The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
As always, bbar, you marshall points of reference fluently; present convincing minor and major arguments with refreshing brevity; and maintain an easy common touch throughout. Let's sit for a few moments on the same side of the collegiate senior debating team table. You've been appointed team captain (or coach, if you prefer) and are conducting a dry ru ...[text shortened]... ildhood and who should have earned honors at Harvard or MIT instead of Northeastern.

gb

An easy common touch? Ha!

Now what am I arguing? Even if I were to show that homosexual activity runs contrary to divine law and historical moral precepts (which is most certainly does not), what would follow? One main concern I have is that there is no conceptual connection between divine law and morality. Another is that the mere fact of historical precedent isn't relevant to discussion of the moral status of actions. Do you want me to start with the assumption that homosexual activity runs contrary to divine law and historical moral precepts and then use these premises to argue that homosexual activity is actually wrong? Because I've seen all the arguments, and they are all terrible.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There is no such thing as 'degeneration' in evolutionary terms.

My understanding is the evolutionist consider adaptation, mutation,
genetic drift, and people with Down Syndrome part of evolution.
But if you say there is no degeneration then I suppose I will have
to take your word for it. Just saying.

Originally posted by bbarr
For a few reasons: First, there are all sorts of things in scripture that are considered wrong, an abomination, a sin, or whatever. Some of these are patently absurd in the modern world, like wearing mixed-thread clothes. So if you want an account of why some scriptural prohibitions still make sense while others don't, you'll need extra-scriptural reasons. f an idiosyncratic view that ends up denying people the equal protection and benefit of law.

First, there are all sorts of things in scripture that are considered wrong, an abomination, a sin, or whatever.

In the New Testament homosexuality is mentioned in the midst of a number of other wrongdoings.

My point is that the Bible already classifies it unsensationally along with other things which Paul says, will disqualify a man from inheriting the kingdom of God.

Non-sciptural logic of secular philosophy is not needed to put homosexuality in perspective.

Some of these are patently absurd in the modern world, like wearing mixed-thread clothes. So if you want an account of why some scriptural prohibitions still make sense while others don't, you'll need extra-scriptural reasons.

I'd say false.

The Bible itself informs us of the distinction between most moral commands from ritual commands. Ritual commands of more of a ceremonial nature were not as stressed by Christ as morality. You also have this distinction in the Old Testament at times.


Ie. Jesus pronounces all foods clean, yet Jesus also upholds and even strengthens command against adultery.

No need to run to secular philosophy for practical discrimination in this area either.

I think you underestimate the wisdom of the word of God.

Second, since you take it as required to preach for conversion, you'll want reasons you can address to non-believers that show them that your moral system is not merely outdated nonsense.

Since the Gospel itself centers on receiving the Person Jesus Christ rather than dietary regulations, Scripture is sufficient to aid us in this regard.

So far there is nothing that good and careful study of the Bible does not assist us in. I am still waiting for a legitimate reason why the secular world philosopher is needed for rescue.

Have you not read Galatians ?
Have you not read Colossians ?

What about the case of Acts 15 and circumcision ?

Spiritual disciples in whose hands is the living Scripture are guided by the Holy Spirit into all of the truth as Christ promised.

You can do this with prohibitions against killing, lying, etc., but it's much harder with homosexual activity. Third, many Christians (maybe not you and yours) want their moral system enshrined as law. But in the political domain in liberalist societies, there will be different people with different moral conceptions or ethical frameworks.

Corinth and Thessalonica were pretty liberal places. And we have Paul's letters written in Rome during a most morally permissive era.

Why cannot these epistles be our guide as we carefully examine how the apostles led the churches in such an atmosphere ?

The Roman Empire was not exactly the Bible Belt of southern US, I'm sure you know.

The only way to persuade in such a society is to present reasons that can be countenanced by many of these different conceptions or frameworks; your arguments must aim at where our different views overlap. In the absence of such arguments, the Christian exercise of political power will seem to others as an unjustifiable imposition of an idiosyncratic view that ends up denying people the equal protection and benefit of law.

The church is really a "pilgrim" body passing through the world.

She has always and can always flourish without being deeply rooted in changing political policies of the societies in which she emmerges.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you want him to touch his peenus? that's unclean too.

A guy once told me that was the cleanest part of his body. 😀

Originally posted by Rajk999
If everytime someone says that gay sex is wrong you come down on them, then its obvious that that statement does not meet with your approval and you want them to say something different.

And I already made my position clear to you that desires which remain within you and not acted upon is not sinful. There are many people who will want to do something con ...[text shortened]... it becuase their moral conviction overrides that desire. It is not a sin until it is acted upon.

