The Bible acknowledges that homosexuals exist, but does NOT approve of them and provides directon on what they must do.
Wrong! Try again!
OH, PLEASE!
The Bible says the same thing about homos as it does about adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, murderers, etc, etc, etc.
WE ARE SINNERS!
We need to acknowledge that, receive God’s forgiveness, allow His transforming power to CHANGE US, and MOVE ON.
If you go to James White’s “Alpha & Omega” Christian apologetics web site it has a devastating 4 hour audio presentation where Dr. White demolishes in excruciating detail every point Matt Vines tries to make in support of his “biblical homosexuality” position. It’s devastating. There’s a reason Vines refuses to debate White. This should not be surprising as Vines just recycles very old arguments which have been refuted over and over for decades.
And here’s where the debate gets nasty. Because talking about sex as a reproductive system offends the sensibilities if liberals. To them, sex is only about the physical feelings and gratification. And to that end, they feel that sex outside marriage is OK with any number of partners, any gender of partners.
The procreation argument against homosexuality has always been pretty lame. The Bible point-blank says that it’s an abominable sin. Period. You can’t get around that, though Mr. Vines does try by obfuscating with “but what if they really love each other?” Who cares? What if I really love any number of other abominable sins against God? Now it’s OK? These are some milquetoast pastors in this article.
Genesis 2 (NASB):
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper [s]suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
[u]She shall be called [v]Woman,
Because [w]she was taken out of [x]Man.”
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Mark 10:
6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother[d], 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
I’m not seeing how this is debatable.
Oh, look, more rationalization. Hope they didn’t break their arms patting themselves on their backs.
But wait, isn’t hubris also a sin?
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
“New York Times’?
Well, then I know it’s a lie.
Push piece. The NYT is famous for trying to create the new normal for conservatives and how they morph into todays disgusting liberal progressives by now saying to the God of Christianity that He is wrong, that whatever fill-in-the-blank sin is now NOT sin and more.
Translation: They are simply pushing a narritive to justify wrong and hoping to create bully conditions with which to beat up those who hold out.
To summarize the liberal position:
If people do it, it is ok.
The big media outlets do not report news. They manufacture news, or, rather, propaganda.
“That’s why I know the only reason for marriage can’t be procreation,” he said. “I would think there’s a depth of our relationship that transcends sexuality.”
Genesis 17:17New International Version (NIV)
17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?”
The author opines:
Vines and Wilson claim that they continue to hold to a high view of biblical authority, and that they believe the Bible is completely true, but that they don’t think it teaches all same-sex relations are wrong. Vines argues that while the Levitical code forbids homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) it also forbids eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). Yet, he says, Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong — so why can’t we change our minds on homosexuality? Here Vines is rejecting the New Testament understanding that the ceremonial laws of Moses around the sacrificial system and ritual purity were fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding, but that the moral law of the Old Testament is still in force. Hebrews 10:16, for example, tells us that the Holy Spirit writes “God’s laws” on Christians’ hearts (so they are obviously still in force), even though that same book of the Bible tells us that some of those Mosaic laws — the ceremonial — are no longer in binding on us. This view has been accepted by all branches of the church since New Testament times.When Vines refuses to accept this ancient distinction between the ceremonial and moral law, he is doing much more than simply giving us an alternative interpretation of the Old Testament — he is radically revising what biblical authority means. When he says “Christians no longer regard eating shellfish as wrong,” and then applies this to homosexuality (though assuming that Leviticus 19:18 — the Golden Rule — is still in force), he is assuming that it is Christians themselves, not the Bible, who have the right to decide which parts of the Bible are essentially now out of date. That decisively shifts the ultimate authority to define right and wrong onto the individual Christian and away from the biblical text.
The traditional view is this: Yes, there are things in the Bible that Christians no longer have to follow but, if the Scripture is our final authority, it is only the Bible itself that can tell us what those things are. The prohibitions against homosexuality are re-stated in the New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1) but Jesus himself (Mark 7), as well as the rest of the New Testament, tells us that the clean laws and ceremonial code is no longer in force.
Vines asserts that he maintains a belief in biblical authority, but with arguments like this one he is actually undermining it. This represents a massive shift in historic Christian theology and life.
And of course, let’s completely ignore 5000 years of Jewish and Christian tradition
There is no such thing as a “gay Christian.”
I am noticing a new leftist tactic for their promotion of deviancy. Everything has to be kind, polite, nice....which essentially leaves them free to claim any absurd thing imaginable and the other side is not suppose to respond as normal people would. It automatically lowers the effectiveness of one side of the debate.
When an outrageous idea is put forward normal people respond with shock, outrage, condemnation, even ridicule, etc.. This is not a bad thing in context. You don’t take a liberating army into a concentration camp and demand that their comments be nice, kind, and respectful. Crazy is crazy and we should be free to call it that.
The leftists themselves are free to be outraged in their responses, though. They can get all up in arms about the smallest so-called slights. Just as tolerance is only for others, they are entirely hypocritical.
This is a sort of psychological warfare where they win the argument but establishing unfair emotional parameters. When are we going to stop letting them get by with it.
The same sort of double standard happens in the calls for bipartisanship. We have a multi-party system for a reason. They call for bipartisanship when they are really just demanding that the right surrender to the left. We need to stop falling into their psycho traps.
The word gay is used in place of homosexual but they are not the same and not interchangeable. A homosexual is attracted to a person of the same sex. They are extremely rare. A gay is making a lifestyle choice. A gay is also a liberal, a progressive or a communist. (Those things are not quite the same either, but are undistinguishable to an outsider.) The difference between homosexuals and gays is that gays are communists (in one form or another) and a homosexual can be conservative. Gays know the difference and did away with the word homosexual which blended them in with gays and took away any separate identity they might have. You will probably never find a homosexual supporting the gay lifestyle or politics.