• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Scriptures Don't Support Gay Arguments

UnitedInChrist

Veteran
Mar 23, 2007
365
59
New Jersey
✟16,499.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Single
Most evolutionists believe ALL of the animal kingdom evolved from a single cell organism that existed 100s of millions of years ago, and that humanity evolved from the hominids. Hence, homo sapiens is considered just another animal species by biologists.



Nothing new -- this is standard theory that's been around since.....



I never said they were. I said people give nature the honor rather than God. Isn't that exactly what Romans 1:24 says as well?
Sorry...but God gave us NATURE my friend, so giving nature any respect is giving the maker of it respect. Same goes for evolution. It can only take God to create the evolution process that gave us what man is today...what is more Godlike than that?
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry...but God gave us NATURE my friend, so giving nature any respect is giving the maker of it respect. Same goes for evolution. It can only take God to create the evolution process that gave us what man is today...what is more Godlike than that?


Here is the answer in Romans 1:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

They did not give God the honor.

Go to any biology text and show me where it says God created ANYTHING AT ALL.

They will never give God credit for anything.
 
Upvote 0

UnitedInChrist

Veteran
Mar 23, 2007
365
59
New Jersey
✟16,499.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Single
Here is the answer in Romans 1:


They did not give God the honor.

Go to any biology text and show me where it says God created ANYTHING AT ALL.

They will never give God credit for anything.
Sorry for being so blunt, but that has to be the most stupidest thing I've ever read. I'm not going to waste time with an individual that believes a biology book should "give God the honor" when it comes to discussing science. There is a time and a place for everything. Just like biology books should be focusing on biology and not someones RELGIOUS FAITHS...It would be no different than if I were to go to a Christian bookstore and get a book that spoke to everything, but made no metion of God. It's completely inappropriate.
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry for being so blunt, but that has to be the most stupidest thing I've ever read. I'm not going to waste time with an individual that believes a biology book should "give God the honor" when it comes to discussing science. There is a time and a place for everything. Just like biology books should be focusing on biology and not someones RELGIOUS FAITHS...It would be no different than if I were to go to a Christian bookstore and get a book that spoke to everything, but made no metion of God. It's completely inappropriate.

Abiogenesis is relevant. It is just as well that you leave the discussion anyway. You don't seem to have a useful point.

Origin of Life -- anywhere but God, so they say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_common_ancestor so where did the first come from?


-----------------------------------------------

This thread is being de-railed anyway. Nice try United in Christ -- but your red herring failed miserably!!!!

As far as the bible is concerned, so-called gay affirming arguments in the bible are totally refuted. :amen:

Try again when you think you have a point relevant to the OP.
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1) Why isn't female-female sex condemned under YOUR same logic

In Romans 1, female-to-female is "likewise" as the male-to-male, and they are BOTH CONDEMNED:

26 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:
27 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.

But your point was irrelevant anyway about female-to-female:

Why is male-on-male sex condemned to the death penalty, and male-on-female sex is not condemned to the death penalty UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES?

I have the answer: SAME SEX IS SIN ... PERIOD... :holy:

Dave, your gay-affirming bible arguments are garbage!!!!!!!

Trashola
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One simple truth trashes ALL the so-called gay-affirming arguments, that the bible approves of gay behavior.

Question: Why does God judge male-on-male sexuality differently than male-on-female UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES? Male-on-male receives the death penalty in both Lev 20:13, and Romans 1.

Answer: Because, biblically speaking, something is BADLY WRONG with GAY SEX.

This trashes all the arguments about translations, misinterpretations, malakos, aresnkoites, temple rituals, pederasty, AND ALL THE REST including ALL of these threads:

False Translation of the word "homosexual" - 1 Cor 6:9

Confusion of the Infallibility of the Scriptures

Satan is ALIVE and WELL in the Conservative Church!

Haven't You Moved Pass Leviticus?

Article with words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" for homosexual

Sodomites!!!!

Debate Dave on homosexuality

Gay Marriage Condemned in Scriptures?

