not going back over stuff already covered.

 

[Goshin]

This will probably be my last post in this thread for a while.


Thank you everyone who came to the thread with an intelligent and honest, scripturally-based argument.... you've given me a lot to think on. It will probably be a while before all the studying, thinking, praying and etc this thread has induced will result in any definite conclusions... quite a while... but I am thankful for everyone who participated in an honest, sincere and civil manner.

 

[SheWolf]

I have read nearly all your comments in this thread, and I didn't see where you discussed all the questions I ask. I saw where CC was making some similar points, but I didn't see how you viewed sexuality versus specific sexual acts, and lesbianism versus male-male, etc.

I am curious to know your thoughts... do you have the post numbers on hand? Thanks

If you'd read more than the first post, you wouldn't have had to ask 90% of that. I'm not going back over stuff already covered.

 

[Zyphlin]

I know you can't speak for others, and you asked regarding youself. why a thread on this and not those who engage in pre-marital sex? specifically.

From reading this amazingly interesting thread this question seemed pretty easy to answer....

There are few people in the world actively trying to tell christians that they shouldn't consider pre-marital sex a sin. I can't think of a time on this forum where I've seen someone try and make such an argument to a christian; that sex outside of marriage is not sinful according to the christian religion.

Goshin's reason for this thread, as opposed to other sins, was evident in his first post. Unlike most other sins, there's a dedicated effort by many self-proclaimed christians, and those who aren't christian, to declare that homosexuality ISN'T a sin. And yet, according to his reading of the scriptures, he see's it as a sin and can't see any good theological reason to see it otherwise. Thus...a thread asking people to make a case for their argument that homosexual sex isn't a sin.

I imagine we'd be seeing similar threads if we had a plethora of people trying to say pre-marital sex wans't a sin. Or trying to say that stealing wasn't a sin. Or trying to say that adultry wasn't a sin. Or trying to say that beastiality wasn't a sin. Etc. But much like you say you don't really see a lot of posts condemning some of those things as much as homosexuality, you also don't see many people trying to argue with Christians saying those things aren't sins.

Goshin and I are very different religiously I think, but I can still understand his point and issue here. PERSONALLY, he feels no real animosity or issue towards homosexuality...but his reading of his faith says one thing while people are telling him his reading of it is wrong. So he is asking for people to actually explain and put forth a compelling argument for WHY he's wrong.

Pointing out inconsistencies isn't so much showing that he's wrong about his reading on homosexuality...at best, it could show a hypocritical treatment of that particular sin, but it wouldn't change it being a sin.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

From reading this amazingly interesting thread this question seemed pretty easy to answer....

There are few people in the world actively trying to tell christians that they shouldn't consider pre-marital sex a sin. I can't think of a time on this forum where I've seen someone try and make such an argument to a christian; that sex outside of marriage is not sinful according to the christian religion.

Goshin's reason for this thread, as opposed to other sins, was evident in his first post. Unlike most other sins, there's a dedicated effort by many self-proclaimed christians, and those who aren't christian, to declare that homosexuality ISN'T a sin. And yet, according to his reading of the scriptures, he see's it as a sin and can't see any good theological reason to see it otherwise. Thus...a thread asking people to make a case for their argument that homosexual sex isn't a sin.

I imagine we'd be seeing similar threads if we had a plethora of people trying to say pre-marital sex wans't a sin. Or trying to say that stealing wasn't a sin. Or trying to say that adultry wasn't a sin. Or trying to say that beastiality wasn't a sin. Etc. But much like you say you don't really see a lot of posts condemning some of those things as much as homosexuality, you also don't see many people trying to argue with Christians saying those things aren't sins.

Goshin and I are very different religiously I think, but I can still understand his point and issue here. PERSONALLY, he feels no real animosity or issue towards homosexuality...but his reading of his faith says one thing while people are telling him his reading of it is wrong. So he is asking for people to actually explain and put forth a compelling argument for WHY he's wrong.

Pointing out inconsistencies isn't so much showing that he's wrong about his reading on homosexuality...at best, it could show a hypocritical treatment of that particular sin, but it wouldn't change it being a sin.

