[Mrs. Don-o]

They say the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of relations between men or between women, has the same status as the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of fabrics mixing different kinds of fibers and the OT law that witchcraft was punishable by death (Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.")--- cultic and cultural rules considered null in the NT.

They would say further that the words which people mistakenly interpret as "homosexual" in the NT, "malakoi" and "arsnokoitai", in fact referred not to homosexuals in general, nor to gay married people (which did not exist at that time), but to pederasts, rent-boys and cult prostitutes. Link Here

Thus they would argue that it is we (you and I) who are holding to age-old human bigotry, traditions and customs and not the unchangeable word of God from the unchangeable God. They would urge us to stop basing our interpretations on mere human biases and rules, and instead search deeper in to the language of Scripture itself to determine whether Scripture condemns gay marriage.

In other words, they would say that it is the "traditional marriage" people who ware too dependent on "tradition." And as for themselves? Ah! They diligently search the Word of God alone to see that for ALL married couples (including themselves), may do what comes naturally (to them) by mutual consent in their marriage bed - which is "honorable in ALL and UNDEFILED" - and it is between themselves and God.

I know how I would refute this. But I'm interested in how you would. Your thoughts?

[Springfield Reformer]

They say the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of relations between men or between women, has the same status as the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of fabrics mixing different kinds of fibers and the OT law that witchcraft was punishable by death (Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.")--- cultic and cultural rules considered null in the NT.
They would say further that the words which people mistakenly interpret as "homosexual" in the NT, "malakoi" and "arsnokoitai", in fact referred not to homosexuals in general, nor to gay married people (which did not exist at that time), but to pederasts, rent-boys and cult prostitutes. Link Here

Thus they would argue that it is we (you and I) who are holding to age-old human bigotry, traditions and customs and not the unchangeable word of God from the unchangeable God. They would urge us to stop basing our interpretations on mere human biases and rules, and instead search deeper in to the language of Scripture itself to determine whether Scripture condemns gay marriage.

In other words, they would say that it is the "traditional marriage" people who ware too dependent on "tradition." And as for themselves? Ah! They diligently search the Word of God alone to see that for ALL married couples (including themselves), may do what comes naturally (to them) by mutual consent in their marriage bed - which is "honorable in ALL and UNDEFILED" - and it is between themselves and God.

I know how I would refute this. But I'm interested in how you would. Your thoughts?

If you don't mind me poking my nose in, I have some info that can help with that.

First, the problem with divergent interpretations is rooted in our sin natures, not Scripture.  And like certain forms of sin, the errors of an individual are often quite transparent to an outside observer.  If someone refuses to use a disciplined approach to studying Scripture, those errors can and will be exposed.  I know some here have trouble with the idea of a systematic hermeneutic, but it is one of the best tools we have for getting at the true meaning of the Biblical text despite our personal biases.  And once we know what it actually says, we are still reliant on the Holy Spirit to use that knowledge according to the will of God.  The Pharisees' greatest condemnation no doubt lies not in their ignorance of truth, but in the truth they understood, and flatly rejected.  So hermeneutics by itself is not sufficient, but it is a necessary prerequisite to understanding.

This is how it is with the argument about homosexuality supposedly being rejected by Paul only insofar as it was part of the idolatrous pagan temple service.  It does not require any sacred tradition supplemental to Scripture to realize this entire argument is founded on false history and poorly executed hermeneutics.  I offer to you both this wonderful, if rather long article that utterly dismantles the temple prostitute argument, and does so with standard tools of historical and textual analysis available to anyone willing to do the work:

http://www.robgagnon.net/responsetorogers2.htm

As for the OT versus NT argument, the essential principle for Christians is that the moral law predates the law of Moses.  Murder was wrong in the day of Cain and Abel before it was ever codified by Moses.  Jesus' argument for permanent, heterosexual marriage goes back to the divine paradigm set by God in Adam and Eve, and thus also predates Moses. All those laws pertaining only to the Mosaic covenant with Israel, the dietary and fabric laws, the priestly service, and such, have been displaced by the New Covenant, according to pretty much the whole book of Hebrews, and elsewhere as well.  But all of those pre-Mosaic moral laws, grounded as they were in the eternal law of divine love, were restated in the NT, not as a means to salvation, but as instruction in righteousness.  So the moral law was repurposed, but not repealed. Therefore, the argument for a complete break between the OT and the NT with respect to the moral code fails entirely on a textual basis, with no necessary reference to an external sacred tradition.

Peace,

SR

[boatbums]

In addition to SR's well stated comments, I would add that we have God's moral law in addition to the natural law. For example, in I Corinthians 11:14, Paul stated, Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace for him?. Barnes' Notes on the Bible has this to say about that passage:

Doth not even nature itself - The word nature (φύσις phusis) denotes evidently that sense of propriety which all men have, and which is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom. That which is universal we say is according to nature. It is such as is demanded by the natural sense of fitness among people. Thus, we may say that nature demands that the sexes should wear different kinds of dress; that nature demands that the female should be modest and retiring; that nature demands that the toils of the chase, of the field, of war - the duties of office, of government and of professional life, should be discharged by people. Such are in general the customs the world over; and if any reason is asked for numerous habits that exist in society, no better answer can be given than that nature, as arranged by God, has demanded it. The word in this place, therefore, does not mean the constitution of the sexes, as Locke, Whitby, and Pierce maintain; nor reason and experience, as Macknight supposes; nor simple use and custom, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, and most recent expositors suppose; but it refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right; a sense which is expressed extensively in all nations. showing what that sense is.

No reason can be given, in the nature of things, why the woman should wear long hair and the man not; but the custom prevails extensively everywhere, and nature, in all nations, has prompted to the same course. "Use is second nature;" but the usage in this case is not arbitrary, but is founded in an anterior universal sense of what is proper and right. A few, and only a few, have regarded it as comely for a man to wear his hair long. Aristotle tells us, indeed (Rhet. 1: - see Rosenmuller), that among the Lacedemonians, freemen wore their hair long. In the time of Homer, also, the Greeks were called by him καρηκομόωντες Ἀχαῖοι kareÌ„komooÌ„ntes Achaioi, long-haired Greeks; and some of the Asiatic nations adopted the same custom. But the general habit among people has been different. Among the Hebrews, it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his hair long, except he had a vow as a Nazarite, Numbers 6:1-5; Judges 13:5; Judges 16:17; 1 Samuel 1:11.

Occasionally, for affectation or singularity, the hair was suffered to grow, as was the case with Absalom 2 Samuel 14:26; but the traditional law of the Jews on the subject was strict. The same rule existed among the Greeks; and it was regarded as disgraceful to wear long hair in the time of Aelian; Hist. lib. 9:c. 14. Eustath. on Hom. 2:v.

It is a shame unto him? - It is improper and disgraceful. It is doing that which almost universal custom has said appropriately belongs to the female sex.

I believe God even more strongly demonstrates through nature and His moral law that homosexual acts are against nature as well as against the moral law. Why else did He describe it as an "abomination" to Him? Homosexual acts are unnatural, against God's own design of the human body, against procreation and a destroyer of the family unit as He created it to be. There will always be those who think they have progressed past God, but they are always wrong.

[daniel1212]

They say the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of relations between men or between women, has the same status as the "unchangeable Word of God" re the OT prohibition of fabrics mixing different kinds of fibers and the OT law that witchcraft was punishable by death (Exodus 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.")--- cultic and cultural rules considered null in the NT.

Which is either ignorance or willful deception and wrong. These and other prohomosex polemics are examined and refuted here , by God's grace. (Took a while!).