Homosexuality and Scripture

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:

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.

If this is your experience then you are going to the wrong kind of church! The churches I have been in preached heterosexual purity often and in depth but spent little time on homosexuality other than in connection with the general moral decline of our society. I guess the assumption was that the message should be to those in attendance.

I agree with your premise completely. Fornication and adultery are just as sinful as homosexuality. You're also right that most Christians are more sympathetic to these "normal" sins than the "abnormal" ones. Both types of sin should be preached against.

However, I disagree that there are any preconditions that should be met before preaching against the sin of homosexuality. To use one of Post-its favorite diversions, I don't think all gossiping must be purged from a church before other sins are preached against. If a particular sin is prevalent in a church then is should be prevalent in the preaching/teaching but not to the exclusion of all other topics.

 

[Scott J]

As an afterthought, I think it is a shame that all sexual sins are not touched more often in our churches. Lives are destroyed both inside and outside the church by the sins that are against one's own body.

 

[FearNot]

I feel obliged to say this, although I do not agree with post-it (rather strongly disagree on some topics), I do not think we need to insult the man by calling him names. I made a blunt statement about his ideas, but I try my best to not to name call. A person can change their mind on topics, if you don't like their oppinion, prove them wrong. What I have found in my short life is that calling a person a name never gets you anywhere and typically terns the person completely off.

Johnv, I will agree with the other person, you must be in the wrong church. When I have been in discussions numerous times with non-believers and some believers on this topic. When they try to set me up, trying to get me to condemn homosexuals (they like to use the born this way arguement) I tell them that homosexual acts are no more a sin than extra-marital sex. I also use a arguement I heard a pastor use once. He asked the questioner if they thought he was born with the desire to have sex with one and only one women his whole life. He then told them that he has urges like anyone else, but that God says he is to have relations with his wife and her alone, that he obeys God no matter what his humanly urges tells him. This arguement nullifies the comments that they are born that way. If they are born that way (which I doubt) that doesn't mean they can ignore God's commands.

Post-it, I will say here that in rereading my comments I sounded a little more harsh than I had intended. For that I am sorry and will be more careful in the future. I don't agree with you but you have the right to think it.

 

[post-it]

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.

____________________________________________

1. There are no codes or lists of specific sin in the NT for believers to abstain from.

2. Jesus sole command was to Love one another.

3. The apostles never taught a certain list of sins; nor spoke of anyone that was saved as being guilty of sin, which took away salvation.

4. According to Paul, for the gentile, sin that one accepts as sin is written on the heart and becomes sin for that person.

Romans 2: 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Thus, if a gentile doesn’t feel that homosexuality is a sin, but that it is normal for that individual. Then it can’t be written on the heart, thus not a sin.

5. In Acts, we find the apostles deciding (through guidance of the Holy Spirit) on a set of sins to establish for the Gentiles. So again, we know that sin is defined within the heart of the person that posses the Holy Spirit, in this case the Apostles. Today, we individually once saved, posses this ability and know what laws and what conduct to allow in our lives and what not to do. If we did not have this spiritual instruction, we could not act on our feelings but rather only on a written code, which clearly lays out what is permissible and what is not. The added fact that no such list exists, gives another scripture-against-scripture verification, that it is through this method that we are to determine sin.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

A person that has the Holy Spirit, will not want to commit sin, and they also know what sin is. If a homosexual feels marrying a same sex partner is evil or sinful, then for that person it is a sin according to Romans 2:15. And just the opposite holds true, so we have some homosexuals that feel it is the natural way they are and it can’t be sin. We know sin will be written on a believer’s heart by actions found in Acts 15. We have no list of specific sins a believer is not to commit or to ask forgiveness for if they do slip up. A debate remains open on whether to continually ask forgiveness after each sin, or just confess each sin, or not do anything about continuing sin except to try harder or allow the Holy Spirit to deal with it. With such unanswered questions it can be assumed that sin, after a person believes in Jesus and accepts his gift, is no real issue that need to be dealt with, otherwise this area would be more defined in scripture.

