Is homosexuality a sin?

[Ave Maria]

Being a homosexual is not a sin, therefore homosexuality is not sinful. Homsoexuality is, however, objectively disordered. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are gravely sinful.

 

[Tissue]

I've already shown you, 2King, that 'abomination' is used in Scripture to describe a woman wearing pants. There are a number of similar verses where 'abomination' is used in a way that clearly does not indicate eternal law.

Reason, of course, should help us sort out which are eternal and which are not. Now tell me; what are you reasons for determining that homosexuality is eternally wrong, separate from Scripture? Scripture itself, as it does not blatantly call homosexual love a sin, does not have the final word.

 

[2 King]

Yeah, I love the word "Reason"

Reminds me of this verse: "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him"- 1 John 2:4

That's all the reason I need.

 

[Tissue]

Nice trick there. For those in the topic who do not see right through your feeble rhetorical flourish (probably a very small number), allow me to expose it.

I have questioned your opinion on the nature of some verses in Scripture, which you think amounts to an eternal law/commandment. I do not think they amount to an eternal law/commandment. In response to my argument against your opinion, instead of actually confronting my argument in a reasonable manner, you have assumed that your opinion is correct, that the verses qualify as an eternal law/commandment, and have used a verse which conveniently utilizes the word 'commandment' as a reason.

Problem is, that isn't a reason at all. It doesn't address my concerns; it simply shows that you're stuck in your assumption. If you aren't willing to question your assumptions, then I will let you be; there can be no reasoning with someone who has a closed mind. If, however, you are willing to keep an open mind, then I will refer you back to my previous post.

 

[2 King]

I've already shown you, 2King, that 'abomination' is used in Scripture to describe a woman wearing pants. There are a number of similar verses where 'abomination' is used in a way that clearly does not indicate eternal law.

Reason, of course, should help us sort out which are eternal and which are not. Now tell me; what are you reasons for determining that homosexuality is eternally wrong, separate from Scripture? Scripture itself, as it does not blatantly call homosexual love a sin, does not have the final word.

I'll tell you what, the Bible says to base our stuff off of it. I like to listen to Scripture over empty words. You're right, the bible dosen't call it a sin, it calls it an "Abomination", we are reasonable people, we have minds, we can think. What's next? Now then, here's where I get cut off and where my mind closes. Where someone says "It's not wrong".

Ok, we have established it isn't a sin, now, is it right? If so, tell me why.

 

[Tissue]

I'll tell you what, the Bible says to base our stuff off of it. I like to listen to Scripture over empty words. You're right, the bible dosen't call it a sin, it calls it an "Abomination", we are reasonable people, we have minds, we can think. What's next? Now then, here's where I get cut off and where my mind closes. Where someone says "It's not wrong".

Ok, we have established it isn't a sin, now, is it right? If so, tell me why.

Homosexual love is just as right as heterosexual love. Love is love. Love is what empowers the souls of humanity. Love is what our poets have attempted to describe for millenia.

As for the other part of your post, I can't make heads or tails of it. If you're trying to imply that abomination obviously means 'sin', I've shown that some things that are called abominations in Scripture are perfectly sedate, like women wearing pants.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, outside of a very small number of verses which can be interpreted in a certain way, to think that homosexual love is sinful, or that homosexual loving sex is sinful. I've heard a lot of claims like 'Homosexual love is corrupted', but the only reason I've found driving that claim are the few verses; not any rational reason or observation.

 

[2 King]

Homosexual love is just as right as heterosexual love. Love is love. Love is what empowers the souls of humanity. Love is what our poets have attempted to describe for millenia.

As for the other part of your post, I can't make heads or tails of it. If you're trying to imply that abomination obviously means 'sin', I've shown that some things that are called abominations in Scripture are perfectly sedate, like women wearing pants.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, outside of a very small number of verses which can be interpreted in a certain way, to think that homosexual love is sinful, or that homosexual loving sex is sinful. I've heard a lot of claims like 'Homosexual love is corrupted', but the only reason I've found driving that claim are the few verses; not any rational reason or observation.

So you are convinced that Homosexuality is not bad.

Now then, Is it good? and is it of God?

 

[Tissue]

Homosexual love, like heterosexual love, is good and of God.

 

[2 King]

Homosexual love, like heterosexual love, is good and of God.

Ok then, can you prove it biblicaly? And if it's of God, why is it called an Abomination?

 

[OllieFranz]

Ok then, can you prove it biblicaly? And if it's of God, why is it called an Abomination?

Love is never called an abomination. The act of "man-lying" is labeled a taboo twice in Leviticus, but there is nothing in those verses about love. Nor in any of the other "anti-gay" passages.

 

[2 King]

Love is never called an abomination. The act of "man-lying" is labeled a taboo twice in Leviticus, but there is nothing in those verses about love. Nor in any of the other "anti-gay" passages.

Nice.....Who said love was an abomination? Just because the Bible says Lying with the same sex is an abomination all of a sudden love has to be an abomination to?

Are there "Pro-gay" Passages?

 

[Tissue]

Ok then, can you prove it biblicaly? And if it's of God, why is it called an Abomination?

