John MacArthur on Homosexuality Series - Flawed arguments!

[davedjy]

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.

1. God created Adam and Eve and told them to be fruitful and multiply...yet I don't see how that has anything to do with those who are gay, unless you somehow want to convince me that is a current day commandment to everyone living. Paul was celibate, and believed he was called to a life of celibacy.

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?

You don't decide whether you want to become homosexual. Nobody chooses to be gay OR straight. So your theory here really washes out.
It's sort of like asking "what if everyone wanted to become a fireman? then we wouldn't have doctors, lawyers, teachers, police officers, cooks, road workers, social workers, construction workers, and we would be ruined" = your same theory in a question with holes in it. However, occupations can at least be chosen, so even that doesn't compare as an example completely.

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.

For whatever reason, it is agreed upon that no more than 3% of the population has ever been gay or lesbian. That means that it leaves 97% of the population to breed/reproduce. Why even ask such a question, when for whatever reason we don't have that problem?

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.

Speculation at best...nobody decides who is gay or not...if the person was truly gay, do you think they would've engaged in heterosexual sex, it is agreed upon that homosexuality as the orientation is not a choice, just the sex acts.

No, because as stated...gays, bisexuals, transgender and lesbians have never, ever threatened humanity with their existence. We have always
been a minority of the population, so there goes that theory.

 

[archaeologist2]

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.

then maybe you should listen. it is quite clear that the author believes thathomosexuality is not a choice nor a preference but comes with birth. anybody and everybody can say what the 'greek words' or 'hebrew words' mean, doesn't mean they got the right meaning for the right context.

plus most people do not question their sexuality until their teen years which rules out homosexualty coming at birth. you and your supporters keep trying to stretch the truth or manipulate it to fit your desires.

You don't decide whether you want to become homosexual. Nobody chooses to be gay OR straight. So your theory here really washes out.

yes everyone does choose and it is clear you have no conception oif the evil tht influences people. i am beginning to develope a theory that the choice is clearly demon motivated then once the choice has been made, the people are deceived into thinking they were born that way, for the very reasons you state.

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

don't remember off hand but i wouldn't take your definition of it.

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.

no. sin is sin and until one repents they desire to do sin. homosexuality is NOt a defect but a very grave sin.

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

do you actually think evil can't manipulate animals? we do not look to the animals to find out what God intended we look to the Bible and we get the answer. you are looking in the wrong places for your answers.

What do you mean you cannot access the link

just what i said--it didn't work.

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.

i do not take yours or any secular person's word for what a biblical word means. you do not have the keys to understand what God meant. the bible is very clear on that.

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.

no credible reference to back this up and i am sure your reference is r.c.c. not christian.

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

everything you say omits certain things: God's promise to keep His word intact till the very end; 2. the guidance of the Holy Spirit. you keep making charges that these were men acting on their own when they did their work, sorry but that would not be true.; 3. 2,000 years of scholarship has basically agreed on the meanings and it is always the fringe groups who want their sin and salvation who cry foul.

you have no case.

 

[davedjy]

then maybe you should listen. it is quite clear that the author believes thathomosexuality is not a choice nor a preference but comes with birth. anybody and everybody can say what the 'greek words' or 'hebrew words' mean, doesn't mean they got the right meaning for the right context.

...so you agree that translations may be incorrect? what about the "godly men" that translated the Bible inconsistently translation to translation? why do you trust them when they have been inconsistent?

plus most people do not question their sexuality until their teen years which rules out homosexualty coming at birth. you and your supporters keep trying to stretch the truth or manipulate it to fit your desires.

That does not rule out homosexuality coming at birth! Sexuality is developmental, ever hear of puberty?

yes everyone does choose and it is clear you have no conception oif the evil tht influences people. i am beginning to develope a theory that the choice is clearly demon motivated then once the choice has been made, the people are deceived into thinking they were born that way, for the very reasons you state.

I have never heard of a properly exorcised gay or lesbian. I will ask you to provide proof of this. I have heard of many examples of gays and lesbians not being successfully exorcised.

don't remember off hand but i wouldn't take your definition of it.

