Homosexual Sex?

[BigBadWlf]

No, I'm saying when a person unilaterally uses any part of the Bible to justify something that's eisegetically found therein, it's not an appropriate use of scripture.

As pointed out by Foundthelight “We are free from the Levitical Law in Christ.” http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32232781&postcount=38
Yet, as noted, Leviticus is routinely used to condemn gays and lesbian and to justify hate and discrimination against them.
You defended the use of the verses of Leviticus with the assertion that “some people get it wrong” But only some.

Which brings us here…when I posed the question regarding your defense of the use of Leviticus to justify hate and discrimination “So when a racists uses Genesis 9:20-27 to justify and glorify racism…your approve?” you side stepped the question and sort of hinted that those who use the above verses of the bible to justify racism are “wrong” leaving the original question of shy is it acceptable to cherry pick bible verses to justify prejudice against homosexuals but not so when cherry pick bible verses are used to justify racism. If as you are implying those using Genesis 9:20-27 to justify prejudice are ‘wrong’ then are not those using Leviticus 20:13 to justify prejudice equally wrong?

This is what you are saying here is it not. Those individuals who use the bible to justify personal prejudice and discrimination are wrong and that it is not an appropriate use of scripture. This would of course include a huge number of posters in this thread.

So let me get this straight. You have a problem with people who use eisegetical readings of the Bible to justify hatred and discrimination, so therefore anyone who calls something a sin is eisegetically reading the Bible? Or is it just on this specific issue that you stumble?

Another ad homian attack.

 

[intricatic]

As pointed out by Foundthelight “We are free from the Levitical Law in Christ.” http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32232781&postcount=38
Yet, as noted, Leviticus is routinely used to condemn gays and lesbian and to justify hate and discrimination against them.
You defended the use of the verses of Leviticus with the assertion that “some people get it wrong” But only some.

Which brings us here…when I posed the question regarding your defense of the use of Leviticus to justify hate and discrimination “So when a racists uses Genesis 9:20-27 to justify and glorify racism…your approve?” you side stepped the question and sort of hinted that those who use the above verses of the bible to justify racism are “wrong” leaving the original question of shy is it acceptable to cherry pick bible verses to justify prejudice against homosexuals but not so when cherry pick bible verses are used to justify racism. If as you are implying those using Genesis 9:20-27 to justify prejudice are ‘wrong’ then are not those using Leviticus 20:13 to justify prejudice equally wrong?

This is what you are saying here is it not. Those individuals who use the bible to justify personal prejudice and discrimination are wrong and that it is not an appropriate use of scripture. This would of course include a huge number of posters in this thread.

We are freed from the outward adornment of the Law. The Law was given for a reason, and as God says;

19 Hear, O earth:
I am bringing disaster on this people,
the fruit of their schemes,
because they have not listened to my words
and have rejected my law. 20 What do I care about incense from Sheba
or sweet calamus from a distant land?
Your burnt offerings are not acceptable;
your sacrifices do not please me."

(Jeremiah 6)

What I am saying is that misunderstanding or misrepresenting scripture to justify actions that are not scriptural is not acceptable. Eisegetical reading of scripture is putting our thoughts into the text, and it's what a good many people do on either side of the debate. It's not acceptable no matter who does it.

Another ad homian attack.

No, I was asking a sincere question. That was not meant as an attack.

So let me get this straight. You have a problem with people who use eisegetical readings of the Bible to justify hatred and discrimination, so therefore anyone who calls something a sin is eisegetically reading the Bible? Or is it just on this specific issue that you stumble?

Is there such a thing as sin?

 

[BigBadWlf]

We are freed from the outward adornment of the Law. The Law was given for a reason, and as God says;



What I am saying is that misunderstanding or misrepresenting scripture to justify actions that are not scriptural is not acceptable. Eisegetical reading of scripture is putting our thoughts into the text, and it's what a good many people do on either side of the debate. It's not acceptable no matter who does it.

Wonderful…were finally getting somewhere.

So…you agree that all the posters in this and similar thread who cite the bible as justification for prejudice discrimination etc are wrong.

 

[ScottBot]

Wonderful…were finally getting somewhere.

So…you agree that all the posters in this and similar thread who cite the bible as justification for prejudice discrimination etc are wrong.

We are mandated by Christ as put forth in Scripture to love all people. There is no mandate, however, that we have to love their ideas or their behavior. To think so would be to subscribe to some New Age "Buddy Jesus" idea that is akin to Universal Unitarianism, which has no rightful place in Christian thought. Scripture is rife with examples of Christ admonish people for their bad behavior. He never stopped loving them though. That is our example.

 

[intricatic]

Wonderful…were finally getting somewhere.

So…you agree that all the posters in this and similar thread who cite the bible as justification for prejudice discrimination etc are wrong.

If that's the reason they're doing it, yes. If they're doing it to remain theologically sound and within the realm of thematic understanding - that is, they understand why it's a sin - then no. Many people who even have this understanding stand jaded against their own hearts in regards to the topic, but they're no less correct in how they interpret the scriptures. They are incorrect in how it applies to their own lives, though.

 

[BigBadWlf]

If that's the reason they're doing it, yes. If they're doing it to remain theologically sound and within the realm of thematic understanding - that is, they understand why it's a sin - then no. Many people who even have this understanding stand jaded against their own hearts in regards to the topic, but they're no less correct in how they interpret the scriptures. They are incorrect in how it applies to their own lives, though.

Well lets go back to one of my early and unanswered questions.

