John MacArthur on Homosexuality Series - Flawed arguments!

[davedjy]

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

Does Church History side with slavery being abolished? (a big "NO").
Does Church History side with killing women who have been raped that didn't cry out for help?
Does Church History side with women not having to be forced to marry their rape attacker?
Does Church History side with not being killed for having sex w/a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle?
Does Church History support women's rights to vote?

The list goes on and on, and I don't have the time to list it all. This argument is embarrassing at best.

So much for Church History, Reformed Chapin..that argument doesn't hold up under any close attention. I will take your liberal argument as a compliment, women's rights were won by liberals.

If your going to fight for Church History, then don't cherry pick...you have given into new enlightenment as well. My point has nothing to do with Church history, but with the historical context of the Scriptures, BIG difference.

 

[Zaac]

Does Church History side with slavery being abolished? (a big "NO").
Does Church History side with killing women who have been raped that didn't cry out for help?
Does Church History side with women not having to be forced to marry their rape attacker?
Does Church History side with not being killed for having sex w/a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle?
Does Church History support women's rights to vote?

The list goes on and on, and I don't have the time to list it all. This argument is embarrassing at best.

So much for Church History, Reformed Chapin..that argument doesn't hold up under any close attention. I will take your liberal argument as a compliment, women's rights were won by liberals.

If your going to fight for Church History, then don't cherry pick...you have given into new enlightenment as well. My point has nothing to do with Church history, but with the historical context of the Scriptures, BIG difference.

There's no argument. If gay people want to continue to go against God and unrepentantly fornicate, then by all means continue to do so.

But you can stop wasting your time trying to convince God's people that all homosexual sex is anything but sin.

 

[davedjy]

There's no argument. If gay people want to continue to go against God and unrepentantly fornicate, then by all means continue to do so.

But you can stop wasting your time trying to convince God's people that all homosexual sex is anything but sin.

That isn't an argument, Zaac.
...and you can stop wasting time trying to convince Gods people that homosexual sex isn't sin = same concept spelled out. The word fornication comes from "porneia", and only in more recent false lexicons has that actually included homosexuality. Homosexuality is never addressed as fornication in the Bible as porneia (fornication) IN ANY verse.

You can continue calling something a sin, but it doesn't make it so because "Zaac believes the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, so it must be a sin".

 

[Zaac]

That isn't an argument, Zaac.
...and you can stop wasting time trying to convince Gods people that homosexual sex isn't sin = same concept spelled out. The word fornication comes from "porneia", and only in more recent false lexicons has that actually included homosexuality. Homosexuality is never addressed as fornication in the Bible as porneia (fornication) IN ANY verse.

You can continue calling something a sin, but it doesn't make it so because "Zaac believes the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, so it must be a sin".

Homosexual sex is a sin. No church except the apostate ones affirm it. And you trying to disprove what Macarthur says about Sodom ain't gonna change that.

Geesh. Yall just need to get over it already . All homosexual sex is a sin. And trying to tear down and discredit anything that says it is will not make eit less sinful.

What sense does it make for anyone to think you really care about Macarthur going against the Bible when you're going against the Bible and trying to make homosexual sex not be a sin?

 

[davedjy]

Homosexual sex is a sin. No church except the apostate ones affirm it. And you trying to disprove what Macarthur says about Sodom ain't gonna change that.

Geesh. Yall just need to get over it already . All homosexual sex is a sin. And trying to tear down and discredit anything that says it is will not make eit less sinful.

What sense does it make for anyone to think you really care about Macarthur going against the Bible when you're going against the Bible and trying to make homosexual sex not be a sin?

More Biblical commentary by Zaac.

Post a verse where porneia is used (Greek word for forncation) in the Greek in conjunction with homosexuality, and you may have an argument. Everything you have posted so far has just been commentary.

Until then, you aren't making any credible argument. Calling churches apostate, without it being based upon any sound evidence is what I see here. Give a specific example of a church with pro-gay doctrine in the Bible, and the Scriptures calling it apostate...oh wait, you can't.