Point 2
Along with this we have Jesus' general Commandment:

John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Therefore, this command brings a list of unwritten sins into existence which we must combined with the message from our hearts (Holy Spirit). We look first at the potential of doing wrong (opposite of Love) to others, then look to our hearts for the final understanding of what is a sin and what is not a sin.
Under the incorporation of these two factors of judging sin, one knows that it is wrong to fornicate, but inside marriage it is not harmful. Unmarried homosexuals that fornicate can bring harm in emotional ways and by becoming one with the other, in flesh. This would be wrong. A homosexual who tries to marry opposite sex, most likely is committing a sin since the spouse and any children could get seriously hurt when the true nature of the homosexual comes out. This alone could make this a sin. Further the heart of a homosexual may well be telling them it won’t work, and not to do it.

Stealing for selfish means while hurting others is wrong, but stealing from an enemy Government is right, when judged using both means of harm and heart. Killing in defense of family is right, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This system of sin and right and wrong, creates many more things that could be right and could be wrong than any list given in a book. Are their sick people out there who can’t listen to their heart or their heart gives them something that is obviously wrong? Yes, but these people would not understand and follow a written code either. There will always be exceptions, but we are to deal with them through man’s law, not God’s law.

Using both the Command of Jesus and the Understanding of the Holy Spirit, homosexuality most likely isn’t a sin for most when given in marriage.

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by post-it:
Argument 1.

post-it, do you have any reply for the Scripture I posted earlier? The Bible is very clear in those passages that homosexual activity is a sin. Do you accept those passages (and all the rest of the Bible) as the inerrant Word of God?

here it is again, in case you missed it:

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

[ September 10, 2002, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

[post-it]

To eric and others, I won't be answering any of your posts during the debate with JasonW, I'm sure many of your arguments should be raised by JasonW and I will answer them in the rebuttals. Make as many suggestions as you want, since either one of us can use them in our arguments. I suppose, my side may come up with a shorter list, but I still have scripture on my side. Thanks

Nothing personal, I just don't want another 36 pages of same questions etc, we had on the abortion issue. I think this should be short and explain each side well enough.

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by post-it:
To eric and others, I won't be answering any of your posts during the debate with JasonW, I'm sure many of your arguments should be raised by JasonW and I will answer them in the rebuttals. Make as many suggestions as you want, since either one of us can use them in our arguments. I suppose, my side may come up with a shorter list, but I still have scripture on my side. Thanks

Erm... I've just shown that you don't, the only passages that speak directly about homosexual behavior speak about it as sin. Ignore my posts if you want to, Lev 18:22 couldn't possibly be any clearer.

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

No explanation, debate, or 400 page books written by defrocked anglican priests required.

Eric

[ September 10, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

[Justified]

GOD CREATED ADAM & EVE!

NOT ADAM & STEVE!

 

[Ps104_33]

Let me be perfectly frank here concerning homosexuality. I dont know how far this post is going to go but I will try to say this with as much dignity as possible. (shut-up, I know what alot of you are thinking)

God put certain parts on the human body to be used for certain things. With me so far? Some orifices on the human body are designed for things to come out and not made for inserting things into, unless medically perscribed by a doctor. A certain sexual practice engaged in by homosexuals is unnatural (see Rom chapter 1), unhealthy, filthy and dangerous.

I know the liberals want to make the AIDS epidemic a heterosexual problem but anyone with their head out of the sand knows that this is mainly a sodomite disease spread initially by unnatural sex acts. Its time alot of us quit being so afraid of "political incorrectness" and call it what it is.

What is all this baloney about equating sins such as lying with sodomy. The Bible says that we are all liars but it doesnt say that we are all homosexuals.

(I posted this originally on the slavery post that developed into homosexuality but I thought it would be better here)

[ September 10, 2002, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

[susanpet]

Post-it, you must not have the same bible I have. It clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God.
What is your definition of an abomination?

Even animals know which sex to mate with.
Woman was created for man. Period. No ifs ands/or buts.

