Why is it so hard to have a dialogue about homosexuality?

[cool_name123]

Please Read What My Question Actually Is Before Responding to The Title of this Post


So I've found through numberous discussions about this topic that they all tend to break down at the same point. I'll take you through what have become my 4 primary points when discussing this. I won't go into crazy detail as I'm more concerned with why the discussion breaks down where it does as opposed to rehashing this point yet again (though I'm not entirely opposed if another thread were to form or if you think I need to go into further detail somewhere to better answer my question).

1) The bible appears to be far more concerned with a Love ethic than it does a Sexual ethic. The bible is full of sexual mores, but these are more practices of the time than they are rules by which we must live. Whether or not they agree with this point isn't super important as it's more meant to give a little context and insight into how I read the bible.

2) Regardless of where you personally stand on the issue, how the church has traditionally approached the issue is very detrimental and we need to change how we approach this issue. This point, when flushed out in further detail, is meant to garner a bit of empathy towards those being affected by the church on this matter.

3) This is where the argument tends to take a more theological/exegetical turn and more often than not leads to Paul... And more importantly Romans 1:26-27... I have two issues with this text and the second is where most of my debates tend to be cut short.
a) Romans 1 cannot be understood (in my opinion) without Romans 2... It is a one-two punch, a common literary strategy used my speakers and preachers even today... One of drawing the audience in, feeding them lines they already agree with and then throwing them a curve ball to make them second guess those firm beliefs they had mere moments ago. Romans 1 basically goes, 'look at all these bad things and bad people, we would never do that, shame on them... etc' Followed by Romans 2 which basically goes 'But wait a second, What did Jesus ask us to do? Oh that's Right... Not To Judge!' Which I like to imagine is met by a 'Oh Paul, You clever rascal... You got me! I'll try and be more aware of that in the future' from the reader.
b) but even more importantly than that, is the language Paul uses... Because inevitably I get the 'But he still alluded to it being bad' Yes, but even if you take that route of twisting Paul's intent it still doesn't matter because what he is talking about is not what we know as Homosexuality. What we know as homosexuality would have been quite foreign to Paul, that is same sex loving relationships between two consenting adults. What Paul is talking about here is likely pederasty, or a more dominant kind of relationship between an adult and a child (or temple supported male prostitution). The word Paul uses here (Arsenokoitēs) is a fairly uncommon word in the Greek language that we can only really guess at the true meaning of... But given that there are other more common Greek words for same sex (ίδιου φ�λου), more encompassing terms, and given that how sex was talked about back then was generally framed in specific acts not all encompassing terms, why do we assume that the moment he decides to be quite specific with his wording (a word that is quite commonly translated as pederasty) that he is condemning an entire orientation as opposed to a particular act?

And if the argument from there becomes that they did not use language that way back then, then is it not a reasonable assumption that what we have now come to know as 'homosexuality' is not a concept that Paul would have been familiar with as if he had one would expect him to use similar language? (This paragraph here is a new addition to the argument, I haven't really fleshed that one out yet, feel free to help me develop that one too as I'm basically trying to guess at where the discussion would go from there if it didn't always end).


Anyways, it is around that point above when I start getting nice and exegetical, bringing up Greek translations and things of the sort that people tend to respond with the cold shoulder and end the conversation instead of continuing the discussion beyond there. I really want to know because the only reason my argument has developed to where it is is because people keep giving me counter points that I then go to research and return with how I might respond to said point through my lens of biblical understanding. Through discussion after discussion my points get fine tuned and honed in to say exactly what I want them to say... But now that I've got it to this point people just tend to disagree and that's the end of it... Nothing more to say... How do I respond to that? (which isn't actually the question I started with but another one I'd be curious to hear thoughts on none-the-less).

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 37 by help3434]

"This is a shell game you are playing here. It is human nature to be imperfect. The Bible even says no one is good. In order for all men to have the full opportunity to live a life 100% of sin then they would all have to have perfect natures. People don't have perfect natures, thus they don't have the opportunity to live perfect lives."

And all of that is true. And in all of that being true...we are still guilty of our sins and still Justly condemned for them. Admitting the nature does not mean you have justified your point. It only means you have admitted it, and put yourself into denial. It takes much more to justify a position than to simply admit that the nature is true. Now you understand why I said "the seeds of Satan wish to justify their errors, to make themselves righteous, and if need be, accuse God in order to defend their sin."

