Homosexuality and Scripture

[C.S. Murphy]

It is so much better when people believe that the Bible is fundamentally true. Jason is doing a great job with the scriptures, but sometimes scriptural proof is not enough.
Murph

 

[post-it]

JasonW, you have made two consecutive posts which is not allowed as per our rules, you get one statement and one rebuttal on each argument. You have now taken 3 statements/rebuttals. Do you wish to continue the debate or are you just wanting to end the debate and go to a general discussion/thread?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
JasonW, you have made two consecutive posts which is not allowed as per our rules, you get one statement and one rebuttal on each argument. You have now taken 3 statements/rebuttals. Do you wish to continue the debate or are you just wanting to end the debate and go to a general discussion/thread?

Not yet...I was doing that to save from copying and pasting. Sorry if it was not allowed. I was trying to combine the ideas and let them flow together but didn't want to destroy the integrity of your original posts.

I would rather not just yet, though, I think we might want to amend the rules then as I am sure you want to make some comments on what I just said. Either way, it is up to you. I feel I have made my points fairly clear.

jason

 

[post-it]

I don't think we would ever get through this debate if we keep rebutting. So I vote we keep it to one statement and 1 rebuttal of that statement. You have a good point on a final comment, so lets us just add a summary post from each of us at the end. In that summary, we can pick points from each rebuttal that we wish to readdress. Agreed?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
I don't think we would ever get through this debate if we keep rebutting. So I vote we keep it to one statement and 1 rebuttal of that statement. You have a good point on a final comment, so lets us just add a summary post from each of us at the end. In that summary, we can pick points from each rebuttal that we wish to readdress. Agreed?

Sounds good.....1 summary coming right up...uhm...sometime soon.

jason

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
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.

Let us further point out that God created male and FEMALE in the Garden...not another male. Man, as he has done with almost everything God has given to him, has perverted this original design according to the Apostle Paul.

 

[post-it]

Summary to 1st Argument

Jason, you made a point in your rebuttal, that by relying on The Great Command, it opens sin up to subjective interpretation. I agree, this is why we must also examine it through the conviction of our heart (Holy Spirit) who counsels and teaches us ALL things.
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things…

You seem to keep separating argument (1) and then arguing why each one is insufficient. Yes, each one by itself is insufficient to know what sin is, but when both are used, it is sufficient.

My argument is set up in this form:
premise 1 = A
premise 2 = B
conclusion C = A+B

You failed to look at the complete argument. Instead you attacked it by looking at only one premise and the conclusion. You have only proven that we can’t know what C is by just looking at premise 1 or 2 by itself.

You failed in both arguments to show my complete argument Invalid or unsound.

You additionally pointed out that there are lists of sins by pointing to other posters. My argument made it clear that there are no specific lists of sins which are meant to be our sole resource for classification of actions as sin. It is a given that we have lists of generalized sins, mostly used in conjunction with the unsaved. It leaves open that the means of obtaining exactly what sin is, must be determined by other means.

For example, what does gossip mean exactly? Talking about someone else’s private life? Well, we all do that and it is not always a sin. At what point does it become sin?

Lying to a loved one on how they look is not a sin, but at what point does it become a sin to lie? The answer is not in the Bible in some list, it is found in the “saved” person's heart.

You Claimed: "Slippery slope argument. Invalid." (I just wanted to point out a correction in your logic terms definitions; since you seem to make this claim a lot… Slippery slope arguments are rarely invalid, they are “unsound”. Very few arguments we find on this board are "invalid." Many are "unsound" but not invalid.) This one wasn’t invalid or unsound. If you wish to make the claim, it is in good form to attempt to show why.

You ask “Who determines what constitutes 'enemy government'? The US to Russia? Russia to the US? Moral subjectivity is running rampant!”