What is my definition? did I even claim to have a definition? I asked you to look it up, since you don't believe anything I say.
Look up the word "toevah", perhaps on the Blue Letter Bible site, or one that you "trust", lol.

no. sin is sin and until one repents they desire to do sin. homosexuality is NOt a defect but a very grave sin.

You have yet to prove that, but go on.

do you actually think evil can't manipulate animals? we do not look to the animals to find out what God intended we look to the Bible and we get the answer. you are looking in the wrong places for your answers.

What would the point of evil manipulating animals? I don't look to the animals, I gave theology from the Bible, but I also use support of everything around me, and that doesn't have to include the Bible in every example!

just what i said--it didn't work.

I provided the evidence that I posted, which you didn't need to click the link to receive. You can google yourself, to find out if I am lying or not, about the compound word.

i do not take yours or any secular person's word for what a biblical word means. you do not have the keys to understand what God meant. the bible is very clear on that.

The Bible is very clear, is not a valid debate point. Many fundamentalists argue that point...it doesn't make it valid.

no credible reference to back this up and i am sure your reference is r.c.c. not christia

I've posted many credible references, saying something isn't credible doesn't invalidate it in any way. Read and educate yourself before trying to debate me when it is clearly obvious you don't know what you are talking about. For one example Arsenokoitai and Malakoi are confused in the New King James Version, and that is just ONE example out of many.

everything you say omits certain things: God's promise to keep His word intact till the very end; 2. the guidance of the Holy Spirit. you keep making charges that these were men acting on their own when they did their work, sorry but that would not be true.; 3. 2,000 years of scholarship has basically agreed on the meanings and it is always the fringe groups who want their sin and salvation who cry foul.

The inconsistencies in translation have been proven, try actually doing some research on the subject.

Version Year Translation
Koine Greek 56 malakoi arsenokoitai
Latin Vulgate 405 molles masculorum concubitores
Wyclif 1508 lecchouris synne of Sodom
Tyndale 1525 weaklings abusers of themselves with mankynde
Great Bible 1539 weaklynges abusers of themselves with mankynde
Geneva Bible 1560 wantons bouggerers
Bishops Bible 1568 effeminate liers with mankinde
Reims-Douai 1609 effeminate liers with mankind
King James Authorized Version 1611 effeminate abusers of themselves with mankind
The Revised Version 1811 effeminate abusers of themselves with men
Darby 1890 those who make women of themselves abuse themselves with men
Young 1898 effeminate sodomites
American Standard Version 1901 effeminate abusers of themselves with men
RVA 1909 los afeminados los que se echan con varones
Louis Segond 1910 les effimines les infames
Wesley's New Testament 1938 guilty of unnatural crime
Goodspeed 1951 sensual given to unnatural vice
Jerusalem Bible (French) 1955 effeminate people with infamous habits
Phillips 1958 effeminate pervert
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament 1958 voluptuous persons Sodomites
The Amplified Version 1958 those who participate in homosexuality
New English 1961 homosexual perversion
New American Standard Bible 1963 effeminate homosexuals
Today's English Version 1966 homosexual perverts
Jerusalem Bible (German) 1968 sissies child molesters
Jerusalem Bible (English) 1968 Catamites Sodomites
New American Catholic 1970 homosexual perverts sodomites
Revised Standard Version 1971 sexual perverts
The Living Bible 1971 homosexuals
New International 1973 male prostitutes homosexual offenders
New King James 1979 homosexuals sodomites
rev Luther Bibel 1984 lustknaben knabenschander
Elberfelder Bibel 1985 Wollustlinge Knabenschander
New Jerusalem Bible 1985 self indulgent sodomites
New American Catholic 1987 boy prostitutes practicing homosexuals
Revised English Bible 1989 sexual pervert
New Revised Standard 1989 male prostitutes sodomites
New Living 1996 male prostitutes homosexuals
Third Millenium Bible 1998 effeminate abusers of themselves with mankind

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gaytrans.html

you have no case.

