Posted on 11/06/2014 9:57:02 AM PST by Gamecock
And there is the issue.
It is easy to defend God. It is impossible to defend Satan.
Liberals do not dialogue; they dual-monologue with the like-minded and call it dialogue. Anyone who does not share their views is not worthy of being considered; such people, they think, do not merit dialogue, but rather re-education.
I recently ended up on some sort of gay churches blog the other day.
I tried to have a debate with them...
lol
If anyone mentioned scripture... they were derided as only spouting bible verses.
If you approached the issue from a purely logical perspective.. they would deride you as only “giving YOUR opinion” (which by the way they didn’t care to hear)
lol
so basically, you cant use the bible OR logic or your opinions when talking with them!
only 100% agreement will be tolerated it seems!
ahh.. the left... so tolerant and open minded!
At the end of the day the only thing that matters here is scripture. What the left wants is to turn this issue into an emotional one where the logic of scripture is ignored. By “listening and learning” from homosexuals, those pushing this issue want to personalize the subject matter as though personal feelings and experience matter. The only thing that matters is what God has to say about this subject. In his revealed word is is abundantly clear that homosexual acts are sin. It really doesn’t matter how anyone feels about this or what anyone’s personal experience is.
Well said !
Snoot ;o)
Exactly the reason the left cannot be up front about what they believe or intend to do.
Why? Because there simply is no case than can be made biblically for homosexuality, and there is an enormous roadblock to homosexuality within scripture. It is not possible to deny that the bible teaches that homosexuality is sin.
It is far better a strategy, the homosexualist advocates believe, to propagandize than to deal with the truth.
You can’t debate gays on this issue. They use the word “love” to mean “sex” and then quote Jesus on love. They refuse to accept Romans 1:28 and won’t even address it, except to say that it only applies to underage male prostitutes. They say that homosexuality is “normal” and “natural”, but refuse to address the meaning of “Natural Man”. They won’t accept that homosexuality is a sin, but will gladly point out that any heterosexual lust is a sin. They throw out the straw man that heterosexuals have no problem with a pastor who is an adulterer, and then refuse to accept that we don’t want that guy in the pulpit either.
Waste of time debating them.
For the same reason Pregnant men don't debate.
Give that man a prize!
They won’t debate because it is indefensible. These people act like homosexuality hasn’t been around since after the fall of man and we are stumbling upon something relatively new.
There is nothing new in this world.
I had the privilege of attending the John Ankerberg moderated debate between Walter Martin and John Shelby Spong at DFW in the 1980’s. Martin destroyed Spong in debate. Spong is an idiot who doesn’t care to know God’s word. Most recent outrage, Spong claims the concept of hell is a creation of “the church” to control people.
God created man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, and they alone are joined by God in marriage, with opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and personally by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4)
The Bible only condemns homosexual relations - by design and decree, in principle and by precept - and never sanctions them wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent and immutable moral law. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27)
However, the inordinate effort prohomosexuals polemicists put into attempts to negate the Biblical injunctions against sodomy and even to find sanction for the same - such as are extensively examined and refuted here by God's grace - reveal that they understand the paramount authority of Scripture, as the devil does. Thus the hermeneutics and reasoning they employ, if valid, would not simply negate condemnation of sodomy, but immutable moral laws in general. Like the harlot whose covetousness constrained her to assent to the destruction of a child rather than let her opposing claimant have it (1Ki. 3), the end result of pro-homosexual polemics is that they effectively reject the authority of the very source they seek to use for their own purposes.
The prohomosexual Walter Wink even confessed, "I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept a loving homosexual relationship for a minute." However, he joins similar revisionists who disallow that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality")
Likewise, pro-homosexual author Daniel Via states, "that Scripture gives no explicit approval to same-sex intercourse. I maintain, however, that the absolute prohibition can be overridden, regardless of how many times it is stated, for there are good reasons to override it." (Dan Otto Via, Robert A. J. Gagnon, "Homosexuality and the Bible: two views," pp. 38,94) This requires the same type of discredited reasoning as Wink, and Via's opposing co-author Robert Gagnon responded by noting that Via is an "absolutist about no absolutes." (http://www.robgagnon.net/2VRejoinder.htm) (Homosexuality and the Bible: A Real Debate)
But while a few pro homosexual writers concede that the Bible is contrary to same sex behavior, virtually all reject any Biblical censure of it. Author Robin Scroggs states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.” L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” (Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988)
More at link .
Delete
ping
Spong sounds like an atheist hiding behind a clerical collar.
Matthew can't help himself...He sees the homosexual lobby use the forced acceptance mantra, why not use it in theology too.
Heh heh. Water shooting out of my nose:)
Wow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.