Again, the heart (Holy Spirit) will tell you if it is a sin or not to attack the enemy. Also, if you should be defending your family through these means. There is really nothing subjective about it, either you feel it is right or wrong. This isn’t a choice the Holy Spirit gives you, it is a determination of what is right or wrong by the Holy Spirit, not you. A homosexual just knows if it is a sin or not to marry the same sex or the opposite sex. Just as you know it is wrong for you to marry the same sex.

You Claim the following: “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 sophomoric statement, I thought you more intelligent than that.”

Logically, I can and did claim it. You spent more time in your rebuttal making exclamations of my statements than you did putting forth reasons why they were false or what should be accepted. Saying you are shock or can’t believe my claims don’t make for a good argument. I take it that you have no point of view that is defendable.
_____________________________________________

Here is a list of histrionical claims you made in your rebuttal that I chose not to address. You may wish to leave them out of your future posts as they seem to be a method you use to distract and misdirect the argument. Or it might be that you are just to emotional, in either case, it is bad form.

JasonW...

your arguments ... are asinine
No! That is about the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard!
I am amazed you would make such an sophmoric statement
I thought you more intelligent than that.
You are almost exactly where I was when I was 15 years old.
your argument couldn't be as juvenile as it sounded. Yup, it was.
This is, of course, completely wrong and actually makes you look dishonest.
Yeah? So?
If you must use this tired argument again
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?
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
Ok..again...how many times do I have to refute this?

[ September 11, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Jesus Page Tools]

Originally posted by post-it:
[QB]Summary to 1st Argument

Jason, you made a point in your rebuttal,

I have read several points, I have stayed calm,
Now I must say something. As the Romans spit, through stones, and hit Him they them selves called Him a liar also. Are you walking around the truth or avoiding the truth.
Do you also wish for a one world Church ?
3 words; EVERY IDOL WORD !
I shall pray for me and for you !

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
Summary to 1st Argument

I am going to use this as an outline to my summary as it contains some errors. I will do more pontificating at the end.

Jason, you made a point in your rebuttal, that by relying on The Great Command, it opens sin up to subjective interpretation. I agree, this is why we must also examine it through the conviction of our heart (Holy Spirit) who counsels and teaches us ALL things.
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things…

You seem to keep separating argument (1) and then arguing why each one is insufficient. Yes, each one by itself is insufficient to know what sin is, but when both are used, it is sufficient.

My argument is set up in this form:
premise 1 = A
premise 2 = B
conclusion C = A+B

You failed to look at the complete argument. Instead you attacked it by looking at only one premise and the conclusion. You have only proven that we can’t know what C is by just looking at premise 1 or 2 by itself.

Me, from page 3
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.

The bolded parts encompass both A and B from above, there by leading to C (A + B). I refuted it. If you failed to either read it or grasp it, that is not my fault.

You failed in both arguments to show my complete argument Invalid or unsound.

You additionally pointed out that there are lists of sins by pointing to other posters. My argument made it clear that there are no specific lists of sins which are meant to be our sole resource for classification of actions as sin. It is a given that we have lists of generalized sins, mostly used in conjunction with the unsaved. It leaves open that the means of obtaining exactly what sin is, must be determined by other means.

For example, what does gossip mean exactly? Talking about someone else’s private life? Well, we all do that and it is not always a sin. At what point does it become sin?

Lying to a loved one on how they look is not a sin, but at what point does it become a sin to lie? The answer is not in the Bible in some list, it is found in the “saved” person's heart.

Me, again from page 3
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.

While I agree that the Holy Spirit's conviction is needed to determine what is right and wrong (in those things which call for a subjective moral standard...homosexuality not being one of them just as premarital sex is not one of them)...and I agree with Jesus' commandment to love one another, I vehemently disagree with what you support. We are told, in absolute terms, that certain things are wrong. These things cannot be change, they cannot be justified and they cannot be argued away to suit your 'morality of the moment' mentality. There is an absolute standard by which we must live our lives.

