John MacArthur on Homosexuality Series - Flawed arguments!

[davedjy]

I'm only to part 4, and I see major flaws in his arguments. So badly, that he actually goes against what is written in the Bible!

He says that:

1) The City of Sodom was not destroyed for inhospitality (going directly in part against
Ezekiel 16:49-50):

Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.


2) His justification for Sodom being destroyed for homosexuality (which it nowhere says is the actual destroying factor which was actually rape or at the least promiscuity) is that homosexuals are referred to as sodomites in 1 Kings and Deut.. Well, that definition is NOT the one that the original Hebrew gives and there is only one for the Hebrew word "Quadesh".


Sodomite - Quadesh


1) Male Temple Prostitute

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6945





Link to the Macathur Youtube audio (It's not a video just audio feed):

Part 4 of 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyBAfiuX4U&feature=related

 

[Zaac]

I'm only to part 4, and I see major flaws in his arguments. So badly, that he is actually goes against what is written in the Bible!

He says that:

1) The City of Sodom was not destroyed for inhospitality (going directly in part against
Ezekiel 16:49-50).

2) His justification for Sodom being destroyed for homosexuality (which it nowhere says is the actual destroying factor which was actually rape or at the least promiscuity) is that homosexuals are referred to as sodomites in 1 Kings and Deut.. Well, that definition is NOT the one that the original Hebrew gives and there is only one for the Hebrew word "Quadesh".


Sodomite - Quadesh


1) Male Temple Prostitute

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6945





Link to the Macathur Youtube audio (It's not a video just audio feed):

Part 4 of 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyBAfiuX4U&feature=related

How about we just go with the cities being destroyed because of rampant sin of which homosexual offenses was one?

 

[davedjy]

As soon as I get back, I will start making a greater analysis on the rest of the series. Parts 1-3 were all this Biblical commentary about customs and how gender distinction must be made or it is abominable. The actual Biblical studies are in Parts 4-6.

 

[davedjy]

. (Database error which made a double post).

 

[davedjy]

How about we just go with the cities being destroyed because of rampant sin of which homosexual offenses was one?

Unnecessary, religious biased commentary. Ezekiel 16:49-50 talks about what the sin of Sodom was.
Irrelevant point...if heterosexual rape and/or promiscuity was the offense, could you actually use that to condemn all forms of heterosexuality? the argument is absurd.

 

[Zaac]

Unnecessary, religious biased commentary. Ezekiel 16:49-50 talks about what the sin of Sodom was.
Irrelevant point...if heterosexual rape and/or promiscuity was the offense, could you actually use that to condemn all forms of heterosexuality? the argument is absurd.

Who has used it to condemn all forms of homosexuality? Homosexual sex is fornication. Homosexual rape is fornication. Homosexual promiscuity is fornication.

Sodom had a problem with rampant sin. Homosexual offenses was one of them.

 

[davedjy]

Who has used it to condemn all forms of homosexuality? Homosexual sex is fornication. Homosexual rape is fornication. Homosexual promiscuity is fornication.

Sodom had a problem with rampant sin. Homosexual offenses was one of them.

Zaac, perhaps you should read, or reread my Opening Post (including clicking the link) because you are clearly not grasping "who" uses Sodom to condemn all forms of homosexuality. John MacArthur DOES, and that is what the thread is about...an audio series used as a deceptive tool which will misguide more Christians. While I don't believe he does it deliberately, it is pretty scary how this man dodges what Sodom is about. The sad thing is homosexuality is not mentioned yet specific things in Ezekiel ARE, and yet this preacher somehow dodges and twists this around against gays and lesbians.

Your whole response is Biblical commentary skirting what Sodom is about.
"Homosexual sex" is not what the sin of Sodom was, nor does the Bible say that. I'm not going to get into arguments with you about the definition of fornication which is clearly more Biblical commentary.


I've seen Jude 1 used, but a current day understanding of that passage is rarely used against homosexuality, because it is understood to mean that the angels were leaving what was natural to them to cohabit with humans.

 

[archaeologist2]

the problem with your original thesis is found here:

1) The City of Sodom was not destroyed for inhospitality (going directly in part against
Ezekiel 16:49-50):

Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.

you can see in the last line the words 'committed abomination before me'

God, in giving of the sexual laws to the Israelites called lying with a man by another man 'an abomination' thus he was destroying sodom for homosexual sins. the other acts were included because they are sin as well.

one must be careful when reading the Bible as sometimes we need other verses to help us understand what is being said in different passages.

one of the main problems in this discussion is that there are a lot of 'scholars' who have decided that certain hebrew words were mistranslated and have taken it upon themselves to 'correct' the errors. the fallacy of this is that, they are not lead y God to do so, they are usually homosexuals or non-christians and they have no God given authority to make those changes.

plus these modern 'changes' fly in the face of 2,000 years of scholarship by real men of God who were far more qualified than the majority of modern scholars. plus thye had God on their side.

