Flawed Logic of Gay Christians

[AmericanCatholic]

Unfortunately the bible is the ONLY authority we have dealing with our salvation. Therefore only one of those world views can be Christian!

I would venture to say that God is the only authority, and the Bible one of the testimonies to that. The other testimony would be His Church and the Tradition it preserves. The Bible can mean one thing, but it certainly be thought to mean many things. Have you ever taken an English class in which everyone offered the same opinion on the same reading?

The problem (which usually goes unrecognized by a particular side in this debate) is that one party claims an absolute authority for themselves on the interpretation of the Bible, equating Scripture with their interpretation of it. And so they often come off as haughty and self-righteous. Consequently, the only viable counter-arguments from the other party is that the Bible is not reliable, or that it's not 100% true, or that if something is not explicitly said in the Bible, it doesn't matter.

All of those arguments, from the beginning to the end, are irrelevant because they presuppose that "the bible is the ONLY authority we have dealing with our salvation". Then we get absurd statements like:

I don't think so, but if I'm wrong I get corrected, and God has a heck of a lot of explaining to do about stoning gay sex offenders to death. However, if you are wrong you lose everything.

If you're wrong, not only is God not accountable to you, but you will have some explaining to do regarding your words in which you condemn others. Christ states that every person will be accountable for their words. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation. (Or, because the Bible should be taken literally, since it doesn't mention typing posts on an anonymous internet forum, that you won't be held accountable for those words?)

May I add that Jesus Christ's teaching is for His followers to obey all His commands, not suggestions, commands.

There's a whole list of commands I'm sure that the Bible-Alone community is not obeying. But the point is that the Christians here should stop equating their interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself.

 

[MercyBurst]

I would venture to say that God is the only authority, and the Bible one of the testimonies to that.

In other words, whatever God says doesn't really matter because God doesn't care enough to preserve His word or He lacks the authority to even make it known. Pretty absurd.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

In other words, whatever God says doesn't really matter because God doesn't care enough to preserve His word or He lacks the authority to even make it known. Pretty absurd.

So, you disagree that God is the only authority, and that the Bible is a witness to Him?

 

[MercyBurst]

So, you disagree that God is the only authority, and that the Bible is a witness to Him?

God is the only authority. His word stands in the scriptures ALONE through the prophets that talked to Him and recorded His instructions. What other authority do you propose? the pope?

In addition God cares enough to make His instructions understandable, especially regarding our daily conduct.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

God is the only authority.

Then why did you state that it's "pretty absurd" for God to be the only authority and for the Bible to be a testimony to Him?

Unless you proclaim yourself or someone else a prophet for Him, then His word stands in scriptures ALONE.

Is that really the only alternative? The Church, the community of Christians, is not a testimony to God? Your argument can be summed up like this: "God is God, the Bible says so, and I say the Bible says so". Testify to God, not a book, even if that book is infallible. You would deny the testimony of millions (billions?) of Christians for the sake of your own interpretation of a book? What use to you is an infallible book if you can't read it infallibly on your own?

What other authority do you propose? the pope?

The Pope? Absolutely, given that he's in communion with the Church established by Christ, which provides a collective and long-standing testimony to God (older than the Bible, btw).

 

[MercyBurst]

The Pope? Absolutely, given that he's in communion with the Church established by Christ, which provides a collective and long-standing testimony to God (older than the Bible, btw).

The pope interprets gay sex to be sin. End of story.

 

[MercyBurst]

All of those arguments, from the beginning to the end, are irrelevant because they presuppose that "the bible is the ONLY authority we have dealing with our salvation". Then we get absurd statements like:

"I don't think so, but if I'm wrong I get corrected, and God has a heck of a lot of explaining to do about stoning gay sex offenders to death. However, if you are wrong you lose everything"

Personally, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask God why He commanded gay sex offenders to be put to death according to what Moses heard Him say.

American Catholic, I think you are the absurd one here, and I can not take you seriously. Hence you go to my ignore list.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The pope interprets gay sex to be sin. End of story.

Any type of sex outside of marriage is a sin -- and some kinds of sex even within marriage is a sin; i.e. using contraception. There's no distinction between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex if both take place outside of the context of marriage. Will you advocate stoning teenagers, prostitutes, and old married people? If you are going to accept the Catholic position on sex, then you must necessarily accept all of it.

Americancan Catholic, I think you are the absurd one here, and I can not take you seriously. Hence you go to my ignore list.

Thank you for graciously illustrating my point to the others reading this thread.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To MercyBurst and CryoftheNation.
True, the Bible is the ONLY authority.

So to Wican_Child
Both are from the Bible which is the authority of Christians.
Well scripture can be revelation and prophecy rather than actual history, but Jesus who said He shed His blood, talks about Noah and the flood, so why would you not believe one and believe the other?

Because Jesus never said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, there was a literal flood that covered the entire Earth up to the highest mountains. This came to pass almost 4000 years before today". He was talking to people who knew the story of Noah's Flood, and so he was simply emphasising his point using a well-known ethical story. He made no mention of whether it was true or not.

May I add that Jesus Christ's teaching is for His followers to obey all His commands, not suggestions, commands. the suggestion that someone can pick exceptions of Jesus teaching they want to ingore is good reason to show they arent a Christian, as demonstrated by Jesus convesation with the rich young man who lacked one thing and tried ot justify himself. Followers may fall short but not for want of trying.

