Grupos » One on One Debates » Temas » Bibleman vs. Nacho: The Debate

Listado 1-7 de 7    1   de  1
Autor Mensaje
Agent Remunerative Thinker

M/31
HERNDON,
VIRGINIA
Mensaje instantáneo
Enviar mensaje
Responde con esta cita Responder a esta publicación Publicado:  feb 17, 2006 2:09 a.m.
This is the thread devoted to the debate between Bibleman and Nacho.  After some discussion they settled on the following resolution: "Does the Bible define homosexuality as a sin?" 


Bibleman will be arguing the affirmative while Nacho will be arguing the negative.


The rules for this debate are as follows:


1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. This debate will last five rounds. Bibleman will provide the opening post and Nacho will rebut.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

enRot


Huntington Beach,
California
Mensaje instantáneo
Enviar mensaje
Responde con esta cita Responder Publicado: mar 1, 2006 5:00 p.m.
Does the bible define Homosexuality as a sin?



Before I begin, I think it’s important to be clear on my definitions of homosexuality and sin.

Homosexuality:

Dictionary.com

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.


Merriam-Webster

1. The quality or state of being homosexual
2. Erotic activity with another of the same sex


It’s NOT definition number one that I believe the bible specifically condemns. Rather, it’s the second of the definitions that we can argue specifics on.


Sin:

Jewishencylclopedia.com

Under the Jewish theocracy, willful disregard of the positive, or willful infraction of the negative, commands of God as proclaimed by Moses and interpreted by the Rabbis; it thus includes crimes against God and crimes against society or an individual member thereof.

Dictionary.com

1.A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2.Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.



Thus, I will argue that the bible shows that sexual activity with another of the same sex is a transgression of a command of God as proclaimed by Moses and interpreted by the rabbis and is further reiterated in the NT.





The Old Testament view of homosexuality:

Famed Jewish historian and rabbi Flavius Josephus (37-100AD) writes:

"The Law recognizes no sexual connections except for the natural union of man and wife.... But it abhors the intercourse of males with males, and punishes any who undertake such a thing with death
(Ap. 2.199)".




The OT law can be broken down into three categories:



1) Universal Moral Laws

2) Hebrew Cultural Laws (with general societal overtones)

3) Ceremonial Laws (which have now been covered by Christ)



Now, going through and identifying each of these categories individually would be a daunting task and would go far beyond the scope of this debate. I do think that there are certain obvious and agreeable universal laws “thou shalt not murder, steal, don’t sleep with your sister…etc.



But for the purpose of this debate, I think we can skip the process of identifying what is a universal law (I believe that Homosexuality IS indeed one of these universals), by following this basic and reasonable concept:


“If it’s a law in the OT, and reiterated in the NT, then it’s reasonable to conclude it’s a concept a Christian MUST yield to.


Further, to bring the concept of the universal Levitical laws in to the realm of the gentiles, we can examine the Seven Laws of Noah , which gentiles are to follow.

(from wikipedia)
Judaism holds that gentiles (non-Jews) are not obligated to adhere to all the laws of the Torah (indeed, they are forbidden to fulfill some laws, such as keeping of Sabbath)…The Noahide Laws are regarded as the way through which non-Jews can have a meaningful relationship with God or at least comply with a minimum threshold of Divine law.

The fourth of these laws is: (from the linked source)

4) You shall not commit Sexual Immorality

The Bible states, “It is not good for man to be alone, ” so G-d made a helpmate for Adam and in marriage “He blessed them.” In a wholesome family, man’s creativity finds meaningful expression. Wholesome families are the cornerstone of healthy communities, nations, and societies. Nations which have condoned immorality - adultery, homosexuality, sodomy, incest - have never lasted long. Sexual immorality is the sign of an inner decay which spawns a ruthless society, bringing confusion into G-d’s life plan.


AND EVEN BEYOND THAT, The local context in one of the OT proof texts I’ll use includes gentiles:

Lev 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you


So any way you slice it, biblically speaking, the definitions of sexual immorality set forth in the Levitical and Noahide laws bind mankind.
Therefore, the battle cries of oh so many advocacy groups “If you take one Levitical law, why not all Levitical laws?” should now be laid to rest.





