Is eating shellfish less of an abomination than homosexuality?

[Satya]

Very well, I will use this reasoning to argue within the religious context...

So the real question is: how should Christians respond to the fact that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour? Is it legitimate simply to reassert this condemnation, to say that it still stands? No, for two reasons. First, the meaning of homosexuality has changed. In the new narrative of homosexuality, a gay person is just as inclined to seek stable monogamy as a straight person. The Bible's assumption that gay sex is a form of indulgence unrelated to marriage can no longer be shared.

Secondly, Christians are not committed to following the rules laid down in the Bible. They reject the need for circumcision and food laws. And all moral laws. St Paul said that we have to break the link between God's will and religious laws. We have to make up morality as we go, putting love and freedom first. Ah, but didn't St Paul clearly condemn gay sex? Yes, but this is because he shared the general biblical view, that it was inextricable from hedonism. Christians who use Paul to condemn homosexuality have failed to grasp Paul's key message: that holy rules are dead.

So the answer to this question has two parts. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour, as a threat to moral order. But the New Testament condemns something else as well: holy moralism. It announces an anti-legalistic revolution. It tells us we have to keep our moral thinking mobile, open-ended. The Bible sows the seed of the deconstruction of its own sexual moralism.

 

[Afrelen]

Frankly, I don't consider theologians to be intellectuals.

Uh oh, did I just step on your appeal to authority fallacy?

The whole, "homosexuality is against moral law" is one of the more hilarious arguments you hear because if you actually argue the moral law with the very kind of reason that Paul prescribed, then it falls apart.

I'm sorry, did you just declare I was using a logical fallacy by using the very same fallacy? Here, I'll not do it for you. It is not a logical fallacy just because you, or any authority say it is so. If you want to make that argument please, try doing it by actually making an argument.

As to the first statement, if you bothered, you'd notice 90% of the Westminster Divines were not just theologians but renowned scientists, philosophers, and even politicians. Further, if this argument is to degenerate into the blatant name calling then I'll finish it here: You're a moron, I win. However, I think we're above that.

It is not an appeal to authority if I make claims using the information gathered from that authority correctly. So if you'd like to show me where I've failed to do that, please do.

Further, here's where homosexuality is considered against the moral law as written by the Divines, and I won't bother trying to interpret it, being that Satya, in his clearly divine knowledge of all things, seems to be able to do so perfectly all the time.

Question 98: Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?


Answer: The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.


Question 99: What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?


Answer: For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. That: What God forbids, is at no time to be done;: What he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. That: What is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. That in: What is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in: What is forbidden them.


Question 137: Which is the seventh commandment?


Answer: The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.


Question 138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?


Answer: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.


Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?


Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

 

[Satya]

I'm sorry, did you just declare I was using a logical fallacy by using the very same fallacy? Here, I'll not do it for you. It is not a logical fallacy just because you, or any authority say it is so. If you want to make that argument please, try doing it by actually making an argument.

That was kind of the point, but TLM took all the fun out of it.

I did post an argument though.

As to the first statement, if you bothered, you'd notice 90% of the Westminster Divines were not just theologians but renowned scientists, philosophers, and even politicians. Further, if this argument is to degenerate into the blatant name calling then I'll finish it here: You're a moron, I win. However, I think we're above that.

When did I call you a name? Arguing that any group of people are above question is ludicrous.

It is not an appeal to authority if I make claims using the information gathered from that authority correctly. So if you'd like to show me where I've failed to do that, please do.

ROFL. Oh for crying out loud, I was trying to be ironic.

 

[Afrelen]

ROFL. Oh for crying out loud, I was trying to be ironic.

You failed, instead you insulted. If you want to wash your hands of it, go ahead, but don't expect people to know you're being ironic via text alone.

Also, you didn't call me a name. You called men long dead and regardlessly deserving the appropriate respect deserved of any human being of not being able to defend themselves to such in invoking that the Westminster Divines being theologians "are not intellectuals." If you need that explained, you simply called dead men idiots because it benefited your point.

 

[Afrelen]

[QUOTE=N

 

[Satya]

Also, you didn't call me a name. You called men long dead and regardlessly deserving the appropriate respect deserved of any human being of not being able to defend themselves to such in invoking that the Westminster Divines being theologians "are not intellectuals." If you need that explained, you simply called dead men idiots because it benefited your point.

