Every Biblical Argument Against Being Gay, Debunked Biblical

[QoH]

It's really lengthy, but worth every minute.

[TDK]

Thanks for the video, I'll watch it when I have the chance. My personal view on the matter is that the real sexual "sin" is promiscuity, and that homosexuality is only wrong were it is practiced in the style of Roman orgies. When gay people (or straight people for that matter) practice abstence and monogamous relationships, it's healthier for everyone concerned and I see no reason for anyone to be condemned as immoral.

[Johnny Rockets]

Joo don' like to party bra?


JRock

[PLAYER57832]

Thanks for the video, I'll watch it when I have the chance. My personal view on the matter is that the real sexual "sin" is promiscuity, and that homosexuality is only wrong were it is practiced in the style of Roman orgies. When gay people (or straight people for that matter) practice abstence and monogamous relationships, it's healthier for everyone concerned and I see no reason for anyone to be condemned as immoral.

Yeah, I don' thave time right now to look at the video either, but without getting into a whole lot of research and technicalities, this is essentially what my church (ELCA) and many other modern Protestant churches believe.

BUT, ultimately, the bottom line is that all people sin and we are not to judge others. We can lay out laws/lines to protect ourselves (from theives, murders, rapists, etc.), but have no other right to dictate other's behavior, only our own behavior.

[natty dread]

the real sexual "sin" is promiscuity, and that homosexuality is only wrong were it is practiced in the style of Roman orgies.

You're racist against romans.

Also, promiscuity is fun. Something that is fun can't be a sin.

[Ray Rider]

Meh, over half an hour in and I still haven't heard anything "debunked Biblically;" instead it's just straw man arguments and creative attempts to explain away the clear meaning of Biblical passages. I doubt the other half is worth my time.

[Victor Sullivan]

I mean, I watched the first about 7 minutes, and he seems to only be appealing by using emotional arguments than logical ones, and stating supposed facts without evidence or statistics to back them up.

-Sully

[rdsrds2120]

I mean, I watched the first about 7 minutes, and he seems to only be appealing by using emotional arguments than logical ones, and stating supposed facts without evidence or statistics to back them up.

-Sully

He wraps that up later with the biblical things. I thought the same at first, too, but watched the whole thing.

-rd

[natty dread]

straw man arguments and creative attempts to explain away the clear meaning of Biblical passages

Are you talking about the field of theology?

[Victor Sullivan]

I mean, I watched the first about 7 minutes, and he seems to only be appealing by using emotional arguments than logical ones, and stating supposed facts without evidence or statistics to back them up.

-Sully

He wraps that up later with the biblical things. I thought the same at first, too, but watched the whole thing.

-rd

Perhaps I'll finish it, then. I didn't really have the time to sit through a whole hour then.

-Sully

[Symmetry]

I mean, I watched the first about 7 minutes, and he seems to only be appealing by using emotional arguments than logical ones, and stating supposed facts without evidence or statistics to back them up.

-Sully

Always a problem with Christianity- so much of the Christ stuff is about love and forgiveness and emotional arguments, as opposed to the legalism and cold logic of the Old Testament.

What were you trying to say?

[Victor Sullivan]

I mean, I watched the first about 7 minutes, and he seems to only be appealing by using emotional arguments than logical ones, and stating supposed facts without evidence or statistics to back them up.

-Sully

Always a problem with Christianity- so much of the Christ stuff is about love and forgiveness and emotional arguments, as opposed to the legalism and cold logic of the Old Testament.

What were you trying to say?

Have you heard of apologetics? As far as the Bible is concerned, there are logical arguments. I mean, Jesus mainly used the apologetic of predictive prophecy to point to himself as the Son of God (think of Daniel 9, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 - notice the first line in this one). And with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can historically validate that the text of the Old Testament was written prior to that of the New Testament.

And though the Old Testament may seem cold and legalistic, the idea behind the things of the Old Covenant was to do several things: one, many laws, such as animal sacrifice to atone for sins, were symbolic - often foreshadowing of Jesus; two, maintain Jewish purity (as the Christ is to be of Jewish heritage), and three, make the Israelites realize that they are too fucked up to follow every rule God set. I'm not OT scholar, so I can't say those three are the only reasons. Now, many of the laws may seem unfair or cruel or taboo or what have you, but things were very different back in those days. I mean, if you think of life during the Middle Ages or some such other time period, there were many normal customs that may be considered down right despicable nowadays. For example, in OT times, the perspective on life was that in the scope of eternity, shaving off 20 years was no big deal, and God wouldn't kill anyone if their spiritual 'fate', if you will, would have changed during those years He shaved off. Anyway, so while there is some fucked up stuff in the OT, that is apart of the Old Covenant that has since been replaced by the New Covenant, as established by Jesus. But even so, the concept of salvation by faith and grace was a recurring theme in the OT. Think of the prostitute Rahab in Joshua 2, or the Egyptians and other peoples that were saved from the plagues of Egypt and came into the desert with the Jews. Certainly many of them had not been following Jewish customs and law (though the latter example was before the Mosaic/Old Covenant).

