Homosexuality and Scripture

Post-it, This is SICK!

HankD

 

I would tend to agree... I believe God made very clear how He felt about Homosexuality, inside or outside of marriage.

B.T.

 

And by what standard will the Holy Spirit determine what is sin? - By Scripture. Scripture by no means endorses homosexual activity of any kind.

 

"Argument 1.
Only the Holy Spirit will place in a person's heart what sin is for that person. Then applying Jesus' own "do unto others". There is no sin for a married homosexual."

Except the basis for marriage in Scriture is a male and femal. Adam and Eve. Jesus' do unto others is not the equivalent of "live andlet live". You are just attempting to advpocate relatiism here. All doping right intheir own eyes, therfore they are doing right. This is false.

"Argument 2. Each reference in the NT to homosexual behavior is centered on offensive moves like adultery/one night stand type sex. Usually the term is found next to prostitution. Marriage was never talked about, even though there were and had to be same sex living together."

This is demopnstrably false. The OT rferences and NT references make no such distinctions.

"Argument 3. When reference is given, it is always about the unsaved doing these sins. The saved person will continue to do some of them, but they aren't counted against him/her."

The saved comiting sins does not mean those actions are not sins. And the reality is that Chriostians are SUPPOSED to STOP sinning. How can we who have died to sin continue toi live in it? So no homosexual can continue to live as a homosexual and claim to be Christian. That claims for any "Christian" who lives like nothng has changed. Their relationship to the Lord is truly questionable.

 

"Argument 3. When reference is given, it is always about the unsaved doing these sins. The saved person will continue to do some of them, but they aren't counted against him/her."

Interesting...sin is no longer sin...sorry, but that is the most unbiblical concept I've to date run across.

Bro. Adam

 

You have just negated the need for both the Ten Commandments and a good part of the rest of the Bible.

Experiential personal revelation is the hallmark of cults, post-it. Christians know to depend on the Bible for guidance regarding sin. Paul told us the law is specifically to show us what sin is. You don't like the law, that's up to you, but it stands whether or not anyone's 'experience' in their heart agrees or disagrees with it.

 

Post-it,
These arguements just aren't up to par with your usual ones. How about this one: The original Levitical prohibition against homosexual conduct came in the midst of a bunch of other laws that we don't follow any more (I'm wearing mixed fabric right now, for example). Every Christian I know of picks and chooses which parts of Leviticus to follow and which parts to ignore. By the way, I'm not advocating homosexual behavior here, just pointing out what is a better arguement.

 

Will address these individually later.

This is an interesting request as it goes against almost all rules of logical argument to either defend or negate an argument. If something is true, it is true universally for a topic unless you claim special cases. This means that if you do not claim special cases, ALL of the rules must apply ALL the time for it to be true. In other words, if I were to prove one of these false, the overall premise would be false thereby negating the other two.

I can agree to this, but I would request that when we are "officially" done, we can get some feedback from the rest of the group. I am sure they will give it either way, but it never hurts to make this clear up front.

More to come...

 

Once again, I see post-it is not only defending abomination, but trying to attach God's blessing to it.

The word translated "homosexuals" in 1 Cor. 6:9 is arsenokoites - a compound word derived from arsen, male, and koite, sexual intercourse. The meaning of the word is plain: an arsenokoites is a practicer of homosexuality, one who lies with a man as with a woman.

The Septuagint translation uses the same words, arsen and koite in Lev. 20:13, which in English reads:

Neither the Old Testament (Lev. 20:13) nor the new (1 Cor. 6:9-10) makes any allowance for "married" homosexuals (a contradiction in terms in any case; notwithstanding the Orwellian attempt by social engineers to redefine the term, by definition a marriage is between a man and a woman). If man lies with man, he has committed an abomination; he is damned.

Nonetheless, Paul does go on to say:

The homosexual practitioner who will turn from his wicked practices is not beyond the grace of God and the blood of Christ.

 

PI:

I don't know your educational history, but if you have ever taken an advanced mathematics class you will know of proofs (you probably know of these anyway...they have become much more common in physics and math classes). There is a one called Proof by Contradiction. The basic premise is you assume something is true for the sake of the proof, only to reach an untrue statement, thereby contradicting something we already know to be true. This invalidates the assumption of the proof.