So then, with this in mind, lets move to our focus here:



Lev 18:22 you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.





I think it’s far from unclear what the OT has to say about homosexuality, but lets dig in a little with these verses and their contexts.



*Lev 18:22


Chapter 18 begins by telling us the purpose of the following laws:

You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.




The concept of this scripture is rife throughout the OT; that the Israelites were not to be doing the things that the pagan nations around then were doing. Anytime they did, God brought judgment upon them.



Temple prostitution?


Often advocates of homosexuality attempt to connect verse 22 with the verse before it, which states:

18:21 You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.




Advocates attempt to say that this refers to consecrating your child for work in the temple, which included temple prostitution, therefore verse 22 is simply showing that you should not engage in temple homosexual prostitution.

However, what does this verse point to?

From Jewishencyclopedia.com


“As to the rites which the worshipers of Moloch performed, it has sometimes been inferred, from the phrase "pass through the fire to Moloch, " that children were made to pass between two lines of fire as a kind of consecration or februation; but it is clear from Isa. lvii. 5 and Jer. xix. 5 that the children were killed and burned. The whole point of the offering consisted, therefore, in the fact that it was a human sacrifice.”




Clearly, verse 21 is referring to sacrificing your children to a pagan god and does not point to temple prostitution, It’s not “thou shall not lie with a man as a woman” from verse 22 that qualifies why a person shouldn’t pass through the fires of Moloch, but rather it’s “pass through the fires” of Moloch and so profane the name of God” that qualifies the nature of the prohibition.
(Don’t sacrifice your kids to Moloch)



But for the sake of argument, lets say that verse 21 does indeed qualify verse 22 and only means temple prostitution, therefore non-Moloch style homosexual behavior is acceptable.



Lets apply that same eisegetical concept the verse that follows and is connected to 22:


23 neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.



Since “neither” connects verse 22 and 23, are we to infer that it’s ok to have sexual relations with animals, so long as it doesn’t happen in worship to Moloch!?!


Certainly not! And I think it’s clear that connecting verse 21 and 22 and adding the unmentioned stipulation that this somehow refers specifically to homosexual prostitution is without exegetical foundation.

Verse 22 is clear
“Though shall not lie with a man as with a woman”






* Lev 20:13



This verse is rather strait forward and It’s surrounded by various other detestable sexual relations. It’s important to note, EVERY instance of debauchery here is related to participants and not specific acts

Meaning, when we get to the verse 13, we’re not specifically taking about the act of sodomy, we’re talking about sex between two persons who should not be having sex.



Observe:



Lev 20 -



10 If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.



11 If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



12 If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.



13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



14 If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.



15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.



16 If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



17 If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible



18 If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.



19 Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.








Now then, It’s rather clear that these verses go beyond specific sexual acts, and define inappropriate participants in a sexual encounter,


So then, According to the Hebrew Law and the ancient Hebrew view. Homosexuality is against the law. Period.

I like that way this article puts it:

“Observant Jews must have an attitude of empathy and understanding for individuals who say, “I have these urges, I can’t help them.” But we cannot accept those who would say, “I have these urges, they are God-given and therefore it is a mitzvah to follow them.”


To this I say “Amen”.



How does this connect to the NT?


Romans 1 –27

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.




With this verse we should consider context. Paul the author was a Jew, who was highly trained in Jewish law. (Trained under Gamaliel Acts 22:3)

In the book of Romans, Paul switches back and forth between addressing Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews). In this verse, Paul is speaking to Gentiles, but of course, speaking from a studied Jewish perspective,



What I find very interesting, is that within the local context of Romans 27 are clear intentional connections to Genesis 1-27 where the proper and correct relational role between male and female are first mentioned and are interlaced with the sin of idolatry in Romans 27.



Connections (in red, blue, and green)


Gen 1;26-27
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Genesis 2:24
“for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”





Rom 1-23:
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


Rom 1-26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.






I don’t think we can miss the connection of Romans to Genesis here.



