John MacArthur on Homosexuality Series - Flawed arguments!

[archaeologist2]

in Ezekiel homosexuality is not mentioned as the sin of Sodom

now you are reading into the passage whatyou wantit to say. here is v.50:

'they were haughty and did an abomination before me'

as i said, God does NOT have to itemize the sins every time.

I'm stunned that people can escape all the things that are mentioned as the sin of Sodom in Ezekiel and they bypass and erase all those, and say homosexuality...something not even mentioned there. All this talk about me twisting Scriptures yet...well, it is so plainly obvious who truly is.

now youare looking for any loophole to gain your way. by your logic david, when confronted by nathan concerning his acts with bethsheba, did not commit adultery and murder because he did not name them in 2 sam. 12:13.

You defend by default

no i don't and now you are into the absurd and considered a troll.

The type of homosexual acts in Sodom don't have anything to do with general homosexuality.

you re on very dangerous ground withthis argument, and i would advicse you to stop pursuing it. homosexuality, in any form, is an abomination and declared sin by God. you cannot change that status.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Excellent defense archeologist

 

[davedjy]

now you are reading into the passage whatyou wantit to say. here is v.50:

'they were haughty and did an abomination before me'

as i said, God does NOT have to itemize the sins every time.

I can say that the sin was masturbation then = your same theory with major holes in it.


Fill in the blank, the sin was eating pork or wearing clothing of mixed fabrics...I must be right because "God doesn't itemize everytime".

now youare looking for any loophole to gain your way. by your logic david, when confronted by nathan concerning his acts with bethsheba, did not commit adultery and murder because he did not name them in 2 sam. 12:13.

As stated, even if they don't have to be named, the illustration of what happens proved the argument.
General homosexuality was never IMPLIED in Genesis with regards to Sodom and Gomorrah. Even old Jewish texts agree that they were destroyed for their vast economic crimes. Those were the IMPLIED abominations, there were many abominations!

no i don't and now you are into the absurd and considered a troll.

You defend the idea of what abominations is with Ezekiel and I'm saying you are defending similar ideology as John MacArthur, what does that have to do with trolling?
Ever hear of defending by default? I don't know why it is important anyways, but it doesn't make me a troll.

Debating you has nothing to do with trolling. Learn the difference. You are the one that has actually used ad hominems over and over again, so I do find this ironic.

you re on very dangerous ground withthis argument, and i would advicse you to stop pursuing it. homosexuality, in any form, is an abomination and declared sin by God. you cannot change that status.

Using adjectives like "dangerous" don't really send off red flags.
A loving monogamous same gender relationship is not sin, and you "cannot change the status" saying it is sin. It's two human beings that love each other, gender has nothing to do with love being wrong. I could say the anti-gay arguers are on dangerous ground...oh wait, they already are! they advocate PROVEN DANGEROUS programs like Exodus international!

 

[davedjy]

Excellent defense archeologist

Defense with major flaws and holes...

 

[Brennin]

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.

So what? Other ancient sources name the sin as rampant homosexuality, including Jude. The two sins are not mutually exclusive.

 

[archaeologist2]

I can say that the sin was masturbation then = your same theory with major holes in it.
Fill in the blank, the sin was eating pork or wearing clothing of mixed fabrics...I must be right because "God doesn't itemize everytime".

this is why we do not use just 1 verse in understanding the Bible or God's act.

General homosexuality was never IMPLIED in Genesis with regards to Sodom and Gomorrah. Even old Jewish texts agree that they were destroyed for their vast economic crimes. Those were the IMPLIED abominations, there were many abominations

ummm..yes it was-- 'man shall not lie with a man as he would with a women' (from memory). that kind of covers all the acts a man does with a woman.

Even old Jewish texts agree that they were destroyed for their vast economic crimes.

you are omitting something 'and an abomination' your desperate attempts to legitimize homosexuality are in vain and put you in deep trouble with God. i would be careful about continuing your defense of what God has called a sin.

God also warns about calling 'good evil and evil good' (i do not have the verses on me off hand) and there is NO place in the Bible which calls homosexuality ---good.

You defend the idea of what abominations is with Ezekiel and I'm saying you are defending similar ideology as John MacArthur, what does that have to do with trolling?

so I am NOt defending Marcarthur, he and i would be defending the truth. big difference as i do not care for macarthur, haven't read his works, he does not impress me, his school overcharges (in my opinion) etc. thus I AM NOT defending him BUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.

a very big difference.