"Matthew 7:21 New International Version
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

If only those who do the will of the Father enter the kingdom of heaven, then how is doing the Will of the Father not a requirement?"

You used the NIV version, which is known to have altered the original message by using Alexandrian texts rather than Antiochan texts. If you are unfamiliar with the difference between Bibles written from Alexandrian texts vs Antiochan texts...then you should become familiar with that difference. For your ignorance of them has caused you to believe a translation which is not truest.

The KJV does not have the word "only" in it, and it does not even read the same way as the NIV.

"21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

So, again, you can choose whichever you wish to believe. But I have given you a legitimate out, which thus proves that your proof is no longer proof. You no longer have the certainty, and thus no longer have the sure justification of your position.

And again, as a friendly reminder, even the NIV does not say "doing the will of the father is a requirement to obtain salvation." It is still entirely plausible, even from the NIV translation, that it could mean that the man who never did the will of the father, but believed in Jesus...is saved, and from the moment he enters the gates...will always do the will of the father.

I can't prove that. But its a viable option, and thus you do not have your proof of injustice which you seek to have proven. And you know you hate that.

"If you want me to continue to respond to your posts then stop with your personal attacks, assumptions, attempts at mind reading, and attributing disagreement as sinister motives."

I do not want you to do anything that you do not want to do. I will continue to examine you according to your words. I have not personally attacked you. I have not made many assumptions. I have brought your motives to the light. And you do not like that I have revealed sinister motives. You are at any time more than welcome to cease posting, that this thread may get back on track to showing how God has great and abundant mercy and grace towards homosexuals. Your demeanor to cut down God is not exactly welcome here, especially when at the same time as expressing that demeanor you also claim that you seek more knowledge when all you have done is seek to shut down knowledge.

I will always call evil to be evil. I will never back down from that position. If you believe in things which are evil, and ascribe yourself to them, then you accuse yourself. I do not accuse you. I simply declare what is evil. I do not say that you are evil. I just make it abundantly clear what is evil. And if you believe in those things which are evil, you feel as if I have personally attacked you, because you believe in those things which are evil. But that is a false accusation against me. For the truth is not that I have accused you, but that I have simply spoken truth of evil...and you associated yourself with it, and thus accused yourself in doing so, and then projected your accusations of yourself as if I was the one who accused you.

May God abundantly bless you, and place red hot coals upon your head, that you be unable to stop thinking about this conversation due to feeling conviction from my words.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 40 by HumbleDisciple]

"There is no assumption. Your words and the expression of them proves your rush to reject. Are you unable to notice your demeanor? Would you like me to show you how you would have responded to everything I have said thus far, if you had been searching for understanding rather than rushing to reject? "

False assumption, I have thought about these things for a while now, I was no rush to reject. You still have not explained exactly what it is you want me to test.

"So when a man has a biological urge to steal and murder, it is absurd to call it a sin? The fact that the nature of the urge causes damage to other parties is irrelevant to you to such a degree that you are willing to state that biological urge justifies them doing so? "

You said the homosexual desire itself was sin, not just acting on it.


"You cannot justify your beliefs by expecting that God serve things to you on a silver platter before you will believe them. "

Another false assumption. Asking for a rational reason to believe something is not asking for something to be handed on a silver platter. Following the scientific method is a lot of work, scientists don't have things having handed to them on a silver platter.

".if you yourself were still guilty. This is called ownership in your own responsibility. This is something which you wish to escape. And this is why your logic has been the way it has been all along. "

Yet another wrong assumption. My reasoning has been that your belief about God doesn't make sense to me, it is not about me trying to escape responsibility.


"I will not stop with the personal comments. Do you feel convicted? Is that why you press for the cessation of personal comments? None of my comments have been oppressive. None of them have been spoken with anger, nor vengeance, nor hate. They have only been insightful, and you do not like what you see, and you do not like it exposed and brought to the light. That is why you wish them to cease. "

Still another false assumption. I tell you to stop because they are against the rules of civil debate and all the motives you have be ascribing to be have been wrong. Your personal comments about me are not insightful, they are just dead wrong.

"I never said you cannot search for truth while rejecting the concept of salvation. What I said is you do not wish to search the concept of salvation to seek the possibility that it might be true. You search for truth. You just do not wish to find it where you do not want it to be. "

Still yet another wrong assumption. I used to believe in the concept of salvation and live accordingly. It was not until later that the concept stopped making sense to me.