 

[HuntingMan]

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

Ditto

 

[HuntingMan]

That isn't an argument, Zaac.
...and you can stop wasting time trying to convince Gods people that homosexual sex isn't sin = same concept spelled out. The word fornication comes from "porneia", and only in more recent false lexicons has that actually included homosexuality.

Actually the overall picture from scripture shows that ALL sexual activity outside the union of a man and his wife is unlawful/sin.
Marriage is the ONLY place sex is supposed to take place....marriage is ONLY presented as a man and a woman in scripture.

Homosexuality is never addressed as fornication in the Bible as porneia (fornication) IN ANY verse.

Thats real nice.
Ever hear of a thing called a synonym ?
It doesnt matter if the word 'porneia' is used or not...the concept is the same....sex belongs in a union of a man and a woman.

If it is shown that men 'lying' with men as one lies with a woman is abomination/error then its not too hard to determine that God is against the act itself.

You can continue calling something a sin, but it doesn't make it so because "Zaac believes the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, so it must be a sin".

And your continuing to dismiss the facts and play some semantics game isnt going to nullify those facts....regardless of how many times you and your ilk come here to try to make gay sex ok with God....it isnt.

 

[HuntingMan]

Homosexuality
Under Construction

1.0
"abusers of themselves with mankind"

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
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 of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

It doesnt get any clearer than that. Regardless of what else is going on the ACT of men being with men sexually is 'shameful'.
For idolatry God gave them over to their perverse desires and vile affections, but vile these affections ARE REGARDLESS of how they came to be !

And also;

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(1Ti 1:10 KJV)

G733
(1Co 6:9 KJV)

G733
G733
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
Thayer Definition:
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G730 and G2845

which is from :


G2845
κοίτη
koitē
koy'-tay
From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive.


G730
ἄῤῥην, αρσην
arrhēn arsen
ar'-hrane, ar'-sane
Probably from G142; male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man.

The word speaks for itself. Its no wonder Strongs and Thayers both believe this word is about homosexuals...especially given the rest of scripture on the matter.


And here we have the Mosaic Law, GODS law, which forbids men having sex with men like one does a woman.

(Lev 18:22 KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(Lev 20:13 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Perfectly consistent...


2.0
Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

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 of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26


Affections
G3806
πάθος
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathos&#8221, that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
πάθος
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...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...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.


Homosexuality is a sin and therefore the gay christian needs to abstain from that sin. To WILLFULLY continue in it would seem to lead one into the predicament mentioned in Hebrews 10.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10)

Obviously based on the context of the chapter and the entire book this isnt speaking about merely sinning otherwise we'd ALL be in this position, but very clearly there is some point where our WILLFULL sin shows that we have trampled the Son underfoot and spit in the face of the Spirit of Grace.


3.0

Same passage, different part.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
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 of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

The context is clear enough that men gave up what was natural with the woman and turned to one another in their lusts.

As in my other thread we can easily conclude that while God DID turn them over to this sin seemingly for their idolatries, the ACTS themselves are shown as
-unclean
-dishonour
-vile
-unseemly
-error

Here are the definitions of these words (as shown above in red).
These show the overall TONE of the acts these are involved in;

unclean
G167
ἀκαθαρσία
akatharsia
ak-ath-ar-see'-ah
From G169; impurity (the quality), physically or morally: - uncleanness.

dishonor
G818
ἀτιμάζω
atimazō
at-im-ad'-zo
From G820; to render infamous, that is, (by implication) contemn or maltreat: - despise, dishonour, suffer shame, entreat shamefully.

vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

unseemly
G808
ἀσχημοσύνη
aschēmosunē
as-kay-mos-oo'-nay
From G809; an indecency; by implication the pudenda: - shame, that which is unseemly.

error
G4106
πλάνη
planē
plan'-ay
Feminine of G4108 (as abstraction); objectively fraudulence; subjectively a straying from orthodoxy or piety: - deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.

