Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Part SIX: Christianity and Homosexuality

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Part SIX: Christianity and Homosexuality

    Christianity and Homosexuality by Matt Slick




    "The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, Radio, Newspapers, and Magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.

    In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.

    The Christian church has not stood idle. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the "religious big ots." But when the homosexual community uses political power to control the church, no such cry of bigotry is heard. Political correctness says it is okay for the homosexual community to impose its will upon churches, but not the other way around. Apparently, it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.

    What does the Bible say?

    The Bible, as God's word, reveals God's moral character and it shapes the morality of the Christian. There have been those who have used the Bible to support homosexuality, taken verses out of context and read into them interpretations that are not there. Quite simply, the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.

    Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
    Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
    1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
    Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

    With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman. Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.

    Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

    Finally, with their hardened hearts, they seek to promote their lifestyle in society. This is become more real since homosexuals are gaining strength and forcing those with opposing views into confinement and penalty. So much for fairness. It is okay to demand it for themselves, but they balk at allowing it for those who disagree.

    Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?

    In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.

    The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on a humanistic and relativistic moral base upon which it builds its ethical structure.

    Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together and to nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."

    Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument as a basis for homosexuality should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image. Logic says that if homosexuality is natural and acceptable because it exists in the animal world, then it must also be natural and acceptable to eat people alive. But, this is obviously faulty thinking. Therefore, appeal to the practice in the animal world as support for homosexual practice is equally faulty.

    Political protection of a sexual practice is ludicrous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights.' What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are sexual practices. Should they also be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected by law, why not those as well?

    Of course, these brief paragraphs can in no way exhaust the issue of homosexuality's moral equity. But, the family is the basis of our culture. It is the most basic unit. Destroy it and you destroy society and homosexuality is not helping the family.

    What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?

    Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.

    Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same they would any other person in sin. They should treat homosexuals with the same dignity as they would anyone else because, like or not, they are made in the image of God. However, this does not mean that Christians should approve of their sin. Not at all. Christians should not compromise their witness for a politically correct opinion that is shaped by guilt and fear.

    In fact the following verses should be kept in mind when dealing with homosexuals.

    "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person," (Col. 4:5-6).
    "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith," (1 Tim. 1:5).

    You do not win people to the Lord by condemning them and calling them names. This is why God says to speak with wisdom, grace, and love. Let the love of Christ flow through you so that the homosexuals can see true love and turn to Christ instead of away from Him.

    Objections Answered

    1) If you want to say homosexuality is wrong based on the O.T. laws, then you must still uphold all of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

    The Old Testament laws are categorized in three groups: the civil, the priestly, and the moral. The civil laws must be understood in the context of a theocracy. Though the Jewish nation in the Old Testament was often headed by a king, it was a theocratic system with the Scriptures as a guide to the nation. Those laws that fall under this category are not applicable today because we are not under a theocracy.

    The priestly laws dealing with the Levitical and Aaronic priesthoods, were representative of the future and true High Priest Jesus who offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross. Since Jesus fulfilled the priestly laws, they are no longer necessary to be followed and are not now applicable.

    The moral laws, on the other hand, are not abolished. Because the moral laws are based upon the character of God. Since God's holy character does not change, the moral laws do not change either. Therefore, the moral laws are still in effect.

    In the New Testament we do not see a reestablishment of the civil or priestly laws. But we do see a reestablishment of the moral law. This is why we see New Testament condemnation of homosexuality as a sin but not with the associated death penalty.

    2) That homosexuality is a sin if committed outside of a loving, committed, relationship. But a committed homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.This is a fallacious argument.


    Homosexuality is never defined in the Bible in an acceptable behavior if it were practiced by individuals who had a loving relationship with each other. Homosexuality is always condemned. Homosexual acts are not natural acts and they are against God created order. As stated above in the article, male and female are designed to fit together -- in more ways than one. This is how God made us and he made as this way so that we could carry out his command of filling the earth with people. Homosexuality is an aberration from God's created order and makes it impossible to fulfill the command that God has given mankind.

    Whether or not a homosexual couple is committed to each other is irrelevant to the argument since love and feelings do not change moral truths. If a couple, not married to each other but married to someone else, commits adultery yet they are committed to loving each other, their sin is not excused.

    If homosexuality is made acceptable because the homosexual couple "loves" each other and are committed to each other, and by that logic we can say that couples of the same sex or even of different sexes who love each other and are committed to each other in a relationship automatically make that relationship morally correct. The problem is that love is used as an excuse to violate scripture. Second, it would mean that such things as pedophilia would be acceptable if the "couple" had a loving and committed relationship to each other. Third, the subjectivity of what it means to "love" and the "committed" to another person can be used to justify almost any sort of behavior.


