Give me a Reason.

[calvins96]

Actually I'm showing how illogical your position is. What you are basically stating is that we should recognize right or wrong without the bible..that it's "evident." Well you are wrong, you cut off the bible then you have nothing, ethics go down the drain. You cannot tell something is "right or wrong" without the bible...get that in your head.

How "illogical" something is?? Well the statement "you cannot tell something is right or wrong with out bible" is totally illogical. There are many people in the world that are not christian and thus, do not use the bible. You're saying they can't deteremine wrong from right? that's ridiculous. Also, many Christians respect the bible, but don't follow it, and they too can't determine the difference between wrong or right? Again, that's totally ridiculous.

 

[ReformedChapin]

How "illogical" something is?? Well the statement "you cannot tell something is right or wrong with out bible" is totally illogical. There are many people in the world that are not christian and thus, do not use the bible. You're saying they can't deteremine wrong from right? that's ridiculous. Also, many Christians respect the bible, but don't follow it, and they too can't determine the difference between wrong or right? Again, that's totally ridiculous.

Wow that proved nothing. Again how do you know that their ethics system is coherent? You are making an arbitrary system without justifying your claim. Your argument is basically" most people do this that's why it's right." FYI most people in the world are irrational and their ethics system violate the laws of logic most specifically the law of contradiction.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Oh please tell me what questions it "opens". Especially since without scripture there is no such thing as ethics.

BTW if you want to define "tolerence" as denying sin then I'm the most intolerant person in this website. You hippies can try to pervert Gods commands as much as you want but it's not going to happen here. Not only that but you are close minded as well since homosexuality cannot possibly be wrong.

No, tolerance is acceptance of people and realization that something exists. You do not accept people when you say "Well I'm only trying to save them" because telling them what they've come to accept is sin isn't going to change them, let alone save them. Also, stop using hippies as an insult. Stop misinterpreting what I'm saying. Being open-minded is listening to other arguments without a single argument as bias or trying to see things in a different point of view. I haven't been given ANY argument but the Bible, yet those who are homosexual supporters have mountains of evidence, including Biblical evidence. If you can turn it around as you have done to this argument, you are closed minded. You refuse to listen to anything else because obviously, you're right. THAT'S closed mindedness.

Simple: why homosexuality is a sin. God doesn't do things for no reason obviously.

 

[DMagoh]

Aside from the fact that might not be possible considering the Biology is different, having sex with a chicken is a disease fest waiting to happen. Beastality is what led to AIDS. I can only imagine how bad the bird flu would be under those circumstance.

Not if you wore a condom. Remember, you keep telling us homosexual behavior is SAFE if you use a condom. Plus, I'd always use the same chicken. I'm a 'one chicken man'. There is nothing in the Bible about a monogamous chicken-man relationship.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Not if you wore a condom. Remember, you keep telling us homosexual behavior is SAFE if you use a condom. Plus, I'd always use the same chicken. I'm a 'one chicken man'. There is nothing in the Bible about a monogamous chicken-man relationship.

Condoms don't always work. Any idiot can yell you that. Again, the biological difference make it where, you can use the same chicken, but you're still just as likely. Humans share the same biology.

Honestly, that's a terrible comparison. You could at least come up with something better?

 

[DMagoh]

Honestly, that's a terrible comparison. You could at least come up with something better?

Dont knock it til you tried it sister. I've heard roosters make pretty good lovers. Oh I forgot, you're gay, so you would rather have a hen.

By the way, it's very intolerant of you not to accept my love for my chicken. Love is good...legalism is not. Stop judging me. I love my chicken!

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Dont knock it til you tried it sister. I've heard roosters make pretty good lovers. Oh I forgot, you're gay, so you would rather have a hen.

By the way, it's very intolerant of you not to accept my love for my chicken. Love is good...legalism is not. Stop judging me. I love my chicken!

Okay, I'll accept it. Just don't go having sex with anything else afterwards. I don't think anyone else wants your diseases. Because having sex with something that's not even the same species is like injecting yourself with drugs.