So we see in this part of the passage that God has given them up to this 'uncleaness'.

God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Regardless of whether they were involved in this act PRIOR to God turning them over to it or not it is quite CLEAR that these acts themselves are all of the things listed above else scripture is quite erroneous to begin with.
These acts being defined as men and woman leaving the natural and lusting after those of the same gender and carrying out those lusts into actions.

 

[Zaac]

More Biblical commentary by Zaac.

Post a verse where porneia is used (Greek word for forncation) in the Greek in conjunction with homosexuality, and you may have an argument. Everything you have posted so far has just been commentary.

Until then, you aren't making any credible argument. Calling churches apostate, without it being based upon any sound evidence is what I see here. Give a specific example of a church with pro-gay doctrine in the Bible, and the Scriptures calling it apostate...oh wait, you can't.

I'm not trying to make a credible argument. God hasn't called me to convince anyone that homosexual sex is fornication. His word says it is. You reject His word. That's your choice which He freely gives you the option of doing.

Any church affirming as not sin that which God says is sin is apostate.

So like I said, you keep right on trying to justify gay sex as non-sinful. God's people will keep right on calling it what it is: sin

You keep right on trying to discredit those who are in agreement with God's Word about homosexual sex being a sin. God's people will keep right on calling it what He calls it: SIN

So if you and a bunch of gay folks who have been together for 30 years want to go and fornicate in the streets or in the privacy of your bedrooms and say it's love, do so. God's people are still gonna call it what He calls it: SIN

 

[davedjy]

Actually the overall picture from scripture shows that ALL sexual activity outside the union of a man and his wife is unlawful/sin.

Biblical commentary, you don't have ANY proof that gender is the reason for the union.

Marriage is the ONLY place sex is supposed to take place....marriage is ONLY presented as a man and a woman in scripture.

As if gender defines the marriage. Verse and chapter that gender is the definition of the marriage to start, and is that standard.

Thats real nice.
Ever hear of a thing called a synonym ?
It doesnt matter if the word 'porneia' is used or not...the concept is the same....sex belongs in a union of a man and a woman.

Uh no, synonyms are not the same as a Biblical definition of where porneia is used. You might as well call masturbation porneia (which the Bible doesn't talk about, and there aren't any false lexicons even that list that is it).

If it is shown that men 'lying' with men as one lies with a woman is abomination/error then its not too hard to determine that God is against the act itself.

All purely sexual sins are repeated in Deuteronomy, ceremonial/pagan rituals are mentioned in Leviticus. Obviously that is why you cannot dismiss the fact that the OT says that both a man and a woman can't lie with a beast, and there isn't any verse against lesbians there. The ceremonial pagan sex combined rituals only included men.

And your continuing to dismiss the facts and play some semantics game isnt going to nullify those facts....regardless of how many times you and your ilk come here to try to make gay sex ok with God....it isnt.

In your religious opinion, and nothing more.


The Bible never says that marriage is only between a man and a woman, so you are the one actually playing games here.

 

[davedjy]

To Huntingman:


Posting false lexicons on arsenkoites will not make your debate point any better. The lexicon you posted relies on the false translation, and not the other way around.




What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

Nobody knows for certain.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"

* "Homosexual offenders:" The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).

* Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to "arsenokoitai." This passage referred to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.

* Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word "arsenokoitai:" This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai." 3

* Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

 

[davedjy]

To Huntingman:

Your whole debate point is really unsound.
Heterosexual AND homosexual lust is considered a "vile affection".

I'll leave it in Elaine's explanation which is best:



By Elaine

Author "Calling the Rainbow Nation Home"


What is “Natural”?
(Romans 1:21-31)

In Romans, we are introduced to a group of people who knowingly reject God. From this point on their lives begin to spiral downward and they commit all sorts of sins. One of which is turning away or “exchanging” what is “natural” to them for that which is “unnatural”.