Susan

 

[Graceforever]

Originally posted by eric_b:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by post-it:
I use three different and separate arguments to defend homosexuality in marriage.

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</font>[/QUOTE]Forget it eric_b, Post-it doesn’t base his arguments on the word of God…. Scripture has absolutely no authority with him whatsoever…..

 

[Bible-belted]

"1. There are no codes or lists of specific sin in the NT for believers to abstain from."

Umm... have you read the Bible?? There are "vice lists" peppered throughout the NT! The fact that there are many and they don't all have the same sins listed suggests that each lstis meant to be exemplary and not exhaustive. Letterism will not do.

"2. Jesus sole command was to Love one another. "

But that commandment sums up all the other commandments. See Ro 13:8-14 for example, particularly in light of the fact that this passage includes one of those vice lists you say don't exist.

"3. The apostles never taught a certain list of sins; nor spoke of anyone that was saved as being guilty of sin, which took away salvation."

Again, wrong. On top of the above mentioned example try Romans 1:28-32, significant because it is int he context of the passages Paul mentions about unnatural relations, meaning homosexual.

"4. According to Paul, for the gentile, sin that one accepts as sin is written on the heart and becomes sin for that person."

Roamsn 2:15 does not mean that. In this verse Paul is talking about Gentiles who make clear in their behaviour an innate awareness of God and His moral requirements. The results' of the gentile's knowledge of God's moral requirements is, according to thelast part of the verse, "their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts both accusing and excusing them." Conscience in Paul's usage is notwhat we make off it normally, but rather is the "mechanism by which people can measure their conformity to a norm." (Moo) As Doug Moo sates: "If, then, the law is that "norm", the conscience of the individual Gentilkes reveals within each of them the extent to which that norm is being followed." So the verse actually refers toa person's ability to recognise when they sin,= according to an outside standard, not an inward one.

"5. In Acts, we find the apostles deciding (through guidance of the Holy Spirit) on a set of sins to establish for the Gentiles. So again, we know that sin is defined within the heart of the person that posses the Holy Spirit, in this case the Apostles. Today, we individually once saved, posses this ability and know what laws and what conduct to allow in our lives and what not to do. If we did not have this spiritual instruction, we could not act on our feelings but rather only on a written code, which clearly lays out what is permissible and what is not. The added fact that no such list exists, gives another scripture-against-scripture verification, that it is through this method that we are to determine sin. "

First let me say that this contradicts points 1 and 3.

Second, this is a wholely unwarranted conclusion. The Holy Spirit's action was to guide the poeple to a consensus on behaviors that should be avoided. The text does not say that those behaviours are a sin. Indeed, the text indicates that they were to abstain out of sensitivity to the surrounding Jews so as not to offend them. There was no sense of determing what was sin and what was not.

"A person that has the Holy Spirit, will not want to commit sin, and they also know what sin is."

By an objective standard outside themselves. The Spirit convicts in line with Scripture, not in contradiction of it. So what follows is utterly without merit.

 

[post-it]

Rebuttal to JasonW opening post on Argument (1)

You must have glazed over the other the important qualifier for argument (1) which clearly stated that Jesus’ Commandment must also be used to determine sin in conjunction with the Holy Spirit.

If it can be determined that serious harm can come to another (or yourself), yet the Holy Spirit does not convict the person that it is a sin (such as in your example of Joe), it is still a sin. Therefore, your argument only supported the 2nd part of argument (1) in which we must decide mentally if the potential action could harm another or ourselves.

You have failed to establish with your opening argument that we are to know sin by some other way than what Argument 1 states. You further agreed that fornication is a sin which I have never claimed it wasn’t. In fact, I will agree with you that it is. Fornication can cause harm on several levels, mainly the introduction of a baby without a loving family, guilt of abortion, sexual disease, even death. Even with condoms, these harmful risks still could occur.

 

[grateful4grace]

Post it said:
"I use three different and separate arguments to defend homosexuality in marriage."