    3) That where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is not how we relate to it in the 21st century. It meant something different to the people in Biblical times and has nothing to do with modern day homosexuality.


    The four Scriptures listed above refute this idea. Let's look at what they say and see if there is some misunderstanding? The first scripture in Leviticus says that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he would lie with a woman. Obviously this is referring to sexual relationship and it is condemned. The second scripture in Leviticus says the same thing. The third scripture in 1 Corinthians outright condemns homosexuality. And finally, Romans clearly describes a homosexual act as being indecent.

    There is no mistake about it, the view of homosexuality in the Old Testament as well as the New, is a very negative one. It is consistently condemned as being sinful.

    Whether or not people of the 21st-century think homosexuality is acceptable or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is sinful before God. God exists and he is the standard of righteousness. Whether or not anyone believes this or believes that morality is a flowing and vague system of development over time, has no bearing on truth. God has condemned homosexuality as a sin in the Bible. It is a sin that needs to be repented of the same as any other sense and the only way to receive this forgiveness is through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

    4) That the sin of Sodom was actually the sin of inhospitality.


    This is a common error made by supporters of homosexuality. The problem is this explanation does not account for the offering of Lott's daughter to the men outside the home, a sinful act indeed, but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Gen. 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'” Those men wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Gen. 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill in multiply the earth in the act of homosexuality, is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans we read about the judgment of God upon the homosexuals in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means thatat the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not then repent. Without repentance there is no salvation and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable, carries no validity." Matt Slick
    http://www.carm.org/issues/homosexuality.htm

    1. The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek añóåíïêïßôçò (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as “abuser of (one’s) self with mankind” once, and “defile (one’s) self with mankind” once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
    The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts"

    See Part one pinned to top of forum and part six now closed: Please post to part Seven here:
    http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/sec...-homosexuality
    Last edited by CARM Admin; 11-27-16, 03:24 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
    Which is the Christian position, by definition, which I have provided. Christian belief is not decided by you.
    No, you have presented YOUR Christian view, and justified it by biblical quotations. There are other Christian viewpoints. That is a matter of fact, whether you disagree with them or not, whether they are mistaken or not, other Christian viewpoints are available. You are not the Christian church. You represent nothing but yourself. Your claims are just hubris.Difficult to be more hubristic than claiming that the Christian position is your position, "by definition".

    When you have the courtesy to provide some evidence with reasoning for your position then I will be delighted to continue addressing your questions.
    Sure, try this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3226753.stm You can click on various countries to see the Anglican Church's position on homosexuality in that country. There are millions of Christians whose position on homosexuality is different from yours, including 2.3 million in the US who have elected an openly gay bishop. Having explored this link, which took me all of 25 seconds to find, perhaps you will try again. Simple question, for the fourth time, do you accept that there are Christians, not just people who call themselves Christian, but people that you accept as Christians, who disagree with your position on homosexuality? Are there Christians who are content with practising homosexuals being part of the Church?

    Now. If someone said to you the earth is flat would you doubt whether it isnt? Of course not,you would look at the evidence, but you wont do that with this thread's topic because homosexual practice is for some reason so obsessively worrying to you, you cant even accept reality or any evidence to the contrary.
    Why is that?
    Your belief in Julius Caesar proves the existence of God.
    CARM poster

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
      No, according to His Biblical testimony He made Adam and Eve, Steve is the gay perversion of the testimony. Besides all your homosexuals have anatomy/genitalia that corresponds with the opposite sex. There are no 'gays' in God's testimony, its a secular liberal distortion. And of course this thread is about Christianity and homosexuality, not secular liberalism and homosexuality.
      If your belief in Adam and Eve is as literal as your belief that there is only one possible Christian position on homosexuality [your own, of course] then this explains a lot. Are you claiming that homosexuals are somehow not part of God's creation? That they are not made in God's image? That as well being non-Christian by definition, they are also non-human? A perversion of God's creation? Nothing more than a distortion? What a charming person you are, indeed.
      Your belief in Julius Caesar proves the existence of God.
      CARM poster

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
        No, you have presented YOUR Christian view, and justified it by biblical quotations.
        That is the Christian position, by definition. Yours is the Tolpuddlematyr baseless denial waffle

        But that is just those who call themselves believers mingled in with believers as the scripture says. You like the gay bit because you dont like God's Biblical testimony but you like homosexuality.
        In fact if you read the OT you will see the people of God who believed often turned away from God before repenting.
        Now, have you got any evidence to support same sex practice except those who deny the Biblical evidence?