 

[davedjy]

the problem with your original thesis is found here:



you can see in the last line the words 'committed abomination before me'

God, in giving of the sexual laws to the Israelites called lying with a man by another man 'an abomination' thus he was destroying sodom for homosexual sins. the other acts were included because they are sin as well.

one must be careful when reading the Bible as sometimes we need other verses to help us understand what is being said in different passages.

one of the main problems in this discussion is that there are a lot of 'scholars' who have decided that certain hebrew words were mistranslated and have taken it upon themselves to 'correct' the errors. the fallacy of this is that, they are not lead y God to do so, they are usually homosexuals or non-christians and they have no God given authority to make those changes.

plus these modern 'changes' fly in the face of 2,000 years of scholarship by real men of God who were far more qualified than the majority of modern scholars. plus thye had God on their side.

The best you can say is that they don't have any authority by God to make those changes? show us all here who has the authority to translate the Bible. Inconsistencies have been proven Bible translation to translation of 1 Cor. 6:9 alone, for example...shall I pull those out? What about the fact that whole parts of the NIV have been tossed? lol.

My thesis isn't faulty because inhospitality WAS mentioned as one of the sins of Sodom. Nowhere does this chapter define the abominations as "homosexuality" or even hint at "general homosexuality" AT ALL. Rape and promiscuity are not general homosexuality anymore than rape and promiscuity are general heterosexuality...yet still, that verse doesn't define abominations as either of those!

plus these modern 'changes' fly in the face of 2,000 years of scholarship by real men of God who were far more qualified than the majority of modern scholars. plus thye had God on their side.

...who defines who is "more qualified" other than something that supports your religious opinion?

Btw, "plus they had God on their side" is not a credible debate point...no one here can define who has "God on their side". You can tell me that God is on your side on this subject, does it make it true? That is the equivalent of me telling you "God tells me you are wrong and that I am right".

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, perhaps you should read, or reread my Opening Post (including clicking the link) because you are clearly not grasping "who" uses Sodom to condemn all forms of homosexuality. John MacArthur DOES, and that is what the thread is about...an audio series used as a deceptive tool which will misguide more Christians. While I don't believe he does it deliberately, it is pretty scary how this man dodges what Sodom is about. The sad thing is homosexuality is not mentioned yet specific things in Ezekiel ARE, and yet this preacher somehow dodges and twists this around against gays and lesbians.

Your whole response is Biblical commentary skirting what Sodom is about.
"Homosexual sex" is not what the sin of Sodom was, nor does the Bible say that. I'm not going to get into arguments with you about the definition of fornication which is clearly more Biblical commentary.


I've seen Jude 1 used, but a current day understanding of that passage is rarely used against homosexuality, because it is understood to mean that the angels were leaving what was natural to them to cohabit with humans.

Does it really matter if he uses Sodom to condemn all forms of homosexuality? Is there any place in God's Word that He affirms a form of homosexuality?

Homosexual sex acts are sinful. They were taking place in Sodom just like a whole lot of other sins for which the city was destroyed.

You're just looking for a justification for homosexual sex. And disproving something about MacArthur is not going to make homosexual sex any less sinful in God's eyes.

 

[dayhiker]

I agree with you Arch, that we need to use other verse to help us define concepts that are in the Bible.

So I read all the verses that use abombination. About 80% of those verse use abombination in the context of idol worship. So my hermanutics says that I should use as a default that abombination referes to idolitry unless the context indicates other words.

So the holiness code of Lev. which was to seperate Isreal from other nations I believe is a referance to idolitry as the main thing that seperated Isreal from the other nations was that they worship idols and Isreal worship the one true God.

Also sine I don't see one Biblical referance to Sodom being destroyed because of homosexuality I just can't see that being the issue. Jude says God Judged Sodom because of their hetero activity, not their homo acticity.