Sodomites are said to be given over to a reprobate mind in the bible. Rom.1. I think such a mind must be in the ascendancy to practice such deeds, OR to defend their practice, as it is essentially the same Satanic DELUSION. But for you arguments....

"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."

This looks more like three attempted arguments, where only the first makes enough sense to be suceptible to an answer. You say, "Only the Holy Spirit will place in a person's heart what sin is for that person". First, CHAPTER AND VERSE. Where does the BIBLE teach that ONLY the Holy Spirit can thus show someone what is wrong? I reckon if it did say that, then it would be the ONLY VERSE IN THE BIBLE, as the rest of it would then be pointless.... we would just all get our own private 10 commandments from the Holy Spirit.
Quite the contrary, the bible teaches that "He that is of God heareth God's words... ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God". THE WORD OF GOD has the right to authoritatively convince someone of sin, and that is why IT... NOT THE SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS OF PERVERTS... is the sole authority for the church's doctrine and practice.

You continue
"Argument 2. Each reference in the NT to homosexual behavior is cOnly the Holy Spirit will place in a person's heart what sin is for that personentered 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."

Homosexuality is condemned as a perverted sexual ACT. That ACT is perverted, and perverts marry only for the ostensible sanctioning of this act... an act the bible calls an "abomination". The bible doesn't talk about marrying dogs or cats either, but that doesn't warrant bestiality.... might to you, but not to any rational being.

You continue:
"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."

You put contingency between justification and sanctification, whereas the scripture makes them BOTH necessarily existent in the beleiver, becuase they are predicated not upon their own efforts, but upon the faithfulness of God, who will both justify his people, and sanctify their hearts. ICor.1:30-31 Thus all believers are perfectly justified, and no sin will condemn them. But for those who are given over to the dominion of sin, it argues a want of regeneration, and therefore, of justification as well. And that is why the bible says, (speaking of the sin of sodomy among others), such WERE some of you. That is why the bible says that "They that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (ICor.6:9-..)

Because this is true, what God calls an abomination is not a thing that will be defended by ANY of His children.

G4G

 

[HankD]

Post-it cites Acts 15:19-20
Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Then post-it says that someone led of the Holy Spirit won't want to sin. But, if an individual (apparently one that claims to be led of the Holy Spirit) feels that it is natural for him to practice homosexuality and apparently feels no guilt for doing so, for that person it is not sin. Post-it also claims "We have no list of specific sins a believer is not to commit or to ask forgiveness for if they do slip up"

However, look at the Acts 15 passage, it has a clause explicitly forbidding "fornication".

Fornication - Greek "porneia" has a much wider scope than the modern english word "fornication".

Fornication .Porneia
Strong's 4202 porneia {por-ni'-ah}
• 1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives.

Friberg 04296 porneia generic of every kind of extramarital, unlawful, or unnatural sexual intercourse.

Louw-Nida 88.271 porneu,w ; evkporneu, ; porneia, aj f: to engage in sexual immorality of any kind.

We have no list of specific sins a believer is not to commit or to ask forgiveness for if they do slip up

Galatians 5
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 5
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator (pornos), OR covetous, OR an idolater, OR a railer, OR a drunkard, OR an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Ephesians 5
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger (pornos), nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

[ September 10, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Ransom]

Post-it said, incorrectly:

1. There are no codes or lists of specific sin in the NT for believers to abstain from.

This claim, of course, is completely false.

Romans 12 specifically lists the following sins to avoid:

</font>

• worldly thinking (2)</font>
• thinking too highly of oneself (3)</font>
• hypocrisy (9)</font>
• evil (9)</font>
• cursing those who persecute you (14)</font>
• haughtiness and self-importance (16)</font>
• returning evil for evil (17)</font>
• revenge (19)</font>

1 Cor. 5:11 lists the following sins to avoid, saying that those who practice them are false brethren:
</font>

• sexual immorality</font>
• covetousness</font>
• idolatry</font>
• railing</font>
• drunkenness</font>
• extortion or swindling</font>

