Replies

Please note: I have not asserted (in fact, I have conceded) your position that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior in clear, consistent, and repetitive terms. Furthermore, I have not questioned the authority of the Scriptures in any way nor have I challenged your belief in these Sacred Texts. As a matter of record, I, personally, accept the Bible in its entirety and its message as the inerrant Word of God.

What I have challenged is your largely unsupported and illogical assertion(s) that the Bible is the only sound argument against homosexual behavior. Let me respond to each of your statements and ask you to consider my arguments dispassionately and logically with an aim to being convinced if the facts are indisputable and the logic is irrefutable and you cannot offer an equally well supported and logical counter argument.

“Would you like for me to prove to that there is a God and that the bible is His Word?”

Answer: No. Belief in God and that the Bible is His Word are articles of faith. One accepts or rejects the existence of God and His Word on the basis of spiritual revelation. However, accepting this faith does not exclude the use of facts, logic or debate following this acceptance. There is an entire discipline known as Christian apologetics taught in every major seminary of every denomination. This discipline is devoted to the very endeavor of using facts, logic and debate to further the promulgation of God’s Word and His Cause.

“You seem to be overly well versed in the terminology of debate.”

Answer: I freely confess to being a student of Christian apologetics. Furthermore, I have been a debate coach and college professor in my past. Therefore, by virtue of training and experience, I am “well versed in the terminology of debate.” However, I do not concede that I am “overly” versed in this discipline, as it is impossible to be such, just as it is impossible to be “overly” healthy. Allow me to cite a passage for your consideration concerning this topic: Acts 18:27-28 27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. NIV Consider that hearts and minds can be, and are, changed through skilled and vigorous debate.

“Logic and reason will not prove the bible to you.”

Answer: You are correct in that logic and reason will not “prove” that the Bible is God’s Word. However, you are incorrect that logic and reason cannot be applied to the Bible. Such application has been the case throughout the Bible’s history. Jewish scholars have produced numerous texts on the logic and reasoning of the Old Testament such as the Talmud and others. Similarly, Christian authorities have applied logic and reason as well, beginning with Saint Paul and extending through Saint Augustine, Saint Jerome, and many others too numerous to name. The application of logic and reason to the Bible have shown it to be a beautifully coherent and sound basis for life and faith for anyone, including the questioning intellectual scholar and philosopher

“My perspective is as one who believes the bible and this is not based on logic nor can it be proven though reason”

Answer: I also believe the Bible and my faith is enhanced and strengthened through applying logic and reason to it. As an item of interest consider that even God has called on us to reason: Isaiah 1:18 18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD….” NIV

“However, my position remains the same. Other than the fact that God has defined sodomy as a sin, there is no other reason for being opposed to or disliking sodomites except for reasons of prejudice and hypocrisy.”

prej·u·dice n.
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
(As an item of note: being opposed to, or disliking, homosexual behavior is not the same as “disliking sodomites.” There is very well known phrase, “love the sinner but hate the sin” that applies in this case.)

Your implication that beyond Biblical guidance, only prejudice or hypocrisy can be reasons for opposing homosexual behavior is seriously flawed both in terms of logic and facts. Prejudice means that a decision or action has been arrived at without examining the facts of a particular situation. It should be obvious to you if you have read this thread that most of the facts have been put forward in the discussion and posts by various parties. If one has examined the facts and formed a conclusion by applying rigorous logic to these facts, the charge of prejudice is completely unfounded. In fact the charge of prejudice, itself, without examining the arguments against which it is made with their supporting premises and logic is a form of prejudice on the part the one making the charge. Perhaps, you have heard the phrase, “Don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind?”

The definition hypocrisy has been put forward in previous response. Succinctly, it means being insincere about, or less than, what you say you are. As you have offered no rationale for this charge, I cannot understand what you base this assertion on. Are you somehow trying to imply that because I oppose homosexual behavior on grounds in addition to Biblical ones, that I am insincere or less than what I say I am?

“Nearly every natural claim against sodomy can also be made against normal sex.”

Answer: Not true. You have cited no example nor made any logical connections, therefore, you have another “gratuitous assertion.” Like the others you have made, this one is merely your opinion unless you care to put forward some facts and logic. By the way, even if a single irrefutable claim against sodomy exists that cannot be made against “normal sex,” your argument is logically invalid.

“Even when it comes to procreation, the average person has sex 7000 times in his/her life and only produces 2 children. Therefore 99.97 percent of sex turns out to only have been recreational.”

