Shaming the Pastor with a Same-Sex "Marriage" Argument?

[josh987654321]

Clearly the scripture you quote does not mean what you believe. Instead, it means that now (since Jesus and the new covenant) God is available to all His people, and not just a chosen race. It does not mean we are free to act on our desires (good or bad).

As ahs quoted from you and exactly what I bolded out of what you said, I’m not sure what you thought I meant.

This is why I said there is neither heterosexual nor homosexual because we are all one in Christ, we are all God’s children.

I also said “Our sexuality is sacred, I believe we do not show Christian love by desacralizing our sexuality in appeasing our sexual desires.” which includes all sexual immorality which includes the sexual acts of homosexuality, thus I believe it would be immoral for us to advocate such acts for our homosexual brothers and sisters, I believe we wouldn’t be loving our homosexual brothers and sisters by advocating sexual immorality for them or anyone else for that matter.

You have to consider Bible as a whole. Yes, Leviticus says the act is wrong and proscribes death as punishment. But Jesus says “let he without sin cast the first stone.” One argues that this means Jesus would allow “SS-marriage” but, they’d be wrong.

I believe that’d be like arguing for adultery after reading that passage.

Many argue that because the way the sexual acts of homosexuality was delt with in leviticus was immoral (where such acts were addressed in the bible) that it doesn’t count (so to speak), but Jesus didn’t come to do away with the old testament, he came to fulfill it - Matthew 5:17-20
"Matthew 5:17-20:

**The Law of Moses

17 Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.

19 If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom of heaven. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom. 20 You must obey God’s commands better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law obey them. If you don’t, I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.**

I believe he fulfilled leviticus perfectly when they brought the adulteress before him to be stoned, he said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” than he said “I wont accuse you either, but sin no more.” and thus I believe the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

They’d be used the Bible as a hole. Jesus was teaching another lesson altogether; something more closely like chiding the champions of Diversity for their narrow acceptance of other people’s beliefs (“your a bigot and close minded unless you believe what I tell you is right”). Jesus would never stand for that.

I think you misunderstood me, I believe there is neither heterosexual nor homosexual, because what makes a homosexual so different to anyone else? nothing, we all have immoal sexual desires and our desires are not who we are because we make that choice, I believe we are judged on our deeds.

So if you did understand me and think it’s okay to speak against our homosexual brothers and sisters simply because they have SSA, than I believe you are gravely wrong and if so than you must show the same to me and everyone else because there is not one man or woman that does not suffer from an immoral desire. Not one.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[thistle]

As ahs quoted from you and exactly what I bolded out of what you said, I’m not sure what you thought I meant.

This is why I said there is neither heterosexual nor homosexual because we are all one in Christ, we are all God’s children.

I also said “Our sexuality is sacred, I believe we do not show Christian love by desacralizing our sexuality in appeasing our sexual desires.” which includes all sexual immorality which includes the sexual acts of homosexuality, thus I believe it would be immoral for us to advocate such acts for our homosexual brothers and sisters, I believe we wouldn’t be loving our homosexual brothers and sisters by advocating sexual immorality for them or anyone else for that matter.

I believe that’d be like arguing for adultery after reading that passage.

Many argue that because the way the sexual acts of homosexuality was delt with in leviticus was immoral (where such acts were addressed in the bible) that it doesn’t count (so to speak), but Jesus didn’t come to do away with the old testament, he came to fulfill it - Matthew 5:17-20

I believe he fulfilled leviticus perfectly when they brought the adulteress before him to be stoned, he said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” than he said “I wont accuse you either, but sin no more.” and thus I believe the sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

I think you misunderstood me, I believe there is neither heterosexual nor homosexual, because what makes a homosexual so different to anyone else? nothing, we all have immoal sexual desires and our desires are not who we are because we make that choice, I believe we are judged on our deeds.

