A re-examination of nothing (2)

[David Brider]

Can I just remind everyone that this thread is about the absense of Biblical texts which countenance same-sex unions...

The absence of Biblical texts countenancing same-sex unions is a non-issue, really - it's just an argument from silence. The real issue is whether the frequently-quoted texts used to object to same-sex unions actually stand up. If they don't (and I'm increasingly convinced that they don't, or at least that they're wildly misinterpreted - certainly statements like BreadAlone's "The Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination" are rather off track from what the Scriptures actually say), then same-sex unions aren't a problem.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

As is David and Jonathon's homosexual relationship. Calling it anything other than a homosexual relationship is analogous to claiming the Bible is talking about a green sky, because it doesn't plainly state its blue.

On the contrary there is no evidence for David and Jonathan’s relationship to have been homosexual, all the evidence is that it wasn’t. And if one treats ‘the sky is blue’ like gay and lesbian theology treats the Bible texts condemning same-sex sex, one could claim that where the Bible says the sky is blue it means the sky is green. This is a good analogy, the gay and lesbian argument tries to claim black is white.
David loved Jonathan, but David slept with women. Based on those facts David was heterosexual and they had no homosexual relationship. This is supported in the OT context of what was sin and what sin is pointed out to David and admitted, also by the fact that Jesus loved His disciples but said fornication and adultery outside marriage is sin.
So the gay and lesbian theology not only ignores or rejects same-sex condemnations, its inserts the idea into passages where there is no basis for it. It then uses that assumption as though others accept it as a fact.

If the Levitical law is no longer applicable to us... quit condemning homosexuals.

He isnt condemning homosexuals, he is pointing out where God detests same-sex sex, quit condemning Christian posters.
If we point out where God condemns what we do, we know that in Christ and through repentance we are forgiven restored and delighted in.

If you want to believe David and Jonathan were in a homosexual relationship or were bisexuals and homosexuals then fine but I reject that as total unsupported rubbish and will have to challenge it where proposed.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If you want to believe David and Jonathan were in a homosexual relationship or were bisexuals and homosexuals then fine but I reject that as total unsupported rubbish and will have to challenge it where proposed.

If you deny it, you remove yourself from the Bible.

The Bible makes it clear they were romantically involved... if you deny this, you are denying the Bible

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

The absence of Biblical texts countenancing same-sex unions is a non-issue,

Sorry but it’s the very thread topic and I am just reminding everyone of that, and that includes you.

really - it's just an argument from silence. The real issue is whether the frequently-quoted texts used to object to same-sex unions actually stand up. If they don't (and I'm increasingly convinced that they don't, or at least that they're wildly misinterpreted - certainly statements like BreadAlone's "The Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination" are rather off track from what the Scriptures actually say), then same-sex unions aren't a problem.

No the reason for the thread is so we don’t have this discussion which has been the basis of the other threads and which in fact we believe is just rank disbelief and denial. But we no longer want our evidence merely rejected and denied we want to see your evidence, and so far we have only seen one piece. You see our evidence does say what we claim it says as we post it, your one piece of evidence doesn’t say what you claim it means.

Now the problem with your argument is that a paedophile could do the same and more, because a paedophile would only have to reject the passages such as Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6 which limit sex to God’s created purpose of man and woman when leaving father and mother, there are not necessarily passages that specifically condemn paedophilia like there are that condemn same-sex sex, all they would then have to do is argue silence like you do… their case seems stronger than yours. Ia m sorry to have to make such a comparison as in reality its not quite the same, but it does expose the seriousness of your argument.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear David Brider,

Sorry but it’s the very thread topic and I am just reminding everyone of that, and that includes you.

No the reason for the thread is so we don’t have this discussion which has been the basis of the other threads and which in fact we believe is just rank disbelief and denial. But we no longer want our evidence merely rejected and denied we want to see your evidence, and so far we have only seen one piece. You see our evidence does say what we claim it says as we post it, your one piece of evidence doesn’t say what you claim it means.