The truth be told: HOMOSEXUAL wasn't used in the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible!

The 11th Commandment -- Thou Shall Not Be Gay

...The Old Church homosexual defense arguments!

Loving, monogamous same sex relationships in Biblical times!

Leviticus 18, CRACKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Affirms Gays in the NT?


Goodbye to this pure unadulterated garbage.

20726-Burning.jpg



If anyone else wants to debate what the bible says about homosexuality, I will pull this thread out.

The HOLY SPIRIT WINS!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Upvote 0

Brieuse

Veteran
Mar 15, 2007
261
90
Randburg, South Africa
Visit site
✟17,003.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
One simple truth trashes ALL the so-called gay-affirming arguments, that the bible approves of gay behavior.

Question: Why does God judge male-on-male sexuality differently than male-on-female UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES? Male-on-male receives the death penalty in both Lev 20:13, and Romans 1.

Answer: Because, biblically speaking, something is BADLY WRONG with GAY SEX.

This trashes all the arguments about translations, misinterpretations, malakos, aresnkoites, temple rituals, pederasty, AND ALL THE REST including ALL of these threads:

False Translation of the word "homosexual" - 1 Cor 6:9

Confusion of the Infallibility of the Scriptures

Satan is ALIVE and WELL in the Conservative Church!

Haven't You Moved Pass Leviticus?

Article with words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" for homosexual

Sodomites!!!!

Debate Dave on homosexuality

Gay Marriage Condemned in Scriptures?

The truth be told: HOMOSEXUAL wasn't used in the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible!

The 11th Commandment -- Thou Shall Not Be Gay

...The Old Church homosexual defense arguments!

Loving, monogamous same sex relationships in Biblical times!

Leviticus 18, CRACKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Affirms Gays in the NT?


Goodbye to this pure unadulterated garbage.

20726-Burning.jpg



If anyone else wants to debate what the bible says about homosexuality, I will pull this thread out.

The HOLY SPIRIT WINS!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Are you still going on about that question?

If your answer is correct, it leaves a number of things untied. If mine is correct, it makes a lot more sense ;)
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you still going on about that question?

If your answer is correct, it leaves a number of things untied. If mine is correct, it makes a lot more sense ;)

What's your answer?

You could say only gay people did those abominations in that culture, thus making the gay-affirming argument look even worse.

Or maybe you could say the bible is unjust, like so many gays have already said.

Better yet, you could confess gay sex is sin according to the bible.

Sure, go right ahead. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]If you don't understand the historical context of the verses you bring here, you will not ever get it.[/SIZE]

You do NOT know the first thing about "historical context" and I sincerely doubt you ever will! You blow off anything, everything that contradicts your pet homosexual website and delude your self into thinking just because some homosexual says it on his website, it must be true.

Here is a current day Jewish Rabbi and professor informing us of the historical context of Leviticus. You will notice that he refers to the same source I use, the Talmud. And I cannot find one reference to "homosexual rape,""temple prostitution," or any of the other excuses people conjure up trying to legitimize sin that God condemns.
The Sacred and the Mundane: The Message of Leviticus

by Peter J. Haas

Peter J. Haas is an ordained rabbi and associate professor of Jewish thought and literature in the department of religious studies at Vanderbilt University. This article appeared in The Christian Century, October 8, 1997, pp. 877-882. Copyright by The Christian Century Foundation; used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This article prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet Leviticus is central, literally and figuratively, to what the Pentateuch is all about. The Pentateuch is the story of how the people of Israel came into being and came to receive their gift of the Promised Land. Genesis and Exodus introduce us to the story and bring us to its crucial turning point, the arrival at Sinai and the reception of the Revelation. Numbers and Deuteronomy complete the narrative, describing the experiences and lessons of the people as they leave Sinai and finally arrive at the edge of the Promised Land. In the middle stands Leviticus. Leviticus lets us pause and consider the content of the Revelation. It offers instruction in the technology of the holy—instruction that will shape the divine service in the temple and the rhythm and content of Israel’s holy life after it enters the land.

