"As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." (Proverbs 27:17)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject: homosexuality a sin? |
|
|
I saw your email in a Christian site which was also on homosexuality and so I wondered if you belive it is a sin as I can't find any passages on same sex
love to show that thats a sin anywhere?.....
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:15 pm Post subject: follow-up question |
|
|
Can love even ever be a sin? If so why and how can love be a sin...even if its between 2 men or 2 women?
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:16 pm Post subject: here's an article for your consideration... |
|
|
What do you think about this article?
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/homosexuality.html
Think of it as a rough draft. I'm sure the author would love to hear feedback. 
Also, don't forget to check out this sermon:
[Listen Now ][Download Now] Mark McCrary - Homosexuality
Last edited by m273p15c on Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This passgae of notes mentions romans and 1 cor 6. Neither mentions homosexuality (same sex attractions) or same sex romantic love though as sins.Romans deals with same sex lust and passions (not love at all then note) in idolotry performed by heterosexuals, hence its unatural for them. And as the word homosexual did not exsist till 1869, hw is it in a list of sins in only modern bibles in 1 cor 6 anyway? Becase its been ADDED in. Clearly a sin in itself really. Arsenokotie is the offending word modern translators misuse as it is a male temple prostitute, again no link to same sex attraction or same sex love then.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: please provide contextual and lexicographical authority... |
|
|
| email wrote: | | This passgae of notes mentions romans and 1 cor 6. Neither mentions homosexuality (same sex attractions) or same sex romantic love though as sins.Romans deals with same sex lust and passions (not love at all then note) in idolotry performed by heterosexuals, hence its unatural for them. |
For convenience, here is the related passage from Romans 1:
| Paul, by the Holy Spirit, wrote: | Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:24-32) |
First, Romans 1 certainly indicates that the Gentiles’ rejection of God was the prime mover in powering their demise, which climaxed into an extensive catalog of sins. However, we must ask, "Were those sins limited to the context of idolatry?" In other words, are murder, strife, backbiting, hating God, unloving, and these other sins acceptable, provided it is not associated with idolatry? To be consistent, whatever exceptions you extend to homosexuality, must likewise be applied to the other sins mentioned in the immediate context and associated with the Gentiles idolatrous lapse into depravity.
Second, if for the sake of argument, we momentarily grant that homosexuality is natural for some people, while heterosexuality is natural for others, then how many “natural uses” would there be? At least two, right? There may be more, but there would have to be at least two. Consequently, there would be no way to accurately speak of “the natural use”, since there are more than one possible “natural uses”. Is that not your ultimate contention, that there are more than one acceptable and “natural uses”? How would you distinguish one person’s natural use from another? I would have one “natural use”, but somebody else would have another “natural use”, and they may or may not be the same. Therefore, we would be able to read about "your natural use", "my natural use", "our natural use", "their natural use", etc. But, is this how the text reads?
| Paul, by the Holy Spirit, wrote: | | For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:26-27) |
Does this passage speak of the peculiar “natural use” belonging to any particular group of men or women? Gay or straight? No! Not only does the text offer no indication of possession (as in “her natural use”, or “their natural use”), but there is no indication of multiple possibilities of “natural use”. These people gave up "the natural use". Moreover, men left the natural use not just of their women, but of “the woman”, in general. Therefore, this passage indicates a single, global natural use, which cannot be attributed to any subset of men or women, and which exists without natural alternatives!
Incidentally, if you look in the original Greek, you will find that the above-mentioned nouns are indeed provided in the accusative case, and the definite article is present for both nouns. Additionally, the English phrase, “the woman”, translates a definite article and the singular noun for women. Consequently, an examination of original Greek, or an overview of multiple English translations, both suggest not a personal sexual nature, but a universal, natural sexual orientation.
Third, although the Gentiles’ carnal desires and lust driven heart were certainly shameful, the homosexual act was also declared to be unnatural and shameful (“committing indecent acts”, “committing shameful acts”, “committing unseemly acts”). The Old Testament offers clear commentary on the intrinsic perversion that is generally associated with same-sex relationships:
| Moses wrote: | Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. (Leviticus 18:22-24)
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13) |
| email wrote: | | And as the word homosexual did not exsist till 1869, hw is it in a list of sins in only modern bibles in 1 cor 6 anyway? Becase its been ADDED in. Clearly a sin in itself really. Arsenokotie is the offending word modern translators misuse as it is a male temple prostitute, again no link to same sex attraction or same sex love then. |
May I kindly submit that this is complete misunderstanding of the nature of translation in general? Translation is the mapping of one language to another, as closely as possible. Since modern languages are constantly in motion (developing new words, changing the meaning of other words, and abandoning still others), any translation that involves at least one living language will have to be under constant revision, if the translator desires to maintain the best translation possible, at any given moment. Therefore, if some word comes into being in 1869 that more accurately represents the original Greek, then it should be used. This is not addition. This is the work of translation.
Various translations and lexicons render these two words, specifically relating to I Corinthians 6:9, as follows:
- malakoi.
