Homosexuality in the Bible

[s2a]

Hello lunamoth,

You said:

I might not have caught all of the posts by both Soj and s2A, but a couple of times it did strike me that s2A was saying that because some other Christians interpret the Bible one way, then Soj needs to defend why he does not understand it that way.

Does that strike you as an especially unreasonable burden of explanation to meet or bear? I am quite willing and able to defend my own perspectives and understandings without equivocation or hesitation in this matter. Sojourner is both welcome and once more invited to defend and explain his own "understandings"...irregardless of drawn or side-stepped comparisons within a larger community of similarly self-professed Christian beliefs. I offer neither inquiry nor challenge predicated upon some provisional reconciliation of sojourner's interpretive "understanding" of personal faith or Biblical Scripture as some "compare and contrast" evaluation of similarities and differences amongst other/all self-proclaimed Christians. I only ask that sojourner qualify and support (by whatever readily referenced source or means) the claims that he espouses as being either estimable fact or truth.

That's also not a fair way to debate.

It's not unfair to expect a participant in a debate to both defend and substantiate their position. Personal opinion tendered in any debate as being prospectively valid and merited, demands some sort of substance and foundation in argument as support. How one "feels" about a contentious (or debatable) issue is NOT a valid argument (in and of/unto itself) in any sort of debate.

What strikes me as particularly self-serving and disingenuous is the notion that a faith-based rationale can (or should) be exempt from (or especially entitled to) any particular evaluative or testable means or methods of validation/verification.

To be sure, there are certain topics that can not be debated to any satisfactory or acceptable conclusion, or prospective falsification.
I can state that "I love my wife", but I concede that there is no readily referenced or unimpeachable source of which I can employ to substantiate such a claim. Such is the plight of an existential "truth" (of how one "feels" about something), versus a claimed "universal truth" (a proffered claim/statement of some omniscient self-evident fact, or truth). Then again, my "understanding" (of my love for my wife) is only a personal testament of fact, and not intended as either a validation of emotional attachment or a statement beyond all challenge or disputation. Proving my claim as false, however...would be difficult indeed.


If "God's Word" is meant to be construed and understood NOT just as some existential/personal "understanding", but rather as some eternal and universal edict of unexceptional "TRUTH" applicable to, and for, all mankind--then some burden of substantiation and documentation is hardly unfair to demand from proponents/adherents of such claims.

But I also don't think there is any productive way to debate this issue based upon Biblical authority.

If "Biblical authority" can neither be established nor notably provided/substantiated in debate, then of what value or merit should any claim of "Biblical authority" be considered, measured, or tested in such a debate?
If you believe in the concept of [a] "Biblical authority", then it should present absolutely no difficulty (in reasoned reply) to state EXACTLY the original (or contemporary) basis and foundation of such a faith-based claim.

If the concept of "Biblical authority" is existent and substantial, then which version/translation/language of the Bible is to be deemed as ultimately authoritative?

If the concept of "Biblical authority" is a purely existential (ie "personal revelation") realization/rationalization/extrapolation, then Biblical reference as "authority" is moot, for "understanding" is therefore personal, and thusly not attributable to written reference.

If the concept of ""Biblical authority" is just a metaphor for personal conscience, then see the observation immediately above.

If the concept of "Biblical authority" is merely some amorphous, or purely subjective standard of how one "feels" (or should feel) about Holy Biblical Scripture, then personal actions predicated upon such "understandings" are little more than rationalized emotional knee-jerk responses to external stimuli.

If the concept of "Biblical authority" is to be considered "real", inviolate, and/or "final" within the minds of mortal men, then surely someone who "understands" such an authority of "ultimate" declarations can at least point to some "truly" authoritative and unimpeachable (and universally accessible) referenced work of "God's Word"...

...Or is that too much too ask in a debate about religious views as they may pertain to homosexuality?

 

[Evandr2]

To be sure, there are certain topics that can not be debated to any satisfactory or acceptable conclusion, or prospective falsification.

Very well said s2a. I believe you have just defined why there is so much contention in the world about the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as any other philosophical belief, including issues concerning the focus of this thread, that being the relationship of homosexuality and the Gospel of Jesus christ.

A Sacred testimony is a very personal thing and cannot, under any circumstance, be built upon the foundation of another. A person CANNOT gain a testimony of sacred truth by living in the limelight of others or heeding their declarations. They must be interested enough in it to go and find it for themselves at the source.

How is this done? If there is no God it cannot be done! But there is a God and through personal revelation to one humble enough to receive it and diligent enough to pursue it, it will come and it will be undeniable to them that receive it.

Although I do enjoy a good hearty debate that will serve a greater purpose, it is useless to try (as many christians and christian religions do) to tear down another person's belief in an attempt to give creedence to your own. That is why I rarely reference the wisdom and understanding of any but those I believe to be prophets, seers, and revelators whom I have been given to understand have been called of God to be such. I may seek to confound what I believe to be false doctrin but I attempt do it with integrity and respect for the dignity of others. Granted, I have often let my zeal push me beyond my own boundries in that regard but I generally go back and try to make ammends.

If there is true confidence possessed by a person with regard to what they believe - it is that which they will boldly seek to establish by declaring it with long suffering and meekness in their testimonies leaving it to the spirit to impress it to the soul of the hearer for the spirit will only confirm that which is true. That is how Christ taught. It is a simple teaching philosophy that anyone can embrace.

Vandr