[BJWilliams]

And I'm a loose cannon apparently...among other things

[Purple Haize]

And I'm a loose cannon apparently...among other things

No. You are the King drinker!

[LUconn]

But it looks like you cherry picked the translations that have the word "homosexuality" in it. I'm not even sure we even need to get that specific. Any passages in relation to marriage and the family make it painfully obvious what the right answer is. How would you even begin to live your biblical role in a same sex marriage? Or you could go on to analogies such as Christ and the church being the bridegroom and bride respectively. You don't need the specific word "homosexuality" to see an obvious overarching idea that a man and a woman is marriage.

[jbock13]

Not every question lw asks is trolling. Just most of them.

[JK37]

LUconn, one aspect of my strategy in debate is to leave as few loopholes as possible. lw specifically used the term "homosexuality", so I responded in kind. The intent Is to argue on the level they choose, answering their own questions with incontrovertible evidence. lw's tactic of asking a question for whch he believes there can be no answer found, can only be overcome by showing him it can indeed be answered. You are right that the morally correct position in the debate may not require that level of specificity. But answering lw's question as specifically as it was posed requires him to continue in kind.

Now we wait for ATrain's or lw's response.

[lynchburgwildcats]

And you just indirectly proved my point. Thanks. - and that's not sarcasm clapping

I think the point is you've made yourself impossible to debate. Not sure if you're a troll or not but you're coming across as such.

Personally, I've given you evidence of God's design for romantic relationships and marriage but you have chosen to ignore that, I suppose.

And there is plenty of debate out there that that stance is not true. Have you chosen to ignore that? The point is, it's an opinion based on what you want it to say, and to claim there is any definitive right or wrong answer is ignorant.

[jbock13]

It's all just a shell game. "If you cite experts that don't say this, this, this, and this, which I do not agree with, your point is invalid, and therefore I win."

As a history teacher I'm seriously considering using your posts to show logical fallacies to a future generation.

[lynchburgwildcats]

“But,” he said “the things which go out from a man, these pollute a man. For from within, from the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, avarice, wickedness, deceitfulness, homosexuality, an evil eye, blasphemy, self-exaltation, foolishness. All these evils procede from within and pollute a man.” (Mark 7:20-23 CPDV)

For the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. And since these are against one another, you may not do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest; they are: fornication, lust, homosexuality, self-indulgence, the serving of idols, drug use, hostility, contentiousness, jealousy, wrath, quarrels, dissensions, divisions, envy, murder, inebriation, carousing, and similar things. About these things, I continue to preach to you, as I have preached to you: that those who act in this way shall not obtain the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:17-21 CPDV)

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV)

Have you ever thought that we should explain ourselves to you? We speak in the sight of God, in Christ. But all things, most beloved, are for your edification. Yet I fear, lest perhaps, when I have arrived, I might not find you such as I would want, and I might be found by you, such as you would not want. For perhaps there may be among you: contention, envy, animosity, dissension, detraction, whispering, self-exaltation, and rebellion. If so, then, when I have arrived, God may again humble me among you. And so, I mourn for the many who sinned beforehand, and did not repent, over the lust and fornication and homosexuality, which they have committed. (2 Corinthians 12:19-21 CPDV)

[This paragraph is not said with any sarcasm] I applaud your noble effort to accept my challenge, unlike some others on this board.

But I did say, find me conclusive, irrefutable evidence. As seen below, I have found the exact same scripture using different translation/interpretations of the Bible that don't mention homosexuality. lease forgive the formatting for some of it, I copied and pasted from the internet.

Mark 7:20-23 (New International Version)
He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

Galatians 5:17-21 (New American Standard)
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (New American Standard Bible)
8 But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for whoremongers, for those who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine
11 according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (American Standard Version)
9 Or 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 men,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

2 Corinthians 12:19-21 (New International Version)
19 Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? We have been speaking in the sight of God as those in Christ; and everything we do, dear friends, is for your strengthening. 20 For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21 I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.

Likewise, I also have quotes from numerous Biblical scholars; bishops, reverends, and ministers of various different sects of Christinaity; book and article authors; PhDs; college professors; and etc. who agree and disagree with the Bible condemning homosexuality.
http://faculty.mc3.edu/barmstro/ishasin.html

You, I, and anyone else on the face of the Earth can say it's a sin or not a sin until you are dead in the grave, that doesn't make you factually right or wrong, it just means you have an opinion which you and anyone else on this board is most certainly entitled to. But like I said before, as you and I show here, there is no definitive answer.

[JK37]

Thank you, lw. I've enjoyed this. Truly.