I hope I have made it clear that your so called insights are actually nothing more than false assumptions. To further personal comments against me I will only respond with reports to the moderators that you are breaking the rules of civil debate.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 42 by help3434]

"You still have not explained exactly what it is you want me to test."

I want you to test your doubts about the truth of the things I speak. I do not know what your doubts are, so I cannot specifically declare what it is that you should test. But you seem eager to declare things against my doctrines before you have tested my doctrines.

Example:

You say God is unJust for sending some people to Hell. But you name no specific example cases of someone who you think the Bible would send to Hell that you feel is not worthy of being condemned to Hell. You do not say "Ok, for example, let us say there is a certain XYZ type of man..." And then ask me "Would the Bible say he goes to heaven or to hell?"

Instead...you just paint a broad brushstroke assuming an unJust God. You had the choice, and yet your desires have such strong influence over you that you weren't even aware of your own behavior.

"You said the homosexual desire itself was sin, not just acting on it. "

Yes, I did...because it is. Whats your point? They have the urge, if they act on it they are surely guilty, but if their heart also accepts the urge without them acting on it...they are still guilty. And it is not unJust for God to punish us for the wickedness in our hearts, even if we do not act upon it. We are still guilty, and the only Just thing God can do is condemn it, even if it is only in the heart and not acted upon. You desire to claim it is unJust. That is because you have a false sense of Justice. You have a sense of Justice in which you wish to defend your own nature of its own wickedness. That is not Justice. That is the definition of evil. Like I said, if a murderer has a heart that craves murdering people, and he does not act upon it, but still has that in his heart...he is guilty. But you wish to say that if he was born with that innate nature to murder, and acts upon it...that he is somehow innocent because he was born that way. Now, you do not wish murder to be the example sin. You probably have some other sin in mind, one that you are guilty of, that you wish you were not guilty of. Nonetheless, that is cherry picking.

If you cannot say to yourself "A person who is born desiring to murder others, who has it in his nature, cannot be guilty of acting out on that nature and murdering another person in action"....then you cannot say the same to yourself about any other sin that came by nature.

This is how I am proving that your sense of Justice is wicked and mal-defined.

"Another false assumption. Asking for a rational reason to believe something is not asking for something to be handed on a silver platter."

I never said asking for a rational reason to believe something is asking for something to be handed on a silver platter.

I said refusing to believe something because you have not yet seen its proof is asking for something to be handed on a silver platter.

Those two statements are not the same. But you twisted my words, didn't you? You wished not to say that you refuse to believe something without it being proven first. So you changed it to say "asking for a rational reason." You do not ask for a rational reason. How do I know? Because I have offered rational explanations, but you have rejected them. So then it is not that you ask for rational explanations. It is that you demand that the rational explanations be proven before you receive them. Therefore, you deceive yourself. This is what I mean when I say your words prove your demeanor. For if you were looking for a rational reason to believe God were Just...then you would have received everything I have spoken with a warm heart, and glad tidings. But instead, you fight my rational explanations because you do not desire for them to be true. And you demand proof of my rational explanations, when at the same time you do not demand proof of your current beliefs.

"My reasoning has been that your belief about God doesn't make sense to me, it is not about me trying to escape responsibility."

What is it about my belief about God that doesn't make sense to you? Please note: Arguing does not help. You actually need to explain what does not make sense to you....*not* what you refuse to accept. There is a difference.

"I tell you to stop because they are against the rules of civil debate and all the motives you have be ascribing to be have been wrong."

I have not violated the rules of civil debate. Calling evil to be evil is not against the rules. I have not personally attacked you. You, however, feel personally attacked when I declare evil to be evil because you define yourself according to evil concepts. That is your accusation against yourself. It is not my personal attack against you. Therefore, I will continue to call evil to be evil. And I will continue to describe your beliefs as evil. For they are evil. Truth can never violate rules of a forum unless those rules are evil also. And the rules of this forum are not evil. Therefore, the rules of this forum grant all members the right to expose evil.

"Your personal comments about me are not insightful, they are just dead wrong."

Prove it by showing that you are not willing to argue against my points. Prove it by asking questions of insight, rather than questions of doubt intended to seek ways to reject what I teach. Prove it.