- Thayer’s Greek Lexicon – “1. soft, soft to the touch, 2. metaph. in a bad sense, a. effeminate (1) of a catamite (2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man (3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness (4) of a male prostitute”
- Friberg AGNT Lexicon – “soft; (1) of clothes soft (to the touch), delicate (LU 7.25); luxurious clothes (MT 11.8); (2) fig. of men, in a bad sense effeminate, unmanly; esp. of a man or boy who submits his body to homosexual lewdness catamite, pederast, sodomite (1C 6.9). “
- Vine’s Expository Greek Dictionary – “"soft, soft to the touch" (Lat., mollis, Eng., "mollify," "emollient," etc.), is used: (a) of raiment, Matt_11:8 (twice); Luke_7:25; (b) metaphorically, in a bad sense, 1_Cor_6:9, "effeminate," not simply of a male who practices forms of lewdness, but persons in general, who are guilty of addiction to sins of the flesh, voluptuous.”
- KJV, ASV, NAS, NAU, YLT – “effeminate”
- NKJ - “homosexuals”
- NIV – “male prostitutes”
- avrsenokoitai
- Thayers Greek Lexicon – “1. one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual”
- Friberg AGNT Lexicon – “an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast.”
- Young’s Analytical Concordance – “lying with a male”
- KJV, ASV – “abusers of themselves with mankind”
- NKJ, NRS, YLT – “sodomites”
- NAS, NAU – “homosexuals”
- NIV – “homosexual offenders”
First, only one of these words can have the meaning, “male prostitute”; however, that is not its primary meaning. Something in the context is required to demand this meaning; otherwise, its default meaning must be used.
Second, The word you mentioned, avrsenokoitai, has no reference to male prostitution, and its etymology is quite simple: It comes from two words, “man” and “bed”. This is a truly generic word that involves nothing more than a homosexual relationship. The generic usage is also evidenced in I Timothy 1:9-10.
Third, if “male prostitute” is adopted for one word, what does the other mean?
Finally, it is admitted that the Bible nowhere specifically condemns “romantic” same-sex relationships, opposed to those based on lust. However, we must ask, "Where is the passage that sanctions it?" Where is the passage that even mentions "romantic same-sex attraction", much less makes a distinction? What passages can we use to compare and contrast noble homosexuality with carnal, lusty same-sex relationships? A person should not just assert there is a distinction, when there is no evidence for it. What is the Scriptural basis for the distinction and approval? Additionally, what recognized authorities support the above accusation that the majority of translators incorrectly use “homosexual” for I Corinthians 6:9? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
My reponce is in 1 cor 6 arsenokotie is a modern understanding. Homosexuality means both male AND FEMALE same sex attracted people, and as arsen ONLY means male, already it is NOT homosexual. It clearly does not fit. Malokos ONLY means soft in ancient greek and here it is a weak in faith person. As for romans if we look more at the text it says they EXCHANGED the natural use of the opposite sex, now a born gay man can not exchange what he never had. If one was to go in a shop to exchange a sweater you never had to start with, you'd be laughed out the shop. However a heterosexual CAN exchange their natural use of the opposite sex, so it clearly seems Paul condemned heterosexuals having gay sex as is unatural for them then in idolotry acts.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: inventing our own definitions |
|
|
| email wrote: | | My reponce is in 1 cor 6 arsenokotie is a modern understanding. Homosexuality means both male AND FEMALE same sex attracted people, and as arsen ONLY means male, already it is NOT homosexual. It clearly does not fit. Malokos ONLY means soft in ancient greek and here it is a weak in faith person. |
My friend, I appreciate your earnestness and your desire to prove your point, but I cannot accept your statements out of your sheer assertion or will for them to be true. Unless you can cite a recognized authority in the New Testament Greek language, then I will dismiss your assertions out right.
Since you are basing your argument on the etymology for arsenokotai, you should know that the etymology of a word, although interesting, is no indication of its definition. For the simple fact that words change meaning over time, the original definition of a word, if even possible to decipher, is only a little clue to the current meaning. For example, the word psalmos, originally meant "to touch one's hair or beard". However, it eventually came to mean a type of religious song! Can you use the etymology of psalmos to determine its meaning in the New Testament? Imagine the gross error a translator would make by replacing every reference to “singing a psalm” with “touching a beard”!
Regarding, malokos, please notice that the primary meaning is “soft”, as in a cloth. The metaphorical meaning referred to the “soft”, feminine partner in a homosexual relationship. Authorities base their definitions on reading thousands of documents in the original Greek, comparing context and noting era of writing. Considering that homosexuality was rampant among both Greeks and Romans, it is safe to say that Thayer and other lexicographers ran across the word a few times. If you wish to take exception with their expert definitions, then please cite authoritative cause, including conflicting references. In other words, please produce either another passage in the Bible or contemporary Greek writings that use malokos to refer to someone that is weak in the faith.
Moreover, in testing the consistency of your suggested translation, we should recall that being "weak in the faith" is not a sin in and of itself. In fact, Paul stated that the Lord had already accepted such people in Romans 14:1-3. If God accepts people who are weak in the faith, then how could this same weakness be a damnable sin? Your interpretation is inconsistent with Scriptures and the Greek authorities.
| email wrote: | | As for romans if we look more at the text it says they EXCHANGED the natural use of the opposite sex, now a born gay man can not exchange what he never had. If one was to go in a shop to exchange a sweater you never had to start with, you'd be laughed out the shop. However a heterosexual CAN exchange their natural use of the opposite sex, so it clearly seems Paul condemned heterosexuals having gay sex as is unatural for them then in idolotry acts. |
Who said he was born gay? Please cite a passage that indicates homosexuality is natural for anybody.
