 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: Re: homosexuality is sin |
 |
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | The line of debate put forward by the person suporting "MODERN" homosexuality, and suggesting homosexuals were punished for NOT displaying HOSPITALITY is quite humourous
Does this arguement logically follow through to modern murder, adultry, pedophilia, robbery, lying, stealing etc.?
If so, nobody has any thing to worry about and we will all go to heaven
I think someone is using reasonably poor logic or some sort of dangerous medicatiion |
There is an important difference between homosexuality during Roman times and homosexuality today. Back then, heterosexuals would engage in homosexual sex. Today, it is virtually only homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex. This is a very important difference. One can argue that the prior is condemned by the Bible, but that the latter is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Back then, heterosexuals would engage in homosexual sex. Today, it is virtually only homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex. |
You say this based on what evidence? Appearances? One could easily say that back in the early 1900's hetrosexuals would engage in homosexual sex, but our knowldge of things now would lead us to understand that they were actually homosexuals trying to fit in and 'be' straight... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Back then, heterosexuals would engage in homosexual sex. Today, it is virtually only homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex. |
You say this based on what evidence? Appearances? One could easily say that back in the early 1900's hetrosexuals would engage in homosexual sex, but our knowldge of things now would lead us to understand that they were actually homosexuals trying to fit in and 'be' straight... |
In ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality was widespread, and so was pedophilia. We know that genetically, only about ten percent of the population is born homosexual. Historical accounts from antiquity clearly show that the number of people practicing homosexuality (or bisexuality) in antiquity was much higher than ten percent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We know that genetically, only about ten percent of the population is born homosexual. |
We know this? How exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | We know that genetically, only about ten percent of the population is born homosexual. |
We know this? How exactly? |
From the Kinsey Reports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: Modern Homosexuality |
|
|
Really, modern homosexuals are not as perverse as those of old?
Could those defending their unfortunate sexual preferences provide any evidence to support their hypotheses re old times?
It wasn't against the law to buy, use and abuse slaves in days gone by, does that mean it was right in the past but not now
Child labour, the sweatshops, etc. were quite acceptable, in the past, does that moralize them today?
Homosexuality is a perversion of a natural act, between man and woman for procreation; homosexuality is an act based purely on lust between consenting males or females but can, in no way be validated nor vindicated by Biblical laws and precedents
Sexual interaction has NOTHING to do with love. God is LOVE, not lust
Why did God destroy Sodom, from whence cometh your label, was it because of their failure to welcome the visiting angels?
That is NOT what the Bible says, Gen.18:20; "And the LORD said,"because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their SIN is VERY grievous, etc." Nowhere does it suggest they were inhospitable; the SIN was their sodomy, note Gen.19:5-9, explains things in simple, easy to understand words
There is no 'old sin'; sin IS sin and those who choose to practise it will have no defence when it comes to their judgement
Paul was clear in his condemnation of such actions, Rom.1:26-32 is a simple expose of God's attitude toward such behaviour
What is more frightening for those who partake of such perversity, is that "God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are NOT seemly"
Jesus said to the woman of ill repute, "go and sin no more" He did not give her any excuse to continue in her fallen condition; aren't all sinners in that situation?
That includes adulterers, liars, thieves, murderers, sin is sin, there is no sin anymore dreadful than the other in God's Word
Those who come to Christ are instructed to repent, which means to change one's direction, not to blissfully continue on the old road
Stop making excuses and justifications for your behaviour; this applies to all Christians, it is time we die to the lusts of the flesh, the pride of life and start living as testimonies to the One Who died to save us |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: Modern Homosexuality |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | Really, modern homosexuals are not as perverse as those of old?
Could those defending their unfortunate sexual preferences provide any evidence to support their hypotheses re old times?
It wasn't against the law to buy, use and abuse slaves in days gone by, does that mean it was right in the past but not now
Child labour, the sweatshops, etc. were quite acceptable, in the past, does that moralize them today?
|
Nobody here is making the argument that homosexuality back then was legal and therefore it should be ok today...
The point being discussed is that homosexuality in antiquity was practiced by heterosexuals. Today, homosexuality is practiced almost exclusively by homosexuals. That is an important difference. The Bible was written back then, so obviously the homosexuality that it discusses was the homosexuality back then.
| John R Nolan wrote: |
Homosexuality is a perversion of a natural act, between man and woman for procreation; |
This is false. Homosexuality is widespread throughout nature. It has been observed and documented in literally hundreds of different species. In that sense, it is perfectly natural. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: homosexuality is sin |
|
|
Cannabalism was wide spread amongst New Guinea highlanders, and is still practised in some areas, does that mean it's o.k.?
Murder was quite rife amongst the Roman hierarchy, especially of people who didn't agree with their doctrines
R.C. history states that during the 'dark ages' they martyred, murdered, 68,000,000 Christians in the name of their god, does that mean it's alright today see "Facts of our faith"
Your points of contention are based on heresay, not Bible, and there is no way any can pervert God's Word to support our own sins and wilful refusal to be subject to His will
All of us are guilty, and homosexuality is not condemned any more than any other sexual perversion, adultry, etc., that's NOT the point
In New Guinea, boys, like in the middle east according to your writings, were taught about sex by practising with other boys
New Guinea now has, I believe, the highest incidence of A.I.D.S. of any country in the world, on a per capita basis
Does that legalize it before God, or are homosexuals reaping the rewards of their perversity and rebellion against God's Word |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: homosexuality is sin |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | Cannabalism was wide spread amongst New Guinea highlanders, and is still practised in some areas, does that mean it's o.k.?