"Still yet another wrong assumption. I used to believe in the concept of salvation and live accordingly. It was not until later that the concept stopped making sense to me."

What you believed in the past does not dictate your demeanor today. And your demeanor today in the words you write today still make apparent the truth of the statement I made.

"I hope I have made it clear that your so called insights are actually nothing more than false assumptions."

You have made it clear that you say they are false assumptions. You had done nothing to prove it. Just saying it doesn't make it true and proven. I accept your testimony that you *think* you made it clear. I reject that your testimony *actually* proved what it said.

If you desire to prove that my assumptions about you are false, then you may prove it in this fashion:

Whatever I teach...no longer argue or contend against it. Do not walk away and stop discussing. Continue to discuss, but make every single one of your words to be a question of curiosity, learning, and seeking to know more. Do not allow any single one of your words to be in contention, or a question of doubt, or for the motive of disproving anything I have said.

For if you succeed in doing *all* of the above paragraph, that will prove my statements about you to be false. And there is no other way in which you can prove my statements about you to be false.

"To further personal comments against me I will only respond with reports to the moderators that you are breaking the rules of civil debate."

Good luck with that. For you will have to provide direct quotations of me *actually insulting you*. And to this day, I have not insulted you a single time.

Please note, that you declared you would walk away rather than deal with my comments. Are you changing your mind and deciding a different action because I was not intimidated by your threat?

For which part of my beliefs am I guilty?

Of declaring that God can save the homosexual?

Of declaring that God has abundant Grace?

Of declaring that Grace is Just?

Of revealing how you wish to smear those statements? (And thus you look bad by your own declarations, not because I made you to look bad, but because your own declarations made you to look bad?)

It is not I who personally attack you. It is you who personally attack you. Perhaps you should ask the Mods to remove you from this cite for violating the terms of conduct against yourself.

For the record and sake of keeping clarity, I would like to recap on all of your major points thus far:

You claim that it is unJust for God to condemn people who have sinned.

You also claim that it is unJust for God to save some of those who were condemned for their sins.

That begs the question: Then what left is there that can be Justly done?

Are you suggesting that the only thing God could do that would be Just is to do exactly the opposite of Justice by not condemning anyone for their sins at all? Just let everyone run free without the rule of Justice? That is anarchy. And it is not Just. Yet that is the only other option than the two points which you wish to reject.

So, as long as I murder because it was my desire, and I was born with that desire and it comes to me naturally, it is ok for me to murder and I should not be condemned of it?

So, as long as I lust because it was my desire, and I was born with that lust and it comes naturally to me, it is ok for me to rape women and not be condemned of it?

For those are the natural and logical consequences of the points which you raise against what I speak about Justice.

Perhaps you have not thought deeply about the consequences of what you believe. Perhaps your selfish desire to feel justified for your sins has caused that lapse in judgment.

P.S. You still have not answered my Yes/No question regarding whether you would like me to show you how, if I write a pseudo-2nd party to my own dialogue, I could show you the difference between your demeanor verses a person who delights in seeking knowledge rather than rejecting knowledge. I specifically asked you to answer whether you would like to see that difference or not. And I specifically asked you to answer that question.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 43 by HumbleDisciple]

I have not violated the rules of civil debate. Calling evil to be evil is not against the rules. I have not personally attacked you. You, however, feel personally attacked when I declare evil to be evil because you define yourself according to evil concepts. That is your accusation against yourself. It is not my personal attack against you. Therefore, I will continue to call evil to be evil. And I will continue to describe your beliefs as evil. For they are evil. Truth can never violate rules of a forum unless those rules are evil also. And the rules of this forum are not evil. Therefore, the rules of this forum grant all members the right to expose evil.

Moderator Comment

It is considered uncivil to use terms that are easily pejoratives without defining them first. I would definitely dial it down and use phrases such as, 'could be considered evil'.

In any case calling something evil on a debate without evidence is uncivil. This isn't 'the streets' where we have to make judgements. It's where we get to consider and reflect on what may or may not be.

Far better to express your case and let the other person reflect upon it and see if they see themselves in a different light.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 44 by Wootah]

"Moderator Comment

It is considered uncivil to use terms that are easily pejoratives without defining them first. I would definitely dial it down and use phrases such as, 'could be considered evil'.