Actually, I argued that I don't consider theologians to be intellectuals. It seems you took more issue with me calling them "theologians" than "not intellectuals". Of course, it is only my opinion that theologians are not intellectuals.

And because TLM trounced my fun, I did provide some reasoning to my argument which for some reason you are choosing to ignore...

So the real question is: how should Christians respond to the fact that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour? Is it legitimate simply to reassert this condemnation, to say that it still stands? No, for two reasons. First, the meaning of homosexuality has changed. In the new narrative of homosexuality, a gay person is just as inclined to seek stable monogamy as a straight person. The Bible's assumption that gay sex is a form of indulgence unrelated to marriage can no longer be shared.

Secondly, Christians are not committed to following the rules laid down in the Bible. They reject the need for circumcision and food laws. And all moral laws. St Paul said that we have to break the link between God's will and religious laws. We have to make up morality as we go, putting love and freedom first. Ah, but didn't St Paul clearly condemn gay sex? Yes, but this is because he shared the general biblical view, that it was inextricable from hedonism. Christians who use Paul to condemn homosexuality have failed to grasp Paul's key message: that holy rules are dead.

So the answer to this question has two parts. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour, as a threat to moral order. But the New Testament condemns something else as well: holy moralism. It announces an anti-legalistic revolution. It tells us we have to keep our moral thinking mobile, open-ended. The Bible sows the seed of the deconstruction of its own sexual moralism.

I just found it funny that you would tout a group of people as intellectually beyond question, which is mainly your opinion of the group. I stated my opinion and threw in the appeal to authority fallacy, at what I thought would actually motivate you to provide reasons why this particular group can be considered experts, or why there particular interpretation is more valid. I didn't realize how bad it came off until TLM responded, hence the "Eek" part of the post.

 

[Afrelen]

Actually, I argued that I don't consider theologians to be intellectuals. It seems you took more issue with me calling them "theologians" than "not intellectuals". Of course, it is only my opinion that theologians are not intellectuals.

And because TLM trounced my fun, I did provide some reasoning to my argument which for some reason you are choosing to ignore...

I just found it funny that you would tout a group of people as intellectually beyond question, which is mainly your opinion of the group. I stated my opinion and threw in the appeal to authority fallacy, at what I thought would actually motivate you to provide reasons why this particular group can be considered experts, or why there particular interpretation is more valid. I didn't realize how bad it came off until TLM responded, hence the "Eek" part of the post.

Understandable.

I, however, did not say they were above question. I tried, and clearly failed, to convey that they were men of such intellect worthy of the respect of giving second thought before offering a challenge to their views, especially the views come by their joint effort. I apologize for misleading you there.

 

[Satya]

Understandable.

I, however, did not say they were above question. I tried, and clearly failed, to convey that they were men of such intellect worthy of the respect of giving second thought before offering a challenge to their views, especially the views come by their joint effort. I apologize for misleading you there.

No problem. I would appreciate if you consider the reasoning behind the argument I presented though. Its starting to feel as though you are avoiding it.

In particular I am speaking of this argument...

So the real question is: how should Christians respond to the fact that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour? Is it legitimate simply to reassert this condemnation, to say that it still stands? No, for two reasons. First, the meaning of homosexuality has changed. In the new narrative of homosexuality, a gay person is just as inclined to seek stable monogamy as a straight person. The Bible's assumption that gay sex is a form of indulgence unrelated to marriage can no longer be shared.

Secondly, Christians are not committed to following the rules laid down in the Bible. They reject the need for circumcision and food laws. And all moral laws. St Paul said that we have to break the link between God's will and religious laws. We have to make up morality as we go, putting love and freedom first. Ah, but didn't St Paul clearly condemn gay sex? Yes, but this is because he shared the general biblical view, that it was inextricable from hedonism. Christians who use Paul to condemn homosexuality have failed to grasp Paul's key message: that holy rules are dead.

So the answer to this question has two parts. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour, as a threat to moral order. But the New Testament condemns something else as well: holy moralism. It announces an anti-legalistic revolution. It tells us we have to keep our moral thinking mobile, open-ended. The Bible sows the seed of the deconstruction of its own sexual moralism.

