[biblewonk]

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.

[Lucky Dog]

Interesting information in your last post. Before I “serve the ball,” let me offer a few somewhat irrelevant tidbits, myself.

Your Biblical reading schedule is impressive. I am certainly not that fast, nor as nearly as diligent. As to your comments on translations, I actually use six different English translations of which the New King James is one. I also consult the literal translations of the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic texts along with four “word studies” of the literal translations as well as six different commentaries. These comparisons are extremely helpful in getting the full and original meaning from a text. It also brings to light many of the fallacies expounded by a number of our fellow Christians who are willing to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians will quarrel over relatively insignificant (to the overall message) differences and ignore the very clear meaning of the “big picture.” However, as you said earlier, “that is a different debate.”

The (non-Biblical) serve: Homosexual behavior provides no benefits to, nor serves any useful purposes to, society that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits and homosexual behavior is detrimental in a number of ways to society as well as individual practitioners.

As I do not wish to be guilty of making a “gratuitous assertion,” I will cite support: Posts 13 and 131 in their entirety. Specifically, I will pick two detriments from these posts for your special consideration.

1. Determent to Society: Homosexual behavior (by the overwhelming majority of its practitioners) focuses on individual pleasure/self-indulgence to the exclusion of any regard for negative impacts on others (hedonism) and causes a resultant decline (especially to the majority of its practitioners) in antithetical (to hedonism) virtues beneficial to society such as service to others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, devotion to duty, etc.

2. Determent to Individuals: Dramatically increases the risk of completely avoidable, deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates as well as dramatically increases the risk other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).

Remember your challenge was only that I establish that homosexuality was ”bad” using non-Biblical support for the argument. (The sources for the above detriments are general knowledge. However, specific cites are available if you wish to challenge.) As a reminder, your challenge was not exclusive, i.e., that other things are not also “bad” or that homosexual behavior is worse than other “bad” things.