When a racists uses Genesis 9:20-27 in condemnation of people with dark skin it is ethically all right with you so long as they're doing so to remain theologically sound and within the realm of thematic understanding?

 

[intricatic]

Well lets go back to one of my early and unanswered questions.

When a racists uses Genesis 9:20-27 in condemnation of people with dark skin it is ethically all right with you so long as they're doing so to remain theologically sound and within the realm of thematic understanding?

If that's what's going on in the world (slaves; submit to your masters - we're now united under God as our sole authority, so no worldly authority should matter), but remember that a major and very obvious theme in the Bible is freedom of slaves from captivity. (See: Exodus from Egypt, Nehemiah's anger about the bondage of fellow Israelites, each statement throughout the Law to remind Israel of their past enslavement to Egypt, the emancipation of Israel from Babylon, Jesus Christ; to save people enslaved to sin). The two things go hand in hand because one stands as type to it's antitype.

But to use anything in the Bible to justify racism is a smack in the face of the message overall of the Bible.

 

[BigBadWlf]

We are mandated by Christ as put forth in Scripture to love all people. There is no mandate, however, that we have to love their ideas or their behavior. To think so would be to subscribe to some New Age "Buddy Jesus" idea that is akin to Universal Unitarianism, which has no rightful place in Christian thought. Scripture is rife with examples of Christ admonish people for their bad behavior. He never stopped loving them though. That is our example.

You mean bad behavior like using the bible to justify prejudice and discrimination?

 

[BigBadWlf]

If that's what's going on in the world (slaves; submit to your masters - we're now united under God as our sole authority, so no worldly authority should matter), but remember that a major and very obvious theme in the Bible is freedom of slaves from captivity. (See: Exodus from Egypt, Nehemiah's anger about the bondage of fellow Israelites, each statement throughout the Law to remind Israel of their past enslavement to Egypt, the emancipation of Israel from Babylon, Jesus Christ; to save people enslaved to sin). The two things go hand in hand because one stands as type to it's antitype.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.Exodus 21:7

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:2-6

But to use anything in the Bible to justify racism is a smack in the face of the message overall of the Bible.

So using the bible to justify racism is “bad”.

But is it therefore not also bad to use the bible to justify hate based on sexual orientation?

 

[intricatic]

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.Exodus 21:7

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:2-6

Instead of explaining slavery in a Hebrew culture (again), please read thoroughly this article: Located Here.

It doesn't deal with the theological implications as much as I should like, but the author is fairly well versed in the topic he's discussing.

So using the bible to justify racism is “bad”.

But is it therefore not also bad to use the bible to justify hate based on sexual orientation?

Who's justifying hatred?

 

[She]

.

 

[david_x]

White rabbits don’t hate brown rabbits.
Llamas don’t discriminate based on religion
Aardvarks don’t care if other aardvarks are homosexual.
Zebras don’t construct concentration camps
Penguins do not wage war
Pandas don’t engage in arms races

Black ants fight red ants.
Llambas sit on sheep to kill them.
There are no homosexuals in the animal (or any other) kingdom.
Ants enslave each other.
Lions, and pretty much every carnivor and most herbivores fight over space. (including different species of penguines)
Vines race to strangle trees to death.

 

[davedjy]

Black ants fight red ants.
Llambas sit on sheep to kill them.
There are no homosexuals in the animal (or any other) kingdom.
Ants enslave each other.
Lions, and pretty much every carnivor and most herbivores fight over space. (including different species of penguines)
Vines race to strangle trees to death.

There are no gay animals? did I just not prove that?

450 creations...you are off on that one, buddy.

 

[Foundthelight]

We who oppose the homosexual act and argue with those who support it are not acting out of hatred. I feel that I am hated for pointing out the fact that some actions are sin. I am obligated to say something however out of love and concern for their immortal souls.

19. My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back,
20. let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

 

[ScottBot]

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.Exodus 21:7

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:2-6




So using the bible to justify racism is “bad”.

But is it therefore not also bad to use the bible to justify hate based on sexual orientation?

Who here has used the bible to justify displaying hatred towards a person because of their sexual orientation?

 

[davedjy]

We who oppose the homosexual act and argue with those who support it are not acting out of hatred. I feel that I am hated for pointing out the fact that some actions are sin. I am obligated to say something however out of love and concern for their immortal souls.

19. My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back,
20. let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Nobody hates YOU, the ones opposing you hate the anti-homosexual doctrine, not you as an individual.

 

[Foundthelight]

There are no gay animals? did I just not prove that?

450 creations...you are off on that one, buddy.

Are we animals? Or are we children of God? Animals are ruled by instinct. We are ruled by the word of God.

Animals cannot sin because they cannot know the Word of God. We do not have that excuse.

Saying that something is OK because animals do it is a poor argument.

 

[ScottBot]

We who oppose the homosexual act and argue with those who support it are not acting out of hatred. I feel that I am hated for pointing out the fact that some actions are sin. I am obligated to say something however out of love and concern for their immortal souls.

19. My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back,
20. let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

In fact, NOT pointing out sin to a brother is in and of itself a sin.

 

[ScottBot]

Nobody hates YOU, the ones opposing you hate the anti-homosexual doctrine, not you as an individual.

Probably as much as we hate the sin of homosexual activity.

 

[davedjy]

Are we animals? Or are we children of God? Animals are ruled by instinct. We are ruled by the word of God.

Animals cannot sin because they cannot know the Word of God. We do not have that excuse.

Saying that something is OK because animals do it is a poor argument.

You just created yourself a scarecrow and refuted it. I refuted the other David's statement...he said there were no gay animals...I never said we are animals!