That is really the pottle calling the kettle black, coming from the person who defends men who have translated the Bible inconsistently, but yet they have "valid translations" that don't even match up.

 

[IchoozJC]

Speculation at best...nobody decides who is gay or not...if the person was truly gay, do you think they would've engaged in heterosexual sex, it is agreed upon that homosexuality as the orientation is not a choice, just the sex acts.

Everyone is born a sinner. We are all born with a sin nature. But we must all make the choice to follow Christ, and stop sinning. I was born into a family that has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Some would even say that alcoholism is genetic. Should I then, use your same line of thinking, and justify getting drunk all my life by blaming it on God for giving me the genetic inclination?

Anyways, I'm not going to debate this at all with you. This is the first time I've read of a supposed "christian" homosexual trying to justify their sin with God's holy word. I'll leave the debate to others that have more knowledge with your kind.

David was a "man after God's own heart". And he was heterosexual. Thank God for that! A gay david would mean no Savior. You just don't get it.

 

[jiminpa]

John MacArthur. . . Flawed arguments! goes without saying, what the issue is is irrellevent. Nothing like picking an easy target, and then lumping all of the arguments into the same basket.

 

[Stinker]

I have found that the Bible does not address a number of subjects. Some of those being the state of Homosexuality, Transexualism, and Hermaphradism. Some argue that since the passages in Leviticus that mention men are not to sleep with other men, and since women were not told that they were not to sleep with other women) that they were to understand by default that they were not to do this. However, it must not have been clear enough for them that when MEN were told not to have sex with animals, the women had to be told not to do this as well.


Maybe many have gotten 'off track' because of the failure to understand the first example of Sodom's depravity in how they would greet vistors to their town (Gen.19:5). Male rape is designed to humiliate. I have never met anyone who believed that all of the men and women of that city were Homosexual. Furthermore, I would estimate that 99% (if not 100%) of Homosexual rape offenders are at anytime and place, heterosexual. Many argue that even if this is true, that it is this act that really kindled God's anger. If we turned things around and it made the story say that it was humiliating females that was so bad, would we say that the act of sexual intercourse with females was what kindled God's anger? No, of course not. Rape of a woman is totally different than being in love with her and expressing that love through sexual intercourse with her.

Maybe people are really afraid of the potential that lurks within them that they could become as depraved as those people of Sodom, that makes them see Sodom as an all Homosexual city.

 

[Advancedlamb]

Homosexuality is ok, you guys are really dumb.

 

[archaeologist2]

so you agree that translations may be incorrect

no.

why do you trust them when they have been inconsistent?

this is why i do not like talking to some people. you took my words about the 'consistancy of the message between the testaments' and applied to humans when i wasn't even talking about them.

That does not rule out homosexuality coming at birth! Sexuality is developmental, ever hear of puberty?

wrong again and puberty is a one time change from child to adult. has nothing to do with one's preference.

I will ask you to provide proof of this.

your comprehension is quite low isn't it. i never said i 'had a theory' i said i 'was developing one' the two are quite different.

You have yet to prove that, but go on.

it has been proven you just do not accept it.

What would the point of evil manipulating animals? I don't look to the animals, I gave theology from the Bible, but I also use support of everything around me, and that doesn't have to include the Bible in every example

avoidance as you did NOT give theology from the Bible you gave an example from nature. why would i explain anything to you? youhave shown thatyou will twist whatis said to fit your desires. there are always reasons why evil manipulates. think about it.

I provided the evidence that I posted, which you didn't need to click the link to receive. You can google yourself, to find out if I am lying or not, about the compound word.

its your link, i clicked on it and it didn't work, your problem not mine. do your own work.

The Bible is very clear, is not a valid debate point. Many fundamentalists argue that point...it doesn't make it valid.

you have missed the point then, what you lack you can't get until you become a christian. the Bible makes it valid, and explains why christians are not to listen to non-christians, you do not understand God's words which disqualifies your translation work and references.

