Replies

"This article is nuts."

I thought the article was pretty good, actually. It lays out the two sides of the argument and doesn't champion either. I am not familiar with the Bible "chapter & verse" and have oftened wondered where the homsexual activists found support.

Now I can clearly see from the quotations here that their platform rests on some pretty flimsy boards.

I also see I better stop drinking, if you know what I mean. So I will say, good post!

One might note that in order to interpret the Scripture as allowing homosexuality, one has to read that interpretation into Scripture and stretch the point rather far.

If one simply confessed all sins to God, let Him judge the issue, then read Scripture from the point of view of obedience to whatever and however the Holy Spirit leads the Christian to mature, then nowhere is one tempted to accept homosexuality as being condoned in Scripture. Quite the opposite, the God-filled inclination is to view it as an abomination.

Perhaps the better categorical label than "pro-gay vs antigay' would be 'feces-loving vs feces dispelling'.

Now I can clearly see from the quotations here that their platform rests on some pretty flimsy boards.

Yeah, pretty flemsy alright. They choose a handful of quotes out of a book that takes a year to read if you pace yourself conservatively. If you do indepth study, it could easily take you 2-3 years to get through the Bible. They have no clue about the entirety of the Bible. They just pick a few lines and shazaam! God says being gay is okay.

This is similar to the "Bible contradicts itself" crap. They find a handful of passages that have been translated the best they could be and all of a sudden "well, the Bible contradicts itself in 20 places...it is false." They don't take into account translation, interpretation, or anything.

It lays out the two sides of the argument and doesn't champion either. I am not familiar with the Bible "chapter & verse" and have oftened wondered where the homsexual activists found support.

Well, the second sentence explains the sentiment of the first. Just by laying things out as pro and con and in the end talking about how hard and tricky it is to decide when different people interpret the same thing in two different ways, the author has already accorded the pro-homosexual side a great deal of legitimacy in this matter that it has never had. Such a structuring of the "argument" is due either to ignorance or deviousness. Neither is a good thing.

But you're correct in stating that the pro-homosexual position has very flimsy support when trying to use scripture. On the one hand, it has to beg the question to make what it calls pro-homosexual verses support its position and, on the other, it has to explain away clear, unambiguous language that undercuts it or engage in fallacies such as the shrimp equivalency ploy alluded to above ("G-d abominates the eating of shrimp. G-d abominates homosexual behavior. Eating shrimp is no big deal. Therefore, homosexuality is no big deal either. Either that, or G-d's a real dork for making the eating of shrimp a bad thing.")