So if you did understand me and think it’s okay to speak against our homosexual brothers and sisters simply because they have SSA, than I believe you are gravely wrong and if so than you must show the same to me and everyone else because there is not one man or woman that does not suffer from an immoral desire. Not one.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

In the case of active homosexuals their actions are not only immoral but are gravely disordered.
In the case of a heterosexual having sex outside marriage, for example, it is gravely immoral but not disordered.
In other words sexual intercourse between same sexes is disordered and always immoral whereas the sexual intercourse between man and woman is a** normal act** but only immoral if outside marriage.

 

[josh987654321]

In the case of active homosexuals their actions are not only immoral but are gravely disordered.
In the case of a heterosexual having sex outside marriage, for example, it is gravely immoral but not disordered.
In other words sexual intercourse between same sexes is disordered and always immoral whereas the sexual intercourse between man and woman is a** normal act** but only immoral if outside marriage.

Yup.

Thank you for adding that thistle and in saying this, I believe we are in no way saying that homosexuals themselves are disordered or immoral, because that wouldn’t be true, like I said before, I believe we all suffer from immoral desires and our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[thistle]

Yup.

Thank you for adding that thistle and in saying this, I believe we are in no way saying that homosexuals themselves are disordered or immoral, because that wouldn’t be true, like I said before, I believe we all suffer from immoral desires and our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I agree.

 

[Jessie5000]

…he throws in a non-sequitur, which doubles here as a red-herring - slavery. He states that if we go by the Bible [to say that homosexuality is not normal], then we have to go by the Bible which says [allegedly] that slavery was normal. It’s a red-herring because it draws the focus off the initial topic and casts a known hot-point into the mix. This gains him the emotional support of the audience who, obviously, is against slavery (as is the pastor, no doubt). It acts as a strawman in that, having defeated his “opponent” on the horrible issue of slavery, he is perceived to have refuted his opponent’s position on human rights in general. And it’s a non-sequitur because, regardless of what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about slavery, it does not follow that therefore homosexual carnal unions are okay within Christianity. His point here is invalid on several fronts. Not only does it not follow that, because “slavery” has been considered normal, that therefore homosexuality also should be, but we don’t even know the definition of slavery being refuted here. He said that “the Bible says slavery is a natural condition”. Yet, he neither provides the context for his claim, nor the citation, nor does he stick with the Biblical definition of slavery that the Jews understood at the time the Scriptures were recorded. “Slavery” back then did not mean the same thing it would mean 2,000-4,000 years down the road when we fought forced slavery in America. But that’s not even the main point. The main point is, he has yet to stay on topic and defend his position of saying he is Christian, yet rejecting Chrisitan doctrine and expecting the Christian vote.

Prime Minister Rudd’s whole argument was based on logical fallacies. While on the surface it seems the pastor was not ready for what the politician has to say, a deeper look shows that, clearly, the politician was not ready to give a logical defense for his position, he was not ready for what the Pastor asked. But what concerns me more is this: If he relies on the ignorance of his audience and dodges the issues BEFORE he is elected…what’s he gonna do in office? And there is yet an even more troubling issue here. This man is claiming Christ…he is a Christian. Yet, here he is attempting to pit the Word of God against none other than…the Word of God! You see, everyone knows that slavery, as we understand it in the modern era, is a criminal injustice. This Prime Minister, however, has painted a wrong picture of Scripture by misrepresenting the position on slavery within the Biblical Texts, and then uses that to basically say that we need to reject the Word of God since it has a supposed faulty position on slavery. “If the Bible says [homosexuality is NOT normal], then we have to accept slavery as normal”. This position of his carries the explicit stance that he believes homosexuality to be NORMAL, which he has just implied the Bible is against, and therefore we need to understand that the Bible is WRONG [per his view]. Now, coming from an atheist, I’d expect a statement like that. But remember the original context of the question he was asked, and how his supporters have portrayed him (as a Christian that supports SSM). The final answer that the discerning Christian should walk away from is this:

The question: “Why should you get the Christian vote even though your views are contrary to Christian values?”

Prime Minister’s “Christian” answer: “Because the Bible is wrong.”