For one example Arsenokoitai and Malakoi are confused in the New King James Version, and that is just ONE example out of many

that is your opinion not fact. argue all you want but your stating it thus doesn't make it valid. nor does posting an armload of secular references.

The inconsistencies in translation have been proven, try actually doing some research on the subject.

#1. you don't get to give me homework,
#2. i know what most of those translations say, what you are doing is trying to use minute inconsistancies to build an argument to change homosexuality from sin to not. won't work. it is sin.

That is really the pottle calling the kettle black, coming from the person who defends men who have translated the Bible inconsistently, but yet they have "valid translations" that don't even match up.

this proves you just want to hear what you want to hear. i could explain it all to you and waste a whole lot of time as you would not accept the answer given.

as with the gospels, if all those translations were word for word exactly the same, you would then charge that those men did not do any work but plagerized and copied 100% from the others.

people like you do not want the truth, you want what you can't have and you will find 'errors' in any argument or example we bring just so you can feel good in practicing sin.

as Jesus said to Paul on the road to Damascus 'why kick against the pricks?' so i say to you. you keep fighting against that which isn't going to change yet you keep doing it for no realpurpose other than you can. time for you to re-think your position and repent.

 

[davedjy]

this is why i do not like talking to some people. you took my words about the 'consistancy of the message between the testaments' and applied to humans when i wasn't even talking about them.

I was addressing translations of the words, which was EXACTLY what you posted...shall we go back and get the quote word for word?

wrong again and puberty is a one time change from child to adult. has nothing to do with one's preference.

What is with this word "preference", it's not like preferring scrambled eggs to sunny side up. One's sexuality is not a choice and this is proven, but acting upon the orientation IS what the debate is over.

your comprehension is quite low isn't it. i never said i 'had a theory' i said i 'was developing one' the two are quite different.

My comprehension is low yet you defend those who translate the Bible, and I posted all the translations that are inconsistent. Also, you may wish to read the rules of the forum about claiming a specific individual isn't a Christian.

it has been proven you just do not accept it.

It has NOT been proven just because you say it has, or any other Fundamentalist.

avoidance as you did NOT give theology from the Bible you gave an example from nature. why would i explain anything to you? youhave shown thatyou will twist whatis said to fit your desires. there are always reasons why evil manipulates. think about it.

Theology about every passage exists on THIS thread, and I have gone into exhaustive details in the DOH archive. Prove I have twisted even one thing, which I know for fact I haven't twisted, just interpreted in light of historical reference. Evil manipulates? there is plenty of love in the monogamous same sex relationships I have seen, and I have seen the light, and see there isn't anything evil about two adult humans who truly love each other. I will never see it the way you do.

its your link, i clicked on it and it didn't work, your problem not mine. do your own work.

You don't need to be able to click on the link, I posted the information AND the link. I did my "work", I did my research.

you have missed the point then, what you lack you can't get until you become a christian. the Bible makes it valid, and explains why christians are not to listen to non-christians, you do not understand God's words which disqualifies your translation work and references.

God will judge me poster, please DO NOT bring my personal relationship or salvation into this thread.

You cannot disqualify ANY information I post by calling me a non-Christian, and that is a cheap shot anyways.

that is your opinion not fact. argue all you want but your stating it thus doesn't make it valid. nor does posting an armload of secular references.

...yet you post your opinion as fact in every post you make...

#1. you don't get to give me homework,
#2. i know what most of those translations say, what you are doing is trying to use minute inconsistancies to build an argument to change homosexuality from sin to not. won't work. it is sin.

I was proving inconsistencies (correct spelling), but I suggested you do research before debating me, as many can read your posts in this forum, and they do not refute anything I've said, or even give your side any merit. Don't do homework, it's fine by me, but I am through debating posters who don't even have a basic understanding on this subject (theology on either side).

as with the gospels, if all those translations were word for word exactly the same, you would then charge that those men did not do any work but plagerized and copied 100% from the others.

I didn't make this claim, so please don't make things up I never said.

people like you do not want the truth, you want what you can't have and you will find 'errors' in any argument or example we bring just so you can feel good in practicing sin.

