Have you signed the Manhattan Declaration?

[Wildcat48]

1) And hundreds of other Christians, including many learned, devout Biblical scholars, agree there is controversy over the translation of those passages. And history disagrees with your method of biblical translation and interpretation(your eisegesis as it is). You stand in stark contrast with the history of the Church as far as the method of biblical interpretation. Literalism is neither biblical or effective.

2) I'm not contradicting Paul. I'm contradicting you. Instead, I'm making a thoughtful effort to try and understand Paul's message. You, however, read your own thoughts into the text (again condemned in Revelation, yet you still cast stones).

3) Of course he refers to Genesis, as Genesis talks about male and female unity. It's only logical to reply to the Pharisees with both a verse addressing heterosexual marriage and to use Scripture, since they were clearly learned men. It still doesn't take away from the fact that the Pharisees question asks "specifically" about man divorcing his wife. To say otherwise is to lie about Scripture and deny it's meaning for your own interpretation. The same sin of which you accuse me.

4) With Genesis: Once again, your either/or fallacy arises. Can you refute this? Otherwise your other arguments are meaningless.

5) Accuse me of the same thing I just asserted you were doing? You still don't understand that I'm merely offering another, legitimate interpretation of that passage. You can't refute, so you try to add to Scripture to prove your point. And I pointed it out.

6) You do realize there are at least 8 types of marriages/relationships exhibited in the Bible? And that some scholars assert there examples of homo-erotic relationships in Scripture as well?

6) Here's what happening in Romans 1:
The entire passage is discussing Christians who left the church (most likely previously Gentile pagans), converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities in the context of Pagan fertility rituals. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. The wording of "gave them over" clearly implies the transistion to something foreign or new (and this is backed up by the correct grammatical understanding of the phrase that is translated as "gave them over").This implies that they normally only engaged in heterosexual sex, but in the context of their idolatrous worship, we see them given over to what is unnatural. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.

Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion" since we now have a greater, clearer understanding of human sexuality. The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's natural orientation and a vigorous denunciation of Pagan idolatry.

6) As for your last sentence, I already refuted that argument. Please read more carefully.

7) What do you think homosexuality is? Do you think people can be naturally oriented towards the same sex?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wildcat48,
I have no interest in exchanging opinions with you. I have never seen such a load of rubbish presented in support of the sin of same sex relations.
You seem unable to address either all of what I write or even the whole sentences of scripture. You pick out parts of a sentence and then propose something contrary to the whole sentence.

You refer to ‘heterosexual’ marriage thus incorrectly and deceptively implying there may be other sorts of marriage. Marriage in the Bible is always and only man and woman. Either show some scripture that countenances marriage as other than man and woman or leave out ‘heterosexual’, its only there to confuse and deceive.
The Genesis text is about whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Are you only looking at part of the sentence?

6) You do realize there are at least 8 types of marriages/relationships exhibited in the Bible? And that some scholars assert there examples of homo-erotic relationships in Scripture as well?

Irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Either please provide the scriptures and reasoning if it is same sex relations or leave it out of the debate.

It is difficult to accept your proposal that this passage of Romans is discussing Christians specifically when it begins “against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” Its says ‘all’ ‘men’ I suggest its specifically not as you claim.
It doesn’t mention pagan fertility rites as you claim. Leviticus does and says same sex is what pagans do. So same sex relations is what Pagans do, it is a pagan activity. But that’s revelation from Leviticus rather than Romans 1.
Furthermore the text says they were given over to idolatry, also to vile affections men with men instead of the natural with women and also to the other sins. There is no indication of something new, that’s eisegesis on your part again, from scripture we know its not new.
The text translated ‘gave them up’, ‘gave them over’ to continues to things they ought not do.
The text says men with men instead of women against the natural is error. So its actually telling us same sex is error.

This implies that they normally only engaged in heterosexual sex,

It says men with men instead of women is error which in your terms means homosexual sex is error.

This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.

But it doesn’t say that, it says men with men instead of women is error and un-natural.


The passage tells us same sex relations are wrong the very foundation you are using to misunderstand the passage.

7) What do you think homosexuality is? Do you think people can be naturally oriented towards the same sex?