Romans 1:21-31 (NAS - bold is my notation)

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.”



The problem of course is, what is “natural”? The word “natural” comes from two Greek words phusikos (Strong's #5446) and phusis (Strong's #5449). These words literally mean that which is a persons "natural disposition" and something that comes "instinctively" to them. In other words, it is who you are naturally; without reprogramming, counseling, or any other form of behavioral modification that attempts to change your behavior to that which society has deemed acceptable.

 

[IchoozJC]

To Huntingman:

Your whole debate point is really unsound.
Heterosexual AND homosexual lust is considered a "vile affection".

I'll leave it in Elaine's explanation which is best:



By Elaine

Author "Calling the Rainbow Nation Home"


What is “Natural”?
(Romans 1:21-31)

In Romans, we are introduced to a group of people who knowingly reject God. From this point on their lives begin to spiral downward and they commit all sorts of sins. One of which is turning away or “exchanging” what is “natural” to them for that which is “unnatural”.

Romans 1:21-31 (NAS - bold is my notation)

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.”



The problem of course is, what is “natural”? The word “natural” comes from two Greek words phusikos (Strong's #5446) and phusis (Strong's #5449). These words literally mean that which is a persons "natural disposition" and something that comes "instinctively" to them. In other words, it is who you are naturally; without reprogramming, counseling, or any other form of behavioral modification that attempts to change your behavior to that which society has deemed acceptable.

Hi, i'm kinda new to this whole justifying unacceptable lifestyles so I can live how I want to kind of biblical intrepratation, so I don't have much to share.

I just want to see if logic plays into your semantics game at all.

God created Adam and Eve, now unless you've got some underground, secret lexicon which says that Adam and Eve were actually two males, or two females, I'll just assume that you agree that they were male and female. He told them to be fruitful and mulitply. I'm sure he didn't mean fruitful as in do good deeds, or multiply as in be diligent in arithmetic. So we'll assume he meant to have sex and produce offspring.

That was his initial intentions for His creation, to multiply and fill the earth. Well, if homosexual lifestyle was ok with Him, and lets say Adam and Eve's children all decided to become homosexual, wouldn't that hamper God's plans? How would Jesus ever be born, if the human race never made it further than a few generations due to their desire for same sex relations? Can you see how that would kind of mess things up for God. So God tells them not to have same sex relations. Even though some did, ultimately there would always be a faithful remnant that would continue to multiply so that we, me and you all of us, could have the hope of a Savior to save us from this fallen state that we are in.

HM I think has said it best, using scripture to accurately describe God's best for us. I just took a different approach to it. Does it make sense, though?

Liberal homosexual "christians" should at least be happy that there were heterosexual generations before Jesus' time that remained faithful to God. Just think if one member in the lineage of Christ decided it was ok to have a gay, monogomous relationship. Uh oh, no salvation for humanity.

 

[Zaac]

Hi, i'm kinda new to this whole justifying unacceptable lifestyles so I can live how I want to kind of biblical intrepratation, so I don't have much to share.

I just want to see if logic plays into your semantics game at all.

God created Adam and Eve, now unless you've got some underground, secret lexicon which says that Adam and Eve were actually two males, or two females, I'll just assume that you agree that they were male and female. He told them to be fruitful and mulitply. I'm sure he didn't mean fruitful as in do good deeds, or multiply as in be diligent in arithmetic. So we'll assume he meant to have sex and produce offspring.

That was his initial intentions for His creation, to multiply and fill the earth. Well, if homosexual lifestyle was ok with Him, and lets say Adam and Eve's children all decided to become homosexual, wouldn't that hamper God's plans? How would Jesus ever be born, if the human race never made it further than a few generations due to their desire for same sex relations? Can you see how that would kind of mess things up for God. So God tells them not to have same sex relations. Even though some did, ultimately there would always be a faithful remnant that would continue to multiply so that we, me and you all of us, could have the hope of a Savior to save us from this fallen state that we are in.

