OST is closed for business but its spirit survives on my blog.

Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality

Re: A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality

First, I would like to thank AngelaMarie and LostAndFound. It is encouraging not to be alone.

To Daniel,

2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 are one reason why I say that God wrote the Bible. Perhaps a topic should be started to explain the depth and power of the word "inspiration" in the Greek.

We cannot continue a dialog if you insist on setting aside the Bible by starting sentences such as "Regardless of your view on Scriptural inspiration". The inspiration of the Bible is central. If you do not agree that the Bible is inerrant (in the original text) and inspired (i.e. written) by God then we have no common ground to discern God’s will.

The paragraph where I included the phrase "special case" must have thrown you off. I am often confused when others are confused by me. I went back and reread my post. To quote myself "There is no special case by which homosexual couples are able to produce children". Being unable to have children is a special case among heterosexuals. Being unable to have children is the rule among homosexuals. The proof is not in the realization of children but in the design of God for the potential of having children. Following that you twist my words to mean that abnormality is sinful. Of course abnormality is not sinful in itself.

You urge me to drop the passages I bring up. Jesus used passages (Matthew 4) and principles (Matthew 5) to refute false teaching. I see no reason that I should stop either one. Further, my last post contained mostly principles - marriage, cultural change, critique of Pastor Pete’s principles.

Intersexed people should submit to Jesus Christ. I do not claim to have all the answers to every idiosyncrasy. My best discernment would be to refrain from sex. Barring that, science should be consulted to determine gender (Y chromosome perhaps) and the opposite sex sought for marriage. I would challenge your view with this - why not three "loving monogamous" partners, or more?

The act of homosexual sex is sinful. When you answered the question of whether heterosexual sex was sinful you included the context of a "loving monogamous marriage" to prove it was not sinful. Why do you refrain from using the same for a homosexual relationship? In particular the marriage needs to be included. As I stated last time, God only deemed one legal marriage relationship - one man, one woman (Genesis 2:21). The same criteria would prove that homosexual sex is sin.

I also want to caution those who teach that homosexual sex is not sin. If you are wrong, which Biblically you are, then you are causing people to believe they are not damned when in fact they are. Please consider the lack of benefit and increase of harm you perpetuate.

A New Way to Dialogue about Homosexuality By: PastorPete (63 replies) 22 December, 2005 - 04:47