You Claimed: "Slippery slope argument. Invalid." (I just wanted to point out a correction in your logic terms definitions; since you seem to make this claim a lot… Slippery slope arguments are rarely invalid, they are “unsound”. Very few arguments we find on this board are "invalid." Many are "unsound" but not invalid.) This one wasn’t invalid or unsound. If you wish to make the claim, it is in good form to attempt to show why.

Who said I said 'invalid' the adjective? Maybe it was the noun? Just kidding.

But ok...I would almost give this to you except you are wrong again.

www.dictionary.com
in·val·id2 Pronunciation Key (n-vld)
adj.

1. Not legally or factually valid; null: an invalid license.
2. Falsely based or reasoned; faulty: an invalid argument.

and....

un·sound Pronunciation Key (n-sound)
adj. un·sound·er, un·sound·est

1. Not dependably strong or solid.
2. Not physically or mentally healthy.
3. Not true or logically valid; fallacious: an unsound conclusion.

Since a logical fallacy (such as slippery slope) constitutes a 'falsley based or reasoned' conlusion ...it seems my use of 'invalid' is actually just as correct as if I used your 'unsound'. Now...lets move on.

Again, the heart (Holy Spirit) will tell you if it is a sin or not to attack the enemy. Also, if you should be defending your family through these means. There is really nothing subjective about it, either you feel it is right or wrong.

Let me point out that 'B' is totally missing from your equation above. Again (I pointed this out earlier in another post), if you must use your own argument, please use it correctly.

That being said. You are espousing a subjective moral system. How is it subjective? Because you 'feel it is right or wrong'. This is what subjective morality is all about. When one person can say if their actions are right or wrong based upon personal feelings, it is subjective. Seriously, this isn't rocket science

www.dictionary.com
sub·jec·tive Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential

If you still don't understand what subjetive morality is all about, feel free to write me about it. I would be more than willing to go over it with you.

Logically, I can and did claim it.

You are correct on one acount; you did claim it. Still, you cannot logically claim something to be true or not true based upon the number of times it is mentioned, the number of years it took to figure it out, the number of people it took to figure it out or the amount of money it took to get it. This is not even up for debate, it is just not true.

For instance: if I were to say that the atom bomb was a more important invention because of how much money it took to 'find' it than electricity, that would be stupid. We couldn't even have dreamed of atomic power or weapons without electricity. And yet, electricity took probably a billionth the money, a billionth the time and a billionth the man power.

How about a REALLY stupid example. Stupid, but it shows why you CAN'T claim what you did: Which is the better movie? Better in terms of writing, acting, directing and lasting power in our memories? The original Pshyco or Britney Spears' Crossroads? Well, I'll bet that almost everyone said Pshyco. Pshyco probably cost 1/100th the amount to make than did Crossroads.

See the point? Anyway....we are digressing...

Now...for my final, closing statement(s).

I have shown how your argument for what constitutes sin (your A + B = C) is invalid when taken by itself by:

1. Showing that A (given your guidlines) cannot stand on its own
2. Showing that B (given your guidlines) cannot stand on its own
3. Showing that C (given your guidlines) cannot stand even when concluded via A and B. This means that the collective A + B (given your guidlines) cannot stand by themselves.

I also assumed the intelligence of those reading this thread to be of a high degree...or at least high enought to plainy read the scripture passages given by several board members. These passages clearly list homosexuality as a sin (along with others). It is clear from scripture that homosexuality (of the sexual impurity sin...which is where it is classified) is a sin. To say otherwise spits on God's word, and in the face of God Himself.

I then continued to point out that Post-it himself didn't use his own arguments when trying to define what was sin. PI would either use only A or only B (Something I was chastized for, I might add). This is inconsistent.

I also continued to point out that the system that PI is proposing, though very nice looking for those wordly Christians, is actually something called subjective morality (see definition of subjective above). Mind you, there are subjective morals...that is without a doubt (think: gossip of PI's arguments), but if we have a CLEAR list of things which are wrong, they are not to be taken as subjective. Those defined as wrong are UNIVERSALLY wrong. I used this to show how PI's position can be invalidated (oh, I'm sorry...unsoundidated...or something like that) by applying his arguments to something that we both agreed was a sin; premarital sex. That simple example was enough to show his arguments to be false.