Answer: You have given no source for your assertion. (My wife of 32 years and I are seriously behind. I may have to abandon this discussion and go try to catch up). However, even it is accepted as true, how is it in any way a logical counter to any argument against homosexual behavior that has been put forward to date?

humans are a social species. A population has far more ability to create children than it has ability to raise children. Accordingly, there is no great need for each person to produce, so long as the population produces.

People who do not produce children are free from the burden of raising children. They can perform other productive acts. For example, designing ties.

In particular, a population can still produce children at the same rate if a significant number of men do not get tied down by raising and supporting children. Flexible social structures such as bigamy, polygamy, or the current one popular in the US, serial monogamy, permit even more people to be free from the cares of fatherhood, while others act as fathers for larger than average broods.

Consider the recent past. In ancient Thebes, there was an homosexual regiment called the Sacred Band. They were a military organization that fought Phillip, the father of Alexander the Great, to the death. They fought because noone would skulk from battle when their lover could see them. Phillip said (according to Plutarch) words to the effect that "such brave men can not have been immoral".

Setting men aside from reproduction is a strength for a society. In like manner, wise women were often also set aside, and were able to provide advice, help in child bearing, and provide some limited medical knowledge, because they did not have to devote their time to the care and raising of infants. Again, this is a strenth for a society, given that there is plenty of reproductive overcapacity.

I, personally, accept the Bible in its entirety and its message as the inerrant Word of God.

I'm very glad to hear that and that probably explains why you have said this much to me on this forum without ever resorting to name calling. That's a rarity FRiend.

Let me respond to each of your statements and ask you to consider my arguments dispassionately and logically with an aim to being convinced if the facts are indisputable and the logic is irrefutable and you cannot offer an equally well supported and logical counter argument.

Sure but this statement is basically implying that I have not thought this out very well and that you are going to share some earth shattering new revelation that will actually convince me of your position. I suspect that you spend a lot of time trying to cinvince people of things by the language that you use. I do that too.

There is an entire discipline known as Christian apologetics taught in every major seminary of every denomination.

Uh, yes thanks.

“You seem to be overly well versed in the terminology of debate.”

Answer: I freely confess to being a student of Christian apologetics.

Cool!

Furthermore, I have been a debate coach and college professor in my past. Therefore, by virtue of training and experience, I am “well versed in the terminology of debate.”

{grin} that explains a lot. However such training and attention to formal debate lends to what I consider cheating. On the FR people who consider themselves good debaters often get nasty and start questioning the other debaters qualifications. Also I have quite an issue with the vocabulary of debate. I've been to quite a few CR vs E threads and the Evolutionists believe that vocabulary trumps reason. I find that to be a foolish way to think. The bible, written by God, has only about 7000 different words in it. If God can proclaim Himself and His word without overt vocabulary I feel sympathy for mere humans that think learning lots of swell vocabulary words makes them clever. Have you ever noticed this?

Allow me to cite a passage for your consideration concerning this topic: Acts 18:27-28 27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. NIV Consider that hearts and minds can be, and are, changed through skilled and vigorous debate.

Thanks. I picked my SN because I read through the bible 3+ times a year and have done so for 17ish years. I consider that one of my best spiritual gifts from the Lord.

“Logic and reason will not prove the bible to you.”

Answer: You are correct in that logic and reason will not “prove” that the Bible is God’s Word.

I know.

However, you are incorrect that logic and reason cannot be applied to the Bible.

I didn't say that.

“My perspective is as one who believes the bible and this is not based on logic nor can it be proven though reason”

Answer: I also believe the Bible.

I'm still glad of this. I'd like to suggest that you get a New King James and get rid of the Noticably Inferior Version. But that's a whole different debate. ;-)

All that you posted after were discussion of the discussion, but not of the topic. OK let me hand the ball to you and receive a serve. Please give me one, and only one, good natural reason that homosexuality is bad and I will play the devils/flaming homo's advocate it and try to knock it out of the court. However, having also been a person that has been in many many debates I hold no particular hope of convincing you of anything. However I have learned that I misjudged you as a normal Freeper which I am glad to see you are not. I also have been a little overly terse in my responses based on that erroneous judgement.

PS: I read about the 7000 thing as a horny teen virgin so imagine my excitement. I immediately set out to be above average. If only my wife were as enthusiastic about exceeding that number as I.