Homosexuality and Scripture

[post-it]

Originally posted by Brother Tony:
Let us further point out that God created male and FEMALE in the Garden...not another male.

Actually he did...The next two people God created were man and man, Cain and Abel. We can only assume they had sex with someone? I don't think that would be Eve. Maybe they didn't have sex at all, two grown men with not sex partners, no sex drive, no women created yet. At some point Cain did get a woman but that was Outside the garden.

Making an argument that God made adam and eve and nothing else is not even a valid argument. You would be assuming that sin had no effect afterward on creating imperfections and changes in man. God didn't make Down's Syndrome people or depressed people, ugly people, obese people either in the Garden. He didn't make Black people, yellow people... should I go on or do you see how silly the argument is.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:

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.

I see you failed to say what listed sin you based that torturing cute puppies is a sin.

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

I see you failed to say what listed sin you based that torturing cute puppies is a sin.

You are hypocritical. Homosexuality is a listed sin, and yet you deny that it is sinful.

I will not waste my time arguing the less clear when you dismiss the clear through unbiblical sophistry.

Both Old and New Testaments list intercourse between two males as sin. You have not yet dealt exegetically with the relevant passages, abandoning the text of the Bible in favour of your casuistry.

Ironically, you were the one who attempted to make a "Biblical" case for abortion, and yet rejected any "humanistic" reasoning based on the identity of the fetus. Well, now's your chance for a Biblical case.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:
[QB]post-it said:

I see you failed to say what listed sin you based that torturing cute puppies is a sin.

You are hypocritical. Homosexuality is a listed sin, and yet you deny that it is sinful.

I will not waste my time arguing the less clear when you dismiss the clear through unbiblical sophistry.

I take this evasive response as your not being able to defend your assertion.

You also have mistated my view on homosexuality as a sin. If you didn't want to discuss the issue, you shouldn't have posted the unbiblically based argument of sin you attempted.

I acknowledge you lack of understanding in even what you, yourself, base sin on.

The way to save your argument at this point is to answer my original question. Again, I understand if you pass.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by post-it:
Maybe they didn't have sex at all, two grown men with not sex partners, no sex drive, no women created yet. At some point Cain did get a woman but that was Outside the garden.

Both Cain and Abel were born after the fall. Although not explicitly stated, they probably married their sisters. This practice was common at least until Abraham and Sarah... and apparently not harmful due to the lack of recessive genes.

By the way, Romans 1 (obviously not your favorite passage) lists maliciousness and inventors of evil things as sinful... torturing puppies qualifies don't you think?

I see your tactics haven't changed.

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

I take this evasive response as your not being able to defend your assertion.

I take your shifting of the burden of proof as an evasion of the implications of your assertion.

If you didn't want to discuss the issue,

If I didn't want to discuss the issue, I would not have posted a Biblical reason why homosexuality is an abomination on the very first page of this thread. Please go back to my first post in this thread and interact with that . . . if you dare.

[ September 12, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Norm]

Originally posted by Grizzly660:
Dude! God is the same yesterday and today, right?!

Hey, Dog. Need to lace them boots, Dog, for you are off the cobb on this one. Got to go with my kack, post-it; he's one moldy fig that cuts through a heap of onion acts. If you are going to hang with God, you'll need to blow change. Later, Dog.

 

[eric_b]

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.

Joshua, if you believe that some of the Bible is "timeless truth", and some is just "culturally conditioned opinions" that may no longer apply to us, then how do you distinguish between the two? And if God didn't want us to believe something, why would He allow it in His Word? Would He really allow false opinions in His Scripture?

Eric

[ September 12, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]

 

[suzanne]

Post-it,

Are you finished with your debate with JasonW?
Perhaps to two of you have communicated through PM.
Just wondering since you have answered Grizzly, Ransom and Brother Tony and JasonW evidently still had comments comming.

A taste of your situational ethics?

suzanne

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by suzanne:
Post-it,

Are you finished with your debate with JasonW?
Perhaps to two of you have communicated through PM.
Just wondering since you have answered Grizzly, Ransom and Brother Tony and JasonW evidently still had comments comming.

A taste of your situational ethics? suzanne

I believe that Jason had finished the debate judging from the wording of his last post. Therefore, I was ready to address others.

 

[post-it]

By the way, Romans 1 (obviously not your favorite passage) lists maliciousness and inventors of evil things as sinful... torturing puppies qualifies don't you think?