 

[AngelusSax]

I did already you just don't want to accept it. Without the bible there is no such thing as right or wrong. How complicated is that? I don't know who your god is but my god is the God of the bible.

There was right and wrong during Moses' time. There was right and wrong during Abraham's time. And there was no Bible then.

 

[MrPirate]

Seriously. Give me a reason homosexuality should be wrong. Assume for a second the Bible never ever mentions homosexuality. Under that circumstance, what consequences of homosexuality make it so horrible.

Some debunkings before hand:

1 - No babies/unnatural sex: So what? Does this mean those who can't have children shouldn't get married either? I should hope not. Then define unnatural. So some people, being left handed is unnatural. To others, wearing clothes is unnatural. To say something is unnatural is very personal since nature is so difficult to define. (Besides, natural ultimately means it exists in nature. And we've already determined that homosexuality definitely exists in nature.)
2 - HIV/AIDS: You're not going to get HIV/AIDS in a monogamous relationship. Because HIV/AIDS doesn't magically appear. It's contracted.

So besides that, what have you got? I've asked this question, along with many others, and we're ALWAYS ignored or we're given the same old verses. WHAT CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE?

you of course will not get an answer.


And there in lies the problem of trying to use scripture to justify hatred and prejudice. People can cherry pick verses from the bible and say their hatred of a particular minority is justified….but the only way to achieve this justification is to ignore the message of and teachings of Jesus.

 

[MrPirate]

So, assuming the Scriptures never mention homosexuality as a sin...

God has specifically blessed the nuclear family as the fullness of his image. Creation was not complete until the man had his female companion, and the very first command given to them was to be fruitful and multiply (no, I am not a creationist; no, I do not believe in a literal Eve; but the thematic emphasis of the passage remains authoritative).

God the Father has a self-image. That image is the Son, the image of the invisible God. Their love together eternally generates the third person, the Spirit. Together this Trinity is family- a self-contained community of love.

The nuclear family is God's reflection on earth. It is the basic covenant unit of our eschatological community. The image of God represents God in his fullness through the coming together of husband and wife and their rearing of children.

However there is a significant lack of “the nuclear family” in the bible. What is presented is usually polygamous marriages with many biblical rules for how to treat first and secondary wives. There are also biblical rules for concubines and sex slaves as well as levirate “marriages” there are also numerous example of women forced into marriage through rape.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

However there is a significant lack of “the nuclear family” in the bible. What is presented is usually polygamous marriages with many biblical rules for how to treat first and secondary wives. There are also biblical rules for concubines and sex slaves as well as levirate “marriages” there are also numerous example of women forced into marriage through rape.

And I would never make the argument that the practices of the patriarchs are a guide for morality, or that the Levitical law is a strictly moral code.

And within the Judaism Christ practiced, the nuclear family was very much indeed a social norm.

 

[jbthedon]

Just think if the whole world was gay we would cease to exist.

 

[Epiphoskei]

you of course will not get an answer.


And there in lies the problem of trying to use scripture to justify hatred and prejudice. People can cherry pick verses from the bible and say their hatred of a particular minority is justified….but the only way to achieve this justification is to ignore the message of and teachings of Jesus.

I seem to remember Jesus' message being somthing like, "Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" At least, that's how matthew chose to sum up his ministry.
Sin is sin, and does not change, and the use of the Gospel as a license to sin is roundly condemned in the bible as a greater sin yet.

 

[brightmorningstar]

DearTheFathersDaughter,
As Anglcians we believe the Bible, the OT and NT are the rule and standard of faith, I would say all Christians believe that. I cant see the point therefore of your opening post?

As to whether the Bible mentions 'homosexuality' well does it mention 'paedophilia'? One has to look at what the Bible does say not what it doesnt say. The Bible does mention the marriage union of a man and woman to be God's created purpose, celibacy to be the alternative, sex outside marriage to be wrong and same-sex sex as an example of that.
If you dont believe that why are you asking people to commnet on something the opposite of what they believe by ignoring what they believe? I just dont see your logic, sorry

 

[MrPirate]

And I would never make the argument that the practices of the patriarchs are a guide for morality, or that the Levitical law is a strictly moral code.