HM I think has said it best, using scripture to accurately describe God's best for us. I just took a different approach to it. Does it make sense, though?

Liberal homosexual "christians" should at least be happy that there were heterosexual generations before Jesus' time that remained faithful to God. Just think if one member in the lineage of Christ decided it was ok to have a gay, monogomous relationship. Uh oh, no salvation for humanity.

IchoozJC, just you wait. They are gonna get you now. To those who want to know the truth, God's Word is clear.

 

[ReformedChapin]

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.

I'm asking you to post your own arguments...that's all. I want to know how much "knowledge" you actually have. I have seen enough liberal arguments on this subject and I haven't been pleased. Like I said I don't want this to be a debate on online articles.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Does Church History side with slavery being abolished? (a big "NO").

Church history has sided on both sides on the issue even among fundamentalist. The bible itself sides with slavery I would say, but not the perverse from known in America. It's a different form presented in the OT which was based on a culture of mass production and a non-existent economic system.

FYI: I am a male Latino...not a a crazy white dude looking to reinstate slavery.

Does Church History side with killing women who have been raped that didn't cry out for help?

Source...

Does Church History side with women not having to be forced to marry their rape attacker?

Source..

Does Church History side with not being killed for having sex w/a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle?

Source...

Does Church History support women's rights to vote?

Source...

The list goes on and on, and I don't have the time to list it all. This argument is embarrassing at best.

So much for Church History, Reformed Chapin..that argument doesn't hold up under any close attention. I will take your liberal argument as a compliment, women's rights were won by liberals.

If your going to fight for Church History, then don't cherry pick...you have given into new enlightenment as well. My point has nothing to do with Church history, but with the historical context of the Scriptures, BIG difference.

To me it seems that you're attacking the bible, not the church. So just come out and say it. The bible is a big mistake. Then we will both stop wasting our time.

 

[archaeologist2]

The problem of course is, what is “natural”? The word “natural” comes from two Greek words phusikos (Strong's #5446) and phusis (Strong's #5449). These words literally mean that which is a persons "natural disposition" and something that comes "instinctively" to them. In other words, it is who you are naturally; without reprogramming, counseling, or any other form of behavioral modification that attempts to change your behavior to that which society has deemed acceptable.

this is a good example of bad translational work and translating with an agenda. this quote implies that homsexuality is not a choice but one is born that way. well that would be wrong.

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

this is one of the keys. consistancy. God's word did not/does not change between the old and the new testaments. what was wrong prior to Jesus is still wrong today, sin is sin and it doesn't change with culture or when culture changes.

if it did then we are back to anarchy and chaos because there is no one standard. here is the catch:

NOT EVERYONE is going to LIKE THE STANDARD but there is a reason for it. in the homosexual case there God finds it an abomination, and i do not have my Bible here in front of me, and i think He does NOT give a reason. God does not have to give a reason why it is an abomination, He doesn't justify nor explain to us His reasons.

he other reason is it is abnormal and not the way God created sex to be done.. the normal way for sex is hetrosexual but because of the sin and corruption that entere into the world with the fall of man, that act was corrupted as well.

which is why we can call homsexuality sin and not of God, we have proof from the very beginning what was intended.

Posting false lexicons on arsenkoites will not make your debate point any better. The lexicon you posted relies on the false translation, and not the other way around.

please prove it is a false translation and i will ask you to post proof that your source is the correct one. {i cannot access the link though i know about the religous tolerance website.}

ONE thing that people forget about translators, lexicon writers and other men of their kind is that most were very Godly men who were led of God to write those books. The God factor has to be taken into consideration. if you don't then one is trying to lower the argument down to man v. man making it easier to contradict the word of God.

 

[dayhiker]

Well, if Adam and Eve had children that believed what many of the early church father believed then we wouldn't have a human race either. Men like Jerome felt that all sex was sinful and so celebracy became the desire state of dedicated Christians. Tho Jerome fianlly came to the conclusion that married sex was OK because it created a virgin, ie the new baby.