Now the problem with your argument is that a paedophile could do the same and more, because a paedophile would only have to reject the passages such as Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6 which limit sex to God’s created purpose of man and woman when leaving father and mother, there are not necessarily passages that specifically condemn paedophilia like there are that condemn same-sex sex, all they would then have to do is argue silence like you do… their case seems stronger than yours. Ia m sorry to have to make such a comparison as in reality its not quite the same, but it does expose the seriousness of your argument.

paedophiles contravene the two greatest commandments.

Homosexuals do not.

 

[Phinehas2]

they both do when they have sex outside marriage ... as described in the Bible passages I cited

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

If you deny it, you remove yourself from the Bible.

The Bible makes it clear they were romantically involved... if you deny this, you are denying the Bible

how come? I have cited the Bible in all cases your main argument is silence, I think its the other way round my friend, you seem to be claiming black is white

 

[k2svpete]

k2svpete--

This is a sincere question. How do you determine which of the mitzvot in the Torah still apply to Christians and which do not? In the specific instance of the dietary laws and Sabbath "blue laws" we have the teachings of Acts chapters 10-11 and 15, and the letters of Paul, but what about the others?

I ask because there have been laws that have been interpreted as still being in force that are now recognized (but not always universally) as not being so.

For example:
* Deut 22:5 (Cross-dressing) There are still churches that preach it's a sin for women to wear slacks
* Lev 19:28 (Cuts, Brands, and Tattoos) This is often very selective. A woman with pierced ears is usually not thought to be in violation, but a man with a piercing is.
* Lev 23:3ff (Sabbath Laws) There are still churches that require their members to obey the Sabbath Laws, and it was only very recently (within living memory) that secular civil laws enforcing the Sunday Blue Laws were repealled.

Sorry mate, haven't long gotten back on.

The purpose of the law was to demonstrate God's holiness to us. There is no way we, in our fallen state could ever fulfill the law, hence Jesus.

We are meant to take on the characteristics of God as part of our 'new life'. We have been bought at a great price, we are no longer our own but His. So with that we should endeavour to live within his rules but without the fear of stoning etc from our fellow sinners. Jesus rewards our effort to become Christ-like. Those who treat his sacrifice with scorn and deliberately sin or participate in sinful activities are walking out from Christ and returning to the world. Do that and you are no longer covered by His righteousness.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

they both do when they have sex outside marriage ... as described in the Bible passages I cited

How do homosexuals go against the two greatest commandments?

how come? I have cited the Bible in all cases your main argument is silence, I think its the other way round my friend, you seem to be claiming black is white

You are totally inconsistant... as demonstrated, you are more than happy to add to the Bible for matters you don't have a priori positions on... you use logic and social context to decide which other bits of the Bible you follow and discard, your refusal to do so on this matter is purely due to ideology, not because of evidence.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Sorry mate, haven't long gotten back on.

The purpose of the law was to demonstrate God's holiness to us. There is no way we, in our fallen state could ever fulfill the law, hence Jesus.

We are meant to take on the characteristics of God as part of our 'new life'. We have been bought at a great price, we are no longer our own but His. So with that we should endeavour to live within his rules but without the fear of stoning etc from our fellow sinners. Jesus rewards our effort to become Christ-like. Those who treat his sacrifice with scorn and deliberately sin or participate in sinful activities are walking out from Christ and returning to the world. Do that and you are no longer covered by His righteousness.

Thats lovely... however you failed to answer the question... why do you ignore some OT injunctions, and not others?

 

[k2svpete]

If the Levitical law is no longer applicable to us... quit condemning homosexuals.

As I said, we are not subject to the law, ie. we don't worry about stoning, daily sacrifices etc. but a sin is a sin is a sin. If it wa a sin then it still is now. There is no side-stepping that.

I am not condemning anyone, sin is what condemns us all but those who chose to step out from sin have hope.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As I said, we are not subject to the law, ie. we don't worry about stoning, daily sacrifices etc. but a sin is a sin is a sin. If it wa a sin then it still is now. There is no side-stepping that.