"There are no absolutes!"

"Are you absolutely sure?"

We'll all find out one day, which is why to pass judgment now is a waste of time. Free will entitles each of us to choose right, and sometimes, wrong. Maybe I'll be wrong in many ways, though I don't believe I am in this. My intent is not to change your mind; that is not my right, responsibility or even possibility. In each of these it is the Holy Spirit's, for He changes the heart.

[jbock13]

Seems you rather conveniently left out Romans 1.

Let us also consider the link you posted. And a surprise that we find is that many opinions are from well known liberal denominations. Sure, liberal theologians aren't necessarily always wrong, but they are far more apt to doubt the authority of scripture, and therefore, ignore or change parts they don't like.

I say consider the source. What do you think a unitarian would say?

Secondly, the majority work for an AIDS foundation. Doesn't that sound fishy that maybe this isn't a randomly selected group of opinions? (btw, not going into the gay and AIDS thing, it's a serious disease that no one should have to go through.)

[lynchburgwildcats]

Seems you rather conveniently left out Romans 1.

Let us also consider the link you posted. And a surprise that we find is that many opinions are from well known liberal denominations. Sure, liberal theologians aren't necessarily always wrong, but they are far more apt to doubt the authority of scripture, and therefore, ignore or change parts they don't like.

I say consider the source. What do you think a unitarian would say?

Secondly, the majority work for an AIDS foundation. Doesn't that sound fishy that maybe this isn't a randomly selected group of opinions? (btw, not going into the gay and AIDS thing, it's a serious disease that no one should have to go through.)

I did not see Roman 1 listed in his post of scriptures, so I didn't conveniently leave out anything. I simply posted different translation/interpretations of the same scripture he posted.

Let me get this straight because maybe I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you are saying. But are you telling me bishops, reverends, and ministers of the very Christian faith doubt the things they are preaching and educating their congregations about?

[thepostman]

I will say this, I believe that the Bible is clear the homosexuality is wrong, but it is not something that should cause so much anger. Remember how Noah allowed divorce even though it was not in God's plan? This is how I view the issue of homosexuality. Sure, its not what God wants but maybe this is something that should not be debated so harshly simply because its man's heart that God is concerned with. I don't know if that makes any sense typing it out but my wife and I were talking about it today and she brought Moses up and how he allowed divorce even though that is not what God's ideal plan is and that is kind of how she is viewing this whole homosexuality issue in America today.

It made a lot of sense to me but sounded much more intelligent then what I just typed, which isn't shocking haha

[jbock13]

Let me get this straight because maybe I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you are saying. But are you telling me bishops, reverends, and ministers of the very Christian faith doubt the things they are preaching and educating their congregations about?

Yes. There are ministers and bishops who do not believe, for example, that the Bible is the infallible word of God. They are in every denomination, but in some more than others.

[Yacht Rock]

And you just indirectly proved my point. Thanks. - and that's not sarcasm clapping

I think the point is you've made yourself impossible to debate. Not sure if you're a troll or not but you're coming across as such.

Personally, I've given you evidence of God's design for romantic relationships and marriage but you have chosen to ignore that, I suppose.

And there is plenty of debate out there that that stance is not true. Have you chosen to ignore that? The point is, it's an opinion based on what you want it to say, and to claim there is any definitive right or wrong answer is ignorant.

Do you think creation in Genesis didn't occur? God's word is pretty clear on that one. If you say that nothing in God's Word can be taken truthfully, then I can't argue with you from a biblical perspective because you are just choosing to believe which bits you want to believe. The only advice I would give is to be careful when making truth what you want it to be is dangerous. Good luck.

[lynchburgwildcats]

Let me get this straight because maybe I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you are saying. But are you telling me bishops, reverends, and ministers of the very Christian faith doubt the things they are preaching and educating their congregations about?

Yes. There are ministers and bishops who do not believe, for example, that the Bible is the infallible word of God. They are in every denomination, but in some more than others.

Well that's an interesting stance to take. Won't say I agree or disagree, just interesting.

[RubberMallet]

seriously if you dont understand the history of biblical translation into english, trying to make these tired falacy laden arguments make one look like a youtube commenter.

[jbock13]

Let me get this straight because maybe I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you are saying. But are you telling me bishops, reverends, and ministers of the very Christian faith doubt the things they are preaching and educating their congregations about?

Yes. There are ministers and bishops who do not believe, for example, that the Bible is the infallible word of God. They are in every denomination, but in some more than others.

Well that's an interesting stance to take. Won't say I agree or disagree, just interesting.