-Sully

[Symmetry]

I mean, I watched the first about 7 minutes, and he seems to only be appealing by using emotional arguments than logical ones, and stating supposed facts without evidence or statistics to back them up.

-Sully

Always a problem with Christianity- so much of the Christ stuff is about love and forgiveness and emotional arguments, as opposed to the legalism and cold logic of the Old Testament.

What were you trying to say?

Have you heard of apologetics? As far as the Bible is concerned, there are logical arguments. I mean, Jesus mainly used the apologetic of predictive prophecy to point to himself as the Son of God (think of Daniel 9, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 - notice the first line in this one). And with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can historically validate that the text of the Old Testament was written prior to that of the New Testament.

Kind of a big chunk of text that. I'll break down the mistakes in the second part later.

1) I have not merely heard of "apologetics"- I know what the word means.

2) The Dead Sea Scrolls Post-date the OT mostly.

[Victor Sullivan]

I mean, I watched the first about 7 minutes, and he seems to only be appealing by using emotional arguments than logical ones, and stating supposed facts without evidence or statistics to back them up.

-Sully

Always a problem with Christianity- so much of the Christ stuff is about love and forgiveness and emotional arguments, as opposed to the legalism and cold logic of the Old Testament.

What were you trying to say?

Have you heard of apologetics? As far as the Bible is concerned, there are logical arguments. I mean, Jesus mainly used the apologetic of predictive prophecy to point to himself as the Son of God (think of Daniel 9, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 - notice the first line in this one). And with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can historically validate that the text of the Old Testament was written prior to that of the New Testament.

Kind of a big chunk of text that. I'll break down the mistakes in the second part later.

1) I have not merely heard of "apologetics"- I know what the word means.

2) The Dead Sea Scrolls Post-date the OT mostly.

1) Then why did you say there were only emotional arguments?

2) Well, sure, they post-date the supposed original dates they were written, but the point is the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the New Testament. And how do you expect archaeologists to find the original manuscripts anyway? I'm not so sure I see your point.

-Sully

[TDK]

Yeah, I don' thave time right now to look at the video either, but without getting into a whole lot of research and technicalities, this is essentially what my church (ELCA) and many other modern Protestant churches believe.

BUT, ultimately, the bottom line is that all people sin and we are not to judge others. We can lay out laws/lines to protect ourselves (from theives, murders, rapists, etc.), but have no other right to dictate other's behavior, only our own behavior.

Interesting, that sounds more reasonable than the church I used to go to. But aren't you being slightly dishonest when you say we have no right to dictate behavior? Surely there are behaviors that your church discourages.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, that whole "not judging thing" is problematic. Here we have a book with all these rules with which people must be judged, but then the book says, "don't judge others." Perhaps, it's only an issue with semantics, or maybe it's again one of those "this is literal; oh! but that's metaphorical cuz I said so" issues.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, that whole "not judging thing" is problematic. Here we have a book with all these rules with which people must be judged, but then the book says, "don't judge others." Perhaps, it's only an issue with semantics, or maybe it's again one of those "this is literal; oh! but that's metaphorical cuz I said so" issues.

Then again, maybe it is a case of progression.

Just as we change rules for our kids as they age, so has God changed the rules for humanity as we have matured. Of courese, just as some kids never really learn to mature past age 5, and need essentially the same rules, (not talking mentally disabled, either ) so, too, do some humans refuse to accept greater ability to think for themselves.. and the responsibility that goes with it.

"I do wrong, daddy punishes me... and life is OK" is easy; "I did wrong, need to do what I can to fix it or accept that it never really can be 'made better' (but am forgiven .. and need to work to do better truly from now on) Is much, much harder.

[Symmetry]

2) Well, sure, [The Dead Sea Scrolls] post-date the supposed original dates they were written, but the point is the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the New Testament. And how do you expect archaeologists to find the original manuscripts anyway? I'm not so sure I see your point.

-Sully

I do not "expect" archaeologists to did up the original manuscripts. Thanks for the strawman argument- you knocked it down dead. It's almost a shame that I didn't make it.

I'm having trouble figuring out the rest of your post. When do you think the New testament was written? Cause you're on shaking ground if you think that they're pre- CE1.

