Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke
jbock13 wrote:To add to that, if God desired that gays be married, wouldn't God's word have explicitly stated that it was okay? He brings up heterosexual marriage, so one can easily conclude that God didnt just accidently leave it out.A classic logical fallacy, argument from silence, where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. As far as I know, there is no explicitly stated, indisputable evidence that God didn't desire homosexuals to wed. So to conclude that God didn't desire homosexuals to get wed because he didn't specifically say anything about it is a logical fallacy. Plus you know, God didn't cover every thing possible in the Bible...
Yacht Rock wrote: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.And where in the Bible does it say God didn't intend for man to ever "leave his father and be united to another man"?
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.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.
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.
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.
Purple Haize wrote:The Bible also doesn't say its wrong to throw everyone over the age of 50 over a cliff to end their life. So I guess it's OK. My wife is already past that and has great life insurance that ill have 7 years to enjoy! Vegas baby!Nice try, but futile attempt. The difference here is that it is illegal by man's law, and God says one must abide by man's law. As far as I know, being a homosexual isn't illegal and neither is participating in homosexual intercourse.
JK37 wrote:Postman, well-said!If there are priests, ministers, etc. that don't consider the Bible the infallible word of God, then why should I?
Humble, you're right. But you lose ground when you introduce OT law as a defense of heterosexualism and in opposition to homosexuality. I think you can figure out why.
lw, if your goal is to show simply that there is not unanimity in Christian circles regarding homosexuality, we agree. Though since that's already well-known, I'll stop short of calling it success on your part. But if you will acknowledge that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, I will be more than happy to continue debating what it says with you. What do you say?
Humble_Opinion wrote:LW - the fact of the matter is that God provides clear examples of what a relationship that is good and pleasing to Him looks like. The fact that BEFORE the downfall of man, God created a woman to be a suitable partner for man speaks volumes. In addition, in Genesis 1:28 he commands male and female to "be fruitful and multiply." A clear indication of the ultimate purpose of the relationship between man and woman.You're really going to whip out Leviticus on me? The same Leviticus that forbids "unclean foods" such as camels, rock badger, hooved animals, rabbits, pigs, seafood without fins and scales, eagle, vultures, kite, falcon, raven, ostrich, nighthawk, sea gull, hawk, owls, stork, heron, hoopoe, bat, winged insects with four legs unless they have jointed legs above their feet and can hop on the ground, mole rat, mouse, multiple lizards, gecko, and chameleon.
In Genesis 2 we see the creation of Eve, which again affirms the original intention of God's Creation, where he takes a rib from Adam and uses it to create Eve and then finishes in verse 24 by stating, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."
As far as actual evidence for what God disapproves of sexually amongst His people goes, Leviticus 18 is probably the earliest and clearest example. The fact is that sexual intercourse of many types, including those in both orientations are explicitly stated to be unpleasing to God. The fact that one person may or may not have been born with a proclivity to one or the other doesn't matter. Since the fall, all men have become afflicted with a desire towards one form of sexual sin or another. However, this does not constitute a sin as has been pointed out before. The sin comes from acting, or even fantasizing about such desires.
Now, I think it is much more difficult for my brothers and sisters in Christ who are tempted towards sexual sins of the homosexual persuasion and yes it's not fair, but we lost all sense of fairness after the fall of man. Thankfully, we have a gracious and kind God who saw fit to make a way for us even in our sin.
jbock13 wrote:What the heck. You can't logically prove or disprove a negative!Yes you can if you have the evidence to do so.
lynchburgwildcats wrote:Thanks, you answered JK37 question.JK37 wrote:Postman, well-said!If there are priests, ministers, etc. that don't consider the Bible the infallible word of God, then why should I?
Humble, you're right. But you lose ground when you introduce OT law as a defense of heterosexualism and in opposition to homosexuality. I think you can figure out why.
lw, if your goal is to show simply that there is not unanimity in Christian circles regarding homosexuality, we agree. Though since that's already well-known, I'll stop short of calling it success on your part. But if you will acknowledge that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, I will be more than happy to continue debating what it says with you. What do you say?
lynchburgwildcats wrote: If there are priests, ministers, etc. that don't consider the Bible the infallible word of God, then why should I?I, and I'm sure others appreciate honesty. Since you do not believe the Bible is the infallible word of God then there isn't a whole lot more to be said if your response is simply, "Well I just don't believe what it says."
lynchburgwildcats wrote:http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ ... -Proof.htmjbock13 wrote:What the heck. You can't logically prove or disprove a negative!Yes you can if you have the evidence to do so.
SuperJon wrote:If you whip out Leviticus in a discussion about homosexuality, you immediately lose any respect or credibility in that debate.Wait, we aren't under levitical law anymore? Who knew!??
Purple Haize wrote:I wonder what is the predominate religion of Internet trolls?I don't know. But what I did learn today is that you can be thrown off a cliff as long as it is okay with government. Cogitate on that one for awhile.
SuperJon wrote:If you whip out Leviticus in a discussion about homosexuality, you immediately lose any respect or credibility in that debate.Not if you understand OT law. And not if homosexuals use that very passage to argue FOR homosexual relationships.
SuperJon wrote:If you whip out Leviticus in a discussion about homosexuality, you immediately lose any respect or credibility in that debate.In my post to LW, I "whipped out" the OT Law passages from Leviticus to show the intentions that God had in mind for relationships when He created male and female in the Garden of Eden. The nature of my post wasn't to state that we still live under OT Law, which was the law that was meant for the Jews. However, I would warn you and many others that in Matthew 5, Christ reaffirmed the Law that you so vehemently criticize as essentially being worthless. Paul, likewise, affirms this many times as well.
- By Tothehoopyall1
The poor guy didn’t make it very long. :)
- By TH Spangler