Since the largest precentage of a population that I've heard of being homosexual is 10 percent. It seems that Adam and Eve could have ten children. One would be homosexual and the other nine would have no problem continuing the race.

dayhiker

That was his initial intentions for His creation, to multiply and fill the earth. Well, if homosexual lifestyle was ok with Him, and lets say Adam and Eve's children all decided to become homosexual, wouldn't that hamper God's plans? How would Jesus ever be born, if the human race never made it further than a few generations due to their desire for same sex relations? Can you see how that would kind of mess things up for God. So God tells them not to have same sex relations. Even though some did, ultimately there would always be a faithful remnant that would continue to multiply so that we, me and you all of us, could have the hope of a Savior to save us from this fallen state that we are in.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Well, if Adam and Eve had children that believed what many of the early church father believed then we wouldn't have a human race either. Men like Jerome felt that all sex was sinful and so celebracy became the desire state of dedicated Christians. Tho Jerome fianlly came to the conclusion that married sex was OK because it created a virgin, ie the new baby.

Since the largest precentage of a population that I've heard of being homosexual is 10 percent. It seems that Adam and Eve could have ten children. One would be homosexual and the other nine would have no problem continuing the race.

dayhiker

Uh.... because people provide some statistics about homosexuality that doesn't mean that applies to the initial creation.

 

[davedjy]

this is a good example of bad translational work and translating with an agenda. this quote implies that homsexuality is not a choice but one is born that way. well that would be wrong.

Archaeologist, your supposed rebuttal of the article follows the same formula I see of other anti-gay posters for the past couple of years I've been debating on this subject. "The article has an agenda, so therefore it must be wrong". The Greek words on natural disposition (and instintcs) are what are being addressed, and that is indisputably true that gays and lesbians instinctively are attracted to the same sex.

this is one of the keys. consistancy. God's word did not/does not change between the old and the new testaments. what was wrong prior to Jesus is still wrong today, sin is sin and it doesn't change with culture or when culture changes.

My point has never been to say it is a "canceled out sin", I don't believe it ever was a sin...I believe same sex pagan orgy ritual


if it did then we are back to anarchy and chaos because there is no one standard. here is the catch:

NOT EVERYONE is going to LIKE THE STANDARD but there is a reason for it. in the homosexual case there God finds it an abomination, and i do not have my Bible here in front of me, and i think He does NOT give a reason. God does not have to give a reason why it is an abomination, He doesn't justify nor explain to us His reasons.

Have you ever looked into what "abomination" means in the Hebrew?

the other reason is it is abnormal and not the way God created sex to be done.. the normal way for sex is hetrosexual but because of the sin and corruption that entere into the world with the fall of man, that act was corrupted as well.

Yet, even if I was to believe that, then maybe you should argue sin defect as opposed to sin nature, just like people who are born deaf or retarded.

which is why we can call homsexuality sin and not of God, we have proof from the very beginning what was intended.

Yet homosexuality is an orientation found in much of God's creation, so how are you to decide what God intended?

please prove it is a false translation and i will ask you to post proof that your source is the correct one. {i cannot access the link though i know about the religous tolerance website.}

What do you mean you cannot access the link? The proof was already posted, arsenokoitai is a compound word, and there has been much speculation as to what the word means. You don't make a factual claim about the meaning of a word if it is just a guess.

ONE thing that people forget about translators, lexicon writers and other men of their kind is that most were very Godly men who were led of God to write those books. The God factor has to be taken into consideration. if you don't then one is trying to lower the argument down to man v. man making it easier to contradict the word of God.

Arsenokoitai from 1 Cor 6:9 was universally translated as those who touch at the time of Martin Luther. That is just ONE example of why you cannot argue anything about lexicon writers.


Read all the ways that word alone have been translated by "Godly men" (inconsistent translations), and you will see.