Actually, the Bible indicates that no one is born naturally gay. As presented in the previous post, Romans 1:26-27 speak only of a single, global nature that is universal to the gender (“left the natural use of the woman”). If one accepts the inspired Scriptures, then how can he believe that each man has his own personal nature, when there is only one, global nature? If there is not one, global nature, then why did Paul speak not in possessive or plural case, but in the singular and accusative case, as indicated in the English translation?
BTW, I am looking forward to your answers to my other 6-7 remaining questions from the last post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: ON 1 COR 6 |
|
|
We can see arsenokotie isn't homosexual also by evidence many bibles also disagree with what word means what. KJV says abusers of mankind, revised says sodomite (which origionally is a person from sodom, not anal sex), JB phillips says pervert, the amplified bible says thoes who abuse themselves, revised english calls it perverts, good news calls it sexual perverts. Hence homosexuality in 1 cor 6 is only a sin here, depending what bible we use. And Arsenokotie is ancient greek, not modern greek, and ancient greek did not have a word for homosexuality......more evidence it CAN'T mean homosexual.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION |
|
|
Its sloppy assumption to think no one can be born gay, but lets assume no one is born gay.....then no one is born heterosexual eather. After all there is no evidence of a hetero gene...so do we all choose to be gay or straight? Of course not. Thats because its like we can't choose who we fall in love with eather. Weather we like it or not, we do not choose what our sexual orientations are and science is showing us that while we still wait for the evidence, all the facts point to us having a sexual orientation that is biological. The bible proves this to an extent in Jesus words of matt. 19;10-12 if we understand the history of the terms used.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: ON ROMANS |
|
|
So if we go off what evidence we do have on sexual orientations.....and that gay people are born gay and that heterosexuals are born straight, and look again at romans it is clear that what is unatural is a heterosexual having gay sex. Natural comes from the word nature and as we do know that all animal life has shown sexual orientations, which homosexuality is one, it shows it IS part of nature and therefore is natural. This is then backed up in scripture in the irony of romans thats usually used against gay people.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject: final response |
|
|
The only ironic thing that I have yet to observe in this discussion is that Romans 1 illustrates the depravity of the Gentiles in doing things that were extremely unnatural. As the pinnacle of this unnatural depravity, the Holy Spirit selects the sin of homosexuality to epitomize their depravity and extreme rejection of God. It is held up as a quintessential example and warning to all who have predetermined to serve themselves and reject God, because He cramps their lifestyle. And, yet here we are, arguing if the sin that Paul used to exemplify their prejudice, hardness of hearts, and rejection of God was even a sin! I believe a similar, but more clearly worded warning is appropriate here:
| Paul, by the Holy Spirit, wrote: | | The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (II Thessalonians 2:9-12) |
I would have more respect for a man that plainly says, "I do not care what the Bible says - I will do what I want", than a man who says, "I will do what I want and bend the Bible to soothe my conscience".
You still have not answered how there can be one, global nature for the man and another single, global nature for woman, as taught by Romans 1:26-27, and yet cling to the contradictory notion that multiple, personal natures exist. There is only one answer, "The Bible got it wrong!". You must either accept the plain language of this text, or reject the Bible. Or, I guess, you could reject reason all together, which is kind of the point of Romans 1:26-27 ("depravity"), but I hope for better things...
Dear friend, I mean you know ill will. In fact, my prayers have only mentioned your spiritual well-being. However, I am disappointed with what I have seen, and can no longer support this conversation beyond the following answers.
| email wrote: | | We can see arsenokotie isn't homosexual also by evidence many bibles also disagree with what word means what. KJV says abusers of mankind, revised says sodomite (which origionally is a person from sodom, not anal sex), JB phillips says pervert, the amplified bible says thoes who abuse themselves, revised english calls it perverts, good news calls it sexual perverts. Hence homosexuality in 1 cor 6 is only a sin here, depending what bible we use. And Arsenokotie is ancient greek, not modern greek, and ancient greek did not have a word for homosexuality......more evidence it CAN'T mean homosexual. |
These lines of reasoning represent either a total ignorance of Scriptures and any language, or they indicate a total lack of desire to accept what is plainly said. I fear the latter and cannot lovingly overlook it. If you have already made up your mind, please say so. However, if you do not understand what is being said, then please pose your questions, and I will apologize profusely.- The various translations are not in disagreement. This is no different than these translations using various renderings of "merry", "joy", and "happiness" to represent the same Greek word. They all mean the same thing. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" and "sexual perverts" are all euphemisms for homosexuality. If you are in doubt to what these words mean, please re-examine the authorities that were quoted above - "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual", "an adult male who practices sexual intercourse with another adult male or a boy homosexual, sodomite, pederast", and "lying with a male". There is no doubt among scholars as to the meanings of these 2 words. In fact, they reference I Corinthians 6:9 as a proof-text of these given usages!
