OK, BrightMorningStar...
To RegularGuy,
Ok well have you got any Biblical support that wouldnt satisfy me.
You see, this is the heart of the issue between us. Scripture is your only authority. Now, I too, accept the authority of Scripture, but not when it contradicts natural observation and plain reason. The Bible was written in a pre-Copernican age. There is no science in Scripture. The Bible was written in a different culture and was shaped by its cultural norms. Today we understand the world around us, the nature of sexuality, even the shape of the universe in ways that the writers of the Bible could not have conceived.
The Bible is an excellent source for doctrine (some would say the only source). The Bible contains great spiritual truth and wisdom. The Bible teaches us everything necessary for salvation.
We know now that, contrary to the witness of the Scriptures, that the cosmos is not geocentric. We also know, as the Apostle Paul and the author/s of Leviticus could not have known, that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality.
Making a blanket condemnation of all homosexual acts from the few passages of the Bible that speak of them is not justified.
Then you have offered up your opinion against my opinion and evidence.
The evidence you offer is your faulty interpretation of an old collection of spiritual writings whose authors knew nothing of homosexuality as it is now understood, and which never attempted to define "marriage." Your evidence only stands up if every other form of evidence is ignored.
.
Again if I am judging what you believe I ma not judging you but what you believe. But this isnt antics or semantics but basic logic.
Let's review: You have said that pro-gay arguments are disbelief. (#296, #316) Disbelief is a loaded term and insulting.
I have countered that you are in no position to judge my belief. (#318)
You replied that you were not judging my belief, but my disbelief. (#322). That, BrightMorningStar, is what I called "antics with semantics" that is, playing with words (#326). Now you say that you are judging what I believe, directly contradicting what you said at #322.
But, if you can separate my belief from myself, then I will concede that you are not judging me.
.
On the contrary both paeophilia and homosexual practice are both outside the marriage union God created and ordained as faithful between man and women. We need to be careful we arent making exceptions where they dont exist. My point was nor did He say anything about paedophile marriage, but we know from what He did say that same sex unions and paedophila are error, so I dont see what your point was, its your point I was asking you about.
Pedophilia is not equivalent to homosexuality. It is false and inflammatory to say that it is. The sexual abuse of a child involves the victimization of the weak and a misuse of power. Consensual sexual activity between adults is of a different order.
.
I do interpretation, its disbelief I dont do.
Well, this is new. Until now you have repeatedly said that you only quote Scripture, you don't interpret it.
.
Ok so are you now saying paedophilia is ok? Te question is where is same sex union treated as marriage.
I did not say that pedophilia is "ok." I sometimes think you deliberately twist my words. I did say that what we today would consider "pedophile marriage" was common and accepted in the time and culture in which Jesus lived. The point is that cultural norms have changed. The Scriptures were written in, and to some extent shaped by, the culture of their time and place.
That culture accepted "pedophile marriage." Our culture is, rightly, abhorred at the thought of a twelve year old girl marrying a 30 year old man.
That culture did not accept same sex marriage. Our culture is moving toward doing so. Given what we now know about homosexuality, I think that this is a good thing...a matter of justice.
.
I disagree, belief in the Bible as the reliable testimony of faith is crucial to what makes a Christian, one cant have a relationship with and have faith in someone whose testimony you dont believe is reliable.
Still, "belief in the Bible" is not the definition of Christian.
.
I know thats your point, but I fully reject your point in favour of mine. And furthermore Jesus Christs NT teaching describes all food as clean to eat (Mark 7, Romans 14) but declares only man/woman faithful unions or celibacy (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and condemns same sex unions (1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1)
Yes. That is your interpretation. You know maybe "peanut butter" was a bad example. Maybe I should have said "shoes" or "garden rakes."
.
No its obviously not possible as I showed with Mark 7, Romans 14, Matt 19, 1 Cor 7, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1.
All this shows is that Paul, Mark and Matthew agree against Luke. If you want to show that all of the writers of the Bible agree that all foods are clean, you will have to do better than this. You
can, by the way, but you'll have to do your own work.
It seems clear to me that the Bible was written by different people, with different points of view and even different theologies. They have a basic core of shared belief, but I don't expect them to agree in every detail.