I am not condemning anyone, sin is what condemns us all but those who chose to step out from sin have hope.

If it was a sin then, its still a sin now?

So wearing underpants is as bad as homosexuality then?

 

[David Brider]

Dear David Brider,

Sorry but it’s the very thread topic and I am just reminding everyone of that, and that includes you.


No the reason for the thread is so we don’t have this discussion which has been the basis of the other threads and which in fact we believe is just rank disbelief and denial.

It's not. Really, seriously, it's not. If you could try to get over that particular hurdle, it would certainly help to make the dialogue here a lot more meaningful. Whilst I (I hesitate to say we - I'll let the other pro-LGBTQ folks round here speak for themselves) certainly don't think that the proof texts mean what you and others think they mean, neither do I disbelieve the Christian faith or the Bible.

But we no longer want our evidence merely rejected and denied...

Why not? If it doesn't stand up as evidence, then that in and of itself is an important part of the dialogue.

...we want to see your evidence, and so far we have only seen one piece.

What evidence would you like, particularly?

There was a post, I think in the first part of this topic (i.e. before it got split at 1000 post) asking you for clarification on that. I think it was by OllieFranz. I'll try to dig it up - it was asking some rather pertinent questions, which I don't think you ever got round to answering. ETA: Here it is.

You see our evidence does say what we claim it says as we post it...

Does it? Really? I've already pointed out the flaw with BreadAlone's claim that "The Old Testament says homosexuality is an abomination", but there're far more problems than that. You might be happy believing that your evidence stands up, but I find as I look deeper into the issues surrounding the texts in question that there's scant basis for what one might call the traditional Christian attitude to homosexuality. For example, in no particular order:

* What does "do not lie with a man as with a women" actually mean? If it means "do not have sexual relations with a man as with a woman" then why doesn't it say "do not have sexual relations with..." like the preceding dozen or so verses? If it means "do not have sexual relations with..." then does it apply in all instances, or does it just apply to rape or shrine prostitution, as some have suggested? If it means "do not have sexual relations with a man as with a woman" then does it have any bearing on female/female sexual action, or on homosexuals who are not sexually active? If it doesn't mean "do not have sexual relations with..." then what does it mean? Can these questions help towards a clearer understanding of the Levitican texts in question? (I certainly hope so.)

* What exactly was the sin of Sodom? It's generally supposed that it was an attempt at male-male intercourse, but given the hostility of the mob, was it not a case of attempted male-male rape than intercourse? Indeed, given that the angels weren't even human, can assumptions about human sexuality really apply to the passage?

* Is "homosexual" really the best translation of arsenokoites? The koites (="many beds") part of the word suggests to me that it's got more to do with promiscuity than necessarily homo- or hetero- sex (who does the "arseno" part of the word apply to?).

* There are no instances of homosexual marriage in Scripture that we can find (and the only possible instances of homosexual relationships will, naturally, be scoffed at by those who can't believe that David & Jonathan or Jesus & the beloved disciple could possibly have been involved in any kind of homosexual relationship, regardless of how the texts lend themselves to those interpretations), but does that mean it's a bad thing? You constantly assert that male/female is God's pattern for marriage, yet nowhere is it stated explicitly that it's the only possibility for marriage. In the light of the failure of the other proof texts to stand up to scrutiny, there seems nothing unreasonable about arguing for homosexual marriages to be recognised by the church.

I tell you what - if you're convinced that your arguments stand up, then that's fine - you keep believing them. I'm not convinced, and I need something a bit more substantial to convince me.

Now the problem with your argument is that a paedophile could do the same and more, because a paedophile would only have to reject the passages such as Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6 which limit sex to God’s created purpose of man and woman when leaving father and mother, there are not necessarily passages that specifically condemn paedophilia like there are that condemn same-sex sex, all they would then have to do is argue silence like you do… their case seems stronger than yours. Ia m sorry to have to make such a comparison as in reality its not quite the same, but it does expose the seriousness of your argument.