So, give me a date for the New Testament, and we can check your claims. Fair?

[natty dread]

Yeah, that whole "not judging thing" is problematic. Here we have a book with all these rules with which people must be judged, but then the book says, "don't judge others." Perhaps, it's only an issue with semantics, or maybe it's again one of those "this is literal; oh! but that's metaphorical cuz I said so" issues.

Then again, maybe it is a case of progression.

Just as we change rules for our kids as they age, so has God changed the rules for humanity as we have matured. Of courese, just as some kids never really learn to mature past age 5, and need essentially the same rules, (not talking mentally disabled, either ) so, too, do some humans refuse to accept greater ability to think for themselves.. and the responsibility that goes with it.

"I do wrong, daddy punishes me... and life is OK" is easy; "I did wrong, need to do what I can to fix it or accept that it never really can be 'made better' (but am forgiven .. and need to work to do better truly from now on) Is much, much harder.

And some kids never learn to mature past the age of believing in santa claus...

"I do wrong, santa puts me on the naughty list" is easy; "I do wrong, I have to take responsibility for my actions because there is no santa claus" is much, much harder.

[Victor Sullivan]

2) Well, sure, [The Dead Sea Scrolls] post-date the supposed original dates they were written, but the point is the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the New Testament. And how do you expect archaeologists to find the original manuscripts anyway? I'm not so sure I see your point.

-Sully

I do not "expect" archaeologists to did up the original manuscripts. Thanks for the strawman argument- you knocked it down dead. It's almost a shame that I didn't make it.

I was more trying to figure out what you were trying to assert. Thus, my sentence, "I'm not so sure I see your point." Apologies.

I'm having trouble figuring out the rest of your post. When do you think the New testament was written? Cause you're on shaking ground if you think that they're pre- CE1.

I'm not too savvy with abbreviations. What do you mean by "CE1"? Like, 1 C.E.?

So, give me a date for the New Testament, and we can check your claims. Fair?

Well, each book was written at a different time, so allow me to break it down. It's important to note that Paul died in 64 C.E., Peter in 65 C.E., and James in 62 C.E. Thus, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Mark, and James were all written before their deaths. In addition, Acts (and thus Luke) would have had to have been written before these events (and, if nothing else, before 70 C.E. - the destruction of Jerusalem), because certainly the deaths of major apostles and the fall of Jerusalem would go in the book about the acts of the apostles! And, as it's said in the beginning of Acts, Luke wrote it after the gospel of Luke. As for the other books, John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation could have been written as early as the late 60s C.E. or as late as the 90s C.E. (though it is widely accepted that Revelation was written after the Johns). Since the authorship of Hebrews is unknown, the date of authorship can range from 60s to 90s C.E. as well, since it could have been written by Paul, Barnabas, or Apollos (there are some others people speculate about, but it seems to me these three are most probable). And as far as Matthew goes, it seems to me it was written around the time of Luke, and probably a little before. I should also note that the earliest manuscript of the New Testament was a piece of the gospel of John dated back to 135 C.E.

-Sully

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, that whole "not judging thing" is problematic. Here we have a book with all these rules with which people must be judged, but then the book says, "don't judge others." Perhaps, it's only an issue with semantics, or maybe it's again one of those "this is literal; oh! but that's metaphorical cuz I said so" issues.

Then again, maybe it is a case of progression.

Just as we change rules for our kids as they age, so has God changed the rules for humanity as we have matured. Of courese, just as some kids never really learn to mature past age 5, and need essentially the same rules, (not talking mentally disabled, either ) so, too, do some humans refuse to accept greater ability to think for themselves.. and the responsibility that goes with it.

"I do wrong, daddy punishes me... and life is OK" is easy; "I did wrong, need to do what I can to fix it or accept that it never really can be 'made better' (but am forgiven .. and need to work to do better truly from now on) Is much, much harder.

And some kids never learn to mature past the age of believing in santa claus...

"I do wrong, santa puts me on the naughty list" is easy; "I do wrong, I have to take responsibility for my actions because there is no santa claus" is much, much harder.

And the easiest of all is claiming that things we cannot touch, feel or see just don't exist.

[2dimes]

Yeah, that whole "not judging thing" is problematic. Here we have a book with all these rules with which people must be judged, but then the book says, "don't judge others." Perhaps, it's only an issue with semantics, or maybe it's again one of those "this is literal; oh! but that's metaphorical cuz I said so" issues.

There's no where in the Torah laying out how I am supposed to throw rocks at you for banging a mom and daughter. All that stuff was written directly for the Hebrews of that specific time.