        No, you haven't, all you have is people who dont believe posing as believers.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
          If your belief in Adam and Eve is as literal
          No, but your belief in Adam and Steve is baseless. That is the point. Even to the impartial it is clear that two sexes exist with corresponding genitalia for sexual intercourse and reproduction; like God created male and female to be united and go forth and multiply. Cant argue with observable reality, unless of course one is a secular liberal or gay activist, in a world of hateful unreality.

          The Christian position is clear by definition, not only from the Biblical testimony which countenances man/woman union and excludes and condemns same sex acts, but also from the dictionary definition of what the Christian faith is.

          http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian
          1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

          26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

          4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
          Last edited by brightmorningstar; 05-18-16, 03:38 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
            Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
            No, you have presented YOUR Christian view, and justified it by biblical quotations.
            That is the Christian position, by definition. Yours is the Tolpuddlematyr baseless denial waffle
            There are other Christian viewpoints. That is a matter of fact, whether you disagree with them or not, whether they are mistaken or not, other Christian viewpoints are available. You are not the Christian church. You represent nothing but yourself. Your claims are just hubris. Difficult to be more hubristic than claiming that the Christian position is your position, "by definition".
            Don't you feel even a tiny bit uneasy claiming that the Christian position equals yours by definition?

            Sure, try this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3226753.stm You can click on various countries to see the Anglican Church's position on homosexuality in that country. There are millions of Christians whose position on homosexuality is different from yours, including 2.3 million in the US who have elected an openly gay bishop. Having explored this link, which took me all of 25 seconds to find, perhaps you will try again. Simple question, for the fourth time, do you accept that there are Christians, not just people who call themselves Christian, but people that you accept as Christians, who disagree with your position on homosexuality? Are there Christians who are content with practising homosexuals being part of the Church?


            Now. If someone said to you the earth is flat would you doubt whether it isn't? Of course not,you would look at the evidence, but you wont do that with this thread's topic because homosexual practice is for some reason so obsessively worrying to you, you cant even accept reality or any evidence to the contrary.
            Why is that?
            But that is just those who call themselves believers mingled in with believers as the scripture says. You like the gay bit because you dont like God's Biblical testimony but you like homosexuality.
            In fact if you read the OT you will see the people of God who believed often turned away from God before repenting.
            Now, have you got any evidence to support same sex practice except those who deny the Biblical evidence?

            No, you haven't, all you have is people who dont believe posing as believers.
            So the 2.3 million Anglicans in the US you dismiss as phony believers mingling with believers. You have to do this to maintain the complete fantasy that the only true Christian is the one who agrees with you on homosexuality. Why do you try and keep this fiction going? There are any number of serious controversies in Christendom, transubstantiation, salvation through grace, female bishops etc. You would have no problem accepting that there are committed true Christian on both sides of each of these divides. Yet homosexuality is apparently a deal breaker, not just for you but for the entire Christian world, and all on your say so. Why aren't you the Pope?

            Simple question, for the fifth time, do you accept that there are Christians, not just people who call themselves Christian, but people that you accept as Christians, who disagree with your position on homosexuality? Are there Christians who are content with practising homosexuals being part of the Church? A yes or no, rather than obfuscation, would be sufficient; if unexpected.
            Last edited by Tolpuddlematyr; 05-18-16, 04:00 PM.
            Your belief in Julius Caesar proves the existence of God.
            CARM poster

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
              Don't you feel even a tiny bit uneasy claiming that the Christian position equals yours by definition?
              No because it by the dictionary and Biblical definitions which you falsely attribute to me. However your constant baseless denial is looking more and more dishonest by the post.

              So the 2.3 million Anglicans in the US you dismiss as phony believers mingling with believers.
              No the Biblical testimony that they claim to believe does.. as shown you..
              9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

              The Biblical testimony of God, the Bible, there is no other Bible says this, so how come they deny it?

              You side with them because you like homosexuality, but not even all homosexuals agree with you, some dont believe the Bible but are honest enough to acknowlegde what it says, and plenty struggle with same sex attraction but confess it is wrong.. which means they are believers.

              And for the upteenth time, that answers your question, if you cant accept it that is your problem.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
                No because it by the dictionary and Biblical definitions which you falsely attribute to me. However your constant baseless denial is looking more and more dishonest by the post.

                No the Biblical testimony that they claim to believe does.. as shown you..
                9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

                The Biblical testimony of God, the Bible, there is no other Bible says this, so how come they deny it?