We’ve gone from being in the image of God, fashioned male and female so that the two may become one, into worshiping idols and turning to vile affections where women turn to women and men turn to men.



Some may wish to translate this verse, suggesting that this only speaks to “Vile affections” speaking of some extreme form of lust, or that people go against what is “natural” to them (meaning if it’s natural to be a homosexual for you, you haven’t done what’s unnatural in having homosexual sex). But I think it’s clear in the broader biblical context that what is natural is spelled out way back in Genesis, and importing the quite modern idea that homosexuality is natural disposition and lifestyle, is a completely unfounded eisegetical interpretation of scripture that imports modern concepts into an ancient text.

Certainly Paul was NOT saying any natural impulse is acceptable and justified (which is what’s required for the advocates interpretation of this scripture)

Further, as I quoted earlier, Josephus and Paul agree here that “natural” in terms of sexual relations deals with man and woman:

“The Law recognizes no sexual connections except for the natural union of man and wife”.




-I thought to go on here to the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy verses (and indeed have a bit written on them). But I think I’ll hold off and save those issues for my next post as the issues with those verses provide for quite a bit of discussion.

Still, I do believe I’ve proven that even sans those proof texts, the bible’s message about homosexual relations is clearly sinful.



-Sources have been quoted as they were used in the text.
enRot


Huntington Beach,
California
Mensaje instantáneo
Enviar mensaje
Responde con esta cita Responder Publicado: mar 1, 2006 5:06 p.m.

I ask that the moderator will indulge this bit of personal commentary:

As I wrote this, I attempted to keep as much personal commentary aside as possible, but given the highly personal nature of this subject for many people, I feel compelled to add a personal note here.

I think some people will read this feel a certain amount of hostility toward me and/or the subject, and I do realize that there a quite a few Christian groups out there that advocate homosexual lifestyles.

I am not in any position to tell any other human on this planet how they should live their life. I cannot for a moment pretend to know what another person has in his or her heart and mind or how God is working with them. I understand many people perceive that they were born with an orientation towards homosexuality. I would not be one of those people that would at all attempt to argue the scientific merits of this, but I see no reason to doubt that people honestly feel this way.

BUT, when discussing what the bible has to say about sin, I feel it’s incorrect to go about interpretation from the standpoint that whatever you may perceive to be natural must somehow then be condoned in scripture.

ALL OF US should read the bible and come away with the understanding that we are not meeting it’s standard. YOU ARE SUPPOSED to find conflict in the bible with the way you live your life, the bible is supposed to break you and leave you with a contrite heart.

This provides the reason and leads to the crux of all scripture; that we need Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross to atone for the ways we fall short.

NONE OF US should attempt to justify ourselves by changing what is said in scripture about sin. To do this attacks the very reason Jesus died, and that in itself is a horrible sin.

Agent Remunerative Thinker


M/31
HERNDON,
VIRGINIA
Mensaje instantáneo
Enviar mensaje
Responde con esta cita Responder Publicado: mar 21, 2006 1:34 p.m.
My apologies for the delay. Nacho, your opening statement has been deleted, as per both you and Bibleman's request to have it stricken.
enRot


Huntington Beach,
California
Mensaje instantáneo
Enviar mensaje
Responde con esta cita Responder Publicado: abr 10, 2006 3:29 p.m.
Nacho has stepped out of the debate.
Rise to Honor art and designs


M/25
Ellettsville,
Indiana
Mensaje instantáneo
Enviar mensaje
Responde con esta cita Responder Publicado: abr 10, 2006 10:29 p.m.
BiblemanWrote:
Nacho has stepped out of the debate.

Yes, I just no longer have the time at this moment, do to the demands of my business. Thank you
Rise to Honor art and designs


M/25
Ellettsville,
Indiana
Mensaje instantáneo
Enviar mensaje
Responde con esta cita Responder Publicado: abr 10, 2006 10:29 p.m.
BiblemanWrote:
Nacho has stepped out of the debate.

Yes, I just no longer have the time at this moment, do to the demands of my business. Thank you
Listado 1-7 de 7    1   de  1

dspPostReplies v29