Furthermore, your explaination provides no rational for that long list of sins under the 7th commandment. Adultery by definition is extramarital sex. Therefore, if people have sex within marriage, even if it is sodomy, it is not adultery. Furthermore, if same sex marriage is legal, then a married homosexual couples would not be committing adultery.

The irony I was trying to convey was accepting things simply because people say them and without the rational to support them.

 

[Afrelen]

No problem. I would appreciate if you consider the reasoning behind the argument I presented though. Its starting to feel as though you are avoiding it.

In particular I am speaking of this argument...

Furthermore, your explaination provides no rational for that long list of sins under the 7th commandment. Adultery by definition is extramarital sex. Therefore, if people have sex within marriage, even if it is sodomy, it is not adultery. Furthermore, if same sex marriage is legal, then a married homosexual couples would not be committing adultery.

The irony I was trying to convey was accepting things simply because people say them and without the rational to support them.

Apologies, I assumed that you had noticed the original link here for the text with scriptural proofs, I get ahead of myself, often. The unfortunate thing about quoting the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) is that it's riddled with scriptural references that get in the way of forum formatting so I generally just quote the text. The relevant passages are here, and the key for reading them is to read them in context (that is read the whole paragraph or chapter in which they are located). I'm actually rather poor at writing biblical exegesis, to my everlasting shame, so I quote the WCF for their writings of it being that they are far better at it than I ever could dream of being.

[767] 1 Thessalonians 4:4. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour. Job 31:1. I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? 1 Corinthians 7:34. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
[768] Colossians 4:6. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
[769] 1 Peter 3:2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
[770] 1 Corinthians 7:2, 35-36. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.... And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
[771] Job 31:1. I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?
[772] Acts 24:24-25. And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
[773] Proverbs 2:16-20. To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words; Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God. For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead. None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life. That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous.
[774] 1 Timothy 2:9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.
[775] 1 Corinthians 7:2, 9. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.... But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
[776] Proverbs 5:19-20. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?
[777] 1 Peter 3:7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
[778] Proverbs 31:11, 27-28. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.... She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
[779] Proverbs 5:8. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house. Genesis 39:8-10. But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand; There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.
[780] Proverbs 5:7. Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth.
[781] Hebrews 13:4. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Galatians 5:19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.
[782] 2 Samuel 13:14. Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her. 1 Corinthians 5:1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
[783] Romans 1:24, 26-27. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.... 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: 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 recompense of their error which was meet. Leviticus 20:15-16. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
[784] Matthew 5:28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 15:19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Colossians 3:5. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
[785] Ephesians 5:3-4. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. Proverbs 7:5, 21-22. That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.... With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks.
[786] Isaiah 3:16. Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet. 2 Peter 2:14. Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children.
[787] Proverbs 7:10, 13. And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtle of heart.... So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him....
[788] 1 Timothy 4:3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
[789] Leviticus 18:1-21. Mark 6:18. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Malachi 2:11-12. Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
[790] 1 Kings 15:12. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 2 Kings 23:7. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove. Deuteronomy 23:17-18. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Leviticus 19:29. Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. Jeremiah 5:7. How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses. Proverbs 7:24-27. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.
[791] Matthew 19:10-11. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
[792] 1 Corinthians 7:7-9. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Genesis 38:26. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
[793] Malachi 2:14-15. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. Matthew 19:5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
[794] Malachi 2:16. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Matthew 5:32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
[795] 1 Corinthians 7:12-13. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[796] Ezekiel 16:49. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Proverbs 23:30-33. They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.
[797] Genesis 39:19. And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. Proverbs 5:8. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house.
[798] Ephesians 5:4. Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. Ezekiel 23:14-16. And that she increased her whoredoms: for when she saw men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion, Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity: And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into Chaldea. Isaiah 23:15-17. And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king: after the end of seventy years shall Tyre sing as an harlot. Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered. And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. Isaiah 3:16. Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet. Mark 6:22. And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. Romans 13:13. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 1 Peter 4:3. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.
[799] 2 Kings 9:30. And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window. Jeremiah 4:30. And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life. Ezekiel 23:40. And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments.