I don't disagree with this, to a point. I don't think his reading of his bible is wrong, it's clear and I take no issue with that actually. This is why I think government should be out of the marriage business and simply record civil unions, let the people involved in the relationships call it what they want among thier own beliefs.

 

[Goshin]

From reading this amazingly interesting thread this question seemed pretty easy to answer....

There are few people in the world actively trying to tell christians that they shouldn't consider pre-marital sex a sin. I can't think of a time on this forum where I've seen someone try and make such an argument to a christian; that sex outside of marriage is not sinful according to the christian religion.

Goshin's reason for this thread, as opposed to other sins, was evident in his first post. Unlike most other sins, there's a dedicated effort by many self-proclaimed christians, and those who aren't christian, to declare that homosexuality ISN'T a sin. And yet, according to his reading of the scriptures, he see's it as a sin and can't see any good theological reason to see it otherwise. Thus...a thread asking people to make a case for their argument that homosexual sex isn't a sin.

I imagine we'd be seeing similar threads if we had a plethora of people trying to say pre-marital sex wans't a sin. Or trying to say that stealing wasn't a sin. Or trying to say that adultry wasn't a sin. Or trying to say that beastiality wasn't a sin. Etc. But much like you say you don't really see a lot of posts condemning some of those things as much as homosexuality, you also don't see many people trying to argue with Christians saying those things aren't sins.

Goshin and I are very different religiously I think, but I can still understand his point and issue here. PERSONALLY, he feels no real animosity or issue towards homosexuality...but his reading of his faith says one thing while people are telling him his reading of it is wrong. So he is asking for people to actually explain and put forth a compelling argument for WHY he's wrong.

Pointing out inconsistencies isn't so much showing that he's wrong about his reading on homosexuality...at best, it could show a hypocritical treatment of that particular sin, but it wouldn't change it being a sin.

Exactly correct. I didn't bring it up because I don't care about other sins like adultery, theft, etc... but because it is such a controversial issue, with so many trying to tell Christiandom "is not"... I wanted to hear the "why not".

Well, I heard it, and I've got a lot to think about. I'm an honest man; I believe what I believe sincerely, and my mind isn't easily changed, but if the sum total of the arguments say to me that I should revise my views, I will.

 

[nota bene]

If the sincere contemplation with which I know you will approach this does cause you to change your thinking, I will look forward to reading your revised you because I have given this topic grave consideration for many years now.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Exactly correct. I didn't bring it up because I don't care about other sins like adultery, theft, etc... but because it is such a controversial issue, with so many trying to tell Christiandom "is not"... I wanted to hear the "why not".

Well, I heard it, and I've got a lot to think about. I'm an honest man; I believe what I believe sincerely, and my mind isn't easily changed, but if the sum total of the arguments say to me that I should revise my views, I will.

Think about what many of the early Christians faced. To profess belief in Jesus as the Christ, brought death sentences on many of them. Many died, who could have lived if they merely denied a belief in Christ. They chose to die for the truth rather than to live for a lie.

There were some similar things going on in the 16th and 17th centuries. I strongly recommend that you view a documentary titled “Fires of Faith”. This series covers the events leading to the publication of the King James Bible, and recounts the stories of those who gave their lives in order to make this possible. It begins by showing us the execution of William Tyndale, for “heresy”.

And of course, in the 19th century, many of the early members of my own religion faced a similar choice. Many were driven from their homes, assaulted, raped, robbed of all their worldly possessions, and even murdered, for their faith. They could have renounced and denied their faith, and escaped these torments, but they chose to sacrifice everything for the truth, rather than live for a lie.


And here, we are, today, in a society that, on the whole, has chosen to embrace an evil that we, as Christians, know we must stand against. I don't know that anyone is being killed, today, for standing up to the truth about what Homosexuality is, but many have faced severe social consequences, and even the loss of their livelihoods, for doing so.


Yes, it would be easier for us if we could, in clear conscience, accept society's dictate that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that we should refrain from speaking up against it. The motive is quite understandable to seek some way to reinterpret our scriptures, in order to deny what they clearly say, in favor of a twisted interpretation that we hope will excuse our failure to stand for what we know is right.

Being right, and standing for what is right, is not always the easiest choice. Do not ever let yourself forget that. Many people in history have faced far greater adverse consequences than you and I face today, and chose not to embrace a lie in order to avoid those consequences.