This is your debate point? I want what I can't have? that isn't really a debate point, but I can spin this off and say that the anti-gay side wants to feel good about their "straight is great" theology, while simultaneously judging a valid minority to hell. Discrimination is feel good for some.

as Jesus said to Paul on the road to Damascus 'why kick against the pricks?' so i say to you. you keep fighting against that which isn't going to change yet you keep doing it for no realpurpose other than you can. time for you to re-think your position and repent.

I have nothing to repent for. You don't know what I am fighting. I am fighting anti-gay doctrine, and ignorance, and I will continue doing it, as I am following my convictions, as you follow yours.

 

[davedjy]

John MacArthur. . . Flawed arguments! goes without saying, what the issue is is irrellevent. Nothing like picking an easy target, and then lumping all of the arguments into the same basket.

I never went after him as an easy target. Many have told me that MacArthur is a genius...so I simply wanted to hear what he had to say about the subject.

The humorous nature of this thread is that I have easily disproved him, but nobody wants to acknowledge that, but just try to turn this thread into some "justification for sin", and shift the focus.

 

[archaeologist2]

What is with this word "preference", it's not like preferring scrambled eggs to sunny side up. One's sexuality is not a choice and this is proven, but acting upon the orientation IS what the debate is over.

no it has not been proven, it has been guessed at but not provn. plus i use the word preference because homosexuality is a choice and one that i am thinking is influenced by evil. God has given people the ability to choose, andif God is in them, then homosexuality is not even considered but if God is not in them then evil has a great opportunity to pervert a person's mind to think that their orientation/preference is for the same sex.

you need to consider the source for that 'proof'

My comprehension is low yet you defend those who translate the Bible, and I posted all the translations that are inconsistent. Also, you may wish to read the rules of the forum about claiming a specific individual isn't a Christian

i dealt with this.

Evil manipulates? there is plenty of love in the monogamous same sex relationships I have seen, and I have seen the light, and see there isn't anything evil about two adult humans who truly love each other.

everyone has the ability to love to a certain degree,. that emotion does not legitimize a sinful lifestyle. this is why i can say you have low comprehension as you look at the wrongthings and declare something good when in reality, it is not. the bible tells us, do not call good evil and evil good, just because 'love' is present does it mean it is good.

Hitler loved Germany and look what happened.

God will judge me poster, please DO NOT bring my personal relationship or salvation into this thread.

You cannot disqualify ANY information I post by calling me a non-Christian, and that is a cheap shot anyways.

\

don't mis-understand what i wrote and take it personally. i haven't 'judged' you and i see nothing in your words that demonstrates a relationship with God. the Bible says, what fellowship does unrifghteousness have with righteousness'. if you are on the side of sin, then 1 John tells us God is not with you.

i have stuck with what the Bible says and the Bible also tells us that the unbeliever do not grasp its teachings. your beef is with God not me. if you are arguing for homosexuality and declare it something it is not, how can God be with you?

I was proving inconsistencies (correct spelling), but I suggested you do research before debating me, as many can read your posts in this forum, and they do not refute anything I've said, or even give your side any merit. Don't do homework, it's fine by me, but I am through debating posters who don't even have a basic understanding on this subject

see now you have turned to insults which undermines your argument. i do not have to post long bibliographies or footnotes to know what i am talking about.

what you fail to grasp is the fact that what you call 'inconsistancies' are just different words which contain the same meaning. you are just looking for loopholes to believe what you want, you are not looking for a debate, you want to practice sin and feel good about it or defend sin and feel good about it.

won't happen as you try to bring the argument down to man on man ignoring God and His influence. you can't argue with God then you want to make it human error so you can do as you please. not going to happen..

This is your debate point? I want what I can't have? that isn't really a debate point, but I can spin this off and say that the anti-gay side wants to feel good about their "straight is great" theology, while simultaneously judging a valid minority to hell. Discrimination is feel good for some.

if you are looking for debate, don't come to me. i stick with spirtual truths and stay away from debates as that is just another excuse to avoid or dismiss what God has declared as sin and an abomination.