- All of the inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed when God incinerated it with fire, over 2000 years before the writing of I Corinthians 6:9 (Genesis 19:1-29). Since all the original "Sodomites" were destroyed 2000 years previous, and were not available to be converted and referenced in I Corinthians 6:9, how do you think these people were previouly living as "Sodomites" ("such were some of you")? They were committing the same sin as did the original Sodomites, "going after strange flesh" (Jude 1:7). Look up "sodomite" in any dictionary. I do not think this "alternate translation" will help your case. Also, if you have any doubt as to how these people abused themselves with other members of mankind, look at its neighboring sin - "effeminate". Or, look it up in a New Testament word dictionary. All of these alternate renderings are nothing more than polite ways of saying the same thing - homosexuality.
- The ancient Greeks clearly had a word for "homosexuality". It may not be spelled exactly like our English word "homosexual", and it certainly doesn't have the same etymology, but surely that is not what you are expecting.... As defined by all the ancient Greek scholars, it was the word arsenokotai. Vine, Thayer, Arndt, Gingrich, et al were scholars of ancient Greek, not modern, and they say this was one of the words used to refer to homosexuals. All of the previous references are made to New Testament Greek, not modern Greek. Moreover, they not only specialized in ancient Greek, but these scholars focused on the specific dialect useed in the New Testament!
Admittedly, these two words specifically refer to male homosexuals, but if we were in doubt to the righteousness of lesbian practices, we could easily consult Romans 1:26-27.
| email wrote: | | Its sloppy assumption to think no one can be born gay, but lets assume no one is born gay.....then no one is born heterosexual eather. After all there is no evidence of a hetero gene...so do we all choose to be gay or straight? Of course not. Thats because its like we can't choose who we fall in love with eather. Weather we like it or not, we do not choose what our sexual orientations are and science is showing us that while we still wait for the evidence, all the facts point to us having a sexual orientation that is biological. The bible proves this to an extent in Jesus words of matt. 19;10-12 if we understand the history of the terms used. |
The doctrine that there is one natural use for men and one for women is neither assumption nor sloppy. It is a Bible based doctrine. Again, Romans 1:26-27 speaks of only one, objective nature for "the woman". Does this sound like each person is born with his or her personal nature, of which there are multiple possibilities?
| email wrote: | | After all there is no evidence of a hetero gene...so do we all choose to be gay or straight? Of course not. Thats because its like we can't choose who we fall in love with eather. |
Of course, there is no hetero gene. In fact, there is no gay gene either! If it was natural for men to lie with men, then why can't they reproduce? Why do they often suffer physical consequences from the repeated abuse of themselves (Romans 1:17 - "receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due")? Nature rejects homosexuality in that it denies them procreation. They only survive through evangelism and invention as described in Romans 1. Your own point refutes your case!
| email wrote: | | Weather we like it or not, we do not choose what our sexual orientations are and science is showing us that while we still wait for the evidence, all the facts point to us having a sexual orientation that is biological. |
I thought this was telling - a conclusion in search of evidence. Honest truthseekers work the other way around. They accumulate all possible evidence and then draw a conclusion.
| email wrote: | | The bible proves this to an extent in Jesus words of matt. 19;10-12 if we understand the history of the terms used. |
Ok - This is a terrible misuse of this passage, in no way supported by any textual authority.
| Matthew in quoting Jesus by the Holy Spirit, wrote: | "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (Matthew 19:9-12) |
In this passage, Jesus is giving eunuchhood as an alternative to not marrying. Do you believe that homosexuals should be able to marry? Do you believe the Bible? If being a eunuch is equivalent to being a homosexual, then homosexuals cannot marry, because eunuchs do not marry! Also, please notice that eunuchs are sometimes born this way, but they also may choose it, or have it chosen for them. The only way someone can have the choice made for them is if they are emasculated. Are you equating the removing of one's genitals to homosexuality? I think this passage proves way more than you want, given your interpretation, proving that it was taking out of context.
Jesus is simply stating that the only alternative to not marrying a woman is to remain a eunuch - to not marry and have sexual relations. So, where would homosexuality fit into this picture, if being a eunuch is the only alternative to marrying a woman?
| email wrote: | | So if we go off what evidence we do have on sexual orientations.....and that gay people are born gay and that heterosexuals are born straight, and look again at romans it is clear that what is unatural is a heterosexual having gay sex. |
Whoa, whoa! Again this is very telling. We collect evidence from science, which is admittedly "still waiting on the evidence" and then reinterpret Romans 1:26-27!? What is going on here? Have we not first formed a conclusion and then gone to Scripture to confirm it? This is dangerous at best (II Thessalonians 2:9-12).
If Romans 1:26-27 describes the fall of heterosexual men and women into depraved homosexuality, then where are the homosexual men and women of the Gentile world? Please notice that the passage only speaks of "men" and "women". No where does Romans 1 clarify these as being straight men or women. They are merely "men" and "women" - unqualified! Not only does your interpretation artificially limit the application of the Gentiles' fall to heterosexuals, but it would also deny that homosexuals can be classified as "men" or "women"! The passage only calls these people as "the men" and "the women". Where is the category for homosexual men and women, if the passage does not refer those who are supposedly homosexual by nature?
