Good morning, BrightMorningStar...
To RegularGuy,
So what is yours then?
My authority? That would depend on the subject. I wouldn't use a shop manual for a '64 VW Beetle to repair a 747. I wouldn't study a geometry textbook to prepare for an anatomy exam.
The Bible is the source and norm of doctrine. It contains the knowledge necessary for salvation.
Then I would say you don’t accept the authority of scripture because firstly natural observation and plain reason in shows same sex is dysfunctional, and secondly the Bible (as in Romans 1) tells us some abandon God’s truth and think their own is reason.
Of course I accept the authority of the Bible, in the areas of its authority.
Natural observation shows that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. Reproduction is not the only purpose of sexuality.
Romans 1 says that homosexual behavior is caused by the worship of idols. That's empirically false. Paul's argument here cannot be used as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality.
Nor should Romans 1 ever be read without going on to the second chapter.
Nonetheless this is a Christian based forum and we are encouraged to post scripture to support our views; like most of the debate on homosexuality its not homosexuality we end up debating but the nature of what Christians believe and the authority of scripture.
So if you haven’t got any scripture to support your views then its our views against scripture as evidence.
I would never discourage anyone from reading and posting Scripture. And (brace yourself)
I agree with youthat the debate on homosexuality is often about the authority and interpretation of Scripture. As I've said before, it is at the heart of our disagreement.
Understand that simply posting Scripture does not win a debate. Also, in these debates we should expect to have our understanding of Scripture challenged. Iron sharpens iron and all that.
Also, in debates about homosexuality, the Bible cannot be the only admissible authority, since the Bible was written before the modern concept of sexuality was even conceived.
We see Paul received his revelation from the risen Lord, not man so we see you are either in error or you don’t believe the authority of scripture you have just claimed.
It was important for Paul to emphasize the nature of his revelation as it established his authority as an apostle. But what was the content of his revelation? The Gospel. (Gal 1.11-12) The mystery of Christ by which Gentiles become fellow heirs with Jews (Eph. 3:1-6). It was not that nursemaid the Law that was revealed to him. It was the Gospel of justification by grace through faith.
How come my interpretation is the same as what the text says then and yours is opposite. No my friend its not interpretation, I believe what the texts says, you don’t.
Because you read the text selectively, close your eyes to other evidence, and interpret a few verses without context to make an eternal condemnation of those people whom God created homosexual.
The text is not my God.
Ok not my problem, if you don’t like what the Bible says you wont like this forum.
I love the Bible. I love the forum. And I like a good debate. Ask anyone who knows me.
Sorry but that tough my friend, both pedophilia and same sex unions are outside God’s purposes, so paedophilia is equivalent to homosexuality in that respect. People aren’t just going to agree with your views all the time you know. My view is that placing children with same sex couples is a form of child abuse, God (or even nature if you wish to call God’s creation nature) shows a child is the natural product of a man and woman and is entitled to a man and woman to raise it.
The idea that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia is a ruse.
Placing children with a same sex couple who will love, guide, nourish and encourage them is by no means abuse. Placing children with heterosexual couples who neglect, belittle and mistreat them (it happens!) is child abuse. Heterosexuality does not automatically equal good. I'm sure that we have both met heterosexual couples who have been given children by God, who are in no way qualified to raise those children.
I disagree, belief in the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you don’t believe is reliable.
Nor did I say that, I said the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you don’t believe is reliable.
Reliable testimony of faith? I'll allow that. Inerrant and without contradiction in every detail? I think not. Final authority in matters of history and science? Not a chance.
Ok garden rakes and shoes can be your interpretation, though it bears no relationship to the text. Can we get back to reality, I repeat, Jesus Christ’s NT teaching describes all food as clean to eat (Mark 7, Romans 14) but declares only man/woman faithful unions or celibacy (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and condemns same sex unions (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1) Does that mean what it says or can one interpret it a meaning the big red bus went up the hill?
Big red busses can be your interpretation. And getting back to reality, the Bible says nothing whatever about same sex marriage...except by your interpretation.
This was your reply to my statement that you had shown that Paul, Mark and Matthew agreed against Luke. I want to point out that your statement is a denial and not a refutation. We can drop the point if you wish, since it is off topic. But if you want to pursue it further, you'll have to show how Luke/Acts agrees with Paul, Mark and Matthew on the subject of clean foods.