I have nothing to repent for. You don't know what I am fighting. I am fighting anti-gay doctrine, and ignorance, and I will continue doing it, as I am following my convictions, as you follow yours.

if you are defending the homsexual lifestyle then you have backed a losing horse. people who follow the homosexual preference are God's creation BUT that does not excuse them from God's rules, what God has declared is sin and thereis no legitimizing the homosexual way.

they deserve to be treated as human but they do not get to bring their sin into the church and be thought of as christian. they are not, one cannot practice sin and still think they are of God. 1 john explains this.

 

[archaeologist2]

No, because as stated...gays, bisexuals, transgender and lesbians have never, ever threatened humanity with their existence. We have always
been a minority of the population, so there goes that theory

so you are homosexual. if you want to be treated right, don't lie.

depends on what you mean bythreatened. since AIDS one can say those homosexuals who practice unsafe sex and spread the disease are a threat to humanity.

Speculation at best...nobody decides who is gay or not...if the person was truly gay, do you think they would've engaged in heterosexual sex, it is agreed upon that homosexuality as the orientation is not a choice, just the sex acts

i am going to say wrong as God gives them over to their desires when they have gone too far. it is not programmed at birth, people have a choice. those who advocate the above quote are looking to pass the responsibility back onto God so they will escape hell.

sorry it is a choice.

For whatever reason, it is agreed upon that no more than 3% of the population has ever been gay or lesbian. That means that it leaves 97% of the population to breed/reproduce. Why even ask such a question, when for whatever reason we don't have that problem?

the original question was ameuterish but the percentage doesn't matter, what matters is what you do when you discover the homosexual desire knocking at your door.

You don't decide whether you want to become homosexual. Nobody chooses to be gay OR straight. So your theory here really washes out.

wrong.

 

[davedjy]

no it has not been proven, it has been guessed at but not provn. plus i use the word preference because homosexuality is a choice and one that i am thinking is influenced by evil. God has given people the ability to choose, andif God is in them, then homosexuality is not even considered but if God is not in them then evil has a great opportunity to pervert a person's mind to think that their orientation/preference is for the same sex.

I posted all the ways that arsenokoitai have been translated, and the inconsistencies are shown. Shall we go back through all the translations and see them again, or do you want to refute my claim by saying they are all the same, and post the true translations version to version? this is not rocket science, the inconsistencies are shown.

The rest of this quote is speculation based upon a lack of education on the subject material. A gay or lesbian is not attracted to the opposite sex unless they are bisexual, and there isn't any credible mental health association that would agree with your ideology.

everyone has the ability to love to a certain degree,. that emotion does not legitimize a sinful lifestyle. this is why i can say you have low comprehension as you look at the wrongthings and declare something good when in reality, it is not. the bible tells us, do not call good evil and evil good, just because 'love' is present does it mean it is good.

Your version of reality may greatly differ from another person's.
I have very HIGH comprehension. I used to debate this subject 2 years ago on the other side of the coin (the anti-gay side), and I did it better than plenty here. I felt convicted for condemning a minority where it has been factually proven that homosexuality is just part of who you are. The ones who are oppressed are the GLBT people who have tried conversion therapy. THAT is truly evil, and PROVEN evil from the harm it has caused.

Hitler loved Germany and look what happened.

I get accused of "low comprehension", and you compare Hitler to this?
Hitler KILLED Jews, the fact you would even use MASS GENOCIDE....wow, that comparison speaks volumes to me about your level of education on the subject material.

don't mis-understand what i wrote and take it personally. i haven't 'judged' you and i see nothing in your words that demonstrates a relationship with God. the Bible says, what fellowship does unrifghteousness have with righteousness'. if you are on the side of sin, then 1 John tells us God is not with you.

Still not a justification....I don't judge your relationship with God. There are plenty of gays and lesbians that have great relationships with Christ, but not that I would expect you to believe that.

i have stuck with what the Bible says and the Bible also tells us that the unbeliever do not grasp its teachings. your beef is with God not me. if you are arguing for homosexuality and declare it something it is not, how can God be with you?