Using adjectives like "dangerous" don't really send off red flags.

i am trying to be polite so the moderators do not crap their pants and send me another dozen notifications on my wording.

A loving monogamous same gender relationship is not sin, and you "cannot change the status" saying it is sin.

actually now you are saying you are greater than God and can change the status of homosexuality because it is 'loving, monogamous andwhatever else you want to callit.

now you have a problem because Hitler was monogamous, loving towads eva braun and his dogs so He must not have committed sin either.

or if you do not like that analogy, a pedopile sometimes have loving, monogamous relationships with their spouses, so their act of banging a child must not be sin because they have met your criteria.

IT is NOt your criteria that matters, it is God's as it is HIS way and HE declares what is sin, NOT man.

let me graphically illustrate this. the bodily function of a man doesn't work with another man. it is NOT designed to do that, there is NO positive results that come from this 'union'. it is all based upon one's evil desires.

the bodily function of a man fits with the bodily function of the women and many positive results happen if you stay within God's rules. the two were made to operate together not separately.

there is Nothing in biology, design or anything that makes homosexuality legitimate within God's rules or what ever.

NOW with that said, this does not give hetrosexuals permission to gay bash, or treat homosexuals as less than human. they are to be prayed for, helped when in trouble and treated as God would have them to be treated.

YET that caveat DOES NOT allow a practicing homosexual to be part of God's church. he may attend services but if He wants to be part of the body of Christ, then he must repent of his sins (homosexuality) and stopped practicing it.

GOD does not allow for sin to enter into His kingdom. homosexuality is sin and it is not decided for them at birth. that would be passing the responsibility of ones desires onto God and making it impossible for Him to judge all people.

sorry but homosexuality is a choice not something they are by genetic structure.

 

[davedjy]

So what? Other ancient sources name the sin as rampant homosexuality, including Jude. The two sins are not mutually exclusive.

Many Scholarly sources (including those who condemn homosexuality) do not use Jude 1 as a clobber passage.

 

[davedjy]

you are omitting something 'and an abomination' your desperate attempts to legitimize homosexuality are in vain and put you in deep trouble with God. i would be careful about continuing your defense of what God has called a sin.

Abomination is never named in that passage as "general homosexuality". Again, you use an ad hominem...this is not about me, please do not bring me into this.

God also warns about calling 'good evil and evil good' (i do not have the verses on me off hand) and there is NO place in the Bible which calls homosexuality ---good.

So by your same example I could say masturbation is sinful even though it isn't mentioned, and since it isn't called good it is a sin.

so I am NOt defending Marcarthur, he and i would be defending the truth. big difference as i do not care for macarthur, haven't read his works, he does not impress me, his school overcharges (in my opinion) etc. thus I AM NOT defending him BUT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.

a very big difference.

You guys have the same interpretation. I'm not saying you are in the MacArthur club, but whatever, the point is neither here nor there, you are both fundamentalists believing the same thing. It's irrelevant to continue on talking about his relation to you, anyways.

i am trying to be polite so the moderators do not crap their pants and send me another dozen notifications on my wording.

I'm staying respectful...so you would feel you need to moderate yourself is suspicious, but OK.

actually now you are saying you are greater than God and can change the status of homosexuality because it is 'loving, monogamous andwhatever else you want to callit.

I don't believe homosexuality to be condemned anymore than heterosexual cult prostitution.

now you have a problem because Hitler was monogamous, loving towads eva braun and his dogs so He must not have committed sin either.

He KILLED many people...GENOCIDE...the fact that you compare that to this speaks volumes. Murder is love?

or if you do not like that analogy, a pedopile sometimes have loving, monogamous relationships with their spouses, so their act of banging a child must not be sin because they have met your criteria.

1. Adultery (NOT MONOGAMOUS)
2. Non consensual/rape (sex with a child)


3. Need I go on? the comparison is beyond unreasonable!

let me graphically illustrate this. the bodily function of a man doesn't work with another man. it is NOT designed to do that, there is NO positive results that come from this 'union'. it is all based upon one's evil desires.

You don't have any proof that it is evil...and yes, the body is built that way for reproduction. Many couples engage in oral sex...yet was that what is was designed for? I can argue all non procreative sex, and sex purely for pleasure is not part of proper function as well then.

the bodily function of a man fits with the bodily function of the women and many positive results happen if you stay within God's rules. the two were made to operate together not separately.

