QUOTE=Fluffy]In fact, as I said, there are numerous more occasions in the Bible that have been cited as "anti-gay" passages but are absent from this thread. This just seems similar to shooting oneself in the foot and led me to the conclusion that either people do not know what the Bible says about homosexuality or they do not care. The latter would back up my personal belief that scripture is often (not always) used to justify anti-gay feelings rather than the other way around.[/QUOTE]
Which are the others. I'd be happy to debate those as well
Fluffy said:
You are of course entitled to your belief but you have not outlined why you think that this passage is about homosexuality, nor have you explained why, given that it is dealing with homosexuality, the inclination is not condemned but the act is.
Okay. Here's my reason why I think it is about homosexuality.
Rom 1:24 "wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves."
So this what I think it means. "God turned away from them because of thier sins. Their sins were their lusts in which they completely dirtied themselves by performing homosexual sex acts. To dishonour one's body, in my beleif, means to have unrighteous sex (for lack of a better phrase), and the fact that they were doing it amoungst themselves, and not with women, means that it was homosexual.
Rom 1:25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
That really has no bearing to homosexuality.
Rom 1:26 "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."
The "natural use" is the natural use of their body, which is to say, one man one woman. This is definitely the "natural use" because that's how God created man and woman. He didn't create one heterosexual pair and one homosexual pair, so homosexuality is not natural based on how God created things. So, this verse, in my views, states that homosexual sex acts between women is considered vile by god. The fact that is says "even the women" is also another indication that the men were engaging in homosexual behaviour as well.
Rom 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burnid in their lust one toward another; men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receicing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
The key here, I beleive, is "leaving the natural use of the woman." This shows, once again, that heterosexuality is the "natural" way, due to how God created us. It doesn't say "some of the men were leaving their natural way to have sex with men, while others were having sex with men already, but that was okay, because that was natural
for them" There is no for them in this verse. Heterosexuality is what is normal for everyone.
The rest of the verses are just about the other sins they were doing, so I don't think they have bearing.
Now, for the part about the thought vs the act. I don't think an inclination is ever a sin. It's only when you act on the inclination in a sinful manner. Let's take something else for way of example. Teenagers commanly feel a very high sex drive that they have never felt before in their lives. This is natural, and the higher sex drive in and of itself is not a sin. It becomes a sin, however, (and this is just my views) when the teenager starts to act on those inclinaition by looking at porn, masturbating, having sex with anyone who is willing, and other things of that nature. Only then, when he has acted, has he sinned. The same is true, I beleive, with homosexuality. The inclination is not the sin. It is only when one acts on these inclinaitons that it becomes a sin.
Fluffy said:
That is very true. Lets go back in time roughly 300 years and hold this same conversation but about women instead. Plenty of biblical scholars came to the conclusion that women were inferior according the writings of Paul back then. If you base the validity of your beliefs on what the majority of biblical scholars think then what do you do when in those days biblical scholars thought one thing and in these days another? Similarly, what will you do if in 200 years, someone makes exactly this point because they are trying to show that whilst in the rather backward years of the 21st century, most biblical scholars (perhaps?) thought that Paul condemned homosexuality, nowadays this was not the case perhaps even because of some of the arguments I have outlined here.
Well, let's look at it this way. Most of what Paul said about women is true. Sure, it was taken out of context, and many were not treated too well, but now it is going in the other direction. Churches are letting women become priests, baptize people, etc, which I think, and Paul probably meant with his writings, are men's jobs. While it is certainly a bad thing to persecute people because of taking too strict a view, taking too lenient a view is just as bad. The same now is happening with the homosexuality verse. While back in the olden days, and to some extent even now, homosexuals are being beaten and told they have a mental illness (which violent behavoiur I'm sure Paul would not have condoned), we are also now moving toward ultra-tolerance in which we completely disregard the biblical verses and start thinking that homosexual actions are not a sin, which I think is just as bad as being too strict.
[QUTOE=Fluffy] For all we know Paul was completely pro-gay (maybe even gay himself since it was quite popular at the time). Not convinced? Thats because I've failed to support such an assertion with evidence. Exactly like you have failed to support your first sentence with evidence.[/QUOTE]
Forgive me. I'm young, I have had practically no debates until I found this forum, and I tend to not understand what it that people want me to argue unless they spell it out for me.
I also don't think the first sentence made unfair claims. I said that Paul would have very good Biblical knowledge (he was a Pharisee), that therefore he would know that God made man and woman for each other, and therefore would know that one man one woman is the natural, or at least non-sinful, way of things.
Fluffy said:
The second sentence, whilst going some way to back up the first, is not exactly fullproof. You are assuming God's motives. Here are 2 alternative theories:
1) the creation story is not literal therefore God created many men and many women whose sexualities are not defined Biblically. Given that the average level of homosexuality in any human population is roughly 10%, including any recordable time period and culture, it is logical to assume that the original men and women shared such a statistic.
2) God created men and women because he needed to allow the human race to reproduce. However, once the population was stable, a minority of gays would not make a dent in the overall success of humanity in terms of reproduction. Therefore, homosexuality is fine as long as it is in the minority.
Again, not convinced? Thats because this is just random conjecture that happens to fit the facts. However, since both scenarios have exactly the same amount of evidence supporting them as your "Paul was anti-gay" scenario (eg zero), we must assume that all 3 are equally likely along with any other possibilities.
I beg your appologies again..
Fluffy said:
Finally, I would like to thankyou for taking me up on this subject. It is one that I have wanted to debate for a very long time. I realise that such a debate could get very heated so if some of my phrases seem blunt or in-your-face then I apologise but I promise you that no offense is intended.
You're welcome. I have also wanted this debate for a long time. And, knowing now that your blunt comments were just your debating and not due to some sort of deep seated hatred you feel for me, I am definitely willing to debate this topic some more, if you are not unwilling to debate in with an ameature and therefore have to tell me exaclty what I did wrong in every one of my senteces. Because chance are I won't know that it was bad. I'm not very good at these long posts and extended debates with multiple points to consider. *laughs in embaressment.