Murder was quite rife amongst the Roman hierarchy, especially of people who didn't agree with their doctrines
|
What is your point here? Are you making an argument by analogy? If so, it doesn't fit at all. I am not saying that homosexuality was accepted back then, and that it is therefore ok today...
| John R Nolan wrote: |
R.C. history states that during the 'dark ages' they martyred, murdered, 68,000,000 Christians in the name of their god, does that mean it's alright today see "Facts of our faith"
Your points of contention are based on heresay, not Bible, and there is no way any can pervert God's Word to support our own sins and wilful refusal to be subject to His will
All of us are guilty, and homosexuality is not condemned any more than any other sexual perversion, adultry, etc., that's NOT the point
In New Guinea, boys, like in the middle east according to your writings, were taught about sex by practising with other boys
New Guinea now has, I believe, the highest incidence of A.I.D.S. of any country in the world, on a per capita basis |
Not even close. If you multiplied New Guinea's HIV rate by ten, it STILL wouldn't be the most infected country on Earth on a per capita basis...
http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countries/papua_new_guinea.asp
Where are you getting your facts?
And what is your point? I am not following you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | From the Kinsey Reports: |
The Kinsey Reports are two books on human sexual behavior, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), by Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others. Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University and the founder of the Institute for Sex Research.
The books have been widely criticised by conservatives as promoting degeneracy. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has been on two paleoconservative lists of the worst books of modern times. It was #3 on the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's 50 Worst Books of the Twentieth Century and #4 on Human Events' Ten Most Harmful Books of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
In addition to moral objections, academic criticisms pertain to sample selection and sample bias. In 1948, the same year as the original publication, a committee of the American Statistical Association, including notable statisticians such as John Tukey condemned the sampling procedure. Tukey was perhaps the most vocal critic, saying "A random selection of three people would have been better than a group of 300 chosen by Mr. Kinsey" [14]. Criticism principally revolved around the over-representation of some groups in the sample: 25% were, or had been, prison inmates, and 5% were male prostitutes. A related criticism, by some of the leading psychologists of the day, notably Abraham Maslow, was that he (Kinsey) did not consider the bias created by the data representing only those who were willing to participate in discussion of taboo topics.
Do you really think these books lend any support to your assertions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Do you really think these books lend any support to your assertions? |
If you don't like the Kinsey Reports, there are other sources. Check out this wikipedia article on sexual orientation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
It says,
| Quote: | | Most modern scientific surveys find that the majority of people report a mostly heterosexual orientation. However, the relative percentage of the population that reports a homosexual orientation varies with differing methodologies and selection criteria. Most of these statistical findings are in the range of 2.8 to 9% of males, and 1 to 5% of females for the United States[15] — this figure can be as high as 12% for some large cities and as low as 1% percent for rural areas). In gay villages such as The Castro in San Francisco, California, the concentration of self-identified homosexual people can exceed 40%. Almost all of these studies have found that homosexual males occur roughly at twice the rate of homosexual females. |
So my original claim of 10% of people being gay was off by a little bit, but my point still stands. We know that something like 4 or 5 percent of the human population is born homosexual.
Back in Greek and Roman times, the rate of homosexuality was MUCH higher than that, showing that heterosexuals were engaging in homosexuality. It is THIS kind of homosexuality that the Bible was talking about, because this is the kind of homosexuality that existed back then. The Bible condemns heterosexuals engaging in homosexuality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P, look at what you are concluding based on what is being said:
% of population reporting... as opposed to '% of population who are born homosexual'.
Can you not see the obvious problems? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | P, look at what you are concluding based on what is being said:
% of population reporting... as opposed to '% of population who are born homosexual'.
Can you not see the obvious problems? |
Are you saying that people would lie on their questionnaires and that the number of homosexuals being born in society is actually much greater than 5%? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6828
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Are you saying that people would lie on their questionnaires and that the number of homosexuals being born in society is actually much greater than 5%? |
uh.... yeah...
How many people, men in particular, in the 1940's and 1950's would readily admit to being homosexual? In fact, if you were to interview 100 random men today and inquire as to their sexuality, only those who are 'out of the closet' would readily confess to being homosexual. What of the others who have struggled against it, living lives of lies trying to be something they are not? Would they say 'oh yeah, I'm gay, but don't tell my wife or kids...' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Are you saying that people would lie on their questionnaires and that the number of homosexuals being born in society is actually much greater than 5%? |
uh.... yeah...
How many people, men in particular, in the 1940's and 1950's would readily admit to being homosexual? In fact, if you were to interview 100 random men today and inquire as to their sexuality, only those who are 'out of the closet' would readily confess to being homosexual. What of the others who have struggled against it, living lives of lies trying to be something they are not? Would they say 'oh yeah, I'm gay, but don't tell my wife or kids...' |
But if the number of gays is much greater than 5%, doesn't that mean that homosexuality is even more 'normal' than anyone ever thought? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