I know, wall o' text. That's why I generally just offer the link so you can use the footnotes provided.


Further, on to your argument in the next post...

 

[Satya]

Apologies, I assumed that you had noticed the original link here for the text with scriptural proofs, I get ahead of myself, often. The unfortunate thing about quoting the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) is that it's riddled with scriptural references that get in the way of forum formatting so I generally just quote the text. The relevant passages are here, and the key for reading them is to read them in context (that is read the whole paragraph or chapter in which they are located). I'm actually rather poor at writing biblical exegesis, to my everlasting shame, so I quote the WCF for their writings of it being that they are far better at it than I ever could dream of being.




I know, wall o' text. That's why I generally just offer the link so you can use the footnotes provided.


Further, on to your argument in the next post...

Frankly, providing a wall of text is not the same as providing rational. You might as well tell me to just go read the Bible if I want to know why they consider adultery to extend to same sex marriage and to sodomy within marriage. I don't want to know the passages in the Bible, I want to know why those passages are relevant. Why would your God be against same sex marriage and sodomy within marriage? Which specific passages in the Bible state as much and how did they interpret them to have that meaning? In essence, all you are doing is saying, "They say so, and they have a long list of passages from the Bible, so they must be right." It doesn't seem to me that you understand why they argue such, only that they do argue such.

 

[NaeturVindur]

Frankly, providing a wall of text is not the same as providing rational. You might as well tell me to just go read the Bible if I want to know why they consider adultery to extend to same sex marriage and to sodomy within marriage. I don't want to know the passages in the Bible, I want to know why those passages are relevant. Why would your God be against same sex marriage and sodomy within marriage? Which specific passages in the Bible state as much and how did they interpret them to have that meaning? In essence, all you are doing is saying, "They say so, and they have a long list of passages from the Bible, so they must be right." It doesn't seem to me that you understand why they argue such, only that they do argue such.

the sole source of moral guidance for christians is the bible (plus the pope if you're catholic, and some even turn to personal guides, but the only absolute, universal authority is the bible). Therefore, providing a list of references IS a valid argument in the context of christianity. Beyond that, the only arguments to be made (while staying within the confines of christianity) are interpretations of those passages, and bringing in other references to back up your new interpretations.

ETA: the term "personal guides" is used from my POV, which is pagan. Christians would tend to call this a relationship with God. I realized my language may be confusing to some.

 

[Afrelen]

So the real question is: how should Christians respond to the fact that the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour? Is it legitimate simply to reassert this condemnation, to say that it still stands? No, for two reasons. First, the meaning of homosexuality has changed. In the new narrative of homosexuality, a gay person is just as inclined to seek stable monogamy as a straight person. The Bible's assumption that gay sex is a form of indulgence unrelated to marriage can no longer be shared.

Secondly, Christians are not committed to following the rules laid down in the Bible. They reject the need for circumcision and food laws. And all moral laws. St Paul said that we have to break the link between God's will and religious laws. We have to make up morality as we go, putting love and freedom first. Ah, but didn't St Paul clearly condemn gay sex? Yes, but this is because he shared the general biblical view, that it was inextricable from hedonism. Christians who use Paul to condemn homosexuality have failed to grasp Paul's key message: that holy rules are dead.

So the answer to this question has two parts. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour, as a threat to moral order. But the New Testament condemns something else as well: holy moralism. It announces an anti-legalistic revolution. It tells us we have to keep our moral thinking mobile, open-ended. The Bible sows the seed of the deconstruction of its own sexual moralism.

I'm not exactly sure if this is you or someone else. I guess that since you quoted it's someone else. While an excellent argument they miss a couple major excellent points that Paul makes, and also, definitely adhere to some points in excellent ways that show an amazing understanding of scripture rarely seen today.

The missed point, at least the biggest:

1What shall we say then?(A) Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can(B) we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of us(C) who have been baptized(D) into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were(E) buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as(F) Christ was raised from the dead by(G) the glory of the Father, we too might walk in(H) newness of life. 5For(I) if we have been united with him in(J) a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6We know that(K) our old self[a](L) was crucified with him in order that(M) the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For(N) one who has died(O) has been set free[b] from sin. 8Now(P) if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that(Q) Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again;(R) death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin,(S) once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves(T) dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12Let not(U) sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13(V) Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but(W) present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For(X) sin(Y) will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Now please excuse me (I'm literally blushing as I write this) whilst I try to exegete, and I am horrible at it as I've stated before. Forgive me should I lead someone astray or misrepresent Paul.


