# Homosexuality



## Pittzburghkid (Nov 14, 2016)

Every conversation I have with a unbeliever or nominal Christian about Christianity eventually goes there. The scriptures are clear. If I hold the line I'm a bigot. I hold the line and they get so offended. "What's so bad about two consenting adults getting married?" "How does it effect you?" Do you experience this?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## MichaelNZ (Nov 14, 2016)

Ask them if there are _any _sexual practices they think are morally wrong. If they say yes, then ask them if it is at least a reasonable question to ask if some sexual practices are wrong? Then ask them how we are to make a judgment on any sexual practice. Majority opinion? Then by that reasoning the sun went round the earth in the Middle Ages. Tell them that only the Creator of mankind has the right (and wisdom) to declare anything to be right or wrong. He does have the big picture.

You can ask them if they think that two gay brothers should be allowed to get married. If not, why not? Why is bestiality wrong? It all boils down to the existence of absolute morality.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 14, 2016)

The union of marriage is modeled/patterned after the relationship of the trinity between Themselves, and there is NO WHERE it says God ordained any other way other than man/woman...

Your friends are still lost in sins, and are seeing things as natural unsaved persons do...


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 14, 2016)

Polegamy will be the next logical redefinition of marriage coming!


----------



## KeithW (Nov 14, 2016)

The issue is not just about same sex practices. It is about man's self autonomy as opposed to man's submission to God. That is what the issue of sin has always been. (The issue includes man's submission to God's created order.)

There are some good Biblical arguments presented by Dr. James White in a debate he did with Graeme Codrington last year in South Africa. No one in the US will debate Dr. White on this issue because the other side believes they have already won. And they know they cannot stand up to Scriptural examination. The debate is available as a YouTube video and as a SermonAudio audio. Maybe some of his arguments will be helpful.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 14, 2016)

Yes, as the underlining factor of this debate is that those upholding it just refuse to accept that God is real and that His view on it is valid!


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 14, 2016)

Start with the definition of marriage:

a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
"a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"
synonyms:	union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
"a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel"


"homo" sexual "marriage" is an oxymoron


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 14, 2016)

Pittzburghkid said:


> "What's so bad about two consenting adults getting married?"



Why not incest?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 14, 2016)

I have turned the focus of these type of discussions to the word perversion. Fornication, Adultery, Graphic p0rnography, Homosexuality, are all perversions of what is known as marriage and the sexual union. That has been quite effective for me recently. Thus the word Pervert is very applicable to the situation. Also know that I use the case of Moral / Natural Law (the Ten Commandments) a lot. I qualify that God has made Law and defined things. If man defines Law the applications become slippery and basically nought because mankind as a point of reference could make murder an acceptable practice as Hitler and others have done. Abortion is an example.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Nov 14, 2016)

KeithW said:


> The issue is not just about same sex practices. It is about man's self autonomy as opposed to man's submission to God. That is what the issue of sin has always been. (The issue includes man's submission to God's created order.)
> 
> There are some good Biblical arguments presented by Dr. James White in a debate he did with Graeme Codrington last year in South Africa. No one in the US will debate Dr. White on this issue because the other side believes they have already won. And they know they cannot stand up to Scriptural examination. The debate is available as a YouTube video and as a SermonAudio audio. Maybe some of his arguments will be helpful.



Also good is Michael Brown's radio debate with so-called "gay Christian" advocate Matthew Vines.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 14, 2016)

Jeremy, if I read your opening question correctly, your concern is with the response you get when you defend biblical sexuality to unbelievers. How can we assert what is true without having the conversation quickly end with "you're such a bigot!"?

I think 1 Peter 2:12 is helpful. It instructs us that standing for truth must be accompanied by exemplary conduct. "Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of his visitation."

That verse points out that unbelievers will find Christian morality so out of accord with their way of thinking that they will consider us evildoers for what we believe and practice. Indeed, this has begun to happen in America when it comes to biblical sexual ethics. Our response must be to keep our whole conduct honorable. We must live such trustworthy and loving lives in front of them that, because of our good deeds, they can't just dismiss us as silly bigots. They must eventually acknowledge that something good and godly is in us, and then perhaps see their error.

Note that this approach requires much more effort, faith, and repentance from us than does the usual response of just trying to discuss things (argue) with them. There may be some discussion involved at times, but an honorable life remains the best apologetic.


----------



## Abeard (Nov 14, 2016)

Here's a sermon I listened to that was helpful on this topic.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=71716178562


----------



## KeithW (Nov 14, 2016)

MichaelNZ said:


> Also good is Michael Brown's radio debate with so-called "gay Christian" advocate Matthew Vines.


Which can be found here: Can You Be Gay and Christian? - Dr. Michael Brown debates Matthew Vines

Michael Brown and James White have also appeared on each other's shows to talk about the subject. Their arguments slightly differ, but both are very knowledgeable from reading most of what the other side has written on the subject.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2016)

The following isn't a biblical argument, nor is it the strongest, but perhaps its worth mentioning. 