Again, this passage speaks of only "the men", "the women", and "the natural use". There is no room for alternative classes or uses without being unnatural.
Now, if we start with this passage and look at the evidence that we have, we will readily acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin. However, if we start with our desire that is "waiting on evidence" and then look at the passage, you will be able to find any meaning you want, provided you deliberately close your eyes to the appropriate facts!
| email wrote: | | Natural comes from the word nature and as we do know that all animal life has shown sexual orientations, which homosexuality is one, it shows it IS part of nature and therefore is natural. |
Yes, some animals do perform sexual acts with other animals of the same gender. However, they also try to perform it with animals of a different species (had a friend who saw a male dog try to mate with a tamed mountain lion once - wasn't pretty). But, hopefully you don't use the animals as proof of anything, unless you see us as being nothing more than animals. Moreover, does "nature" reward these acts? Do these acts produce "life" or animal satisfaction?
| email wrote: | | This is then backed up in scripture in the irony of romans thats usually used against gay people. |
"Whoa, Silver!!!" No passage should ever be used against any people - gay or straight! I do not believe point made thus far is an attack or challenge to gay people. All efforts have been focused on the act, not the people. Moreover, the object of God's redemptive love was people - both gay and straight. That is the whole point of I Corinthians 6:9 ("such were some of you"). The Bible is meant to save people from their sins, and one of the many possible sins is homosexuality. If the Corinthians could be redeemed from these sins, then anyone surely can be saved today, if they will but open their eyes to God's Word and repent (Acts 2:37-38).
Last edited by m273p15c on Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: Re: ON ROMANS |
|
|
I fear thats really sloppy thinking to want me to say that the bible has to agree with me and thats bad but OK to say that I don't like what the bible says, as I could say the exact same thing really but won't, because I respect another persons veiwpoint on Gods word, even if its totally wrong. Thats not for me to judge, but God. Why judge me and do Gods work...when ONLY God can do this.....it wasn't so long ago sadly that some Christians used the same bible to support racism as well as homophobia, but we can not really use a book of love like the bible to allow any forms of hate.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: NATURAL |
|
|
I don't know why there has to be one global nature for a person anyway and the bible did not get it wrong if we understand homosexuality anyway. Romans clearly was a case against idolotry. Its in the text, so they were not Christians Paul is addressing and they have to have been heterosexual going against their nature. It has been said sadly that anyone who is left handed is unatural and used the bible for this sillyness too, that as Christ is at the right hand side of the Father, left handedness is evil. Rubbish you may say, but this has been said and its not natural to be left handed, so why can't there also be one global naturalness for us all being right handed? Because we are NOT all made the same are we.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: GENISIS 19 |
|
|
Now this is odd that you use genisis 19 as a case that God destroyed the origional sodomites when the text NEVER implied this at all, Sodom was destroyed for idolotry, selfishness, greed and not helping the needy, nowhere in the ancient text are we told the sexuality of the men and also the town did not have exclusive gay people there as the town also had women and young people...where do they fit into a town of all gay men, and why did God plan Sodoms destruction BEFORE genisis 19 if it even was a gay sin....it makes no sence at all.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject: ARSENOKOTIE |
|
|
No not really all the same. A sexual pervert can be a rapist, a pedophile and so on, you can't assume it is a homosexual as we are never told they are sexual perverts, a pervert after all is someone who perverts their sexuality, so that could be a homosexual who has sex with the opposite sex or rapes others etc, it does not fit and these terms are not all related or the same thing, we just want them to be the same and no it is a solid fact ancient greek did not have a word for homosexuals, because NO ONE did till 1869. That is a fact!
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: LEVITICAL LAW |
|
|
Im fasinated as to why you assume the old law is clear against gay people when actually, its not. The old law has NO LAW against lesbianism to start with and in fact the whole old law says NOTHING against lesbains, so can we assume in old testiment times that is OK? As to the old law its gone and so we can no longer use it against gay men anyway as the law says nothing on gay love, it said for a man to lie with a male is to'evah, not abomination, not sodomite, but idolotry, so its again the same condemnation of romans, the whole thing flows to the new testiment, and says NOTHING on same sex love here. Im still waiting for these laws or texts against same sex romantic love, the old law can not be used by Christians.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: REPRODUCTION? |
|
|
To say its evidence homosexuality is unatural through them not being able to reproduce is again a huge sloppy assumption. Many gay people do have kids and many heterosexuals can not have kids. Sex is not just for having a bay, its also a way of loveing our partners. Where does the bible tell us sex is ONLY for reproduction? It does not. Is a barron woman unatural then or a man with a low sperm count? And what abuse is it 2 men or 2 women inflict on themselves in love? I do not know this one. Is love an abuse? Oh and malokos is NOT effeminate but soft....liturally. It always was.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: ANIMALS |
|
|
As usual when talking of the evidence animals show a sexual orientation, the anti gay veiw is to shift topic, here the case is some animals have sex with other speicies, this was NOT the topic, we are looking at sexual orientation only here and the fact that homosexuality exsists in the animal kingdom shows that weather you or I like it or not it is part of nature. Why is that hard to accsept? Unless you don't like the idiea of homosexuality being natural, sorry, thats not for us to decide, but the facts speak for themselves on this bit.