If you mean a paedophile who is inactive, actually there's no part of Scripture that could really have anything to say to such a person. If you mean a paedophile who is active - that is, who is sexually abusing children - then there's far more in Scripture that doesn't directly relate to sex but would have something to say about that person's activities - simply by abusing children, he's falling foul of the second most important commandment (to love others as himself), not to mention Jesus' injunction not to harm children.

A homosexual relationship between two consenting adults really isn't in the same category.

David.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If you mean a paedophile who is inactive, actually there's no part of Scripture that could really have anything to say to such a person. If you mean a paedophile who is active - that is, who is sexually abusing children - then there's far more in Scripture that doesn't directly relate to sex but would have something to say about that person's activities - simply by abusing children, he's falling foul of the second most important commandment (to love others as himself), not to mention Jesus' injunction not to harm children.

A homosexual relationship between two consenting adults really isn't in the same category.

David says it better than me... but thats my point

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

* Is "homosexual" really the best translation of arsenokoites? The koites (="many beds") part of the word suggests to me that it's got more to do with promiscuity than necessarily homo- or hetero- sex (who does the "arseno" part of the word apply to?).

I'll requote an unaddressed repost of a repost that I posted earlier in this thread.

Since you are giving concrete definitions then what do you say about the other definitions for the word 'koitai'? it's not like the dictionary only lists one possible definition. Here are some examples of compound words using koitai and that do not mean beds.
In these examples it is referenced as a term indicating sexual action. There are other examples of a non-sexual nature as well.
POLUKOITOS sleeping with many men or women, ADELFOKOITIA incest of brother or sister,KLEYIKOITHS seeking illicit sex, MHTROKOITHS incestuous person, i.e. with mother.

The 'promiscuous man' argument falls short against 'pornoi' which is mentioned earlier in the verse, and there is no reason to believe paul is being redundant here.

* There are no instances of homosexual marriage in Scripture that we can find (and the only possible instances of homosexual relationships will, naturally, be scoffed at by those who can't believe that David & Jonathan or Jesus & the beloved disciple could possibly have been involved in any kind of homosexual relationship, regardless of how the texts lend themselves to those interpretations), but does that mean it's a bad thing? You constantly assert that male/female is God's pattern for marriage, yet nowhere is it stated explicitly that it's the only possibility for marriage. In the light of the failure of the other proof texts to stand up to scrutiny, there seems nothing unreasonable about arguing for homosexual marriages to be recognised by the church.

the problem is that people spout off with david and jonathan as if it is some proven fact that they were gay lovers.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

the problem is that people spout off with david and jonathan as if it is some proven fact that they were gay lovers.

If you read the description of them thats in the Bible in ANY other book, you would draw the same conclusion

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

 

[k2svpete]

If it was a sin then, its still a sin now?

So wearing underpants is as bad as homosexuality then?

No, not at all. As I have repeatedly said, we are no longer subject to the law but by loving God we fulfill the law. This is done by being holy, and not doing things that grieve Him. Have a read of Romans 8 for clarification.

 

[k2svpete]

If you read the description of them thats in the Bible in ANY other book, you would draw the same conclusion

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Only if you're by a pond.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

If you read the description of them thats in the Bible in ANY other book, you would draw the same conclusion

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

actually, no, I wouldn't. They sound like best friends, and their sexuality was never questioned until recent times.

You make it sound like as if 2 men have any sort of close relationship that they are potentially gay.

Should I be concerned of a sexual advance if one of my guy friends says that he loves me?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, not at all. As I have repeatedly said, we are no longer subject to the law but by loving God we fulfill the law. This is done by being holy, and not doing things that grieve Him. Have a read of Romans 8 for clarification.

I'm totally confused... two posts back, you said that anything that was a sin then is still a sin now, now you're saying that if we love God, we fulfill the law... so, God loving homosexuals should be all set, right?