 

[Goshin]

Think about what many of the early Christians faced. To profess belief in Jesus as the Christ, brought death sentences on many of them. Many died, who could have lived if they merely denied a belief in Christ. They chose to die for the truth rather than to live for a lie.

There were some similar things going on in the 16th and 17th centuries. I strongly recommend that you view a documentary titled “Fires of Faith”. This series covers the events leading to the publication of the King James Bible, and recounts the stories of those who gave their lives in order to make this possible. It begins by showing us the execution of William Tyndale, for “heresy”.

And of course, in the 19th century, many of the early members of my own religion faced a similar choice. Many were driven from their homes, assaulted, raped, robbed of all their worldly possessions, and even murdered, for their faith. They could have renounced and denied their faith, and escaped these torments, but they chose to sacrifice everything for the truth, rather than live for a lie.


And here, we are, today, in a society that, on the whole, has chosen to embrace an evil that we, as Christians, know we must stand against. I don't know that anyone is being killed, today, for standing up to the truth about what Homosexuality is, but many have faced severe social consequences, and even the loss of their livelihoods, for doing so.


Yes, it would be easier for us if we could, in clear conscience, accept society's dictate that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that we should refrain from speaking up against it. The motive is quite understandable to seek some way to reinterpret our scriptures, in order to deny what they clearly say, in favor of a twisted interpretation that we hope will excuse our failure to stand for what we know is right.

Being right, and standing for what is right, is not always the easiest choice. Do not ever let yourself forget that. Many people in history have faced far greater adverse consequences than you and I face today, and chose not to embrace a lie in order to avoid those consequences.

If you think I would embrace a lie for the sake of mere popularity, or simply to avoid public censure, you do not know me very well. I would not.


However it would be intellectually dishonest of me not to review the alternate viewpoint and see if there is merit in it. My review will not be shallow and quick; it will be extensive and in-depth, and expect it will be weeks or months before I could possibly come to a decisive conclusion of this investigation.


I did not start this thread merely to engage in summary dismissal of the contrary arguments. It was an honest inquiry. Those arguments that were spurious or easily overturned have been dismissed. Those that remain will require in-depth investigation before I can conclusively say whether they are with or without merit.


All I can say at this point is that whatever conclusion I come to will be based on an honest and sincere desire to know the Biblical truth of the matter, rightly interpreted and rightly applied, to the best of my ability to determine same.

 

[Manny]

it would be intellectually dishonest of me not to review the alternate viewpoint and see if there is merit in it. My review will not be shallow and quick; it will be extensive and in-depth, and expect it will be weeks or months before I could possibly come to a decisive conclusion of this investigation.

I had no idea you were so... experimental.

 

[RGacky3]

I think it's sad that it's shocking for some People that someone like Goshin actually wants to weigh the arguments objectively and logically ... rather than just following the popular ideology or just following emotion ... I would hope that Goshin's way of going about important questions would be the norm.

 

[iangb]

I'm late to the party (and only skimmed through the previous posts, so apologies if I repeat someone else) but there are two lines of reasoning I've come across before, both of which bear a certain level of investigation. I have to admit to a degree of uncertainty about both, however, especially every single instance of the .

1) The bible (orignal language) never specifically condemns homosexuality. I've seen arguments that the original texts referered to all sorts of things which were later mistranslated - rape, sex with eunichs, sex with underage boys, sex as part of a religious ceremony (idol worship). Some of these are plausible (for example the 'those that defile/abuse themselves with mankind' lines from the NT), some less so.

2) Homosexuality is not described in the OT as a moral law, but as a hygine law, much like the dietry laws. As such, it too was overturned by Jesus in the NT. This also explains the line in Romans about God causing homosexuality in people who then 'received in themselves the due penalty for their error'. It's also worth pointing out that Romans is essentially propoganda written by Paul, who was somewhat overzealous and certainly is not 100% relevant today - for example, the later line in Romans 1:29 - 32 which implies that gossips 'deserve death'. While there are lots of references in the Bible indicating that some sexual laws are moral, I haven't seen any that specifically link homosexuality and immorality - at least, in any way which the OT did not also describe the 'unclean animals'.