The extended family is much more the norm.

And within the Judaism Christ practiced, the nuclear family was very much indeed a social norm.

Your assertion of course ignores the fact that gays and lesbian couples form families, nuclear and extended

 

[MrPirate]

I seem to remember Jesus' message being somthing like, "Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" At least, that's how matthew chose to sum up his ministry.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:36-40

Sin is sin, and does not change, and the use of the Gospel as a license to sin is roundly condemned in the bible as a greater sin yet.

it doesn’t change? Ever?

Hmm…so eating shellfish must still be a sin
Along with cutting your hair still being a sin
And shaving
And wearing clothing made of different fabrics
And attending Church while wearing glasses

 

[Epiphoskei]

I do not deny that verse, however Jesus first word in public ministry was "repent," and Jude speaks with derision over people who use the gospel to excuse or ignore sin.
"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"
These are harsh words. The church is without excuse when it does not weight them solemnly when considering what they preach.

it doesn’t change? Ever?

Hmm…so eating shellfish must still be a sin
Along with cutting your hair still being a sin
And shaving
And wearing clothing made of different fabrics
And attending Church while wearing glasses

No, it never changes, and on this we must stand, lest we do not know from what were we redeemed.

The law and sin were never directly congruent. If it is your contention that shellfish eating was sin, then yes, it still is sin, because right and wrong do not change.

Most of us just realize that the ceremonial law is about ritual cleanliness, which of course includes "no sin," since we have a holy God, but contains much else.

 

[DMagoh]

I do not deny that verse, however Jesus first word in public ministry was "repent," and Jude speaks with derision over people who use the gospel to excuse or ignore sin.
"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"
These are harsh words. The church is without excuse when it does not weight them solemnly when considering what they preach...

Awesome post brother!

 

[AngelusSax]

"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"

Like the immorality of a gay person pretending to be straight, or vice versa? Or the immorality of plucking out the speck from one's brother's eye before removing the log from one's own eye?
Look, the big "stumbling block" here, which divides the two camps, most likely, is on why homosexual acts were forbidden in the Scripture. One camp says it is because they are homosexual acts at all, the other says that it was about ritual cleanliness/pagan worship. There were many religious circles in the times of the writers of the Scriptures that practiced homosexual activity using STRAIGHT people to try to bring about the favor of pagan gods. This is why, the liberal camp says, homosexuality was condemned--it was seen as trying to gain the favor of a pagan god, which of course is idolatry, so the real issue, we claim, is idolatry, not homosexuality.

Homosexual acts were a symptom, not the cause, of the problem.

Now of course, nobody in either camp will be swayed from one side to the other. So here's an idea. Let's see if we can place enough faith and trust in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, to change the minds of those who are in error, whichever side that is.

Both sides, pray something like "Lord, if I am wrong, show me the truth in an undeniable way, please, so I may better serve You." Leave the other side out of that prayer. Only pray to have yourself corrected if you are wrong, and trust that any correction necessary will indeed come in an undeniable way, at some point, in God's perfect timing.

Can we do that? Will we?

 

[MrPirate]

I do not deny that verse, however Jesus first word in public ministry was "repent," and Jude speaks with derision over people who use the gospel to excuse or ignore sin.
"For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality"
These are harsh words. The church is without excuse when it does not weight them solemnly when considering what they preach.




No, it never changes, and on this we must stand, lest we do not know from what were we redeemed.

The law and sin were never directly congruent. If it is your contention that shellfish eating was sin, then yes, it still is sin, because right and wrong do not change.

Most of us just realize that the ceremonial law is about ritual cleanliness, which of course includes "no sin," since we have a holy God, but contains much else.

So what is a sin doesn’t ever change…unless it does...


I see….