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m273p15c
Joined: 28 Sep 1999
Posts: 496
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: few more thoughts... |
|
|
| email wrote: | | .... as I could say the exact same thing really but won't, because I respect another persons veiwpoint on Gods word, even if its totally wrong. Thats not for me to judge, but God. Why judge me and do Gods work...when ONLY God can do this... |
My friend, I do not need to guess at your thought process, because you have told it to us ("still waiting on the evidence...take what we know and look at the bible"). God's role as ultimate Lawgiver and Judge is to issue final judgment. However, He has laid on the backs of all people the burden of seeking both truth and unity (II Thessalonians 2:9-12; Ephesians 4:1-6).
| email wrote: | | .... it wasn't so long ago sadly that some Christians used the same bible to support racism as well as homophobia, but we can not really use a book of love like the bible to allow any forms of hate. |
Yes, it is true. Many people have misused the Bible, but does that prove that it cannot be used correctly? The Bible clearly speaks of such people:
| Peter, by inspiration, wrote: | | ... and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation -- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. (II Peter 3:16-18) |
The Scriptures contain words of salvation for those who are willing to grow in the "grace and knowledge" of Jesus. However, those who do not like to "retain God in their knowledge" will find ways to "twist" the Scripture. We have to choose whether to accept the Scriptures and find salvation, or reject the truth of the Scriptures by twisting them to our own destruction. Although many choose destruction, that is no reason for you and I to do the same.
Second, "hate" has no where been referenced in any of the previous postings. However, now that you mention it, please consider which of the following reflects "hatred" and which reflects "love":- Showing your brother the Scriptures and encouraging him to follow it, so he may find happiness both in this life and the one to come
- Ignoring your brother's sins, and letting him perish because:
- you were scared that you might hurt his feelings
- you were scared of physical harm
- you were scared of civil repercussions
- you thought it more noble to show "tolerance" rather than offer him salvation
- you believed it was hopeless for him to change
- Talking "academically" about a vital subject, never pressing a point, and leaving the impression that God does not care, when He has expressed His "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22)
Put yourself in my shoes for a minute: If you really believe that deed X was sinful, and I was committing it or professing it, would you not try to help me see the light? No, my friend. Hate would be to let each other pass by without saying a word, even if we thought it may not be well received.
| email wrote: | | I don't know why there has to be one global nature for a person anyway and the bible did not get it wrong if we understand homosexuality anyway. Romans clearly was a case against idolotry. Its in the text, so they were not Christians Paul is addressing and they have to have been heterosexual going against their nature. |
Please do not assert. Please show from the text.
| email wrote: | | It has been said sadly that anyone who is left handed is unatural and used the bible for this sillyness too, that as Christ is at the right hand side of the Father, left handedness is evil. Rubbish you may say, but this has been said and its not natural to be left handed, so why can't there also be one global naturalness for us all being right handed? Because we are NOT all made the same are we. |
Two "wrongs" do not make a "right". The fact that we are not all created exactly alike does not give anybody excuse to commit any sin.
| email wrote: | | Now this is odd that you use genisis 19 as a case that God destroyed the origional sodomites when the text NEVER implied this at all, Sodom was destroyed for idolotry, selfishness, greed and not helping the needy, nowhere in the ancient text are we told the sexuality of the men and also the town did not have exclusive gay people there as the town also had women and young people...where do they fit into a town of all gay men, and why did God plan Sodoms destruction BEFORE genisis 19 if it even was a gay sin....it makes no sence at all. |
I cannot decipher the full reasoning behind your words, but the Bible is clear on the homosexuality of the "Sodomites". Also, please look at any dictionary...
| Moses, by the Holy Spirit, wrote: | Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. And he said, "Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." And they said, "No, but we will spend the night in the open square." But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."
And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door.
But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door. Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city -- take them out of this place! For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it." (Genesis 19:1-13) |
As stated previously, Jude declares the cause of their ruin to be their desire to seek "strange flesh" (Jude 1:7).
Moreover, God promised to spare the city, if He could but find 10 righteous people. Since He spared Lot's family (4 people) and destroyed the city, I think it safe to say that Sodom contained no righteous people, once Lot's family left (Luke 17:28-29). "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Genesis 18:20-32)
The Lord had not predetermined their destruction, before Genesis 19. He personally went to Sodom to test the extent of their wickedness. Sadly, they failed.
| Moses previously wrote: | | And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." (Genesis 18:20-21) |
It does make perfect sense if you read the passage in its context.
| email wrote: | | No not really all the same. A sexual pervert can be a rapist, a pedophile and so on, you can't assume it is a homosexual as we are never told they are sexual perverts, a pervert after all is someone who perverts their sexuality, so that could be a homosexual who has sex with the opposite sex or rapes others etc, it does not fit and these terms are not all related or the same thing, we just want them to be the same and no it is a solid fact ancient greek did not have a word for homosexuals, because NO ONE did till 1869. That is a fact! |
First, I did not equate these things. I stated that the alternate renderings were euphemisms, a polite way of rendering harsh words for a delicate audience. To find the underlying meaning, we should look at the context of adjacent words, consult other translations, and check a few Greek lexicons and dictionaries.