Concluding, I would like to say to Post-it. You are almost there. You have realized that there are subjective sins in Christianity. Some people fail to realize this point. The point you are missing, and it suprises me, is that there are also objective sins. These objective sins are always wrong, no matter the situation. Once you realize that both can live, and do live, in Christianity you will realize that homosexuality, along with fornication, premarital sex, drunkenness and some others posted earlier are of the objective variety. I'm glad we had this debate, and I am glad you got to see these arguments. I just pray that you will mull them over and think about them for a while...they do take some time to sink in. Again, I am MORE than willing to talk about this over email. As a matter of fact, I would like to. This topic can be rather daunty to tackle all by yourself. As someone who has been searching this topic for quite some time now, I would like to offer my assistance to you to go that final mile.

In Christ,
jason

 

[Mrs KJV]

This subject is a abombiation to God and should not even be discussed on a christian site debating whether it is right or wrong. God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve. God instituted the family with man and woman. Satan has always been trying to distroy the family with this sin sick issue.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Mrs. KJV - this is why the Fundamentalist Forum was created, so that people who are not interested in contemporary theological debates would have somewhere to go without having to see those discussions.

Wherever you are on the theological spectrum, every major denomination except the Roman Catholic Church and the newly orthodox Southern Baptist Convention is having serious, in-depth discussion on this issue. There is one baptist body (the Alliance of Baptists) that has taken a welcoming and affirming stand, and another (the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) includes welcoming and affirming churches. In addition, several baptist seminaries have open admission policies.

Joshua

[ September 12, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Mrs. KJV - this is why the Fundamentalist Forum was created, so that people who are not interested in contemporary theological debats would have somewhere to go without having to see those discussions.

Wherever you are on the theological spectrum, every major denomination except the Roman Catholic Church and the newly orthodox Southern Baptist Convention is having serious, in-depth discussion on this issue. There is one baptist body (the Alliance of Baptists) that has taken a welcoming and affirming stand, and another (the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship) includes welcoming and affirming churches. In addition, several baptist seminaries have open admission policies.

Joshua

I wonder the reasoning: popular opinion, higher thinking, or spiritual enlightenment. What do you think Joshua
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Oh and by the way thanks for advertising the new forum I wanted to but was afraid of getting jumped. Mrs. KJV may not be interested but her post indicated a good possibility.
Murph

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Murph, I think there are aspects of biblical interpretation that change as culture changes. Unlike some, I believe that the Bible contains both timeless truth and culturally conditioned opinions. As our society's understanding of sexual orientation and the nature of love changes, the Church's changes as well.

This happened with astronomy when we finally moved from a geocentric understanding of the universe. Although you wouldn't know it here, it has happened with the bulk of Christianity on the topic of equality for women. It is happening on sexual orientation now.

Consequently, I think the primary factor is cultural change. I don't think that means that we are inappropriately using culture to interpret the Bible. I just think we're using culture to interpret those parts of the Bible which are cultural.

Joshua

 

[Ransom]

According to Post-it's argument #1, if I chose to torture and dismember cute fuzzy animals for fun and sell Internet access to videos of these acts, then it isn't a "sin" as long as the Holy Spirit doesn't convict me of it.

 

[Grizzly660]

Dude!
God is the same yesterday and today, right?!
Homosexuality was an ABOMINATION in the Old Covenant as well as under the New Covenant.
God doesn't change.
He can't HATE it one minute and then say, "Oh, well you're smart enough to figure this out on your own." God's Holy Spirit (part of the Trinity) cannot go against the Father's inclination to hate sin (specifically: homosexuality.)

Honestly! Post-it, you're merely trying to legitimize your own desires without considering God's Word, right?