There have been many positive results of monogamous same sex relationships, as well. None of it defies God's rules. We are told that there isn't any positive fruit that will come from a bad relationship, yet there is plenty of fruit that comes from many gay relationships.

there is Nothing in biology, design or anything that makes homosexuality legitimate within God's rules or what ever.

Much of God's creation shows patterns of homosexuality...patterns of sexual orientation prove God's plan for creation, so that point doesn't work, it isn't valid.

NOW with that said, this does not give hetrosexuals permission to gay bash, or treat homosexuals as less than human. they are to be prayed for, helped when in trouble and treated as God would have them to be treated.

Yet the religious oppression we see...such as the above comparisons can be seen as such...or perhaps MORE offensive, since gays are told they are going to hell. Eternal punishment for a sexual orientation is beyond ridiculous.

YET that caveat DOES NOT allow a practicing homosexual to be part of God's church. he may attend services but if He wants to be part of the body of Christ, then he must repent of his sins (homosexuality) and stopped practicing it.

Ironically, you say that gays shouldn't be bashed, yet being ex-communicated from a Church and told you are living in sin is what now?
It's amazing how some fail to see certain similarities

sorry but homosexuality is a choice not something they are by genetic structure.

I don't think you have the authority to judge genetics...as even the best scientists don't know if it is genetic. The only thing proven is it isn't PURELY genetic.

However, much proof is already shown as fact that homosexuality is unchangeable, and it isn't a choice. Every credible mental health foundation in America disagrees with your assertion. I will go with credible professionals over your uneducated religious opinion.

 

[Brennin]

Many Scholarly sources (including those who condemn homosexuality) do not use Jude 1 as a clobber passage.

Even if that were correct, it would mean nothing. I am extremely well read in Biblical and Early Christian scholarship. Jude associates Sodom and Gomorrah with the sin of homoeroticism.

 

[davedjy]

Even if that were correct, it would mean nothing. I am extremely well read in Biblical and Early Christian scholarship. Jude associates Sodom and Gomorrah with the sin of homoeroticism.

lol...so we are supposed to trust your interpretation because you "say so" over many who don't believe it is a clobber passage?

Where is the proof? I don't see anything in the passage to condemn general homosexuality. The male population of Sodom (physical beings) wanted to rape these angelic messengers (spiritual beings), aka the union of strange flesh. They wanted to RAPE them, what does this have to do with same gender relationships other than rape or at the least promiscuity?

 

[archaeologist2]

i am done with this thread as well. it is clear that God's word and God's ways to DO NOT rule this forum nor website and it has made christianity a mockery. one cannot allow sin to have its way and lead people into confusion about sin, God's words or their meanings. what so many people forget is that 2,000 years of scholarship has said what i and a few others have said--homosexuality is sin, an abomination and wrong.

this website is too weak to make a stand for Christ and continues to attack those who do take a stand for Jesus while turning a blind eye to those who want to pervert His words.

this place weakens the church not strengthens it and it needs to change. instead of bending over backwards to appease those in sin and who follow sin, they need to draw the line and tell them this is what God's word says if you do not like it, too bad.

the catering to the whiners and complainers is too much, you won't get this at the judgment seat of God, and you won't get Him to compromise His ways. if you want Jesus, give up your sin.

 

[davedjy]

i am done with this thread as well. it is clear that God's word and God's ways to DO NOT rule this forum nor website and it has made christianity a mockery. one cannot allow sin to have its way and lead people into confusion about sin, God's words or their meanings. what so many people forget is that 2,000 years of scholarship has said what i and a few others have said--homosexuality is sin, an abomination and wrong.

Not a proper defense, "appeal to tradition"...

this place weakens the church not strengthens it and it needs to change. instead of bending over backwards to appease those in sin and who follow sin, they need to draw the line and tell them this is what God's word says if you do not like it, too bad.

Discrimination weakens the Church, just as those who try to use the Bible to discriminate against blacks and have tried justifying slavery.

the catering to the whiners and complainers is too much, you won't get this at the judgment seat of God, and you won't get Him to compromise His ways. if you want Jesus, give up your sin.

We won't appeal to God, just man made doctrine.
Homosexuality is an orientation found in thousands of God's creations....THOUSANDS...appeal to tradition.

Those who use the Bible to discriminate against gays are doing harm to the Body of Christ.