Again, I appreciate your earnest assertion, but what do the authorities say? Can you offer any linguistic or textual authorities that can support this statement regarding the original Greek?
If it is a fact, you should be able to produce ample evidence.
| email wrote: | | Im fasinated as to why you assume the old law is clear against gay people when actually, its not. The old law has NO LAW against lesbianism to start with and in fact the whole old law says NOTHING against lesbains, so can we assume in old testiment times that is OK? |
Do you need a passage to condemn lesbian homosexuality when male homosexuality is condemned directly? Do you believe it would be acceptable for one gender and condemned for the other? However, the following passage does indicate how strongly God felt on the matter:
| Moses, by the Lord's hand, wrote: | | A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5) |
If a woman could not even assume a male's clothing, do you really think she could assume his sexual role?
| email wrote: | | Im fasinated as to why you assume the old law is clear against gay people when actually, its not. The old law has NO LAW against lesbianism to start with and in fact the whole old law says NOTHING against lesbains, so can we assume in old testiment times that is OK? As to the old law its gone and so we can no longer use it against gay men anyway as the law says nothing on gay love, it said for a man to lie with a male is to'evah, not abomination, not sodomite, but idolotry, so its again the same condemnation of romans, the whole thing flows to the new testiment, and says NOTHING on same sex love here. Im still waiting for these laws or texts against same sex romantic love, the old law can not be used by Christians. |
Many things in the Old Law are renewed, or reissued in the New Covenant. Paul rebinds the Old Law's point on homosexuality in the New Covenant:
| Paul, by inspiration wrote: | | But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (I Timothy 1:8-11) |
Incidentally, this is the same Greek word as found in I Corinthians 6:9.
| email wrote: | | it said for a man to lie with a male is to'evah, not abomination, not sodomite, but idolotry, so its again the same condemnation of romans |
What is the basis for this? Although some idolatrous acts are declared to be an "abomination", not everything declared to be an abomination is idolatrous. For example, unjust weights and scales are an "abomination", and they have nothing to do with idolatry (Deuteronomy 25:13-16).
Every translation that I could find translates this word as "abomination" or "detestable sin".
| Various translators in rendering Leviticus 18:22, wrote: | KJV Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
NKJ Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
ASV Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
NAS Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
NAU Leviticus 18:22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
NIV Leviticus 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
RSV Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
NRS Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
YLT Leviticus 18:22 'And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it {is}.
NLT Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
NAB Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
DRA Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination. |
Various dictionaries and lexicons had this to say:
| Quote: | - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (BDB): 8441 tow`ebah {to-ay-baw'} or to`ebah {to-ay-baw'} Meaning: 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable 1a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) 1b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)
Origin: act part of 08581; TWOT - 2530a; n f
Usage: AV - abomination 113, abominable thing 2, abominable 2; 117
- Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: The ASV and RSV translate this verb similarly, although RSV renders "loathe" in Isa 14:19; Psa 107:18 and "prostitute" in Ezek 16:25. Attested twenty-two times in the OT, t¹`ab never occurs in the Qal stem. The alternate spelling t¹'ab appears in the Piel in Amos 6:8.
Since it never appears in the Qal stem, perhaps the verb is derived from the noun rather than vice versa (so BDB), since the Piel is frequently a denominativestem. Its basic meanings in the Piel are "abhor, loathe" in a physical sense (Job 9:31; Job 19:19; Job 30:10; Psa 107:18) and "detest, exclude" for ritual or ethical reasons (Deut 7:26; Deut 23:7 [H 8]). Often the two meanings coalesce (Amos 5:10; Mic 3:9); in any event, the subject may be either God (Psa 106:40) or man (Isa 49:7). In the Hiphil, the verb means "commit abominable detestable deeds" (1Kings 21:26; Psa 14:1; Psa 53:1 [H 2]; Ezek 16:52), while in the Niphal it means "be loathesome, detestable" (1Chr 21:6; Job 15:16; Isa 14:19).
tô`¢bâ. Abominable (custom, thing), abomination. (ASV and RSV Similar, although RSV reads "thing of horror" in Psa 88:8 [H 9] and inexplicably omits the word entirely in Ezek 16:36.) The frequency of this word attests to its importance ; it occurs 117 times in all. (For the notorious "abominations of desolation, " see under the root shaqas.)
The nuances of tô`¢bâ are numerous indeed (for the most complete recent study of both the noun and the verb, cf. P. Humbert, "Le substantif to`¢b¹ et le verbe t`b dans l'Ancien Testament, " ZAW 72:217-37). As with the verb, so also with the noun the abomination may be of a physical, ritual or ethical nature and may be abhorred by God or man. Sharing a meal with a Hebrew was ritually offensive to an Egyptian (Gen 43:32), as was offering certain kinds of sacrifices (Exo 8:22). Homosexuality and other perversions are repugnant to God and fall under his judgment (Lev 18:22-30; Lev 20:13). Idolatry (Deut 7:25), human sacrifice (Deut 12:31), eating ritually unclean animals (Deut 14:3-8), sacrificing defective animals (Deut 17:1), engaging in occult activities (Deut 18:9-14), conducting one's business dishonestly (Deut 25:13-16), practicing ritual prostitution (1Kings 14:23ff), and similar acts of disobedience (for seven more abominations, see the list in Prov 6:16-19) were sure to bring God's wrath on those who perpetrated them. Twelve times the book of Proverbs uses the phrase, "is an abomination to the Lord." In Psa 88, a prayer for help written by a man close to death, the physically repulsive appearance of a tô`¢bâ is stressed; the man's former friends avoid him because they consider him to be a thing of horror (Psa 88:8 [H 9)).