I specify this because there are explicit references by Paul that we can indeed know the implications of the moral law and what they recommend and forbid. If you want to see for yourself, please read the entirety of the text of the book of Romans for yourself. Paul spends the first 3 or 4 chapters making the point that all know they are condemned by it, why they are condemned by it, and that this all that matters pertaining to their condemnation.



Now, with the text at hand Paul has moved on to explaining clearly what he means by the good news he gave in the previous chapter; that by the grace of God the righteousness of Christ is imputed upon those who trust that Christ has provided justification for their sins. So he begins with what would be the obvious conclusion, and the one the quote above, indeed makes. The quote makes it "It tells us we have to keep our moral thinking mobile, open-ended. The Bible sows the seed of the deconstruction of its own sexual moralism." Paul states it, "Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" That is, to put them both in my own language, if I may, "Being that Christ frees us from condemnation under the law, are we then to go on breaking it? Does it even matter whether we do or not?"


Paul clearly and blatantly answers "By no means!" Christ did not die with the intent that we go on sinning. It was with the opposite intent; that we stop! Paul's point is that prior to Christ's intervention we were incapable of doing anything other than sin. That we were born condemned to hell with no hope of any action or hope of our own to undo that. As Aquinas put the state, and far better than I could: Before the fall (that is the original sin of Adam and Eve) man's nature was "Possible to sin and possible not to sin," after the fall it became for all men "Not possible to not sin." Christ's work was done to restore us to the pre-fall condition so that we might be able to not sin, and if we do, we have no condemnation for as John writes:

1My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin,(A) we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2(B) He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but(C) also for the sins of the whole world.

Paul's point agrees with John's that as Christians we are not as this writer states, "not committed to following the rules laid down in the Bible," we are just the opposite. "For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." In this Paul makes the point that, as Christians, we are being unified to Christ and as he died to sin so also must we, but Christ rose, and he rose to follow God who is not sinful in anyway nor in Him is there any darkness nor can there be in His presence. It follows then that we would not sin any longer.


But as Paul stated earlier, left to our own devices we are incapable of not sinning! That is the purpose of verses 5-14. That Christ's crucifixion wasn't just a propitiation for sin, it was also a resurrection that would allow those who died with Him to resist sin! What purpose would it be to make us capable to resist sin were the crucifixion done to allow us to keep sinning? None at all! So it is that Paul explains we are to resist sin, for the day is coming when we will no longer have to for it will be no more!


This all comes with a warning, in verses 12-14, we are warned that it still has not gone completely, and that our sin natures are not gone with it. As such, it is still natural for us to sin, to want to sin, but it is also, for the Christian, natural not to sin, and seek to follow God's laws. This is why forgiveness is provided, that in the mean time we may not undo (as would have) what is done. Truly, Christ said to us, "It is finished."

 

[Afrelen]

Frankly, providing a wall of text is not the same as providing rational. You might as well tell me to just go read the Bible if I want to know why they consider adultery to extend to same sex marriage and to sodomy within marriage. I don't want to know the passages in the Bible, I want to know why those passages are relevant. Why would your God be against same sex marriage and sodomy within marriage? Which specific passages in the Bible state as much and how did they interpret them to have that meaning? In essence, all you are doing is saying, "They say so, and they have a long list of passages from the Bible, so they must be right." It doesn't seem to me that you understand why they argue such, only that they do argue such.

I'm sorry, then, I cannot provide you what you seek. I am incapable, because I am weak in this area. It is assumed, amongst Christians, that scripture is inerrant. So when I provide you it, I am saying "because God said so." This is why I would rather err in not providing enough rationale for your conviction (that is, to be convinced, I know also that word's legal connotation) than to err in misleading someone from the truth of His word. Forgive me, what I have offered is the extent of my faculties.