What do you think men with men instead of women is? Homosexual or heterosexual.

No, you come up with some scriptures which countenance same sex relations or your argument is baseless.

 

[Wildcat48]

/Sigh. I have addressed almost every section you have written and have looked not only at the entire verses you cite, but the surrounding verses and the context, and the history, in which they're written. You've relied on Biblical literalism only. You accusing me as such is called projection. You're projecting your failing arguments onto me.

I have clearly stated my opinions, and you have failed to refute any of them. Absolutely and utterly failed. I originally merely asserted that there were other valid interpretations of Paul's writing that did not prohibit same-sex marriages as we're discussing today in modern times and explained that Scripture is unclear on with those verses. Then I explained that to charge me with the duty to show that there clear verses showing same-sex marriage is both illogical and untenable based on my original assertion and the historical/cultural context of Paul's writing. Basic rational debate must not be a required skill in most educations.

By the way, it's Matthew where the Pharisees ask Christ if a man may divorce his wife for any reason. Regardless, you're proving my point.

1) Standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24
2) Polygynous marriage: Genesis 4:19 (Lamech), Esau, Jacob, Ashur, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, and so on and so forth.
3) Levirate Marriage: Ruth 4 and Onan's "sin"
4) A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: Genesis 16
5) A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: Genesis 21:10
6) A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31-1-18
7) A male rapist and his victim: Deutoronomy 22:28-29
8) A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4
Clearly substantiated. Homoerotic relations can potentially be "seen" with David and Jonathan/Ruth and Naomi, though as I asserted earlier, I'm not necessarily pushing those interpretations nor do I logically need them to prove my point.

You said,"...against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” Its says ‘all’ ‘men’ I suggest its specifically not as you claim." No, it says against all the godlessness. Not all men. You should re-read what you post.

Of course Paul doesn't mention same-sex relations in the letter. He's writing a letter to a group of people in a historical time in which that is understood to be occuring. Why would he need to say it specifically when he is talking about pagan idolatry that everyone in that church was clearly familiar with? However, if he wanted to prohibit same-sex marriages, he would have explicitly said that, as there was no concept of an idea at the time. If you want to take the passage out of context, fine, but don't miscontrue it as truth. You don't like it, but you can't refute it. There's a difference between saying I'm wrong and proving me wrong, a nuance you've failed to grasp during this debate.


Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Please read that. The phrase "For this cause" clearly refers to an antecedent cause, i.e. idolatry. God then, because of this idolatry, gave them up to un-natural affections. If you can't correctly read the Scripture, don't quote it.

You still refuse to answer whether homosexuality is innate. It's convenient for you to deny that. I do know what homosexual relations are, exactly what you stated. However, you think they can't be natural and are freely chosen. I'm challenging that and showing you how Paul's writings can be interpreted in a manner that is not contradictory.

I have used sound reason, fair exegesis, and Scripture to support my points, as well as refute yours, which is clearly more than "just my opinion". You've done nothing but quote Scripture out of its historical/cultural context and dodge my refutations.

My argument sits on a strong base: that of Scripture, exegesis, and reason.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wildcat48,

I originally merely asserted that there were other valid interpretations of Paul's writing that did not prohibit same-sex marriages as we're discussing today in modern times and explained that Scripture is unclear on with those verses.

This is still heresay. Its clear that Romans 1 alone condemns men with men instead of women, yet you refer to same sex marriages when marriage is described as man an woman. So no, obviously the other ‘interpretations’ are error unless there is some countenance presented. This for many is the sort of destructive false teaching described in Galatians 1 and 2 Peter 2.

By the way, it's Matthew where the Pharisees ask Christ if a man may divorce his wife for any reason. Regardless, you're proving my point.

and you can see I have referred to Matthew 19 in which Jesus refers to the Genesis text. It was the reason the Pharisees were asking about which you still haven’t acknowledged.

Clearly substantiated.

Not really, for example the marriage in Deuteronomy 22 was between the man and the woman he raped. None are specified same sex.

Homoerotic relations can potentially be "seen" with David and Jonathan/Ruth and Naomi, though as I asserted earlier, I'm not necessarily pushing those interpretations nor do I logically need them to prove my point.