EX:
We know that 5+2=7 (theorem 1)
We know that 1+1=2 (theorem 2)

We assume that 5+1+1=8

We can easily show this to be false based upon th. 1 and th. 2:

Assume that 5+1+1=8. We know that 5+2=7 and we also know that 2 is the addition of 1 and an additional 1 (th. 2). Via substitution we can see that 5+1+1=7, but we assumed that 5+1+1=8. This is a contradiction, therefore our assumption is false.

Lets do that with your Argument 1.

The argument is really this: 'Only the Holy Spirit will place in a person's heart what sin is for that person.'

We know that sex before marriage is a sin. (1)
We know that sex outside of marriage is a sin (2)

ASSUMPTION:
ONLY SIN IS WHAT HOLY SPIRIT PLACES ON HEART OF SAID INDIVIDUAL

Here we go:

Proof by Contradiction:
We assume that the only sin for a person is what the Holy Spirit places in that person's heart. We can show this to be false by building the following situation:

JOE=18 year old unmarried man who is sleeping with this 18 year old girlfriend(JANE). JOE has no conviction from the Holy Spirit on his heart.
JANE=18 year old unmarried woman who is sleeping with her 18 year old boyfriend (JOE). JANE has no conviction from the Holy Spirit on her heart.

By 1, both JANE and JOE are sinning. This is a fact. But, we assumed in ASSUMPTION that the only sin there is is that which is placed upon a person's heart by the Holy Spirit. We have a contradiction because according to ASSUMPTION, JOE and JANE are not sinning, but we know they are because of 1.

QED.

I have just successfully dispoven your argument 1.

What does this mean? It means that there are some sins which are NOT of the convicting type alone. This means there are some sins which are wrong stricly because God said so.

Now, you have to let me say something here. You cannot come back and say my argument is invalid because I didn't mention homosexuality at all. That wasn't the argument you used. You said sin is that which is placed upon the heart of the individual by the Holy Spirit. I have shown this to be false. By showing this to be false, your entire argument 1 is now negated and placed under the PROVEN UNTRUE proofs pile. We have solved it, it is already know and it is known to be false.

Want to move onto argument 2?

In Christ,
jason

 

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to diceive"

How easy it is to try to turn what Scripture plainly says, into something it does not.

Post-it. If your THEORY held water, there would be no reason for jails. I am sure the majority of murders, crooks, rapist etc would claim that what they did was not wrong. In your line of thinking they are not guilty of sin because they haven't been convicted. So we need to let them out and tell them to return when they are convicted that they are sinning.

I am sorry for the sarcasm, but that arguement is an insult to the inteligence of those who read and try to obey God's word.

Relativst thinking can never be lived out. Relativism is your arguement whether you think so or not. It only works for you, but not for the whole. What is right for you, won't necissarily be right for someone else. Above it all, what is right for us, naturally, is not right for God, that is why we have been given Scripture, to correct us, and urge us to repent. What we feel, believe, gives us warm fuzzies is not right unless we are in obediance to God.

 

Post-it --

You are one scary man.

 

Well said! And I might add a Fool.
The scary part is how many will follow him as this board allows him to spew this unbiblical garbage.

suzanne

 

I am not sure if any are following. The response I have gotten so far has been in support of me opposing his illogical and unbiblical positions. I think most of us on here are well aware of the invalidity of his positions.

jason

 

Well, you have an opinion, and I have an opinion, but let's see what God's Word says:

Lev 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 and 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.
Rom 1:28 And 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,

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Eric

 

I love the way some people find this topic repulsive. As though something repulsive is a measure of its sinfulness. I find spitting in public and smoking intently repulsive, but few seem to think they're sins (probably because tey're doing them).

As far as homosexuality, there is a biblical ban on one item only: a man having intercourse with another man as with a woman (although I've never figured out why there's a like ban on women). Strictly speaking, the text does not discuss the genuine feelings that persons feel (emotion, attraction, etc, that don't have anything to do with sex acts). Only the specific act of male-male intercourse.

I have no problem with marriage being limited to male/female only.

I have no problem saying male-male intercourse is a sin.

I DO have a problem with the church making male-male sex more of a sin than male-female sex outside of marriage.

I DO have a problem with the church making male-male sex more of a sin than marital infidelity.

These other two items are so much more prevalent in churches, yet are payed only lip service from the pulpit. Perhaps it's because the church doesn't want to look at the heterosexual plank in its own eye before it pulls out the homosexual specks in other eyes.

 

That is true in your example, but in the example, I am the creationist and you are the evolutionist. You must show me how the bible is wrong and how the current interpretations are incorrect. I can, however, use any piece of your arguments and refute them. Burden of proof lies with you.