Sometimes tô`¢bâ is used as a synonym for "idol, " as in Isa 44:19, or even for a specific pagan deity, as in 2Kings 23:13 where Milcom is called "the abomination of the Ammonites, " parallel to "Ashtoreth the abomination (shiqqûƒ ;) of the Sidonians" and "Chemosth the abomination (shiqqûƒ) of Moab." At the other end of the spectrum, even prayer is an abomination offered by one who refuses to obey God's Word (Prov 28:9).
Whereas tô`¢bâ includes that which is aesthetically and morally repulsive, its synonym sheqes denotes that which is cultically unclean, especially idolatry.
Bibliography: THAT, II, pp. 1051-54. R.F.Y.
|
As noted by both authorities, the word can be connected by idolatry, but it is not equivalent to it. Therefore, it should not be translated as such.
| email wrote: | | the whole thing flows to the new testiment, and says NOTHING on same sex love here. Im still waiting for these laws or texts against same sex romantic love, the old law can not be used by Christians. |
It doesn't have to specifically condone "same sex romantic love", when it is condemned genererally by prohibiting any male lying with another male. Given the same general condemnation in both the Old and New Testament, the burden is upon you to find a specific command to release application of the broad, general condemnation.
| email wrote: | | To say its evidence homosexuality is unatural through them not being able to reproduce is again a huge sloppy assumption. Many gay people do have kids and many heterosexuals can not have kids. Sex is not just for having a bay, its also a way of loveing our partners. Where does the bible tell us sex is ONLY for reproduction? It does not. Is a barron woman unatural then or a man with a low sperm count? |
Is it "natural" for a man and woman to not have kids? No. If a man is born blind, is that natural? No, because it is not the general case. It is not how the body was designed to function.
Regardless, short of adopting the child of a heterosexual couple, or short of helping "nature" through fertilization, how can any homosexual couple "naturally" have a child? The fact that they have to work around nature to obtain the ultimate fruit of sexual relations is admitted proof that nature will never give them what they want.
| email wrote: | | Oh and malokos is NOT effeminate but soft....liturally. It always was. |
Where is the authority? Also, please explain how being literally "soft" in I Corinthians 6:9 is a sin that will prohibit the "soft" one from entering the kingdom of God. You must apply a metaphorical meaning; otherwise, the text is meaningless. The only question is, "What metaphorical meaning will you attach?" And, "How will you determine that meaning, unless you look at the context or a lexicon?" There is no basis for this except sheer "want-to".
| email wrote: | | As usual when talking of the evidence animals show a sexual orientation, the anti gay veiw is to shift topic, here the case is some animals have sex with other speicies, this was NOT the topic, we are looking at sexual orientation only here and the fact that homosexuality exsists in the animal kingdom shows that weather you or I like it or not it is part of nature. |
Topic shift? The topic was using the animal kingdom as a support for homosexuality. I conceded that it does demonstrate homosexuality, but it also demonstrates much more than that. If the animal kingdom is a valid justification for homosexuality being natural and acceptable, then it is a valid justification for much more, such as inter-species sexual relations. If not, why not? This "topic shift" is merely an argument by reductio ad absurdum. If the ultimate conclusion is false, and the logical progression is sound, then the premise must be false. In other words, if a rule cannot be applied consistently, it is invalid.
Since the application of your argument to other topics reduces to an absurd conclusion, your argument is therefore false.
| email wrote: | | Why is that hard to accsept? Unless you don't like the idiea of homosexuality being natural, sorry, thats not for us to decide, but the facts speak for themselves on this bit. |
It is not a matter of "accepting". It is matter of proof. I do not accept homosexuality, because the Scriptures condemn it (Romans 1:26-27; I Timothy 1:8-11). Moreover, they clearly state that a homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of God, unless he or she repents (I Corinthians 6:9). I may accept homosexuality, but what evidence do I have that God would then accept me?
Last edited by m273p15c on Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email
Non-Member
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 517
Location: ether
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: SIN |
|
|
Its nice and easy to say that a born gay man in love is sinning and its not hate to tell him so. Is it not the same thing to tell a black man he is sinning for being born black? I can say its for his own good as well and say I can do it in love, but I can't can I. And yet thats what some Christians did in the 60s. But remember that the bible does not talk about such people, gay or black. It talks about some same sex acts that are sinful, just as it does about some heterosexual acts that are sinful also. Sin is something God says is wrong because it can hurt us or damage us in some way, so what is it God is protecting gay people from.....what is the damage love can do?
_________________
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"? |
|
| Back to top |
| |
In Search Of Truth
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in