Well no they can’t because its all assumption. David slept with a woman, he merely loved, embraced and kissed Jonathan, one would have to be looking at the story with a preconceived agenda to be able to suggest a sexual relationship.

You said,"...

against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” Its says ‘all’ ‘men’ I suggest its specifically not as you claim." No, it says against all the godlessness. Not all men. You should re-read what you post.

No, I suggest you read both what I wrote and the Bible text. I said ‘all’ in quotes and ‘men’ in quotes, I did not say ‘all men’ All the ungodliness of men therefore must mean all that is described is ungodly and is what men who turn away from God do with no indication of any exception You have suggested it doesn’t apply to all people in all circumstances when it comes to the men with men instead of women, which is assumption.

Of course Paul doesn't mention same-sex relations in the letter.

So what are men with men instead of women if not same sex relations?

However, if he wanted to prohibit same-sex marriages,

There is no such thing as same sex marriages in the Bible. Show some evidence for it or stop using it. It just makes your whole subsequent argument suspect.

he would have explicitly said that, as there was no concept of an idea at the time

He has explicitly said marriage is man and woman (Eph 5) and because of sexual immorality each man should have his own wife or celibate (1 Corinthians 7) and homosexual offenders shall not inherit the Kingdom (1 Cor 6) All you are doing is telling me you don’t accept the meaning of what is written because you don’t accept the meaning of what is written. You need to come up with some scripture to countenance what these scriptures condemn and exclude.

As I said I am not interested in an opinion that cant acknowledge what is and what isnt written. If you want my opinion you are introducing the false teaching mentioned in 2 Peter 2 and Galatians 1 which Christians should avoid. You are exchanging the truth for a lie.

The text describes the unnatural affections is men with men instead of women, idolatry is anything idolised apart from God, something you are doing as well by proposing sin that is condemned with no scriptural countenance.

All you do is dispute the word of God. How offensive to God.

 

[Wildcat48]

1) And you take the "men with men" verse out of its both textual and historical context. How repugnant to the Scripture is that?

2) Um...the reason the Pharisees were asking was to see if Jesus understood the Jewish Law on divorce (to test him), which is not mentioned in Genesis. False assumption.

3) I never said they were same sex. You said that my claim that there were 8 or more types of marriages/relationships was unsubstantiated. I substantiated. My point was that the type of marriage between a man and a woman today was not necessarily normative during Biblical times or understood in the same capacity. Interesting parallel, eh?

4) One could view the David and Jonathan story with the proconceived notion that homosexual relations aren't there as well. Jonathan also stripped infront of David, and Saul said to David, "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time". David's also describes Jonathan's love as more wonderful than a woman's, and Hebrew culture (Middle Eastern culture in general at the time) really had no concept of platonic inter-sex relationships, so to describe Jonathan's as greater than a woman's is interesting in its usage. It makes for an interesting analysis. I don't really think either side has a really convincing argument one way or the other.

5) Of course there are not same-sex marriages in the Scripture. I never said there were. I stated that 1) Paul and others in that time have no concept of sexual orientation that we scientifically understand today 2) If put into its historical/cultural context, it can be seen that Paul's preoccupation is not with same-sex encounters, but with idolatrous worship. I'm arguing that based on a historically, culturally, and grammatically accurate understanding of Paul's writing, our modern understanding of sexual orientation and the possibility of loving, committed, life-long commitments between two people of the same sex is not necessarily prohibited. Many things we have now did not exist during the time of the writing of Scripture, and many things that existed then don't exist now. You can't legitimately impose limits on everything because it didn't exist in Biblical times. Do you support female teachers in church or anything else, when those are supposedly prohibited?

6) Regardless of your quotations, your assertion was that it refered to all men. Understood grammatically, men can be used in the universal sense, or it can be used as (including both genders) refering to what the previous text is discussing: idolatry. You are interpreting Paul as writing down rules like commandments, which he is not doing. He is pastoring to specific concerns in the Roman churches. Your assumption is wrong, and the vast majority of Biblical scholars agree. It's certainly not my opinion.

7) Once again, you fail to grasp basic argumentation. Ephesians 5 first makes no mention of homosexuality, and once again refers back to the Genesis passage, yet you conveniently make it an exclusive passage. Either/or fallacy again and a fallacious argument from silence. This makes your preceding arguments "suspect" to use your kind words.