I can say that you don't grasp the TRUE MEANINGS of the chapters in question, in light of their historical context. Those who cannot truly debate me or any other poster here always turn the attack towards the poster, since they cannot properly debate. It happens over and over again. I have never brought your personal relationship with God into this thread, and I expect you to do the same...it's the rules.

what you fail to grasp is the fact that what you call 'inconsistancies' are just different words which contain the same meaning. you are just looking for loopholes to believe what you want, you are not looking for a debate, you want to practice sin and feel good about it or defend sin and feel good about it.

Male prostitute is not the same thing as "homosexual". You get upset that I asked you to do research, but you are showing your level of understanding on this subject. The rest of this quote is a personal attack at my relationship with God, so I won't respond to that, it is irrelevant. From here on in...any personal thing aimed at me will just be deemed "ad hominem" because that is what it is.

won't happen as you try to bring the argument down to man on man ignoring God and His influence. you can't argue with God then you want to make it human error so you can do as you please. not going to happen..

Ad hominem attack

if you are defending the homsexual lifestyle then you have backed a losing horse. people who follow the homosexual preference are God's creation BUT that does not excuse them from God's rules, what God has declared is sin and thereis no legitimizing the homosexual way.

What you call a "sin", plenty of other Christians disagree with you on. You don't get to call something a sin, and have it be factual, when it isn't. Many credible theologians and scholars disagree with you, and so do thousands of Churches. I can just as easily say that the other side is defending bigotry and disguising it as God's Word.

they deserve to be treated as human but they do not get to bring their sin into the church and be thought of as christian. they are not, one cannot practice sin and still think they are of God. 1 john explains this.

Even if I was to believe that homosexuality was a sin, I can just as easily say there isn't any Christian alive that is more justified to call themselves a Christian. I don't believe in the least that a loving relationship with another adult human being is sinful.

For example, gluttony is something I know MANY Christians justify, and yet they would not see that as sinful, but continue in it.

 

[davedjy]

so you are homosexual. if you want to be treated right, don't lie.

depends on what you mean bythreatened. since AIDS one can say those homosexuals who practice unsafe sex and spread the disease are a threat to humanity.

Lie about what?

There are plenty of heterosexuals that practice unsafe sex, commit abortions, and other things...is that a justification to condemn their sexuality?



i

am going to say wrong as God gives them over to their desires when they have gone too far. it is not programmed at birth, people have a choice. those who advocate the above quote are looking to pass the responsibility back onto God so they will escape hell.

I don't have a problem with God, I believe gays and lesbians are exactly the way they are truly made

sorry it is a choice.

Secular research proves your claim false on all accounts. Every CREDIBLE mental health foundation disagrees with your assertions.

the original question was ameuterish but the percentage doesn't matter, what matters is what you do when you discover the homosexual desire knocking at your door.

Probably the same thing that people do when they discover their heterosexual desires "knocking at their door".

wrong.

Wrong because you "say"?

Every credible mental health foundation disagrees with your assertion. Even the best anti-gay debaters know this to be true. Nobody chooses who they are attracted to including the dangerous Exodus International (which has been disproven to even be able to do an actual conversion, it's been proven dangerous).

 

[archaeologist2]

i am done taking to you because you cannot grasp the teachings of God and seek to make sinless what is sin. you have been told that is enough

 

[jiminpa]

I never went after him as an easy target. Many have told me that MacArthur is a genius...so I simply wanted to hear what he had to say about the subject.

The humorous nature of this thread is that I have easily disproved him, but nobody wants to acknowledge that, but just try to turn this thread into some "justification for sin", and shift the focus.

MacArthur is a marketing genius. He sells himself as a great teacher, and people buy it, literally. It is no great feat to show him as unscriptural on an issue, and you demonstrating that his position is weak, merely observes the obvious, that his position is weak. John MacArthur's weak argument does not invalidate that scripture condemns homosexuality in it's strongest terms, and clearly, to anyone looking for what scripture means instead of trying to read their own agenda into it, says that those embracing it have no place in God's kingdom.