I am reminded of a particular passage here: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Is 5:20)

Wow, you put a ton of effort into this. No one particular study conclusively proves people are born gay… put there are many studies that demonstrate differences in the brain structures of gay persons and that specific combinations of genes are particular to gay persons (you most likely object to me calling them persons). Why all this effort - you know what they say? “Dost protest too much” which reminds me of recend study of the most ardently anti gay which found these people had homosexual leanings themselves. How about concentrating upon following God maxim to love and spread the god news as we are suppose to be the people of God and not the people against homosexuals, or the people against any group or Creed outside Catholicism. We use too much effort fighting non-Catholic entities rather than being about our Father’s business to share the Goodnews. In doing so, we drive the very persons we are to convert away and alienate people. They will know we are christians by our love not by our opposition and dedication to limiting the dignity of others or working to reduce their civic rights. Speaking of civic rights - I thought we were inservice of the kingdom of God…

 

[kozlosap]

Wow, you put a ton of effort into this. No one particular study conclusively proves people are born gay… put there are many studies that demonstrate differences in the brain structures of gay persons and that specific combinations of genes are particular to gay persons (you most likely object to me calling them persons). Why all this effort - you know what they say? “Dost protest too much” which reminds me of recend study of the most ardently anti gay which found these people had homosexual leanings themselves. How about concentrating upon following God maxim to love and spread the god news as we are suppose to be the people of God and not the people against homosexuals, or the people against any group or Creed outside Catholicism. We use too much effort fighting non-Catholic entities rather than being about our Father’s business to share the Goodnews. In doing so, we drive the very persons we are to convert away and alienate people. They will know we are christians by our love not by our opposition and dedication to limiting the dignity of others or working to reduce their civic rights. Speaking of civic rights - I thought we were inservice of the kingdom of God…

 

[ahs]

Wow, you put a ton of effort into this. No one particular study conclusively proves people are born gay… put there are many studies that demonstrate differences in the brain structures of gay persons and that specific combinations of genes are particular to gay persons (you most likely object to me calling them persons).

Why would I object to calling persons “persons”? I don’t get what you are saying here? Is there a reason you think I would object to calling people “persons”?

Why all this effort - you know what they say? “Dost protest too much” which reminds me of recend study of the most ardently anti gay which found these people had homosexual leanings themselves.

Well, I wouldn’t say it was all that much effort. I simply pointed out the logical fallacies used by the PM (and now I’m pointing out yours). I didn’t really get down to a point-by-point refutation (which would have been a lot of effort in my opinion) because I’m not here (in this thread) to debate SSM, per se, but to point out tactics used by some people (the PM in this case) when avoiding the answering of questions. The reason for the effort, however, seems obvious…I want Christians to be able to recognize when they are getting answers to questions vs. when they are being deceived with logical fallacy. I’m not sure what my sexual orientation would have to do with it. If I had same-sex “leanings” as you suggest, would that have any effect on whether or not the PM answered the question he was asked? Unless the PM’s answers are directly dependent upon my own sexual orientation, all you have here is an *ad hominem *attack…another logical fallacy. And the only reason I am addressing it right not is to show the readers of the thread yet another tactic used when people try to skirt around the actual issues.

How about concentrating upon following God maxim to love and spread the god news as we are suppose to be the people of God and not the people against homosexuals, or the people against any group or Creed outside Catholicism. We use too much effort fighting non-Catholic entities rather than being about our Father’s business to share the Goodnews. In doing so, we drive the very persons we are to convert away and alienate people. They will know we are christians by our love not by our opposition and dedication to limiting the dignity of others or working to reduce their civic rights. Speaking of civic rights - I thought we were inservice of the kingdom of God…

What does any of that have to do with my thread? Is pointing out the deceptive debate tactics of the PM, for example, prohibiting the spread of God’s love? Have I said anything that is “against homosexuals”? Have I said anything to “alienate” anyone or limit their dignity or that is outside the service of God? (Quote the exact sentence to support this please, if you assert that I have.) Your entire paragraph here is nothing more than fallacious reasoning.