homosexuality is not a sin

Ad hominem is an attack on the opponent in an attempt to discredit the opponent so that the opponent’s arguments are rejected without being rationally refuted. If you say “2+2=6” and I respond by saying “you are wrong and you only think that because you are stupid”, I would have engaged in ad hominem. You are repeatedly telling me I am wrong without any direct refutations and telling me that the only reason I give the responses I do is because I am ignorant/a bigot/have an agenda/etc. You have now spent 3 rounds engaged in ad hominem and are now introducing new arguments instead of defending your initial ones. “You clearly are the one eisegetically interpreting the Scriptures in this.” More ad hominem. You are trying to imply I am wrong because you think I am a bigot. “Trying to accuse me of that is psychological projection.” I accused you of having an agenda and being intellectually dishonest because you respond to arguments with insults, make claims without sources, and refuse to address my arguments directly. “You are also clearly far more Scripturally ignorant than I.” More ad hominem. You are now saying I am wrong because I am dumb. So, until you educate yourself on them, your words and opinions mean nothing. More ad hominem. “https://www.biblegateway.com......” This does not back up your claim. This link shows Jesus clarifying the Sabbath, not abolishing it. I posted my info, you do not agree with it, there is nothing more to be stated at that point. Why did you sign up for a debate site if you refuse to address criticism? Why make the debate 5 rounds if you reject the idea of a back and forth discussion of ideas? I will provide you with other sources, and info, So far you have provided no sources for your extra biblical claims. if you do not agree with them, or want to refute them, do so. But I have better things to do than deal with people like you. So, you refuse to respond to my arguments and refutations and are just going to keep repeating your initial arguments? I accept your admission of defeat. Beyond this point, Pro introduces a slew of new arguments instead of rebutting the arguments I made. No, Romans 1:26-27 does not condemn any and all homosexual sex for any reason. …..Instead, Paul chooses as his illustration, the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles, the sin of idolatry, so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his rhetorical trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, in chapter 3:23, everyone is guilty. Even if this line of reasoning held, he chose to use various sins in his writing, including the sin of homosexuality, to make his point. When discussing the pagans, the fact of them committing homosexual acts is used as an example of how wicked they had become. A complete reading of Romans 1 and 2, however, does not support your argument. Romans 1, in a nutshell, describes many sins. Romans 2 is a guide on how to use this information. It tells people to not be hypocrites and that humans casting judgment is wrong. However, it still leaves us with the clear impression that those violating the rules of Romans 1 will be judged bt the god figure. That said, this is a new argument and ignores my prior rebuttals. “That is the historical context, the religious context, the cultural context and the spiritual context of Romans 1. Idolatry is the focus of Paul's argument, not gays and lesbians.” None of the context changes the fact that homosexuality is directly cited as being sinful and is used as an example of the kinds of wickedness you would see in pagans and idolators. You keep refusing to address my points and instead try introducing new arguments and rhetoric that are not relevant. Let’s try making this even simpler. Explain why homosexual relations are explicitly listed as sinful. The verses do not say it is sinful for pagans to have homosexual relations but not sinful for Hebrews to have homosexual relations. That wouldn’t even make sense. Why would homosexuality be sinful only if the partners are pagan? Why bother explicitly citing it as sinful if it is not actually sinful? Are you trying to say it was put there for no reason? The pagans also breathed, ate, got married, and had heterosexual sex, but none of these are listed as explicitly sinful. Only certain types of sex like bestiality and homosexuality are singled out and the only logical reason to do that is to tell the people what kind of sex is and is not forbidden. Can you show me any verse saying that homosexual sex is only wrong if pagans are homosexuals? I already cited examples of things that are banned in certain contexts (like worship if done toward idols), but encouraged in others (like worship done toward the Hebrew god). Worship is not pagan specific, but when done toward pagan gods it becomes wicked. Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN. If Paul was not describing committed faithful non-cultic same sex partnerships in AD 58 when he wrote Romans, then it is wrong to insist that those verses are dealing with committed same sex partnerships now. Terrible reasoning. By that logic, a Christian who gets their moral code from the Bible can only take a moral stance on issues directly addressed by the Bible, but it gets worse. You pulled a “but that’s Old Testament” which means you reject almost every rule in the Bible. You have essentially cut yourself off from having any sort of workable moral code. The truth is, we can easily understand that he has told us that homosexual relations are sinful. He did not specify the type of relationship because it did not matter. All homosexual sex was forbidden in that passage regardless of who is engaged in it. Now I will deal with your links to other people’s arguments. Still I was hoping you would provide a source for the extrabiblical claims. One thing that is clear is that these arguments are contradictory. I suspect the reason for that is the authors are trying to force multiple verses that oppose the authors’ assumed conclusion to accept the conclusion. Link 1: Mostly cherrypicked quotes that don’t actually support the conclusion. Aside from that, there are arguments similar to yours and my rebuttals work there too. Link 2: An argument that Romans 1 was a kind of “gotcha” and Paul really just wanted to show people how judgmental they are. However, the text of Romans 2 makes it clear that Paul is telling the crowd that it is important that they not be hypocrites. He is not saying it is wrong to oppose the things condemned in Romans 1, rather he tells people they need to actually obey all the rules and truly believe them. He is also rejecting the idea of casting judgment to make yourself seem more holy, but he never even implies that the people engaged in the acts in Romans 1 will not be judged by God as sinful. This argument is fairly transparent to my eyes as it goes in with a conclusion and tries to force the verses to fit that conclusion. Link 3: Same argument as Link 2 Link 4: Semantic game with one translation. Others make it clear that the verse refers to men abandoning sexual relations with women for sexual relations with men. Link 5: The claim made here is that unless the Bible explicitly states something in the exact words the author would use, it doesn’t count. By that reasoning, most of the Bible is wasted space. Additionally, you listed many links to arguments on this site that rely on vague language in the Bible to refute verses that clearly state homosexual relations are abominations and those engaging in the relations are deserving of death. You cannot have it both ways. Link 6: An attempt to rescue lesbians from condemnation by contrasting them with gays. The argument relies on a clear demonstration that male homosexuality is sinful so it can show how lesbian relations don’t meet the sin criteria. Link 7: Dead link