/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Bump.

>>709147

Aye, but the pic you posted could easily fit under "Thou shalt not steal/covet." I need something to decisively knockout their "B-b-but all the other verses about homosexuality are just about rich old men with boys!" hogwash.

We're Christ's bridegroom. Marriage should be modeled after the truest and highest form of love.

>>709284

Romans 1:26-27 talks about men burning in lust toward one another, not toward boys. It's not talking about an act with an unwilling victim, but an act where all participants are perpetrators.

>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.

The bible repeatedly condemns fornication and adultery - sex only with your married partner. And it specifically spells out that marriage is between a man and a woman.

>"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? (Matthew 19:4-5)

"But he didn't say it couldn't be between two women". He also didn't say it couldn't be between a man and a bear, or a woman and a tree. He said what it is, and didn't spell out the billion combinations it isn't.

>>709296

You know I was going to reply to this post pointing out they can still slip out of this argument but I think the best thing to do here is if OP stopped arguing with them and prayed for them instead. I don't even think praying to them will do anything, they might just resist the blessing, but its a better shot than having a argument.

So far this is the only article I've found online that attempts to address these arguments, along with the arguments from a similiar pro "Christian" LGBT documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So.":

https://growrag.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/5863/

>>709289

>>709296

Indeed.

>>709291

This is a particularly power verse, though per the aforementioned linked article, the LGBT crowd attempts these mental gymnastics to get around it:

>"3) Both films seek to relativize the New Testament passages (all Pauline texts) that speak against homosexuality. The basic argument is to simply annex the value of these NT texts to their original and particular first century Graeco-Roman contexts. In so doing, the modern day homosexual exegete sees force to these passages, but only in regard to their original and particular referent; they don’t see these texts, then, having a universal and perduring relevance. For example, one of those making an argument, begins to argue that the Apostle Paul would not have had any idea of 21st century monogamous homosexual relationships, all Paul would have known of in the Graeco-Roman period would have been orgiastic homosexual relations that betoken the kind of rebuke that Paul gives it in Romans 1—but since, as the argument goes, Paul didn’t or couldn’t have understood our context, then he could not have been indicting the kind of Christian homosexual relationships that are under discussion today. But how does one engage in Christian homosexual behavior and not violate other uncontested passages of scripture on sexual immorality in general (i.e. like sex is only viable within the boundaries of a marital relationship)."

>>709313

It might be for the best to avoid an argument in this particular situation, but we as Christians cannot just stick our head in the sand in response to these pro-LGBT arguments and twisting of scripture. We have to openly respond and counter such assertions or risk our churches being further infiltrated and influenced by such false doctrine, even more than they already are.

On a similar note, where are these people getting the "the anti-homosexual verses in the Bible are only about old rich men molesting boys" argument in the first place?

>>709465

*powerful verse

>>709465

>21st century monogamous homosexual relationships

lmao. Greek homosexual behavior was probably on average more "monogamous" than modern homosexual behavior. Even if this mythical homosexual monogamy actually existed, it's not sufficient to overcome Paul's condemnation because he specifically describes the natural state as man with woman and contrasts it with homosexual behavior.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

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.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

- Romans 1: 24-32

Most of the pro LGBT Christian rhetoric I've heard openly condemn Paul's teachings and instead propose the "just be like Jesus" method. So the same drivel you hear in most liberal churches nowadays.

The Bible directly condemns homosexuality in Leviticus in the most specific terms possible. You could argue a loophole since it doesn't directly mention lesbianism. But that can be explained by the fact that women did not have the autonomy at the time for such relationships to even be conceivable. Also people will try the 'lobster eating is an abomination too' tactic, but that is abrogated in the NT. Sex laws aren't. Romans clarifies that lesbianism is wrong.

>women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

The only attempt at getting around the mention of lesbianism in Romans I've heard of is a claim that it actually is referring to anal sex performed on women rather than lesbianism. I've heard that some church fathers held this interpretation, don't remember the details.

>actually argueing with people who are demented enough to sodomise each other

Ok lets say you win the argument. They know believe that homosexuality is a sin im Christianity. Do you think theyre even Christian anyway?

>>709763

I've never actually heard someone suggest that the Bible condemns male but not female homosexual behavior, except as a joke. Almost anyone motivated to find a reason not to condemn one is going to be trying to find reasons for both. It would be a strange sort of person who wouldn't–theoretically possible, but do they actually exist?

>>709138

Ask them whether Leviticus is in the context of rape, inhospitality, or pedophilia. Then when they pick one, demand they show you were in the text it is, and demand they explain the word abomination. Then point out the reason sodomy is so often put in the context of rape, inhospitality, and pedophilia is because according to the biblical narrative this is the nature of the sodomite, as per Romans 1.

>>709790

>I've never actually heard someone suggest that the Bible condemns male but not female homosexual behavior, except as a joke

I spoke to a Swede on 4/pol/ that unironically argued for that to defend the lesbian bishop of the Church of Sweden

>>709284

Home invasion isn't the same as burglary.

>>709947

Technically true, but nine times out of ten, a person who commits a home invasion isn't doing so just to camp out or have a heart to heart over some tea. Home invasion tends to go hand in hand with either theft, assault, murder, kidnapping, rape or some combination of the five. So it tends to fit either under theft/covet category, the murder/violence category, or the adultery/fornication/sodomy category (i.e. rape). Whatever way, when home invasion happens, some commandment(s) is/are going to be broken, some sin(s) is/are going to be committed.

Even if they home invader were to just theoretically just stand there and do nothing while you call the cops, said invader is violating God's commandments to respect the law and the civil authorities as long as said law and civil authorities do not violate God's law. Not to mention the second greatest commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

If you want to get pedantic about it, you could argue that a home invasion could be for the sake of saving someone from a fire, but then it wouldn't fit under the category of felony anymore.

>>709465

>21st century monogamous homosexual relationships

Anon, you're dealing with compulsive liars. You can't argue with somebody that is arguing in bad faith. All you can do is tie one end of a rope around their neck, throw the other end of the rope over a streetlamp or sturdy tree branch, and apply counterweight.

>>709962

Look dude, all those verses are about something else. In those centuries, people stole because they wanted to get richer, now people just steal so they can keep on living. Home Invasion felonies for theft aren't like they were in the bible anymore, Jesus Christ is O.K. with you robbing people for that and never said anything about it.