If one continually thinks on sinful things he will eventually act on them.
I believe this is why Jesus condemned the thoughts of adultery. So it
is best not to have fantasies about putting ones thing in a butt hole.

Originally posted by jaywill

First, there are all sorts of things in scripture that are considered wrong, an abomination, a sin, or whatever.

In the New Testament homosexuality is mentioned in the midst of a number of other wrongdoings.

My point is that the Bible already classifies it unsensationally along with other things which Paul says, will disqualify a ma ng deeply rooted in changing political policies of the societies in which she emmerges.

"Underestimate the wisdom of God"? I'm an atheist! You might as well accuse me of underestimating the beauty of unicorns. But, in any case, if you don't see the need for non-scriptural arguments against homosexuality, it's fine by me. But you realize, of course, that this is just further reason to think that your notion of 'sin' is irrelevant; a barbaric anachronism at best. It is in no way conceptually connected to the notion 'immoral'. Which is fine, but it also means that nobody should take your views seriously when it comes to discussion of right and wrong, especially in the political domain. You have a book that says some stuff. So what?

Originally posted by RJHinds
A guy once told me that was the cleanest part of his body. 😀

If you took his word for it .. you are straight.
If you told him you wanted to check for yourself .. you are gay.
I dont care to know either way ..just letting you know 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
If one continually thinks on sinful things he will eventually act on them.
I believe this is why Jesus condemned the thoughts of adultery. So it
is best not to have fantasies about putting ones thing in a butt hole.

Yes it is best. But Christ will accept us even though we are not perfect.

Originally posted by bbarr
"Underestimate the wisdom of God"? I'm an atheist! You might as well accuse me of underestimating the beauty of unicorns. But, in any case, if you don't see the need for non-scriptural arguments against homosexuality, it's fine by me. But you realize, of course, that this is just further reason to think that your notion of 'sin' is irrelevant; a barbaric a ...[text shortened]... g, especially in the political domain. You have a book that says some stuff. So what?

I wonder if you will say to the Judge on judgment day, "So what?"

Originally posted by Rajk999
Yes it is best. But Christ will accept us even though we are not perfect.

Don't forget the importance of repentance in salvation. It is not enough
to believe and then countinue in sin.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I wonder if you will say to the Judge on judgment day, "So what?"

No such Creature, no such Day. Seriously, you live in a f@cking fantasy world.

Originally posted by Rajk999
If you took his word for it .. you are straight.
If you told him you wanted to check for yourself .. you are gay.
I dont care to know either way ..just letting you know 🙂

Neither one of us were gay. Just saying.

Originally posted by bbarr

An easy common touch? Ha!

Now what am I arguing? Even if I were to show that homosexual activity runs contrary to divine law and historical moral precepts (which is most certainly does not), what would follow? One main concern I have is that there is no conceptual connection between divine law and morality. Another is that the mere fact of his l activity is actually wrong? Because I've seen all the arguments, and they are all terrible.

Maybe fanciful musing on my part, bbar, but simply thought it might prove instructive, at least for yours truly, for you to take on the role of arguing the merits of a position you clearly never held. My ears will remain open.

About the only argument I could make with any degree of conviction to set aside customary garden variety christian views regarding homosexuality would be 1) Sexuality is an intimate matter of personal choice and 2) Believers have no business force feeding their own pet hot button taboos on other believers, much less presume to coerce unbelievers to accept God's grace gift of salvation and 3) Neither believers nor unbelievers have the right to tinker with the free-will of other human beings. Instead practice the virtues of live and let live; treating others better than they deserve; giving all a fair shake; forgiving; forgeting; smiling anyway; moving on. I'd challenge any christian to argue objectively against any of these

gb

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Maybe fanciful musing on my part, bbar, but simply thought it might prove instructive, at least for yours truly, for you to take on the role of arguing the merits of a position you clearly never held. My ears will remain open.

About the only argument I could make with any degree of conviction to set aside customary garden variety christian views rega ...[text shortened]... way; moving on. I'd challenge any christian to argue objectively against any of these

gb

So you just want to let all unbelievers remain in their unbelief and go to hell.
Okay. But I believe they should be taught the truth so they might believe
and be saved. Okay?

Originally posted by RJHinds
So you just want to let all unbelievers remain in their unbelief and go to hell.
Okay. But I believe they should be taught the truth so they might believe
and be saved. Okay?

Unbelievers go to Hell? Right, because the world is straight out of a J.R.R. Tolkien novel. Get a grip. It's an historical accident you literalists aren't hospitalized for schizophrenic delusions.