How is it shifting focus, since the topic of the thread is MacArthur's poor argument? I get that the intent of the thread is to establish credibility for one bad argument by refuting a worse one, but that in itself is a weak tactic used by those who need to resort to weak position tactics, and so is accusing one who is on topic of shifting focus, in attempt to truly shift focus.

 

[davedjy]

MacArthur is a marketing genius. He sells himself as a great teacher, and people buy it, literally. It is no great feat to show him as unscriptural on an issue, and you demonstrating that his position is weak, merely observes the obvious, that his position is weak. John MacArthur's weak argument does not invalidate that scripture condemns homosexuality in it's strongest terms, and clearly, to anyone looking for what scripture means instead of trying to read their own agenda into it, says that those embracing it have no place in God's kingdom.

Does using words like "clearly" make your position any stronger?
Why don't you actually try showing how arsenokoitai means homosexual in 1 Cor 6:9? Arsenokoitai does not "clearly" mean homosexual, and any person that tries saying homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom do it out of their own ignorance on the inconsistencies in translation of that word.

How is it shifting focus, since the topic of the thread is MacArthur's poor argument? I get that the intent of the thread is to establish credibility for one bad argument by refuting a worse one, but that in itself is a weak tactic used by those who need to resort to weak position tactics, and so is accusing one who is on topic of shifting focus, in attempt to truly shift focus.

The thread was about MacArthur, not about whether gays and lesbians are trying to justify their lifestyles by creating threads such as these. It seemed you shifted the focus to say that it was a cheap shot to justify homosexuality. This thread was not about a "cheap shot" against anti-gay supporters. I have created MANY threads on this subject in the DOH archive. People see MacArthur as a great theologian, so I wanted to comment on what this "Great theologian/debater" had to say on the subject, and refute it.

It isn't just MacArthur, MANY Christians believe the sin of Sodom to be general homosexuality, so I addressed that as well.

 

[davedjy]

i am done taking to you because you cannot grasp the teachings of God and seek to make sinless what is sin. you have been told that is enough

I have been told and supposedly "warned" before, why don't you actually defend MacArthur's teachings and/or relate your posts to the opening post, which has nothing to do with your arguments to me on this thread?

I get accused of twisting scripture, yet you underline abominations in Ezekiel, where general homosexuality is not mentioned as one of the abominations.

 

[archaeologist2]

I get accused of twisting scripture, yet you underline abominations in Ezekiel, where general homosexuality is not mentioned as one of the abominations

what's the passage exactly?

the Bible does not have to mention every abomination everytime it speaks on abominations. for your logic would rquire that every time the Bible spoke on sin, all sins would have to be listed and that would be tedious, boring and a big turn off. try to grant intelligence to God.

have been told and supposedly "warned" before, why don't you actually defend MacArthur's teachings and/or relate your posts to the opening post, which has nothing to do with your arguments to me on this thread?

why would i defend mcarthur? he is not God, his words are not infallible. i do not follow his teachings, i follow God and will stand by the Bible. if mcarthur is wrong then i will say so.

 

[davedjy]

what's the passage exactly?

Ezekiel 16:49-50

the Bible does not have to mention every abomination everytime it speaks on abominations. for your logic would rquire that every time the Bible spoke on sin, all sins would have to be listed and that would be tedious, boring and a big turn off. try to grant intelligence to God.

Yet, in Ezekiel homosexuality is not mentioned as the sin of Sodom, and one cannot say that the "abomination" is homosexuality without specific proof. Abomination is such an ambiguous phrase. 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.

why would i defend mcarthur? he is not God, his words are not infallible. i do not follow his teachings, i follow God and will stand by the Bible. if mcarthur is wrong then i will say so.

You defend by default because you believe the sin of Sodom to be general homosexuality, since you underlined abominations in Ezekiel, and said that is the sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the sin of Sodom was general homosexuality...or since that phrase may not have been around, I don't even see a Scripture hinting at it. The type of homosexual acts in Sodom don't have anything to do with general homosexuality.