The Bible Only Mentions Homosexuality Six Times | Challenge Response
Alan responds to the challenge that the Bible only mentions homosexuality six times.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
dont loathe them they are just sinners like everyone else they can be saved too. its demons they need deliverance
easy to figure this out sin brings death, is sex with someone other than your own opposite sex spouse ever going to be ok? are you able to go have sex with everyone in your church? is that how you see it happening in heaven forever? man on man. polygamy, adultery, fornication?
Six times and Sodom and Gommorah and now the two witnesses lighting fires somebody needs to wake up and stop the sinning it is time to get right with God.
BTW Alan would love to show you his floors. I believe his address is 3929 La Cadena Drive, Oceanside, CA. I'm not sure about this. Anyway, he works much of the time from home. He home schools his children. Keeps them away from the gays.
Sin is a man made rule for a man made religion. It's amazing how brainwashing children at an early age into a religion makes them have delusional beliefs when they become adults. That's why Christians and Muslims go after children to get them while they are young.
Alan is a fool. He has built his life and career on misleading young people.
Good video, but I have a question. Can you or anybody tell me what is wrong with this argument, if at all? This is how it goes: All science says that Planet Earth had an origin or an age, but all atheists believe that this statement made by science about Planet Earth having an origin or an age is not possible, when science says that it is possible, therefore all atheists are anti-science or reason. Thank you!
IF one call themselves a Christian: How many times does God need to say something is wrong for it to be wrong?
Thanks for your review. I might be able to condense the argument by adding P3 to either P1 or P2, but for the purposes of explaining that my view both honors Scripture and covers all bases, I thought it best to explain each train of thought with a premise. So far as I can tell, the conclusion follows logically from the premises, and each premise seems more likely true than false.
2) Adding more premises then necessary make it easier for me to destroy your whole argument simply by showing one of the premises are unlikely, don't follow, or are simply not true.
1) Thanks for putting your argument a more clear precise format. I'm not sure if you have taken course in logic if so can give me some pointers on why you put your argument the way you did. If you don't mind me making a few adjustments to make your argument stronger. When making deductive arguments you want to keep your arguments as fool proof, and simple as possible. Your main Premise is P1, the rest are irrelevant to your conclusion. So personally i would drop the rest.
Let's minimize the number of comments. My original statement: "Genesis 2 describes marriage between a man and a woman, *but it does not therefore mean that* homosexuality was not planned nor immoral were it unplanned." You weren't reading carefully if you thought I said that homosexuality wasn't planned. You say that homosexuality is excluded implicitly by the union of Adam and Eve, but that's not actually in the text, so you haven't provided any evidence from Scripture stating why it's wrong.
Actually my argument goes as follows:
P1: For a man to be penetrated in the ancient Near East was to be inferior because women, who were penetrated during intercourse, were considered inferior.
P2: The Bible does not explicitly state *why* homosexuality is wrong, so the best method to find out why is to examine its historical context.
P3: Said context is inapplicable.
P4: There are no other good reasons to condemn homosexuality.
C. Therefore the verses about homosexuality do not apply to today.
3. I would also have to assume that Moses and Paul and all the other writer would have reacted in the same way as Lot. And all thought the same way he did. I really have no reason to do so. Thank you for putting up with me, I know I'm not always the kindest in my post. Forgive the fact that i really don't find your arguments at all compelling.
2.
(Gen 19) You know i have never taken understood these passages as you did. For me it sounds like a stretch, and doing psychology on people of the past is never recommended. Couldn't it just have been that homosexuality has always be a shame, and considered one of the biggest taboo, and that Lot was doing what he thought was best out of a difficult situation, and that is to give up his "virgin" daughters as was part of custom, instead of having his guest molested by lustful men.
1. "Scripture does not say *why* homosexuality is wrong" Forgive me if i disagree. To distort your words, i believe homosexuality is not what God planned, for he planned that a man and a women would be united in matrimony. And forgive me for distorting i couldn't see any other way to take your words. Perhaps you can tell me what you really meant.
You literally pulled "homosexuality was not planned" out of a sentence such as to completely distort its original meaning. Don't deliberately misquote me. Regarding the request for evidence of the ancient Near Eastern understanding of homosexuality through Scripture: As I've explained before, Scripture does not say *why* homosexuality is wrong, though it is significant that in Gen. 19 Lot offers his own daughters to be raped instead of the men, which fits my view far better than yours.
"homosexuality was not planned" So God planned heterosexual marriage, but did not plan homosexuality? Is that what you are saying? If God didn't plan it…who did?
"Under threat of death, men would be discouraged from humiliating other men through rape."
Every single "homosexual" verse has nothing to do with "Humiliation, death threats, or rape.(with exceptions to Sodom and Gomorrah which is still a "stretch"")" so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything?
"Paul teaches that Scripture is profitable for teaching, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16), not all timeless."
Gods word ""Is"" Timeless however…. I"m not sure why you wrote its "not all timeless what exactly are you saying?."
"the Bible elevates that standard to preserve male dignity." Can you give me a verse to back that up?
"God inspired Scripture in accordance with the hardness of the hearts of the original audience." Can you give me a verse to back that up?
This is not to say that all commands do not teach us timeless facts about the nature of God. The prohibition of homosexuality teaches us God's justice and mercy. In the surrounding cultures, it was common to only penalize the man who was penetrated, but the Bible elevates that standard to preserve male dignity. Under threat of death, men would be discouraged from humiliating other men through rape. Paul teaches that Scripture is profitable for teaching, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16), not all timeless.