In any case calling something evil on a debate without evidence is uncivil."

If you scroll up into the previous posts you will see that it was defined. I can summarize for you.

Help3434 had taken the position that if a person is born with the nature to sin, that they are justified to commit that sin without it being condemned or judged by God.

That position, by definition, is evil. For it openly admits that one can sin without condemnation, and should never feel judged or condemned for it...for no other reason than that they were born that way. The latest post was in referance to that, and although the latest post did not include that summary, it was made in referance to that point.

Infact, I followed it up with the questions "If a man is born with a heart that naturally craves to murder, and then acts on that craving and murders...does not such logic dictate that he should not be punished or condemned for his actions because he was born that way?"

And Help3434 refused to answer the question. For it revealed the fault of his logic. So then, it was pretty safe from that point forward to declare that such definitions of Justice are the very opposite of Justice, and thus evil.

Thank you for the heads up, and I will try to do a better job of asserting and defining evil more bluntly and explicitly while at the same time not stickering it to a particular person who declared that they believe in that evil.

Also keep in mind that a part of evangelism is convicting a person of the feelings of their own heart, not by telling them that they themselves are evil (and if you notice, I never said he was evil)...but by making referance questions for them to test their own hearts on the issue.

"Far better to express your case and let the other person reflect upon it and see if they see themselves in a different light."

Which was my intent all along. That is what he did not like, I suspect.

Perhaps he can follow your declarations as well as I have by not directly insulting God on these forums. If you scroll through the comments, he made very many comments about God being unJust without declaring such comments as opinions, but rather as facts...and he did so without proving it, nor any evidence.

Thanks again.

[dianaiad]

[quote="HumbleDisciple"]
[Replying to post 44 by Wootah]

"Moderator Comment

It is considered uncivil to use terms that are easily pejoratives without defining them first. I would definitely dial it down and use phrases such as, 'could be considered evil'.

In any case calling something evil on a debate without evidence is uncivil."

If you scroll up into the previous posts you will see that it was defined. I can summarize for you.

......


Moderator Comment

If you disagree with a moderator action, use the PM system to talk to the moderator directly. A moderator action is not an invitation to public debate. Please take the time to look at the Rules. We actually mean them.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

I did not disagree with a Moderator action. If you read what I had stated, I was in agreement with it and thanked them for their words.

Looking at the rules, I suspect you meant this one:

15. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

Which I did not violate, for I was in agreement with the Moderator statement and simply gave clarity. I also did not ask for an appeal. There is no rule that states a person may not post a general comment in response to a Moderator that is "ruling neutral" or in agreement with the ruling. I looked.

But thanks for the heads up anyways.

[HumbleDisciple]

Cool_name123, I hope I have helped show you, if you still come and check these, how the Bible and those who truly follow it seek Mercy and Grace for all those who desire to have it.

As is clear from all the other posts, even when the Bible teaches such things are offered to homosexuals, and even when other Christians are willing to teach and show that Grace covers homosexuals and adulterers and a multitude of other sins...that even then, when that occurs, there are even people from outside of the Christian Community who will do anything and everything they can to prevent you from hearing it, for they do not desire for you to hear that Christianity can and does offer salvation to them.

Thus, there are haters on the inside, and there are haters on the outside both which are trying to claim that Christianity is based on the haters on the inside. I hope you can tune out those voices and listen to that which is true, loving, and merciful. For that voice, when the others are tuned out, is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to your heart.

May God grant you and anyone you know abundant peace.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

I did not disagree with a Moderator action. If you read what I had stated, I was in agreement with it and thanked them for their words.

Looking at the rules, I suspect you meant this one:

15. Appeals and challenges to decisions made by moderators should not be made in public. The proper channel is to send a PM to a moderator and to discuss it directly and in private.

Which I did not violate, for I was in agreement with the Moderator statement and simply gave clarity. I also did not ask for an appeal. There is no rule that states a person may not post a general comment in response to a Moderator that is "ruling neutral" or in agreement with the ruling. I looked.

But thanks for the heads up anyways.

Moderator Comment

Perhaps you did not consider your earlier post a challenge to moderator action. This one, however, absolutely is.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[HumbleDisciple]

[Replying to post 49 by dianaiad]

My apologies and I accept all due course of action for being provoked into violating the rules of the forum. I did not see it coming, but I will not appeal it.