It is easy for us to skip over Leviticus because it appears so utterly foreign. The very institutions that Leviticus presupposes—the temple and its levitical priesthood—are completely alien to us, whether we are Jewish or Christian. To be sure, all Western religious traditions draw heavily on the vocabulary and symbolism of Leviticus: priesthood (whether clergy or "of the people"), sacrifice, offerings, uncleanness, purification, ablution/baptism, the redeeming power of blood, and on and on. But these are all bits and pieces of the levitical system taken out of their original context and transformed into the very different framework of church and synagogue. It is only in Leviticus that these elements come together naturally to form a comprehensive and coherent system.

How did the priests, Levites and commoners of that time understand what they were doing, and what does their understanding mean for us today? Adducing and communicating this understanding is the job of modern critical commentaries like Erhard S. Gerstenberger’s. They take on the difficult if not impossible task of preserving the foreignness of Leviticus while still making it relevant.

There seems to be a scholarly consensus that the Book of Leviticus, more or less as we have it, is from exilic times. The generally agreed-upon context is the permission given by Cyrus of Persia (in approximately 538 B.C.E.) to the exiled Judeans to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. We know from archaeological evidence that Cyrus allowed a number of conquered peoples to rebuild their homelands and local temples. In each of these cases he required the newly re-established priesthood to publish its traditional law. Leviticus, in this scholarly view, is the result of the Judean priesthood’s effort to do so. This is why Leviticus (and the "P" document generally) reads like a priestly handbook. It was composed to inform Cyrus and his officials about what the Jerusalem priesthood intended to do with its newly granted authority.

This historical context does not mean, however, that scholars think Leviticus was made up out of whole cloth by exiled priests in the sixth century B.C.E. No doubt the priestly writers brought to their task memories or traditions of what once had been and so should be again. It is also clear that the book was not written at one sitting by a single author. Leviticus has every sign of being a composite work.

It is best, then, to think of Leviticus as a complex document written over an extended period of time (the rebuilding of the temple took nearly 25 years) by a variety of authors. It should not be treated as an historically reliable description of how the temple actually operated. Whether or not the Second Temple ever followed this blueprint exactly is an interesting question, but one that goes beyond the purview of this essay. But it is evident that in its details, Leviticus offers remarkable insight into the priestly imagination of exilic and postexilic Judah. It tells us what the priesthood, or at least an influential part of it, thought temple ritual ought to be.

Leviticus can be divided into two major parts. The first (chapters 1-16) is concerned with the operation of the priesthood and proper disposition of the sacrifices and offerings brought to the altar. The second (chapters 17-26) has to do with the maintenance of a certain purity or holiness by the Judean community as a whole. This holiness is deemed necessary if the temple and its sacred altar are to abide in the land.

Historically there have been three ways of approaching the rather technical material in the portion of Leviticus that deals with sacrifice. The first is best exemplified in rabbinic writings, especially the Mishnab and Talmud. This approach tries to work out the legal intricacies of the rules for sacrifice, to fill in the gaps and reconcile the inconsistencies embedded in the text: for example, determining the status of an animal designated for one type of sacrifice but erroneously slaughtered for another; or determining what to do if an animal that has been properly slaughtered and its blood correctly sprinkled on the altar is then found to have a blemish that should have disqualified it.

The second method for understanding sacrifice rules is what we might call the "history of religions" approach. The focus here is on how such religious rituals work on a deeper structural level. In this view, Leviticus is one example among many. In all religions priestly rituals are designed to overcome basic contradictions. In biblical Israel the contradiction consists of the fact that the most virulent sources of impurity are diseased and dead bodies and things pertaining thereto: bones, blood and the like. But to do their holy jobs, the priests must slaughter animals, sprinkle their blood on the altar, and burn and eat various portions of the carcasses. In classic religious fashion, that which is most dangerous and polluting is transformed by the proper ministrations of members of a holy caste ("priests" in this case) into a potent source of sanctity and holiness. The object of scholarship is to uncover the logic according to which this transvaluation occurs. According to the history-of-religions school, Leviticus tells us how this mythic transformation was understood in biblical Israel.

