Peanut Gallery: Formal Debate: Neither the Old nor New Testament address the LGBT subject

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Formal Debate thread may be found here:
Formal Debate: Neither the Old nor New Testament address the LGBT subject

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

First post is up: Formal Debate: Neither the Old nor New Testament address the LGBT subject

 

[Humble me Lord]

Suggestion, how about some polls, to get an idea of what others think about this subject, maybe after debate?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Two more posts up.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Tree of Life's first post is well-constructed. If I had to nitpick, it would be that the Bible is perhaps more ambiguous on sex only within 1-man-1-woman marriage than is laid out there. But the ambiguities about premarital sex or polygamy don't get us much closer to homosexual sex.

Cuddles throws a Hebrew dictionary at us, and there just needs to be a little more organization. Assuming she's right that towebah in Lev. 20:23 means what she says, how do we know that 20:13 is subsumed as part of that?
I mean yes, there's some talk of Molech, which ties in to religious practices of the foreigners, but it's hard to consider that everything in the middle is always in relation to religious practices. Is adultery only wrong if committed in a heathen temple?
And of course, there is no real discussion of the key verses, but there is time yet for that, and I have a sense of where this will go.

 

[-V-]

(edited, nvm)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Cuddles continues to be strong on foreign dictionaries, weak on organization and making an argument.

"It is here (Rom.1:26) where we find that Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon let's us down on the word: against nature, and in (1Cor.6:9) & (1Tim.1:10) on the word arsenokoites. Thayer's shows it's prejudice on 'nature' by just above where he says it means 'against nature' he wrote 'monstrous' 'abnormal' 'perverse'."

OK, so let's grant that Thayer is unreliable about his gloss of 'against nature' in Rom.1:26. The topic is not the reliability of Thayer, but what the OT and NT say about LGBT.

Why focus on 'against nature' [which is apparently correctly translated, regardless of what Thayer says about it] in 1:26, when the following verse is...

"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."

The emphasized words all seem clear and ordinary and unambiguous. I have no idea what the Greek looks like, but if you want to make the case that the translations are faulty, you had better address all of the evidence on the other side.

 

[Tree of Life]

How do you guys think things are going?

 

[Resha Caner]

Cuddles continues to be strong on foreign dictionaries, weak on organization and making an argument.

Yup. My personal views align with @Tree of Life, so I always start these things by stepping back and looking at the quality of the arguments made rather than whether I personally agree with them. There's not much of a debate going on here. @Cuddles333 throws out words and definitions, Tree of Life replies, and Cuddles333 basically ignores the replies and throws out some more words and definitions.

 

[-V-]

I'd have to say Tree of Life won the debate. Far too often, Cuddles made claims that she didn't substantiate or provide citations/references for. And then didn't actually respond to or refute a good deal of what ToL said. Then she just closed with the intellectually lazy (imho) "you're just blind to the truth" maneuver.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Well said @Tree of Life

This may already have been touched on, but for what it's worth I'd just like to add - a very simple point - that not only is homosexuality explained as sin, but also, there is no evidence for homosexuality being encouraged in Scripture. That is, even if someone could somehow interpret the text to not be related to homosexuality, but exclusively about pagan worship, there is no Scriptural evidence of homosexuality being advocated. Though homosexuality is understood in a certain way today, it's not an original phenomena. Not only is it a stretch to claim it's not a sin, but to approve or encourage it is really adding a lot without Scriptural evidence. Man may love many things, but the act of love does not automatically make the subject of love good. e.g. Man can love money, but this love is a sin.

 

[Cuddles333]

I know that everyone who reads this debate will have a few nagging questions answered. It is truly satisfying to have filled in those gaps. There has been so many years of false teaching concerning this subject that it is now almost in many Christian's DNA. This false teaching creates false pride and the false teachers (especially on their radio programs) stir the pot to the point where the Germans felt towards the Jews at the beginning of WWII.
It felt so satisfying to let everyone know the words that the 1st century church used for what we call the LGBT community today. Years ago, we were trapped in a corner being made to believe that these different people did not even exist back then. Even though the Bible does not address these folks, neither does it condemn them. They are just natural aberrations. Different. That is all.
I feel so blessed to have been given the opportunity to reveal the word (arsenokoites) as it was understood in the 1st century church. Blessed to show how false teachers try to switch the meaning of (malakos) with the meanings of kinaidos and pathikos.
It was also a blessing to show that the word [sodomy] did not exist until 1300 A. D. meaning that the word [Sodom] was never used as a verb in the entire Bible.
This all just goes to show that we must be very careful in our study that we 'be not ashamed' later on.

 

[God's Child]

Admin Hat On

This thread, like the Formal Debate has run it's course. It is now closed. Thank you.

God's Child
Administrator

Admin Hat Off