So how do you or Ransom know that torturing puppies is a malicious and evil thing?

[ September 12, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by suzanne:
Post-it,

Are you finished with your debate with JasonW?
Perhaps to two of you have communicated through PM.
Just wondering since you have answered Grizzly, Ransom and Brother Tony and JasonW evidently still had comments comming.

A taste of your situational ethics?

suzanne

Good point about the situational ethcs. Such is a dinosaur in moral theory. I haven't seen anyone seriously advocate it for almopst 15 years.

Tells you something doesn't it?

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by post-it:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

So how do you or Ransom know that torturing puppies is a malicious and evil thing?</font>[/QUOTE]My favorite Prof had a saying "where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent" I may be wrong but I don't know of specific Scripture that states that puppy torturing is sin, but homosexuality now that's a different matter.
Murph

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:
I may be wrong but I don't know of specific Scripture that states that puppy torturing is sin, but homosexuality now that's a different matter.
Murph

Even I have said certain acts of homosexuality is likely to be sin. If it falls outside of marriage, then it is a sin in my eyes. You imply you know that all homosexuality is a sin, yet scripture doesn't say all forms of homosexuality is sin. In fact, it doesn't address it inside a committed relationship or marriage at all, not one single time. The implication in scripture is that only some forms of homosexual behavior is a sin, if that. The translations of the individual words used for homosexuality is not enough to even define it as what we know as homosexuality and at the same time if it is assumed homosexuality is included in the translations then it is in the same vain as sex outside of marriage.

The Biblical interpreters used their own thoughts on what certain word meant. They were all against all homosexuals so what can we expect?

As far as anyone making a statement that they "know" that it is a sin, or that the Bible clearly says it is a sin, consider this.
You really know only certain things about the Bible as being fact, you can only have faith that it is 100% correct and faith in what each scripture and word is saying and faith in your understanding and interpretation, faith that the 50 men whom King James placed in charge of interpreting the Bible got it right, faith that God gave us enough truth to save our souls in our modern day Bible. You and I will be wrong in some of those understandings and in areas where we placed our faith wrongly because of others. This can be one of them.

 

[Grizzly660]

Post-it,
In response to your questions...
1. "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."

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not

God only changes his Judgements in regard to their penitence. God was going to destroy Nineveh, but they repented and He withdrew his Judgement. God doesn't change His mind about sin.
So, if one repents of Homosexuality, God is faithful and just to forgive them. (1John 1:9)

2. "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."

Eating shrimp or tuna was never accounted as an abomination. It was, however a part of the Law. Christ came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. We see the Judgement of God in the law, but the Grace of God through Christ. The Law should be a guide to our understanding of God (and our sinfullness), but not a way to salvation. God didn't just condemn Homosexuality in the Law, either.
Do you argue that the 10 Commandments are no longer valid? If so, your argument flies in the face of Paul (read Romans 7.)

Norm,
You stated, "Hey, Dog. Need to lace them boots, Dog, for you are off the cobb on this one. Got to go with my kack, post-it; he's one moldy fig that cuts through a heap of onion acts. If you are going to hang with God, you'll need to blow change. Later, Dog."

Do you have an intelligable question or comment on this topic?

 

[Mrs KJV]

Rev. Joshua
Please read Ephesians 5:11-12.

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by post-it:
Murph

Even I have said

Thanks Post it but God has beaten you to it, He said homosexuality is sin long ago.

" If " sorry Post it no if's in God's word on this one it is just too clear, atleast that is my view. Anyone else see it that way?

Murph

 

[suzanne]

" If " sorry Post it no if's in God's word on this one it is just too clear, atleast that is my view. Anyone else see it that way?

Aye, Murph. This is how I see it too.
Suzanne

 

[Norm]

Originally posted by Grizzly660:
Norm ... [d]o you have an intelligable question or comment on this topic?

Norm: I was under the impression that you wished to speak with slang. Actually, I gave an intelligent response and a suggestion for thinking through this issue.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by C.S. Murphy:

" If " sorry Post it no if's in God's word on this one it is just too clear, atleast that is my view. Anyone else see it that way?

Murph[/QB]

So what you are saying is that the Holy Spirit is telling you how to interpret these scriptures and what the mean exactly. And you accept what the Holy Spirit is showing you about these verses. Is that right?

The other way you could know what they really mean is to assume that Biblical generalities apply to the whole subject. Thou shalt not kill, means just that, no self defense, no war time exception, no State executions.