Alas, there appears to be a problem determining which of Jesus' quotes are commandments, and which are analogies.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Alas, there appears to be a problem determining which of Jesus' quotes are commandments, and which are analogies.

That's what happens when separately fallible men fallibly interpret infallible Scripture.

 

[xlanna]

LOL...
I don't know why "Christians" are arguing FOR homosexuality. Like...just get over it...God despises homosexuality. Done deal...
I mean...I haven't always been a Christian, and it was EXTREAMLY hard to come to terms with a "loving God" detesting anything...but honestly, people...Some things in the bible are very blunt. This is one of them.

 

[HaloHope]

LOL...
I don't know why "Christians" are arguing FOR homosexuality. Like...just get over it...God despises homosexuality. Done deal...
I mean...I haven't always been a Christian, and it was EXTREAMLY hard to come to terms with a "loving God" detesting anything...but honestly, people...Some things in the bible are very blunt. This is one of them.

Well that poorly put together argument certainly convinced me to abandon a three year relationship. Im sure itll do the same to every other gay person here...... or more likely probably not at all.

If the Bible was as blunt on the issue as you claim we wouldnt be arguing this subject so much. Also how nice of you to put "Christian" in inverted commas too, Super nice and very "Christian" actually.

 

[DMagoh]

I would venture to say that God is the only authority, and the Bible one of the testimonies to that. The other testimony would be His Church and the Tradition it preserves...

...There's a whole list of commands I'm sure that the Bible-Alone community is not obeying.

"Bible-Alone" communities are typically wary of "church traditions" because traditions give us things like "indulgences". Also, the church didn't decide that Mary was without sin until 1854. Some people thought it before, others didnt, but it wasn't defined as dogma until 1,854 years after the birth of Christ. The doctrine of papal infallibiity was not defined until 1870. Most "Bible-Alone" communities wonder why God allowed us to go almost 2,000 years without defining these 'traditions'. Traditions can get you in trouble - just ask the Pharisees.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

"Bible-Alone" communities are typically wary of "church traditions" because traditions give us things like "indulgences". Also, the church didn't decide that Mary was without sin until 1854. Some people thought it before, others didnt, but it wasn't defined as dogma until 1,854 years after the birth of Christ. The doctrine of papal infallibiity was not defined until 1870. Most "Bible-Alone" communities wonder why God allowed us to go almost 2,000 years without defining these 'traditions'. Traditions can get you in trouble - just ask the Pharisees.

What about which books to use in the Bible? BTW -- an indulgence is " is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven." Just fyi. Is there something wrong with the "remission of temporal punishment"?

 

[KCKID]

LOL...
I don't know why "Christians" are arguing FOR homosexuality. Like...just get over it...God despises homosexuality. Done deal...
I mean...I haven't always been a Christian, and it was EXTREAMLY hard to come to terms with a "loving God" detesting anything...but honestly, people...Some things in the bible are very blunt. This is one of them.

Baloney! Once again we have someone come bouncing in with something that has been addressed scores of times. Homosexuality is NOT mentioned in the Bible. Okay? One's sexual orientation is NOT mentioned in the Bible. Okay? The main issues we are dealing with on this forum generally concern themselves with committed relationships between homosexuals. Again, this matter is not dealt with in the Bible at all. Okay?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

*subscribe*

 

[xlanna]

Baloney! Once again we have someone come bouncing in with something that has been addressed scores of times. Homosexuality is NOT mentioned in the Bible. Okay? One's sexual orientation is NOT mentioned in the Bible. Okay? The main issues we are dealing with on this forum generally concern themselves with committed relationships between homosexuals. Again, this matter is not dealt with in the Bible at all. Okay?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality



No no...you're right. Never does it once state anything about homosexuality in the Bible.

 

[xlanna]

Well that poorly put together argument certainly convinced me to abandon a three year relationship. Im sure itll do the same to every other gay person here...... or more likely probably not at all.

If the Bible was as blunt on the issue as you claim we wouldnt be arguing this subject so much. Also how nice of you to put "Christian" in inverted commas too, Super nice and very "Christian" actually.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The discussion is to whether the term "homosexuality", in its modern context, is remotely close the word "arsenokroites" which is the original word in Greek that Paul used when writing Corinthians.

The general academic consensus seems to be that Paul made the word arsenokroites up, as it certainly was not the usually used Greek word to refer to homosexual lovers, and has also been translated a number of different ways in the past, including as meaning masturbators and temple prostitutes... so sorry, but its NOT as clear cut as you seem to think.

 

[OllieFranz]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality...

"Arsenokoitai," the word translated above as "those who participate in homosexuality," was apparently invented by Paul. There were plenty of existing Greek words Paul could have chosen if he were simply condemning homosexuality in general. But none of them matched what he wanted to say. They either included actions which were not forbidden by Leviticus 18:22, or failed to include actions that were. So he took the two most significant words from the Levitical command, and formed a compound word "man-lyers."

So, yes he was referring back to the Levitical command. But that command itself does not condemn homosexuality in general. It only forbids one particular sexual deed between two men. It only forbids taking one of the two positions in that act. The grammar suggests that what it forbids is taking that position and performing the sexual act without the full consent of the other "partner." The context suggests that what it forbids is using the sexual act as a ritual of religious observance to pagan gods.

It does not forbid any other sexual act. Indeed, the Jewish worldview would not see most of the other sexual acts as sex at all, just as they were totally unconcerned about women "rubbing" other women (or even "rubbing" children)