Jesus spoke about marriage in Matthew 19, and Genesis 2 describes marriage between a man and a woman, but it does not therefore mean that homosexuality was not planned nor immoral were it unplanned. It only follows that heterosexual marriage *was* planned. Again, God inspired Scripture in accordance with the hardness of the hearts of the original audience. In His infinite wisdom, God knew that telling the original audience that slavery, for example, is wrong, would have meant certain rejection.
I apologize for Jumping to conclusions, your comment on on "morality" being gradually discovered" sounds by itself extremely relativistic, thanks for making it clear. On inerrancy, I have never heard of anyone who is able to dismiss ""multiple"" passages simply because the prophets/apostles were writing out of their own "inclinations"/beliefs. Where exactly was God when the these verses were writen? Perhaps i need to read a bit more hermeneutics, but I does raise my eyebrows.
Is Jesus not talking about marriage in Mathew 19? And is sex not made specifically for marriage? And does Jesus not say that Marriage is between a Man and a woman? And does that not therefore mean homosexuality is not what God planed for human beings? I get that its about divorce. But the entire point to this passage is to speak on what Marriage is, and what it has always been.
Hold on. I didn't espouse relativistic morality. I said we gradually discover (implying that they exist objectively) rather than invent moral facts. Also, there are several points that you merely asserted. You condescendingly called my view on inerrancy false without explaining why, nor did you explain how Scripture contradicts my "assumptions" (I assume you mean the patriarchal attitude of the ancient Near East?) Last, this isn't about what we feel we can agree to; this is about what's true.
I really appreciate your comments. Everything you've said have shown me exactly why I cannot hold to your position. I cannot believe in the relativistic morality that you believe in. I cannot agree with your false view on inerrancy of the scriptures, I have no reason to hold to your assumptions about Paul (and others) because the scriptures are really quite clear to the contrary. Thanks for you time. Peace.
Why might God operate within false cultural assumptions? Due to the hardness of men's hearts, as He does with divorce (Matthew 19:8). Speaking of Matthew 19, it is inappropriate to assume that Jesus would have appealed to Genesis for this issue as He did with divorce; we simply aren't in a position to know. As for the last few questions, moral values depend upon moral facts, which we gradually discover. Something may appear immoral, but actually be discovered to be moral later, like this topic.
P1: Tackling these issues in order: you needn't assume that Paul and the other biblical writers thought like their contemporaries, but if their rationale was different, they ought to have explained why. *The Bible gives no explicit answer as to why homosexuality is sinful*, and thus it is fair to assume that their argument is identical to their contemporaries. The Bible can still easily be regarded as inspired; it would merely be the case that God operated within false cultural assumptions.
P2. Last things. Even if the bible's passages on homosexuality are irrelevant to people today, that in no way means that homosexuality is morally right. The bible also say plenty about how things ought to be like in (Mathew 19:3-6). I have to ask you, was homosexuality ever immoral? Or has it always been moral right, and the bible was mistaken? If it was once immoral, why? If it was never immoral then would you say that you do not believe the bible was inspired by God but rather by men?
P1. "You're asking the reverse of what follows." You see i don't understand that. Here's the issues. First i have to assume your premise that the writers such as Paul thought like you assumed they thought. I have no reason to do so. Just because most people thought that way doesn't mean everyone did. Verses also show the contrary. I also have to assume that the bible is not indeed inspired by God, but rather by men.
You're asking the reverse of what follows. The question should instead be : why is homosexuality immoral now, since we do not have those false ideas?
Perhaps I'm missing what you are saying, but how is it that homosexuality was an immoral behavior in the past by the mere fact that people in those days had a false view of the world? And why is homosexuality permitted now, since we do not have those false ideas.
"there are significant differences to the understanding of the [homosexuality] topic then versus now, such as to render the texts on the subject no more relevant than those regarding slavery." How so?
The argument found in the book is twofold: 1.Applying the biblical data without consideration of its original context has been damaging to minorities and embarrassing for the church. Examples include slavery and women's rights. 2: When we consider the original context regarding homosexuality, there are significant differences to the understanding of the topic then versus now, such as to render the texts on the subject no more relevant than those regarding slavery.
" the biblical case for gay marriage laid out by Jack Rogers in "Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality"." What case does he lay out, that you find compelling? I'd admit i have not read Jack Rogers book, I already have plenty to read, so maybe you can give some examples of what you believe to be a compelling argument.
The thing I took away from this, even more than the response to the challenge, was the encouragement to be gracious in these conversations.
This isn't Alan's only argument in the debate on the Bible's views on homosexuality. He was simply responding to an specific, actual objection proposed by another person. He has addressed other challenges on this topic elsewhere, and very well for that matter. Nor is homosexuality the sole focus of his apologetics. He has addressed other topics elsewhere. Here, he also offered helpful suggestions on giving a gracious response, which can be applied when addressing other objections, as well.
did you study philosophy? this is probably a rhetorical question but hey was curious.
Greed was obviously just one example. Beyond that, far more Christians support prosperity preachers than condemn them. (Every Christian that gives to a prosperity preachers supports them, and that amounts to millions of Christians). If it's such a hot-button issue that must be urgently addressed I wonder why such a poor argument was attacked rather than, say, the biblical case for gay marriage laid out by Jack Rogers in "Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality".
How is the issue of greed "not enforced"? Many Christian leaders, ie. Piper, Linne, Koukl, etc. have spoken out against greedy ministries and prosperity gospel folks.
I know of no Christians that ignore "greed". The only reason Christians are speaking to SSM/homosexuality so much is because its a hot-button issue in the culture right now and its where many pro-gay activists are drawing a line in the sand and saying "are you with us or against us on this issue" (Turek, 2013)