Homosexual sex is called an abomination, not homosexual love, or homosexuality in general. And, the actual description of homosexual sex is, itself, abstract, and hardly well-defined.

As for whether or not I can prove it Biblically, the answer is 'No'. Though it hardly matters. Most of the things I believe can't be proven Biblically.

 

[2 King]

Homosexual sex is called an abomination, not homosexual love, or homosexuality in general. And, the actual description of homosexual sex is, itself, abstract, and hardly well-defined.

As for whether or not I can prove it Biblically, the answer is 'No'. Though it hardly matters. Most of the things I believe can't be proven Biblically.

So you admit that you took out of the Bible your assumption that it is not speaking of Homosexuality in all. But rather only the sexual part. Then what's the point of homosexuality if you can't have sex? do you just live your life liking eachother? You see, it's very illogical to see things that way, it's very illogical for someone to be homosexual and know that Homosexual sex is an abomination to God meaning God does not support it but rather Hates it.

Since you took out of that..that God meant only the sexual part. I can take that God, being just, hating all evil, means that if He [God] hates homosexuality sex, we should hate it too. And we, as christians, wanting to be holy as God is holy, strive to be more like God. We should hate it as well. Then because God hates it, and He is the ultimate example of Goodness, we can conclude that Homoseuxal sex is evil. Since we can conclude that, we can also conclude from the verse "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out", that If the sexual part is evil, then homosexuality as a whole is evil.

 

[Tissue]

So you admit that you took out of the Bible your assumption that it is not speaking of Homosexuality in all. But rather only the sexual part. Then what's the point of homosexuality if you can't have sex?

Seriously? There are stories all the time of a paralyzed man or woman marrying. They're certainly not having sex (the typical sort, anyway).

Love, friend. Love.

do you just live your life liking eachother? You see, it's very illogical to see things that way, it's very illogical for someone to be homosexual and know that Homosexual sex is an abomination to God meaning God does not support it but rather Hates it.

The only thing that reeks of illogicality about that is your conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong.

Since you took out of that..that God meant only the sexual part. I can take that God, being just, hating all evil, means that if He [God] hates homosexuality sex, we should hate it too.

You are very slow.

As I have told you multiple (MULTIPLE) times in the last week, it is considered an abomination for a woman to wear pants. Remember that verse? I've quoted it to you at least four times.

Surely God doesn't hate that. C'mon man. You have to think.

And we, as christians, wanting to be holy as God is holy, strive to be more like God. We should hate it as well. Then because God hates it, and He is the ultimate example of Goodness, we can conclude that Homoseuxal sex is evil. Since we can conclude that, we can also conclude from the verse "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out", that If the sexual part is evil, then homosexuality as a whole is evil.

Yes, you are forced to that position, if you assume that homosexual sex is wrong. I do not.

You still haven't addressed my concerns. I'm getting bored with your repetition of irrelevance (that is, the re-statements of your own opinion, which are quite well-known, and haven't seen a fresh argument from your end in pages).

 

[OllieFranz]

Nice.....Who said love was an abomination?

You did. In the post I replied to:

Homosexual love, like heterosexual love, is good and of God.

Ok then, can you prove it biblicaly? And if it's of God, why is it called an Abomination?

......

Just because the Bible says Lying with the same sex is an abomination all of a sudden love has to be an abomination to?

No. That was my point in posting. You are the one who called love an abomination.

Are there "Pro-gay" Passages?

Yes there are. Several. And even more that do not specifically address orientation, but that do lend themselves to a "queer reading."

 

[2 King]

Seriously? There are stories all the time of a paralyzed man or woman marrying. They're certainly not having sex (the typical sort, anyway).

The only thing that reeks of illogicality about that is your conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong.

My First response to this would be, You obviously don't know what you're talking about and this is all very pointless and you yourself are illogical.

My other response would be, You're entitled to your opinon.

You are very slow.

Strictly opinion.

As I have told you multiple (MULTIPLE) times in the last week, it is considered an abomination for a woman to wear pants. Remember that verse? I've quoted it to you at least four times.

Likewise. I suppose we won't change our ways unless conclusive, exact, deffinite proof would appear in the Bible, literal proof.

Surely God doesn't hate that. C'mon man. You have to think.

Are you God? no. Am I God? no. are you calling the written word of God a liar? Surely not. If God said it, it's done. Even if I were to agree with you here, notice how the subject is continued in the NT, while The women wearing pants is not. Come one man, you as well have to think.

Yes, you are forced to that position, if you assume that homosexual sex is wrong. I do not.

I don't have to assume, God said it, it's done.

You still haven't addressed my concerns. I'm getting bored with your repetition of irrelevance (that is, the re-statements of your own opinion, which are quite well-known, and haven't seen a fresh argument from your end in pages).

The feeling is mutual. Looks like we part ways here.

Enjoy life, Stay blessed.

 

[Tissue]

My First response to this would be, You obviously don't know what you're talking about and this is all very pointless and you yourself are illogical.

If that's the case, please point for the audience where my argument is illogical. With specificity, please.