If healthcare trends become universal where we are paying for others, then we, the payers, have a say. STD and HIV rates among gay communities, consenting or no, are staggering.


----------



## Pittzburghkid (Nov 14, 2016)

Thanks for the responses and information. I'm not looking for arguments. I was just curious how you all respond in these conversations. Recently my co-worker began crying taking about how without marriage or dp they would be denied things like hospital visits reserved for family only, insurance, parental rights etc.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 14, 2016)

Those are all issues that should be addressed. I should be allowed to have whoever is important to my life next to me in a hospital that I want. Insurance is a sticky topic. It should be left to the company you choose to include your family. Family can also be perverted in definition. I am not responsible for others outside of my children or spouse. Parents are not included, as far as I know, as family to be covered. So why should anyone who claims to be a domestic partner? Just because they might live with me, should they be included in who I am responsible for? If Parents can't be included then a domestic partner shouldn't be. Domestic partnership has to do with marriage in reality. And a Homosexual Union is not marriage. Just my humble opinion. If a company wants to include a perverted view of family into their coverage that is their business. It is wrong under God but it is what it is. BTW, Domestic Partners or those who are financially burdened can get help from hospitals. I have. Hospitals have programs to help under insured to uninsured. I was uninsured for years but put on a sliding scale from St. Vincent. I also used their clinic for my boys and my health. I received superior care that saved my life. All of my boys needs were met from broken bones to the common cold. I have heard they do more for cancer patients. 

Parental rights? A Parent is a Parent. I am not sure what the issue is here unless someone wants to impose things that are outside the boundaries. Boundaries are good. Those who don't appreciate boundaries want access to things that usually go beyond. Just my humble opinion


----------



## Shimei (Nov 15, 2016)

Best argument for those wanting a non Christian position against homosexuality. Ryan Anderson is a graduate of the Quaker Friends School of Baltimore, Anderson has achieved far more than most 33-year-olds. He completed his undergraduate education at Princeton and earned a Ph.D. from Notre Dame. He has been cited by a Supreme Court justice (Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in his dissent from the majority opinion in United States v. Windsor, which struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act). He was recently named the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation. And last week he was profiled fairly and respectfully in The Washington Post. (Headline: "The right finds a fresh voice on same-sex marriage.") 

[video=youtube;YWIhZ5xJJaQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWIhZ5xJJaQ[/video]

God bless,
William


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 15, 2016)

Thank You So Much William,

Ryan Anderson is great at explaining the differences between Contractual Union and Marriage. I was trying to remember him last night to post some of his YouTube comments. But I just couldn't remember his name. Thanks for the reference. He is really good.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 15, 2016)

Think that mot of those so into Gay rights agenda really need to the message of the Cross given to them, as their biggest need is Jesus and His saving grace, but we allow them to suck us ionto side issues on morality standards so often!


----------



## Shimei (Nov 15, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Think that mot of those so into Gay rights agenda really need to the message of the Cross given to them, as their biggest need is Jesus and His saving grace, but we allow them to suck us ionto side issues on morality standards so often!



And what's wrong with taking sides on morality issues? Correct me if wrong, but people need know the reasoning why for Christ Crucified. If people dig their heels in defending a depraved nature when confronted with their sin, then what do we have in common with them? 

God bless,
William


----------



## MichaelNZ (Nov 15, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> Think that mot of those so into Gay rights agenda really need to the message of the Cross given to them, as their biggest need is Jesus and His saving grace, but we allow them to suck us ionto side issues on morality standards so often!



This is most definitely true. The Bible says: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Corinthians 2:14)


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 15, 2016)

I agree with you that we need to take stand on issues of morality , but was just suggesting that we need to get focused on issue of getting right with God, then address these issues, for the unsaved will never disagree on these morality issues!


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 15, 2016)

That is why we must realise that we need to stand for God and His ways, but that this is really a salvation issue bottom line!


----------



## Toasty (Nov 15, 2016)

Dachaser said:


> I agree with you that we need to take stand on issues of morality , but was just suggesting that we need to get focused on issue of getting right with God, then address these issues, for the unsaved will never disagree on these morality issues!



Obviously, the unsaved need to hear about how God saves His people from their sins. If the unbeliever asks you about moral issues, then there is no problem with discussing those issues. A person can make a transition in the conversation to Christ and the Gospel.


----------



## Shimei (Nov 15, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Dachaser said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you that we need to take stand on issues of morality , but was just suggesting that we need to get focused on issue of getting right with God, then address these issues, for the unsaved will never disagree on these morality issues!
> ...



There's a quote I'm trying to remember, but I hope I don't botch it. 

The Law points us to the Gospel where we are Justified. The Gospel points us back to the Law to know our duty. 