                You side with them because you like homosexuality, but not even all homosexuals agree with you, some dont believe the Bible but are honest enough to acknowlegde what it says, and plenty struggle with same sex attraction but confess it is wrong.. which means they are believers.

                And for the upteenth time, that answers your question, if you cant accept it that is your problem.
                No, it doesn't answer my question. Let me try and explain why.

                I can accept that for a Christian, the word of the Bible is paramount, inerrant and infallible. The Word of God. Unfortunately, the original language of the Bible is far from accessible, it is sometimes literal, sometimes figurative sometimes contradictory. It needs men, fallible men to interpret and translate it. How do we ensure that the Word of God is not corrupted or misinterpreted?

                Christians have used two main strategies in the past. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches employ a priestly elite to interpret the bible for the masses, tell them what it means and discourage independent thought. The success of this strategy is clearly undermined by the existence of these two conflicting traditions. In contrast the Protestant strategy encourages people to read the Bible for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Hence the vast number of sects and denominations that have arisen since the Reformation.

                Now we apparently have a third way to determine what the Bible truly means. People should read the Bible, then ask you to interpret. What a shame you weren’t around earlier in History to prevent the Sack of Magdeburg, that whole business with Henry VIII, The Spanish Inquisition, the Troubles. All those people, so convinced that they were right, so adamant that the Bible spoke truly to them, and only to them. Why didn’t they just ask you? Perhaps they are put off by the fact that you are a nameless voice on an obscure website, responsible for some of the most deluded and deranged posts seen on the internet. But they are wrong. Your conviction that you are right is obviously more meaningful than every other reader of the Bible who thinks they are right. I mean, you are so sure, so empty of doubt. You must be right, and everyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, by definition. Luckily, they can be dismissed as they are clearly not Christians, by definition.

                I don’t doubt your conviction. But then I don’t doubt the conviction of the millions of Christians, that is the millions of Christians who disagree with you. I am not arguing over the conclusion you reach. It is not for me to interpret the Bible to a believer. What I find unbelievably arrogant is your cavalier dismissal of the millions of Christians with a different conclusion, while your assertion that no such Christians exist, since disagreeing with you automatically prevents them from being Christians, is breathtakingly hubristic.

                Throughout this exchange you have kept on harping on about my position, the so-called secular liberal position. It is nothing to do with me. I don’t side with you or the millions of Christians who disagree with you. I disagree with all Christians. I don’t think that God has a say in sexuality issues. It is nothing to do with Him or his followers, and I don’t care about their hostility or acceptance of homosexuals. All I want from you is an acknowledgement that you are not the Pope, that you can accept that someone can disagree with you sincerely and yet still be a Christian. In other words, that you are not Christianity’s spokesperson on this issue.

                Oh, and it's spelled "umpteenth".
                Last edited by Tolpuddlematyr; 05-19-16, 04:32 PM.
                Your belief in Julius Caesar proves the existence of God.
                CARM poster

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
                  No, it doesn't answer my question. Let me try and explain why.

                  I can accept that for a Christian, the word of the Bible is paramount, inerrant and infallible. The Word of God. Unfortunately, the original language of the Bible is far from accessible, it is sometimes literal, sometimes figurative sometimes contradictory. It needs men, fallible men to interpret and translate it. How do we ensure that the Word of God is not corrupted or misinterpreted?
                  But that is your issue with the Bible and most Christians would not agree with you anyway. There are however, whether one doubts the translations, only ever countenance for man and woman in union as part of God's creation purpose and condemnations of same sex acts. Not only is there the specific countenance for man/woman, but also husband and wife, bride and bridegroom. Even if one were to doubt the translations there are still only texts that exclude and condemn same sex acts and countenance man/woman. Your claim has no grounds nor credibility.

                  Furthermore it is embarrassingly obvious for your side that when dealing with Biblical texts you have no problem with any other texts which you guys freely quote and cite, the only the ones that to you somehow don't mean what they say are the ones that countenance man/woman union and condemn same sex acts. Your claims have no grounds nor credibility; you have no scriptures that countenance same sex acts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
                    But that is your issue with the Bible and most Christians would not agree with you anyway. There are however, whether one doubts the translations, only ever countenance for man and woman in union as part of God's creation purpose and condemnations of same sex acts. Not only is there the specific countenance for man/woman, but also husband and wife, bride and bridegroom. Even if one were to doubt the translations there are still only texts that exclude and condemn same sex acts and countenance man/woman. Your claim has no grounds nor credibility.
                    My claim is that there exist millions of Christians who disagree with you. that is all I claim. I have no interest in what the true intent of the Bible might be. It is not relevant to me. My claim that there are millions of Christians who disagree with you is obvious and credible. Just look at the link I gave you, concerning just one branch of Christianity. Your certainty does not prevent others from being certain that you are wrong. That millions of those others are Christian is an observable fact.