Much of it had purpose, some specifically to set apart those people from us filthy Gentiles. Quite a bit of it is still sensible even if refrigeration and cooking things properly has reduced the risk of some things that may have been defended from at the time.

Yahushua purposes I take a look at my actions. Try to follow the rules and more importantly be nice to others instead of worrying about what rules they appear to be breaking.

What do you think about Acts 10:28?

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, that whole "not judging thing" is problematic. Here we have a book with all these rules with which people must be judged, but then the book says, "don't judge others." Perhaps, it's only an issue with semantics, or maybe it's again one of those "this is literal; oh! but that's metaphorical cuz I said so" issues.

There's no where in the Torah laying out how I am supposed to throw rocks at you for banging a mom and daughter. All that stuff was written directly for the Hebrews of that specific time.

Much of it had purpose, some specifically to set apart those people from us filthy Gentiles. Quite a bit of it is still sensible even if refrigeration and cooking things properly has reduced the risk of some things that may have been defended from at the time.

Yahushua purposes I take a look at my actions. Try to follow the rules and more importantly be nice to others instead of worrying about what rules they appear to be breaking.

That sounds great and all, but doesn't that pretty much open it up to the metaphorical interpretation?

What do you think about Acts 10:28?

How did 10 Acts 28?

[2dimes]

I suppose.

Maybe a person In 1814 attends a private school with a rule requiring the students wear a uniform, there are strict penalties for not wearing the uniform. I could wear the same uniform to a school with no restrictions or dress code but it won't get me a diploma from the private school. It's probable I won't learn the same things especially if there is a specialty at the private school.

Now let's say the school with the uniform closes. The next semester the son of the guy that opened the first school opens a new school in the same building. They have very few rules but still have copies of the old rule book and plenty of uniforms. Since the rule book has the name and address of the school. Some may think those rules still apply even though they don't.

Then the new school prints a pamphlet to clarify the new rules. "You may wear what ever you like including any uniform. There are no penalties for dress violations." Most of the students continue wearing the uniform because it is what they're used to. The school has no problem with that. Some students fight about people not wearing the uniform saying, "You have always needed to wear this uniform at this school."

One day the school closes, someone tears down the fur shop, sells the tools and equipment, then disposes of all the uniforms.

2009 someone renovates the remaining building and opens the school again. They have translations of both the original rule book and the new less restrictive one. The uniforms don't even exist but those rules are interesting so they decide everything is pretty good information and reprint a complete book that contains both books.

A group of the students decide since they decended from people that attended the original school and it had a great reputation because of the lost fur shop with secret Tasmanian tiger jacket production techniques passed on orally that no longer exist. They're going to follow the stricter rules and wear the uniform.

There are no uniforms, they have someone make new ones but they're missing the urim and thummim, no one knows what it is for certain, so they are not even able to wear the actual uniform required by the rules. Fur shop is gone and the Tasmanian tiger is extinct.

They can tell everyone they're following the rules and enact the strict penalties yet no one can really follow them partially because they are too difficult for mere humans and many parts are lost. How can a descendant of Levi be the hall monitor if no one knows who is and is not an actual decendant of him.

It is not so much that the rules were metiphorical then. They were very literal and practical. I don't know if metiphorical is the right word for them now but, they were written for specific people at that time, not us. Trying to follow some of the rules might actually be good. Trying to say someone is breaking them gets more difficult since we are not even able to fully understand some of them in complete context.

[BigBallinStalin]

I see where you're coming from, but to be clear, I'm talking about the conflicting interpretations of today. I'm not really interested in what an ancient group did somewhere in the Middle East.

Here are two problems I have with your analogy:


(1) Schools are voluntary associations, and their rules are agreed upon joining. (caveat: mandatory minimum education laws, okay). Whatever some people are doing in one school does not affect me. (Making believers as analogous to school kids was fun though).


(2) The Bible and other special books and their rules are absolute. Commands are given by God, so they must be obeyed by all; otherwise, you go to Hell (which is the strict Christian interpretation). Even if you don't adhere to these "schools," you'll be punished according to their book because their moral authority/decrees are absolute. This definitely affects me (at least in their minds).


But your analogy does make sense when explaining the different groups within each large Bible/Torah group. But still they differ in their interpretation of rules which should be followed and which should be taken metaphorically, or as... some story which no longer applies to today. The question which remains is which rules should be followed and which ones shouldn't, and this revolves around one's relative literal-metaphorical interpretation of the book.

So going back to the beginning, we can't suppose that these special books are open to various metaphorical interpretations because it's a fact that they are open to interpretation. It seems to be one of those "this is literal; oh! but that's metaphorical cuz I said so" issues.