8) The translations of "homosexual" and "the effeminate" in 1 Corinth. 6 are exceedingly poor and most likely wrong (as many good modern translations have noted). The word homosexual was not used in the Bible until 1958 and is clearly an addition to the Scripture. In the KJV, the text goes as such: "...nor adulterers nor the effeminate...". The Greek word translated as "effeminate" is malakoi in the plural. Almost all modern Greek scholars assert that the word specifically refers to male/boy prostitutes that existed in Roman/Greek culture. "Effeminate" is an inherent translation bias in the text and not grammatically sound. As for "homosexual offenders",the Greek word for homosexual behavior (not orientation, as they had no concept of it) is paiderasste. The word actually used by Paul is arsenokoitai, a word not seen in any other texts before the time and not in the Bible again except for in Timothy. It's an invention by Paul to refer to a specific issue. The most likely meaning of Paul's word is "male sex slave traders". This is bolstered by such usage of arsenokoitai in slightly later Greek writings like the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum, where the usage is clear. It is also worthwhile to point out that the term comes right after the word for "male/boy prostitute". There's symmetry (grammatical parallelism, something that Paul uses often in his writings, as was common in much of the Greek world) between the two definitions that's hard to deny. Along with the rest of the list, the common theme between every single word in the list is the connontation of either abuse of themselves or others and false worship.

If you want my opinion, you are guilty of the same sin that you are accusing me of. Not only that, but you fail to follow Paul's command to test everything and keep that which is good by not testing Scripture and trying to discern the meaning. You use the reader-response method of interpretation: here's what I read, and here's what I feel it means, without any thought to the context of the writing. You are failing to follow Paul's command in a thoughtful analysis of Scripture, but you are also refusing to use the reason God gave you even attempt to do so. How offensive to God.

 

[JasonV]

Wildcat48, it is good to have you around. So nice to see sound Biblical scholarship being presented here, rather than biased opinions and mid-twentieth century ideas being passed off as truth.

 

[Polycarp1]

http://www.christianforums.com/t6830556/#post43388522

 

[General Mung Beans]

I have signed it just now.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wildcat48

1) And you take the "men with men" verse out of its both textual and historical context. How repugnant to the Scripture is that?

That is not the point, as far as I am concerned I don’t take it out of context and neither does the Anglican Communion, the RC church and most of Christianity. Ref Lambeth 1.10. you simply deny it so it will no doubt be up to God to decide. have no scripture


Indeed you take it out of context now by quoting men with men instead of men with men instead of with women. The passage says
ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄῤῥενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες
the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Key points from the passage concerning this…
begins
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
so that men are without excuse.
their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.
The men and women did not abandon their natural relations which is eisegises, but abandoned natural relations. We know what natural relations are because Jesus NT teaching affirms God’s creation purpose for man and woman in union, or celibacy. One has to ignore huge amounts of the rest of the Bible to be able to legalistically twist this passage. The passage starts by saying what is to follow is wickedness. All that follows is called wickedness throughout the Bible, and God gave them over with their darkened hearts to idolatry, and to same sex relations, and to all kinds of malice and evil acts which ought not be done.

2) Um...the reason the Pharisees were asking was to see if Jesus understood the Jewish Law on divorce (to test him), which is not mentioned in Genesis. False assumption.

Not if I fail to acknowledge that the text says that like you fail to acknowledge the text also says in the beginning he made them male and female; it was for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
Tell me, what was God’s purpose in creating male and female for this reasonm if you are proposing man and man together?

3) I never said they were same sex.

I didn’t say you did, I asked you for scripture to substantiate the false unsupportable ‘same sex ‘marriage’ phrase you used and you gave me 8 types of man woman relations.
The more the debate continues the more the evidence stacks up against same sex relations. You can spot 8 different types of man woman relations but none to support what you claim.

4) One could view the David and Jonathan story with the proconceived notion that homosexual relations aren't there as well.

Nor space aliens.
However as loving, kissing and embracing are throughout the Bible and in this story distinct from sexual acts and when sexual activity is described with David sleeping with a woman one can deduce that neither aliens nor homosexual activity took place.