                    Furthermore it is embarrassingly obvious for your side that when dealing with Biblical texts you have no problem with any other texts which you guys freely quote and cite, the only the ones that to you somehow don't mean what they say are the ones that countenance man/woman union and condemn same sex acts. Your claims have no grounds nor credibility; you have no scriptures that countenance same sex acts.
                    It is embarrassingly obvious that you are simply not reading what I have written. I have no interest in Biblical texts. The incantations of yester-year have no relevance to me. Why should I quote them on any matter? Where they may by chance chime with my own views it proves nothing. Your book of spells cuts no ice on any of the issues I am interested in.Those who disagree with you on the texts regarding sexual matters may agree or disagree on other issues. It is of no interest to me. All I am doing here is pointing out that you do not speak for the whole of Christendom on this issue [achieved] and to get you to recognise that fact [failed, so far.]
                    Your belief in Julius Caesar proves the existence of God.
                    CARM poster

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
                      My claim is that there exist millions of Christians who disagree with you.
                      Ah but as we have seen they are wrong and the billions of Christians who disagree with you are right because the Biblical testimony that all claim to believe supports the billions who disagree with you.
                      As I pointed out, if one is open to reason one tests what people claim against the evidence.
                      If the thread can be decided between what I claim or what you claim then it should be by me, afterall I am a Christian. But that isn't real debate, which needs to be based on evidence, evidence that I have given in full in contrast to you.

                      Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
                      It is embarrassingly obvious that you are simply not reading what I have written. I have no interest in Biblical texts.
                      Then how do you know whether the people you cite are telling the truth? What do they claim to believe?
                      Not all mothers agree with your views on abortion, not even all pro-choice people, and not all homosexuals agree with you on homosexual practice, so how do you know that you arent wrong on everything?
                      Last edited by brightmorningstar; 05-20-16, 07:12 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
                        Ah but as we have seen they are wrong and the billions of Christians who disagree with you are right because the Biblical testimony that all claim to believe supports the billions who disagree with you.
                        As I pointed out, if one is open to reason one tests what people claim against the evidence.
                        If the thread can be decided between what I claim or what you claim then it should be by me, afterall I am a Christian. But that isn't real debate, which needs to be based on evidence, evidence that I have given in full in contrast to you.


                        Not all mothers agree with your views on abortion, not even all pro-choice people, and not all homosexuals agree with you on homosexual practice, so how do you know that you arent wrong on everything?
                        If one is open to reason, [something you constantly assert with absolutely no evidence that you are] then you acknowledge that many people disagree with you. This is particularly the case when addressing controversial subjects of the present such as abortion, or subjects that used to be controversial but are no pretty much resolved, such as homosexuality. I know that there are people from all walks of life who disagree with me, and that I do not represent anybody else. It is you, not I that is claiming that everyone who disagrees with me is therefore not Christian by definition. It is you, not I that claims that the only interpretation of the bible that is possible for Christians is yours. The "evidence" that you have put forward is that there are bible verses that support your view of what the Bible says. So what? That is not in question. The evidence that I have put forward is that there are millions of Christians that disagree with you. You still deny this is the case however. You are the one blind to reality.
                        Your belief in Julius Caesar proves the existence of God.
                        CARM poster

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tolpuddlematyr View Post
                          If one is open to reason, [something you constantly assert with absolutely no evidence that you are]
                          Unsupported accusation. The evidence has been provided, not only Biblical texts that countenance only man/woman union, but also that condemn same sex acts, and the texts to show that those whom you cite, dont believe the Biblical texts.

                          Your position is not credible, just because some people disagree with something doesnt mean they are right. You don't take this approach with many other issues where you provide reasoning and evidence, yet here your sole argument is some people don't agree.

                          How about Islam, whom do you think represents Islam, the ISIS people or the rest? Because they both claim to.
                          How about ex-gays, do you think they represent homosexuals better than practicing gays?
                          Last edited by brightmorningstar; 05-20-16, 07:34 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by brightmorningstar View Post
                            Ah but as we have seen they are wrong
                            "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B. Anthony

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dantae View Post
                              "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B. Anthony
                              But you have been given God's Biblical testimony, so you have no excuse. As we have seen, according to what God's Biblical testimony says, they are wrong.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X