Likewise. I suppose we won't change our ways unless conclusive, exact, deffinite proof would appear in the Bible, literal proof.

What does this have to do with you willfully ignoring a logical argument?

Are you God? no. Am I God? no. are you calling the written word of God a liar?

The Word of God is Jesus. Not the Bible.

And I'm not calling the Bible a liar. I'm simply saying that, to find the truth of the matter, one has to remember the FACT that the books were written to a specific people group.

Surely not. If God said it, it's done. Even if I were to agree with you here, notice how the subject is continued in the NT, while The women wearing pants is not. Come one man, you as well have to think.

Women wearing pants was not negated in the New Testament.

I don't have to assume, God said it, it's done.

God didn't say it. Paul did. Moses did. They wrote it. To specific cultures. Unlike our own.

The feeling is mutual. Looks like we part ways here.

Enjoy life, Stay blessed.

Mutual? Again, if my arguments are illogical, by all means, show where they are incorrect. Show where I have consistently and willfully ignored logic. Show the flaw in my reasoning.

I have been pointing out inconsistencies in your arguments since step one <staff edit>

 

[2 King]

If that's the case, please point for the audience where my argument is illogical. With specificity, please.

You acknowledge human reason yet you don't seem to acknowledge Biblical reason. This tells me you rather approve of "well formed arugments that are baseless" over "Biblicaly formed arguments". This is illogical because we are not two of the same, rather opposites, if I were to reason off of empty words I wouldn't be arguing with you other than off of what the Bible bases.

What does this have to do with you willfully ignoring a logical argument?

It has everything to do with it! "!!!!" Your view and my view can't cope with eachother, they can't compromise. You can't accept homosexuality to be bad and you reason outside of the Bible by telling me "the Bible said Women wearing pants was an abomination to God, c'mon man, think"
Think what? That God was lying when he had the writer say exactly what He told the writer to say?

The Word of God is Jesus. Not the Bible.

I said "Written Word of God" ......

And I'm not calling the Bible a liar. I'm simply saying that, to find the truth of the matter, one has to remember the FACT that the books were written to a specific people group.

Maybe you forgot that God is no respecter of persons.

Women wearing pants was not negated in the New Testament.

right, but sexual immorality and hints to homosexuality were brought up in romans, 1 cor. and in jude.

God didn't say it. Paul did. Moses did. They wrote it. To specific cultures. Unlike our own.

So you disagree that all of the bible isn't inspired? That tells me alot.

 

[Tissue]

You acknowledge human reason yet you don't seem to acknowledge Biblical reason. This tells me you rather approve of "well formed arugments that are baseless" over "Biblicaly formed arguments". This is illogical because we are not two of the same, rather opposites, if I were to reason off of empty words I wouldn't be arguing with you other than off of what the Bible bases.

You're going to have to define Biblical reason and Human reason.

You seem to be saying that the only arguments that have a base are those which are based on the Bible, but this is silly. Mathematical arguments, for example, are not based on Scripture, but we can know these with more certainty than we can theological matters (which is to say, 100%, or close enough for it to be practically the same).

It has everything to do with it! "!!!!" Your view and my view can't cope with eachother, they can't compromise. You can't accept homosexuality to be bad and you reason outside of the Bible by telling me "the Bible said Women wearing pants was an abomination to God, c'mon man, think"
Think what? That God was lying when he had the writer say exactly what He told the writer to say?

I'm informing you of an inconsistency in your interpretation. I assume you don't think that God finds women who wear pants to be sinful? If you don't, then you need to review your interpretation, and dig deeper into the idea of 'abomination'.

The problem is, I'm looking down on your position. Our positions aren't equals. You don't seem to understand that the only way in which we can relate to the Bible is by interpreting it. Our interpretations, as we are fallible, may be wrong, and we need to be open at all times to editing them. You are not, it seems, open in this way.

Assuming your position on the God-spoken nature of the Bible, I don't think it's a lie at all. It's a phrase which doesn't translate well (who really uses the word 'abomination' these days?), and it was written to a particular people group. I'm sure there's a reason God revealed it to Moses.

The issue here is that you are so set upon the Bible saying what you think it says that, now that you're backed up against a wall by my arguments regarding the word 'abomination', you have to rely upon my position being inferior in some other way, and have crafted the illusion that it makes God out to be a liar. My arguments do no such thing.

I said "Written Word of God" ......

I noticed. 'Word of God', capitalized in that way, still only refers to Jesus. To say 'written' fixes the matter draws too much of a parallel between the Bible and Jesus, imo.

Maybe you forgot that God is no respecter of persons.

Huh?

right, but sexual immorality and hints to homosexuality were brought up in romans, 1 cor. and in jude.

So?

So you disagree that all of the bible isn't inspired? That tells me alot.

Whoa whoa whoa, who said anything about the Bible not being inspired? My idea of inspiration is that God's influence was rather subtle. Not direct discourse, written down by the writer.

There are observable styles in each of the authors.

 

[Jadin Xquire]

Tissue: Maybe different style of writers but the same message in principle. The writers don't contradict in principle.