The third approach is to treat Leviticus as a symbolic or allegorical system that has little or nothing to do with sacrifices per se, but everything to do with teaching important lessons. Early use of this allegorical approach may be found in the work of Philo in the first century of the Common Era. An exemplary expression of this method is the work of Samson Raphael Hirsch, a mid-l9th-century Orthodox rabbi. In his interpretation, the offering ("korban," in Hebrew) is a means of getting close ("karob") to God; the whole-offering is the offering that one gives wholeheartedly—that is, with complete devotion. It must be without blemish to stress that our efforts to approach God come from strength and certainty, not weakness or compromise. An advantage of this approach is that it allows the book to "preach." One can find in the minutiae of the ancient priests’ daily routine some guidance and inspiration for our lives today. This approach’s disadvantage is that it strips the text of any historical meaning.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You do NOT know the first thing about "historical context" and I sincerely doubt you ever will! You blow off anything, everything that contradicts your pet homosexual website and delude your self into thinking just because some homosexual says it on his website, it must be true.

Der, all of Dave's arguments have been defeated with just one little simple truth: God judges homo sex differently than staight sex UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.

With that simple truth in place, they can pick and choose their circumstances, but they still loose the argument.

Example: Why does God judge male-on-male pedophila worse than male-on-female pedophilia?

Example: Why does God judge male-on-male temple prostitution worse than male-on-female temple prostitution?

Example: Why does God judge male-on-male orgies worse than male-on-female orgies?

Example: Why are the bible examples of God's judgment exclusively same-sex, and no male-on-female sex UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES?

God sees a BIG difference between gay sex and straight sex.

Hence, gay marriage and all the hype about monogamous relationships is trashed.

Hence, gay sex is just plain WRONG.

One argument that has not been fully pursued is the historical context argument, but that one is so self-effacing for gays. Why would they want to admit they were the ONLY ONES bad enough to be doing the WORST ABOMINATIONS? It's the argument of relative depravity, which they surely lose.

It's done. :amen:

I appreciate all the information you have shared, Der, it has strenthened the beliefs I already had. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I revised OP Fact #3 with additional insight. The "angel-rape" argument for Sodom and Gomorrah is a goner. Gomorrah didn't have any angels, no, not by a long shot, and they were destroyed just the same as Sodom. That Holy Spirit insight just keeps on coming in. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Brieuse

Veteran
Mar 15, 2007
261
90
Randburg, South Africa
Visit site
✟17,003.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Learning and forming an opinion on different interpretations are two different things.
Thank you Dave.

I don't like it when deceitful people try put words in my mouth. "Evidently not enough". Feels like I'm back in kindergarten.
 
Upvote 0

MercyBurst

Senior Veteran
Aug 20, 2006
2,570
41
South
Visit site
✟28,885.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you Dave.

I don't like it when deceitful people try put words in my mouth. "Evidently not enough". Feels like I'm back in kindergarten.

Dave quoted me for something I didn't even say, deliberately lying to make his point. It felt pretty childish, really.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[SIZE=-1]Thank you Dave.

I don't like it when deceitful people try put words in my mouth. "Evidently not enough". Feels like I'm back in kindergarten.[/SIZE]

I did NOT put words in your mouth. That was my opinion of your statement.
 
Upvote 0

PinkTulip

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2005
285
29
Ontario
✟23,723.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Female
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
FACT: Sodom and Gomorrah are not an example of homosexuality as one's innate sexual constitution!

FACT: The only reference to the sin of Sodom is this verse right here:

Ezekiel 16:49,50 says, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen" (NIV).


Leviticus...AGAIN, is a ritual/idolatry violation, and nothing more. Abomination = tow'ebah = ritual/ceremonial impurity.

Read the Apocalypse of Paul, number 39, where it discusses Sodom.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/apocpaul.html
 
Upvote 0