God bless,
William


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 15, 2016)

Peter Jones has a series on Ligonier: Only Two Religions. I highly recommend it.

In short, Western culture has become neo-Pagan over the last half century.

Fundamentally, most people have bought into a god who is part of the creation. In fact, as such, it is divinity within that emerges. Our therapeutic culture is an outgrowth of this.

Guilt is not a real categorgy as there would need to be a Creator Who would define right or wrong. Neo-paganism seeks to eliminate the binary (not two but one reality). All that exists is guilt feelings.

A person, to be "authentic", defines his own self. It is not ours to judge right or wrong but to acknowledge each person's identity because identity is what I believe I really am. Again, there is no external standard upon which to claim otherwise in this new Paganism.

The real collision, therefore, is not on our judgment about a particular behavior being wrong but with the collision of a Creator/creature reality (Christianity) versus all reality being One. To even claim that real guilt exists in the moral fiber of a man is seen as a form of "violence" - it is to deny a man the right to be his own god. 

Witness the Obergefeld decision where the majority decision now defines liberty fundamentally as every person defining for himself what he truly is.

We live in a mostly pagan society and until we begin to grasp that we are dealing with a religion then Christians will continue to be co-opted by the society and try to syntesize paganism with Christianity.


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Peter Jones has a series on Ligonier: Only Two Religions. I highly recommend it.
> 
> In short, Western culture has become neo-Pagan over the last half century.
> 
> ...



Rich,
I hope to watch this. Is this based on his book The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back? Excellent book......


----------



## KGP (Nov 15, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> We live in a mostly pagan society and until we begin to grasp that we are dealing with a religion then Christians will continue to be co-opted by the society and try to syntesize paganism with Christianity.



This is a statement worth remembering, that's exactly right.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 16, 2016)

Gforce9 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Jones has a series on Ligonier: Only Two Religions. I highly recommend it.
> ...



I'm not certain. When I have time I want to read more of his books.

I think Jones might be ahead of much of the standard apologetic work. It sort of reminds me of the way that military theory is always fighting the last war instaed of understanding the conditions that are producing a whole new kind of conflict.

While interesting, New Atheists and Secular Humanists are a dying breed. They don't represent where the vast swath of Westerners actually are. We spend a lot of our time gearing up for arguments toward opponents that represent a very small percentage of the population.

What's more pressing, I believe, is what is a broad paganism that doesn't take on obvious cultic or religious forms but is even dressed in "scientific" or "factual" ideas about people. It's just accepted to talk about being "real" or "authentic" - that is to say that whatever our heart or will tells us is true that we must be that. I have to be true to myself. When we say "I cannot live a lie" we mean not that our hearts are deceitful and need to be cleansed but that we cannot live a life that does not correspond to who we are deep down inside.

How does this religion manifest itself? A few ways:

1. Notice the reaction to this report: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender

The authors of this study were doctors who were at the fore of helping people transition to another gender. The result of their findings was that there was no scientifically determinat link between gay and transgender feelings and biology. The response? They have been savaged. One "human rights" group has even threatened Johns Hopkins that they will start to list institutions who are "violent" toward the LGBTQ community and essentially blacklist the institution. Much like the "orthodox" science of Soviet Russia, the new paganism has a religious test for ideas. Violence and danger are seen as causing emotional distress: certain ideas that don't conform to my own "I am god and get to decide reality" identity are harmful to me.

2. Notice the results of this election. Not to get political but we now talk about "safe spaces". Related to 1, the gravest sin to our own self-deity is someone saying or doing something that wounds are desire to self-will all things as they should be.

3. In the book, The Fractured Republic, the author talks about a form of cultural sollopsism that is prevalent - namely that the whole culture is geared to give people exactly what they want and we're told all the time that this is the highest end. Some have pointed out that fashion trends haven't changed since the 90's (think of clothes in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's) as an example that we're losing our ability to create new ideas because our culture just feeds us what we desire and we lack imagination.

4. Western Christianity is in grave danger especially because the Charismatic Evangelical movement has largely moved to a therapeutic Gospel. I think Charismatic and Pentecostal forms of Christianity have always borrowed from some pagan spirituality but now that the culture has become mostly pagan it's not long until the aversion to LGBTQ behavior goes away. Many Christians have already synthesized Christianity with the pagan ideas I've noted already but they simply baptize their ideas with Christ being progressive or "accepting the outcast". It's now even more common than I'd like to hear for PCA ministers to use terms like "sexual minorities" to describe people struggling with LGBTQ desires.


----------



## Pittzburghkid (Nov 16, 2016)

I love this place. Great thoughts and informative responses. Your critique of charismatic Christianity could include many so called evangelical churches who have accepted a form of therapeutic deism. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2016)

Yes, as this is not either/or, but both morality and the Gospel....


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2016)

The Gospel shows us us to get saved, and once saved, the Law shows us how we ought to live now...


----------