1 Cor. 6:9-10 lists the following sins, saying those who practice them have no part of the Kingdom of God:
</font>

• sexual immorality or fornication</font>
• idolatry</font>
• adultery</font>
• pederasty</font>
• homosexuality</font>
• theft</font>
• covetousness</font>
• drunkenness</font>
• railing</font>
• swindling</font>

1 Cor. 10:6-10 lists a short catalogue of sins of which Paul says "do not":
</font>

• idolatry (7)</font>
• immorality (8)</font>
• testing God (9)</font>
• grumbling (10)</font>

In Gal. 5:19-21, Paul lists the "deeds of the flesh," of which practitioners will not inherit the Kingdom:
</font>

• adultery</font>
• sexual immorality</font>
• sensual living</font>
• lust</font>
• idolatry</font>
• sorcery</font>
• hatred</font>
• contention</font>
• jealousy</font>
• outbursts of anger</font>
• partisanship</font>
• divisiveness</font>
• sectarianism</font>
• envy</font>
• drunkenness</font>
• carousing</font>

And those are just the lists of sins I know of off hand, and doesn't include any instances of individual sins being discussed.
If you are going to say things like "there are no lists of sins in the NT," do make at least an effort to make sure your factoids are in accord with the truth.

And do note that "homosexuality" - man lying with man - is catalogued in 1 Cor. 6:9. Not only does a list of sins exist, this very one you are defending is included within it.

The clarity of the Scriptures on such issues is so plain, I often have to wonder why so many of the defenders of perversion want to call themselves "Christian" at all. I suppose they want to ride the coat-tails of the Christian religion's legitimacy without earning it themselves. But wouldn't it be more honest simply to abandon all pretence of Christianity and found one's own religion where they can tolerate any abomination they please without soiling the reputation of the Lord Jesus?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
Rebuttal to JasonW opening post on Argument (1)

You must have glazed over the other the important qualifier for argument (1) which clearly stated that Jesus’ Commandment must also be used to determine sin in conjunction with the Holy Spirit.

No, I didn't 'glaze' over it. I was mearly giving you the benefit of the doubt that your argument couldn't be as juvenile as it sounded. Yup, it was.

1. I actually agree with you that Jesus' commandment must be used, but to refute your claim, I merely had to produce a situation which invalidated your portion on the Holy Spirit. I will explain more below.

If it can be determined that serious harm can come to another (or yourself), yet the Holy Spirit does not convict the person that it is a sin (such as in your example of Joe), it is still a sin.

2. This is what I am talking about when I say your argument is invalid. "If it can be determined" means ABSOLUTELY nothing. What if it can't be determined? What if it isn't certain? Are you talking potential for harm? Then nothing is right as almost everything "could" produce harm to someone else.

3. You are walking the fine line of nothing being a sin also. Know why? When you say "If it can be determined" you are making a subjective statement. Who is to decide what constitutes 'serious harm'. You imply too much with this statement...and I don't believe you meant to.

Therefore, your argument only supported the 2nd part of argument (1) in which we must decide mentally if the potential action could harm another or ourselves.

4. Actually, I refuted your elementary claim that sin is that which convicts the heart at the base. I will now address that which I promised from part 1. We have already seen that your argument for "what can cause serious harm" is not quite upto snuff, but I will explain why now. My idea of serious harm is probably quite different from your idea of serious harm. Now, which one of us is right? If I were to do something, without the HS's conviction, and you told me I was sinning because I was causing serious harm (such as your argument for premarital sex)...I could rightly come back and say "NO! I am not sinning because this is not serious harm in my eyes". This is called subjective morality...it is wrong.

I will use another example that you have used in the past: Assasination. You have stated that murder is wrong unless, of course, we murder Saddam Hussein (sp?) because he is evil. Well, what is evil in your moral code? Evil to whom? Evil to the US? Evil to Iraq? Evil to Iran? What about an Iraqi murdering Pres. Bush or Pres. Clinton? Well, those two men are evil in their eyes so it would not constitute sin.

The problem with your argument is that man is still the judge of all aspects of their own moral code. This is inherently wrong as we can decide whatever, wherever, whenever for whoever.