One cannot hide their sins behind rhetoric!

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Murph, I think there are aspects of biblical interpretation that change as culture changes. Unlike some, I believe that the Bible contains both timeless truth and culturally conditioned opinions. As our society's understanding of sexual orientation and the nature of love changes, the Church's changes as well.

Joshua, this is all well and good until you realize that this will apply to other topics in the same way. For instance, it is now customary in our culture for couples to live together before marriage (at least in my part of the country) and have premarital sex (this is actually advocated by non-christian premarital counselors to see if two people are sexually "compatible"). Now, our culture has changed to allow for the acceptance of premarital sex, but premarital sex is still a sin. So the question arises: "By what standard or authority do you (we) change what the bible says is a sin to adapt to culture?". I am sure you wouldn't say that premarital sex is ok, but by your own argument it would be.

This happened with astronomy when we finally moved from a geocentric understanding of the universe. Although you wouldn't know it here, it has happened with the bulk of Christianity on the topic of equality for women. It is happening on sexual orientation now.

1. A misunderstanging of astronomy was never a sin...
2. The stance on equality for women(in Christianity) hasn't changed, what changed is man's willingness to heed what God already said. We are actually still (as a religion) a bit off from it, I feel.

Consequently, I think the primary factor is cultural change. I don't think that means that we are inappropriately using culture to interpret the Bible. I just think we're using culture to interpret those parts of the Bible which are cultural.

But, which parts are those? Again, without an objective standard to judge it, we will merely change what we want to change to suit our desires. This is wrong.

In Christ,
jason

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:
According to Post-it's argument #1, if I chose to torture and dismember cute fuzzy animals for fun and sell Internet access to videos of these acts, then it isn't a "sin" as long as the Holy Spirit doesn't convict me of it.

I did not throw out the generalized list of sins given in the NT. I gave additional ways to detail those out into sin. So your fuzzy animal example fails to counter what I presented.

Would you care to tell us why doing these obvious acts of crulety and promotion of such, are sin? Using my way, you can't be loving to others while doing this but what exact listed sin does this violate if we are not to use the Holy Spirit and Jesus' Commandment?

This I would like to hear.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Grizzly660:
Dude!
God is the same yesterday and today, right?!
Homosexuality was an ABOMINATION in the Old Covenant as well as under the New Covenant.
God doesn't change.
He can't HATE it one minute and then say, "Oh, well you're smart enough to figure this out on your own." God's Holy Spirit (part of the Trinity) cannot go against the Father's inclination to hate sin (specifically: homosexuality.)

Honestly! Post-it, you're merely trying to legitimize your own desires without considering God's Word, right?

One cannot hide their sins behind rhetoric!

Please quote the verse word for word that indicates that God does not change or changes his mind. Then explain why God has changed his mind about subjects, countries, punishments etc in light of the verse you are using.

Then explain why eating shrimp or tuna today is no longer an abomination as it was just a few chapters before the homosexual issue you mentioned in Lev.

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

I did not throw out the generalized list of sins given in the NT. I gave additional ways to detail those out into sin.

The fact that the Bible defines them as such isn't sufficient for you?

So your fuzzy animal example fails to counter what I presented.

You presented:

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.

Syllogistically, this says:

P1. What is sin for a person is what the Holy Spirit places in his heart.
P2. The Holy Spirit has not placed homosexuality in some persons' hearts.
C. Therefore, for some persons, homosexuality is not a sin.

I can say with equal force in logic:

P1. What is sin for a person is what the Holy Spirit places in his heart.
P2. The Holy Spirit has not placed torturing cute puppies in some persons' hearts.
C. Therefore, for some persons, torturing cute puppies is not a sin.

Would you care to tell us why doing these obvious acts of crulety and promotion of such, are sin?

Oops, did I say puppies? I meant babies. Hypothetically, I have never been convicted by the Holy Spirit of my baby-torturing activities.

[ September 12, 2002, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]