So that's what I see in my study of the related verses.

dayhiker

the problem with your original thesis is found here:



you can see in the last line the words 'committed abomination before me'

God, in giving of the sexual laws to the Israelites called lying with a man by another man 'an abomination' thus he was destroying sodom for homosexual sins. the other acts were included because they are sin as well.

one must be careful when reading the Bible as sometimes we need other verses to help us understand what is being said in different passages.

one of the main problems in this discussion is that there are a lot of 'scholars' who have decided that certain hebrew words were mistranslated and have taken it upon themselves to 'correct' the errors. the fallacy of this is that, they are not lead y God to do so, they are usually homosexuals or non-christians and they have no God given authority to make those changes.

plus these modern 'changes' fly in the face of 2,000 years of scholarship by real men of God who were far more qualified than the majority of modern scholars. plus thye had God on their side.

 

[davedjy]

You're just looking for a justification for homosexual sex. And disproving something about MacArthur is not going to make homosexual sex any less sinful in God's eyes.

How ironic, Zaac. Look at what you go through to justify your argument and what you have to dismiss. You can't even speak for MacArthur on the flaws of his arguments, so you try to resort to ANOTHER argument, trying to turn this on me and about justification which was not the point of the thread. This minister tries to justify his prejudice and bigotry on homosexuality with false notions of what Sodom was about.
I don't need a justification, I can just as easily say that your side tries to use the Bible to justify your prejudice. He goes around calling gays "sodomites", which reminds me of different vulgar terms people use for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other terms for gays. He is so ignorant, it isn't even funny, which is why I pulled the original Hebrew lexicon for the word he keeps freely spouting out about.

You can call homosexual sex sinful all day and night, and it does not make it so in God's eyes. Prejudice and bigotry are also being freely justified and disguised under "the Word of God", which the historical context proves wrong. Regardless of where it comes from, it will still be prejudice and bigotry...just because you call it the "Word of God", it doesn't cancel out what it really is. It isn't the Word of God, though, it is your flawed perception of it.

You say all gays and lesbians will be judged, but so will ALL that have used the Word of God to condemn gays and lesbians.

 

[ReformedChapin]

How ironic, Zaac. Look at what you go through to justify your argument and what you have to dismiss. You can't even speak for MacArthur on the flaws of his arguments, so you try to resort to ANOTHER argument, trying to turn this on me and about justification which was not the point of the thread. This minister tries to justify his prejudice and bigotry on homosexuality with false notions of what Sodom was about.
I don't need a justification, I can just as easily say that your side tries to use the Bible to justify your prejudice. He goes around calling gays "sodomites", which reminds me of different vulgar terms people use for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other terms for gays. He is so ignorant, it isn't even funny, which is why I pulled the original Hebrew lexicon for the word he keeps freely spouting out about.

You can call homosexual sex sinful all day and night, and it does not make it so in God's eyes. Prejudice and bigotry are also being freely justified and disguised under "the Word of God", which the historical context proves wrong. Regardless of where it comes from, it will still be prejudice and bigotry...just because you call it the "Word of God", it doesn't cancel out what it really is. It isn't the Word of God, though, it is your flawed perception of it.

You say all gays and lesbians will be judged, but so will ALL that have used the Word of God to condemn gays and lesbians.

We have enough scriptural support in other verses to more than justify and show that homosexuality is a sin. Just because liberals choose loop-holes and pervert scripture for their own biases that doesn't imply we are biggots.

BTW it's a fallacious argument using past arguments of other "bigots" to justify homosexuality now. There is clearly no verse speaking about race. Next thing you know you will see liberals using the bible to justify sex with animals.

 

[davedjy]

Next thing you know you will see liberals using the bible to justify sex with animals.

Well, the historical context proves you wrong. All sins sexual in nature are repeated in Deuteronomy. Where is the OT verse against lesbians? there goes that theory. The pagan ritual combined orgy practices only included men.

There goes this other invalid comparison. One that compares a human and animal relationship (non consensual), to a sexual relationship with two adult human beings. What's next, one about pedophilia?

We have enough scriptural support in other verses to more than justify and show that homosexuality is a sin. Just because liberals choose loop-holes and pervert scripture for their own biases that doesn't imply we are biggots.

Yet the historical context of those verses would equate all heterosexual acts being sinful as well. I can easily say that your side perverts scripture, because there shouldn't ever be a scripture used against a minority.

Pages like this educate the reader of the truth:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The Mystery.htm

 

[ReformedChapin]

Well, the historical context proves you wrong. All sins sexual in nature are repeated in Deuteronomy. Where is the OT verse against lesbians? there goes that theory. The pagan ritual combined orgy practices only included men.

There goes this other invalid comparison. One that compares a human and animal relationship (non consensual), to a sexual relationship with two adult human beings. What's next, one about pedophilia?

I never argued for any position in regards to the historical context in the OT. The NT makes it more than clear.

BTW in regards to the OT, how many jews practiced homosexuliaty? Was it presented as an acceptable practice? If so where is the proof?