More to follow below....

You have failed to establish with your opening argument that we are to know sin by some other way than what Argument 1 states. You further agreed that fornication is a sin which I have never claimed it wasn’t. In fact, I will agree with you that it is. Fornication can cause harm on several levels, mainly the introduction of a baby without a loving family, guilt of abortion, sexual disease, even death. Even with condoms, these harmful risks still could occur.

5. I used the fact that you agree that premarital sex is wrong to show my point, but this raises another question....with what authority to do you claim premarital sex is wrong? For instance, you claim that it is wrong because it "can cause harm". That is your opinion, what if that is not my opinion? Again, who is right? You or I? See the inherent problem with your position? What if I say that marital sex is wrong because it can lead to money problems, children when the parents aren't ready, a man to not be physically attracted to his wife (she is pregnant) and long for another. Who are you to say that I am wrong? I have just introduced another sin...marital sex.

BTW. The argument you give for potential harm is a slippery slope logical fallacy argument.

6. I didn't need to establish where we get sin for my argument to show the invalidity of your argument (which I succesfully did). Nor, do I have to establish from where sin comes to continue in this argument as that is a completely different issue. What I have simply said is that your arguments for what is sin and what is not sin are asinine and invalid for many reasons. I have given those reasons and I have disproved your position.

BTW. You are almost exactly where I was when I was 15 years old. I started to think more and more about life and if there was a god and what that meant for me. The subject of morals and right/wrong came up and it interested me so for the next handful of years I studied it. After coming to the realization that there exists at least one absolute right or wrong it became clear that there was a god. My next step was to find that god. Jesus is that God. Now, I don't claim you don't know Jesus, just that you don't understand absolute morals standards. If is quite obvious you don't.

In Christ,
jason

I will now address your other post...give me a bit...

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
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.

____________________________________________

1. There are no codes or lists of specific sin in the NT for believers to abstain from.

This is, of course, completely wrong and actually makes you look dishonest. Please see other posts on this issue; specifically those posted by Ransom (great job!) and Latreia (I like your arguments!)

2. Jesus sole command was to Love one another.

Yeah? So? How does this support homosexuality not being a sin? It doesn't.

3. The apostles never taught a certain list of sins; nor spoke of anyone that was saved as being guilty of sin, which took away salvation.

Two parts to this:
1. List of sins -&gt; see above
2. Sin taking away salvation -&gt; This is not the time nor the place.....but this is irrelavent to the argument at hand.

4. According to Paul, for the gentile, sin that one accepts as sin is written on the heart and becomes sin for that person.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Romans 2: 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Thus, if a gentile doesn’t feel that homosexuality is a sin, but that it is normal for that individual. Then it can’t be written on the heart, thus not a sin.
</font>[/QUOTE]If you must use this tired argument again, at least use it in your own context!!! You said if the HS does not convict AND it does not cause harm. Thus, you need to prove that homosexuality does not cause harm...without a shadow of a doubt.

As for sin being that which the HS convicts on the heart(as what is sin for the individual...IE subjective morality). How many times do I have to disprove this? How many? Just tell me? Is it 10? I can repost it 10 more times. Is it 20? Just tell me so I will post the refutation over and over and over....

5. In Acts, we find the apostles deciding (through guidance of the Holy Spirit) on a set of sins to establish for the Gentiles. So again, we know that sin is defined within the heart of the person that posses the Holy Spirit, in this case the Apostles. Today, we individually once saved, posses this ability and know what laws and what conduct to allow in our lives and what not to do. If we did not have this spiritual instruction, we could not act on our feelings but rather only on a written code, which clearly lays out what is permissible and what is not. The added fact that no such list exists, gives another scripture-against-scripture verification, that it is through this method that we are to determine sin.