Middle Eastern culture in general at the time) really had no concept of platonic inter-sex relationships, so to describe Jonathan's as greater than a woman's is interesting in its usage. It makes for an interesting analysis. I don't really think either side has a really convincing argument one way or the other.

Love isnt sex, David slept with a woman, Jesus loved the world so much He gave His life and many of His disciples have loved Him so much as to die.

5) Of course there are not same-sex marriages in the Scripture. I never said there were.

I didn’t say you did, I indicated there is no such thing in God’s purposes as we can see from scripture.

1) Paul and others in that time have no concept of sexual orientation that we scientifically understand today

This is a massive statement of disbelief and lack of faith. Paul never claims that anyway, Paul claims he received what he preaches not from man but from the risen Lord Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1) and not to accept any other teaching. Jesus only ever affirms the OT scriptures and fulfils them, if you are saying you trust science more then where is your faith?
There are genes that have been identified as causing disease, yet that doesn’t mean God wants people to be diseased any more than he wants them to commit sexual immorality. If the propensity for sexual desires is inborn then under your thinking adultery would be natural and alright. No there isn’t even any consensus of scientific agreement as to any certain genetic or innate sexual orientation.
The Bible is the record of placing faith and trust in God and His word, not the world and human understanding.

7) Once again, you fail to grasp basic argumentation. Ephesians 5 first makes no mention of homosexuality, and once again refers back to the Genesis passage, yet you conveniently make it an exclusive passage. Either/or fallacy again and a fallacious argument from silence. This makes your preceding arguments "suspect" to use your kind words.

Sorry I cant really discuss this with you we have nothing of faith in common. Ephesians 5 reaffirms God’s purpose for man and woman, how many times do you need to read and hear it before you get the message that homosexual is a concept contrary to God’s purpose.

8) The translations of "homosexual" and "the effeminate" in 1 Corinth. 6

The translations are fine in all major Bible translations, why don’t you write a gay bible of your own if you don’t like the Holy Bible.

And you still haven’t provided ANY scripture to countenance same sex relations, all you have done is dispute what the Bible says and most people recognise the Bible means.
I have a non-Christian lesbian friend who recognises according to the Bible marriage can only be man and woman. How come a so called non-believer can believe more than a so called believer?

 

[Wildcat48]

To Wildcat48
as far as I am concerned

And cleary that's all you're concerned with. It's certainly not sound Biblical exegesis. If you want to say that I stand against the tide of Christian tradition, then I accept that. But have failed to prove how my analysis stands against Scripture.

Convenient of you to leave out verses 23 and 25 in the passage you quoted by the way. For the benefit of our readers, I'll point them out:

[22] ...Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24]
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26]
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,... (RSV translation)

Leaving out the passages does allow you to ignore that Paul is discussing Pagan idolatry (as I clearly pointed out) and saying that because of this, God gave them up to something unnatural. The focus isn't on homosexuality. I might argue that removing/selectively quoting Scripture to prove a point is the ultimate form of eisegesis. Your accusations ring empty now...

God's purpose for creating them male and female was so that humans may populate the world. It doesn't mean marriage itself is mostly for procreation, however. It's clear from Scripture that it is not.

By the way, in reference to your David comment, having sex with a woman doesn't make you not gay. Lots of gay men have had sex with women. It doesn't change their orientation. Regardless, I stated that I didn't think this argument was all that persuasive...

My statement is clearly not one of disbelief or a lack of faith. I have faith that God has given us reason to understand his world, and science and history won't contradict Scripture (as it's the truth). And are you kidding? There is quite a scientific consensus that humans have an innate sexuality. Every major medical and psychological association in the world states this as fact. They also know that homosexuality is not a pathology (disease or genetic in your words). Why does your faith have to require to throw out reason to believe, when mine is affirmed by reason? Do you use a physician for healing when the Bible clearly states there are those who can heal? Do you see spiritual healers for your health? You clearly don't trust science. Or is empirical evidence only useful when it fits your agenda? Lord, have mercy...

You and I have a lot in common. Faith in Scripture, faith in Christ, and faith in God. What we don't have in common, however, is the use of reason. You prefer to throw out a gift of God in understanding the world, while I make use of it to more fully understand God's creation.

