God does not Consider Homosexuality a Sin

REBUTTALS: 1. "Gen. 2:24 is not talking about society..." I agree. It says, "That is why a man..." (NIV) It's talking about specific individuals. The mother in the short narrative I wrote also talks about specific individuals, her daughters (not society). My point here is that society is accustomed to addressing the vast majority of individuals the same way. "...it's speaking of how God constructed nature to be." There is a difference between explaining why something happens and explaining how something should be. "This is why..." indicates that Genesis 2:24 does the former. 2. On Genesis 1:27-28: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth..." Here, God tells the first man and woman to be fruitful and multiply. Does this mean God intends for everyone to pair up with reproductive partners? No. At the time God gave this direction, the population size was... two! This direction is best understood when we consider that there are only two people on the planet. 3. "No where in the Bible do we find a homosexual relationship." In many books, we find exclusively heterosexual characters. As I've stated, this doesn't mean that the authors of those books are against homosexuality. In any case, con's point is actually a debatable one. Concerning the book of Ruth: "Here we have two women who made vows, lived together for life, loved each other deeply, adopted each other"s extended families as their own, and relied on each other for sustenance - as do many lesbian women today. Instead of condemning these relationships, the Bible celebrates them, giving them their own book in Scripture." [1] If not an indicator that God supports homosexuality, this supports that two women can be in very loving relationships - ones that mirror that of marriage. Nothing about the structure of their life together is condemned in scripture. Even more interesting is a possible account of Jesus healing a gay man's lover: Matthew 8:5-7 "When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him."" (ESV) "The Greek word used in Matthew's account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean "son or boy;" it could mean "servant," or it could mean a particular type of servant " one who was "his master's male lover." "The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion's entimos doulos. The word doulos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son/boy. Thus, Luke's account rules out the possibility the sick person was the centurion's son; his use of doulos makes clear this was a slave. However, Luke also takes care to indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means "honored." This was an "honored slave" (entimos doulos) who was his master's pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion"s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option - he was his master's male lover." [2] Not long after, in verse 9, the centurion mentions his other slaves, yet... "When speaking here of his slaves, the centurion uses the word doulos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais." [2] Finally, "The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have many examples of people seeking healing for themselves or for family members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing for a slave... The extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing for his slave is much more understandable, from a psychological perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion." [2] Given the evidence, this is plausible. And if it's true, we can infer from Jesus' response (healing the pais) that homosexuality was not a problem. 4. "God created man and woman (Adam's wife) as a model for all of humanity during a marriage." Con does not support this. 5. "In the Torah, we always find many laws regarding the marriage between a man and a woman of marriageable age." An example to show why this doesn't support con's resolution: P1: Man should not hit his wife. P2: This doesn't say man should not hit his husband. C: Men should not marry other men. This doesn't follow. We can't draw that conclusion. It's just like this example: P1: A mother says to her daughter, "When you find the right guy..." P2: The mother expects her daughter to marry a guy. C: The mother is against homosexual relationships. While the mother expects that her daughter will marry a guy, this doesn't mean she wouldn't support her daughter if she was a lesbian. 6. "Philo in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible condemns homosexuality." "Scholars sometimes support this reading by pointing out that the two words occur together, though not joined, in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible and in Philo in a context in which he condemns male homosexual sex... Either Paul, it is suggested, or someone before him simply combined the two words together to form a new term for men who have sex with men. This approach is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand."... Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoites came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning" The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible." [3] 7. "It is futile to attempt to define a word based on its etymology..." My source in round 4 used context to decipher its meaning, which is what my last source called a reliable method. Incidentally, the method used to support that "arsenokoites" means "homosexuals" uses etymology (as cited above). 8. "The Septuagint of Lev. 20:13 has the exact same word arsenokoites which means "Sexual intercourse". This just asserts that the word means "sexual intercourse." 9. "Paul citing Gen. 2:24 in 1 Cor. 6:12-20 shows that he was not restricting sex to male prostitution." I'm not sure what con means here. There is a word translated as "prostitute," while not deriving from "arsenokoites," but this word refers to female prostitutes. [4] 10. "...while arsenokoits in this passage is used to refer to a sodomite." I refer back to round 4, in which my source states, "...the men of Sodom were the ultimate example of sexual aggression and oppression." 11. Concerning Romans 1:26-27 "...it's specifically used to refer to function"" The original word for function in this verse is listed to mean, "of the sexual use of a woman". [5] Some bibles (NIV, ESV, HCSB) also translate it as "relation." Furthermore, a designed function does not restrict us from using something in a way unrelated to that function. Ex: God created trees to produce oxygen, but we may use trees for their lumber. 12. "Aristophanes ridiculed homosexuality in his book "Women at the Thesmophoria. Plato also spoke out against homosexuality in his work "Laws."" People disliking homosexuality does not indicate it is immoral. Many people dislike those who are not so fast-moving in lines at banks, stores, etc. Would that make an elderly person who takes "forever" digging out change immoral? 13. "Here, Paul is basically explaining the purpose of the Law given to the Jews and finally, given to the Gentiles. He's saying that God does not discriminate between man and woman, Jew and Gentile, but that all can come to faith." Why would this lack of discrimination discontinue after people have entered into faith? People continue in their faith, therefore it seems reasonable that God"s lack of discrimination would continue. CONCLUSION: As many people dislike homosexuality, it's easy to favor the interpretation that God condemns homosexuality. But we can objectively determine if this is true through God's message of love and further examination of scripture and its context. Does homosexuality hurt anyone? Does it damage our relationship with God? Objectively speaking, no. Claims about God's design for nature hint that God is trivial and is concerned more with reproduction than love. Or that God wants us to follow a certain structure of life that don't affect our relationship with Him. Upon reviewing con's arguments, I do not believe he has proven that God considers homosexuality a sin (for voting: "prove" will mean "prove with very little doubt"). I contend that Leviticus 18:22 most likely has to do with men having sex on a woman's bed, "Arsenokoites" most likely has to do with men who take advantage of other men sexually, and Romans 1:26-28 most likely has to do with excessive sexual desire. [1] http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org... [2] http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org... [3] http://www.clgs.org... [4] http://www.biblestudytools.com... [5] http://www.biblestudytools.com...