Just like there's plenty of pastors who don't believe in a literal, seven day creation. When I worked at a church of the brethren camp this line of thinking was rather popular amongst the leadership (including clergy). Again, I'm skeptical to name specific denominations because there are good ones and bad ones in every group, although unitarian does not count as Christian, but anyways.

[lynchburgwildcats]

I will say this, I believe that the Bible is clear the homosexuality is wrong, but it is not something that should cause so much anger. Remember how Noah allowed divorce even though it was not in God's plan? This is how I view the issue of homosexuality. Sure, its not what God wants but maybe this is something that should not be debated so harshly simply because its man's heart that God is concerned with. I don't know if that makes any sense typing it out but my wife and I were talking about it today and she brought Moses up and how he allowed divorce even though that is not what God's ideal plan is and that is kind of how she is viewing this whole homosexuality issue in America today.

It made a lot of sense to me but sounded much more intelligent then what I just typed, which isn't shocking haha

Makes sense to me, I believe. Basically it boils down to:
Homosexuality = wrong
Divorce = not in God's plan
What is important = what's in a person's heart
But Noah and Moses allowed divorce because? Why? Was the conclusion because it was in the good natured heart of the divorcees to get divorced?

I can get that. Afterall God did say in Genesis 2:18 (NEw International Version)

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Of course one can interpret helper in any number of ways, but it was in the context of Adam and the helper did in fact refer to Eve. So one can interpret that to say that God would want all men to have a "suitable helper".Then again, one can extrapolate that he was only referring to Adam because he said the man and not necessarily man in general.

I've also seen this scripture used to argue that homosexuality is not wrong because a person of the opposite gender would not be a "suitable helper" for that of a homosexual person, if used under the assumption that "suitable helper" meant "life partner."

[Yacht Rock]

If you aren't certain that God designed the woman to be man's mate then perhaps you need a biology lesson. Just how it works. Not only is there biblical evidence, but physical evidence.

[lynchburgwildcats]

If you aren't certain that God designed the woman to be man's mate then perhaps you need a biology lesson. Just how it works. Not only is there biblical evidence, but physical evidence.

Who says the purpose of sex and marital relationships is based purely on procreation?

[Yacht Rock]

If you aren't certain that God designed the woman to be man's mate then perhaps you need a biology lesson. Just how it works. Not only is there biblical evidence, but physical evidence.

Who says the purpose of sex and marital relationships is based purely on procreation?

I don't believe so, but, it is necessary for His kingdom to grow. If everyone was gay, no one would have children and the human race would cease as we know it.

Secondly, I do know, beyond a doubt, that God, in His perfection, chose a female as Adams partner. Why would I say that I know better than God? I don't. I will seek to follow God's preference for our lives, not something that is born of man after the fall.

[lynchburgwildcats]

If you aren't certain that God designed the woman to be man's mate then perhaps you need a biology lesson. Just how it works. Not only is there biblical evidence, but physical evidence.

Who says the purpose of sex and marital relationships is based purely on procreation?

I don't believe so, but, it is necessary for His kingdom to grow. If everyone was gay, no one would have children and the human race would cease as we know it.

And if everyone was gay, surely God would have had the foresight to give men the capacity to give birth. That is unless he had no intention of the human race ever existing beyond Adam, which would seem to make the creation of Adam a rather fruitless and pointless endeavor to begin with.

[jbock13]

And if everyone was gay, surely God would have had the foresight to give men the capacity to give birth. That is unless he had no intention of the human race ever existing beyond Adam, which would seem to make the creation of Adam a rather fruitless and pointless endeavor to begin with.

But God didn't do that.

[lynchburgwildcats]

And if everyone was gay, surely God would have had the foresight to give men the capacity to give birth. That is unless he had no intention of the human race ever existing beyond Adam, which would seem to make the creation of Adam a rather fruitless and pointless endeavor to begin with.

But God didn't do that.

Yep. Which is why I said God surely would have had the foresight to give men the capacity to give birth had all people been born gay...

[Yacht Rock]

That is the point lw. Thank you for making it. God didn't do that, in all of His wisdom. My point is, you can see the fruitfulness and life born from God's plan for a union.

Genesis 2:19-24

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

This is taken from the NIV, but if you look at the original Hebrew, the translation doesn't really take any big liberalities. Basically, as the Word says, Woman was taken from man and this is why they become complete and become one flesh.

Where in the Bible does it say that man should leave his father and be united to another man? Or woman to another woman? Or that man and man should become one flesh or woman and woman should become one flesh?

Please cite examples from scripture that have been interpreted by many biblical scholars. Thank you and good night.