Yet the historical context of those verses would equate all heterosexual acts being sinful as well. I can easily say that your side perverts scripture, because there shouldn't ever be a scripture used against a minority.

Pages like this educate the reader of the truth:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/inspiritus/The%20Mystery.htm

No thanks. I don't feel like reading your liberal propaganda. I can post a million websites as well. If you want to make an argument post it. Both sides of the issues have intellectuals, calling each other stupid is an utter waste of time.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I never argued for any position in regards to the historical context in the OT. The NT makes it more than clear.

BTW in regards to the OT, how many jews practiced homosexuliaty? Was it presented as an acceptable practice? If so where is the proof?




No thanks. I don't feel like reading your liberal propaganda. I can post a million websites as well. If you want to make an argument post it. Both sides of the issues have intellectuals, calling each other stupid is an utter waste of time.

One last comment. If you want to discuss historical positions in regards to homosexuality does church history side with you Daved?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Daved this is what my biblical dictionary states about what a sodomite means. Why is your "historical" argument true?

Sodomy

POS
:
Noun

HYPHEN
:
sod=o=my

top
WORDNET DICTIONARY

Noun Sodomy has 1 sense

• sodomy(n = noun.act) <A href="http://net.bible.org/lexicon.php?word=anal+intercourse">anal intercourse, anal sex, buggery - intercourse via the anus, committed by a man with a man or woman; is a kind of perversion, sexual perversion
  Derived forms verb sodomise2, noun sodomist1, verb sodomize2

top

CIDE DICTIONARY


Sodomy, n. [From Sodom. a country mentioned in the Bible: cf. F. sodomite.].

• Carnal copulation in a manner against nature; buggery. Gen. xix. 5. [1913 Webster]

top
OXFORD DICTIONARY

Sodomy, n. = BUGGERY.


Derivative
sodomize v.tr. (also -ise).

Etymology
ME f. med.L sodomia f. LL peccatum Sodomiticum sin of Sodom: see SODOM


top
ROGET THESAURUS

Sodomy

Sexuality

N sex, sexuality, gender, male, masculinity, maleness, female, femininity, sexual intercourse, copulation, mating, coitus, sex, lovemaking, marital relations, sexual union, sleeping together, carnal knowledge, sex instinct, sex drive, libido, lust, concupiscence, hots, horns, arousal, heat, rut, estrus, oestrus, tumescence, erection, hard-on, boner, masturbation, self-gratification, autoeroticism, onanism, self- abuse, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], climax, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], sexiness, attractiveness, sensuality, voluptuousness, fornication, adultery, sex symbol, sex goddess, stud, hunk, one-night stand, pornography, porn, porno, hardcore pornography, softcore pornography, pin-up, cheesecake, beefcake, Playboy, Esquire, Hustler, perversion, deviation, sexual abnormality, fetish, fetishism, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, sodomy, buggery, pederasty, sadism, masochism, sado-masochism, incest, sexy, erotic, sexual, carnal, sensual, hot, horny, randy, rutting, passionate, lusty, hot-blooded, libidinous, up, in the mood, homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual.

 

[archaeologist2]

I agree with you Arch, that we need to use other verse to help us define concepts that are in the Bible.

don't go to the absurd to make a justification or bad translation. just because i do not post all the rules for figuring these things out does it mean i ignore them.

it is quite clear that homosexuality was the main reason they were destroyed, the passage is quite clear on this fact. sodom and gomorrah are a good example of what happens when people remove all of God's morality from its ruling laws.

almost every homosexual tries to use some aspect of scripture to continue in their sin and still try to claim christinaity. it doesn't work that way.

one has to be honest with themselves and read scriptures honesty and if you are condemned instead of trying to change scriptures to justify a sinful lifestyle, you need to go to Jesus and change your lifestyle.

 

[Zaac]

One last comment. If you want to discuss historical positions in regards to homosexuality does church history side with you Daved?

You're not gonna get an answer on that. He and the gay community know that no church outside the apostate ones has ever confirmed acts of homosexual sex.

It's fornication. So they might as well stop trying to justify it.

 

[davedjy]

No thanks. I don't feel like reading your liberal propaganda. I can post a million websites as well. If you want to make an argument post it. Both sides of the issues have intellectuals, calling each other stupid is an utter waste of time.

You didn't even read it, so how would you even know if it is "liberal propoganda". Shows the ignorance...you dismiss something you haven't even read.

It is pure historical factual evidence of what the Chapters are about. Knowledge is power, something that you are without on this subject.