I don't have to write a "gay" Bible, per your definition, as there are already a lot of those. Most modern translations have corrected the grammatical usage of malakoi and arsenokoitai. You're best defense against my grammatical analysis are grade school insults, which is interesting (and quite revealing actually). You still never even addressed the grammatical analysis of Paul's words...

Your friend doesn't believe because people have used Scripture to push out outcasts and promote prejudice and bias (the exact opposite of what Christ did). I wonder who will be culpable for this disbelief (1 Corinth. 9:16)? I'm afraid it will be us in the church. And, clearly, you are the one in the right seat to judge how much belief I have (as you have usurped it from God apparently).

Amidst the personal attacks on my faith/beliefs and the accusations of offending God (I'm quite suprised you're willing to elevate yourself to God's status so as to know his thoughts on my beliefs), I'm respectfully removing myself from this debate and stepping out as humbly as is now possible. I won't be commenting anymore here, as it is not fair to me and to the charity of debate to be insulted for my side of the debate. You've failed to refute any of my arguments (which you clearly don't understand the nuance of anyway), and so resolve to win with less than Christ like behavior by telling me to "go write a gay Bible" and denigrating my beliefs (which, as they are my faith, are not relevant to the discussion and a personal attack). When the conversation devolves to such silliness as those comments, then there is no point in continuing it. Thank you for the debate brightmorningstar. I praise God that people like us may worship together despite our differences and give glory to God in the highest.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wildcat48,

By the way, in reference to your David comment, having sex with a woman doesn't make you not gay.

Sorry? What David comment was mine? What is a man having sex with a woman if not ‘not gay’ Is it gay?

Lots of gay men have had sex with women.

So what is a bisexual in GBLT then if not gay?

It doesn't change their orientation.

What orientation?

There is quite a scientific consensus that humans have an innate sexuality.

There is consensus that there is no proof and nor would it make any difference. Is there something inborn that causes paedophile and adulterous desires and orientation? Are these things wrong and if there was would you condone them because they are in born?

Every major medical and psychological association in the world states this as fact.

Wrong! The APA suggests there is but does not claim as fact and NARTH doesn’t.

Why does your faith have to require to throw out reason to believe,

It doesn’t, I can see the human species has two sexes for sexual reproduction, one is obviously dysfunctional. Anyone can use their God given reasoning to see that. That’s what Romans is describing, where God has made it plain and where thinking becomes futile.

Do you use a physician for healing when the Bible clearly states there are those who can heal? Do you see spiritual healers for your health? You clearly don't trust science.

Hello? Are you dreaming again? You seem to be more concerned with me than the truth of God’s word. I know that science has provided great benefits in health, I also know God heals. No idea what you are on about.

You and I have a lot in common. Faith in Scripture, faith in Christ, and faith in God.

Evidently not. You also said I am attacking your faith. Remember Lambeth 1.10 says same sex realtions are contrary to scripture, it is you who is saying otherwise so as an Anglican the only one who could be attacking the faith is you. We seem to have no common faith in Christ. One cant have faith in Christ if one doesn’t believe and seek to follow what He taught. This is what He said (John 14) I sought faithful man/woman marriage or celibacy, now I seek to avoid adultery. My life is no longer my own, I am bought at a price, I seek not to be greedy, slanderous, to love others and serve.
You are saying same sex relations are ok but where does God’s word countenance that so that you may have faith in Christ? All you have done so far is tell me the scriptures that exclude and condemn same sex relations don’t because you know better.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Romans 1 begins by referring to the wrath of God against all ungodliness, describes people not retaining the knowledge of God and God giving people over to idolatry, describes God giving people over to same sex relations, and describes God giving people over to all kinds of wickedness such as envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, gossip, slander etc.

How can one pick any of those sins mentioned as retaining the knowledge of God?

Therefore Romans 1 isn’t just about pagan idolatry, same sex relations is just one example of what happens when people turn from God and become foolish with darkened hearts, this is what it says. It also says
“they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. “
Of course same sex relations are worshiping created things rather than the creator because it dishonours ones body which is created man and woman. Man and woman is what God created and as to be temples of the Holy Spirit. (i1 Cor 6) Believers are to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice. (Romans 12)