 

[Raccoon Love]

All I know that the bible is a very vague book therefore it can be subjected to multiple interpretation, people are never going to come to an agreement on such topic because of the fact that the book itself is not very clear, yet I feel that the way God was interpreted back then got a long with what society considered moral or right, not what will be considered right in this current times, the prophets in my opinion wrote what they thought God would like them to write, and since this prophets where human they cannot be trusted completley, there's many contradictions in the bible on many things, but Christians don't believe that God is merciful and that Jesus was sent to forgive all of our past sins? that is the main messege yet people focused on this minor details in the bible that were not written by Jesus himself. Furthermore most of the scriptures that condeem homosexuality are found in the old testament..wasn't the coming of Jeussupposed to change a lot of the ways old believers followed their religion? In the new testament it was staed by Paul simply because he still followed the old testament, and in all honesty I just don't think a God who is all merciful and kind will condeem something such as love, in conclusion christians need to realize that a lot of this ways are traditional, old, and out of era, and what people thought was right back then its different then today, all I''m saying is to have faith in God and do what you believe is right as one is no one to judge what is right or wrong simply by the words of man, and I think as long as this God sees this need to follow morality even though you might be unaware of what is wrong or not its enough to live a good life in the eyes of God..I'm sorry if this is to long..but as a homosexual, I have seprated from my beliefs do to this, but I feel now that there is a higher power who must love me, and that higher power is forgiving.

 

[Satya]

It is assumed, amongst Christians, that scripture is inerrant.

This surprises me. I know so few Christians who think scripture is inerant, because historically and contextually is so obviously isn't, that when I meet someone like you, I feel like I would have to disprove your entire religion to prove one point. It simply isn't wroth doing. When you believe a source is inerrant, then you can simply pretend that any flaws discovered in how it is followed are the result of faulty interpretation, and so the scripture can be reinterpreted an infinite number of times to cover up those flaws.

 

[Solar Empath]

This surprises me. I know so few Christians who think scripture is inerant, because historically and contextually is so obviously isn't, that when I meet someone like you, I feel like I would have to disprove your entire religion to prove one point. It simply isn't wroth doing. When you believe a source is inerrant, then you can simply pretend that any flaws discovered in how it is followed are the result of faulty interpretation, and so the scripture can be reinterpreted an infinite number of times to cover up those flaws.

Religious discussion is the rationalization of emotional belief, therefore you can't argue with them at all. Just like very few people will ever change their stance on abortion or the death penalty due to logical discourse, few if any will change their religious views due to it. The vast majority of people only modify these views when someone they truly respect and care for raises alternatives.

So there's no reason to try other than to better understand your own views.

And by religious views I mean Christianity, Paganism, Spiritualism, Atheism, Agnosticism... they all are equally guilty.

 

[Satya]

Religious discussion is the rationalization of emotional belief, therefore you can't argue with them at all. Just like very few people will ever change their stance on abortion or the death penalty due to logical discourse, few if any will change their religious views due to it. The vast majority of people only modify these views when someone they truly respect and care for raises alternatives.

So there's no reason to try other than to better understand your own views.

And by religious views I mean Christianity, Paganism, Spiritualism, Atheism, Agnosticism... they all are equally guilty.

Not negative atheism. That is entirely contingent upon evidence and reason. If you can provide evidence that a God exists then a negative atheists will believe. They simply choose not to believe because there is no evidence to believe. Just as they wouldn't believe in leprechauns or unicorns until there is sufficient evidence that they exist.

 

[slant]

No, I motion to state that eating shellfish is much worse.

 

[Satya]

No, I motion to state that eating shellfish is much worse.

I agree. Down with Red Lobster.

 

[Solar Empath]

Not negative atheism. That is entirely contingent upon evidence and reason. If you can provide evidence that a God exists then a negative atheists will believe. They simply choose not to believe because there is no evidence to believe. Just as they wouldn't believe in leprechauns or unicorns until there is sufficient evidence that they exist.

>.> Most Negative Atheists first believe there is no God and then justify their position just like everyone else. There's a very scanty handful of people of any stripe that believe something about God and then change their viewpoint based on logic or evidence.

And I'm going to invoke Ignosticism now if you want to discuss this further Define the God you are disbelieving. Jehova? The Unmoved Mover? Shiva?