Oh my goodness!! I can't believe you can actually keep saying this with a straight face? You have to be playing devil's advocate...you have to. (note: see above. Thanks again Ransom and Latreia and others)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

A person that has the Holy Spirit, will not want to commit sin, and they also know what sin is. If a homosexual feels marrying a same sex partner is evil or sinful, then for that person it is a sin according to Romans 2:15. And just the opposite holds true, so we have some homosexuals that feel it is the natural way they are and it can’t be sin.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ok..again...how many times do I have to refute this? Should I give more examples on how this is incorrect logic? Would that help clear it up for you?

We know sin will be written on a believer’s heart by actions found in Acts 15. We have no list of specific sins a believer is not to commit or to ask forgiveness for if they do slip up. A debate remains open on whether to continually ask forgiveness after each sin, or just confess each sin, or not do anything about continuing sin except to try harder or allow the Holy Spirit to deal with it. With such unanswered questions it can be assumed that sin, after a person believes in Jesus and accepts his gift, is no real issue that need to be dealt with, otherwise this area would be more defined in scripture.

No! That is about the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard! You cannot logically say that the amount of time/words given to a topic either lessen or increase the impact it is to have on our lives! I am amazed you would make such an sophmoric statement, I thought you more intelligent than that.

Point 2
Along with this we have Jesus' general Commandment:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Therefore, this command brings a list of unwritten sins into existence which we must combined with the message from our hearts (Holy Spirit). We look first at the potential of doing wrong (opposite of Love) to others, then look to our hearts for the final understanding of what is a sin and what is not a sin.
</font>[/QUOTE]See my previous post dealing with this issue.

Under the incorporation of these two factors of judging sin, one knows that it is wrong to fornicate, but inside marriage it is not harmful.

No. You have failed to show why under your system it is wrong to fornicate. You can't actually do this, of course, because under your system of morals, the individual is the judge of his/her actions. You may claim it is because of 'harm', but, again, this is subjective and can't rationally be used...even by your standards. You may claim that harm (opposite of love, as you state it) is also to play, but that is also a subjective opinion and open for debate. You claim fornication is wrong, but you can make no such statement given the moral stance you are trying to justify.

Unmarried homosexuals that fornicate can bring harm in emotional ways and by becoming one with the other, in flesh. This would be wrong.

Why would this be wrong? What harm are they causing? You make assertions but fail to provide backup. Remember, I think homosexuality is a sin. I am just pointing out the major inconsitencies within your system.

A homosexual who tries to marry opposite sex, most likely is committing a sin since the spouse and any children could get seriously hurt when the true nature of the homosexual comes out. This alone could make this a sin. Further the heart of a homosexual may well be telling them it won’t work, and not to do it.

Slippery slope argument. Invalid.

Stealing for selfish means while hurting others is wrong, but stealing from an enemy Government is right, when judged using both means of harm and heart.

Who determines what constitutes 'enemy government'? The US to Russia? Russia to the US? Moral subjectivity is running rampent!

Killing in defense of family is right, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This system of sin and right and wrong, creates many more things that could be right and could be wrong than any list given in a book. Are their sick people out there who can’t listen to their heart or their heart gives them something that is obviously wrong? Yes, but these people would not understand and follow a written code either. There will always be exceptions, but we are to deal with them through man’s law, not God’s law.

Using both the Command of Jesus and the Understanding of the Holy Spirit, homosexuality most likely isn’t a sin for most when given in marriage.

You have successfully failed to provide any sort of coherent argument or defense for you position. However, you have contradicted yourself, shown that you believe only in the subjectivity of the individual, ignored clear and unsubjective bible passages and offered no real substance to and otherwise straight forward topic.

In Christ,
jason

 

[donnA]

I guess when people don't like what God had to say in the bible they feel at liberty to change it. But God's word is eternal, you may not want to live it, or teach it as it is, but God doesn't change His mind about what He wrote in it.

 

[HankD]

A homosexual who tries to marry opposite sex, most likely is committing a sin since the spouse and any children could get seriously hurt when the true nature of the homosexual comes out. This alone could make this a sin. Further the heart of a homosexual may well be telling them it won’t work, and not to do it.

What!? a homosexual who enters into a heterosexual marriage sins!

This is an exercise in futility.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

HankD