The whole "Paul was talking about something else" argument is grasping for straws in my opinion. This argument can be used (and is used) to justify anything Biblically. One could just as easily argue that what Paul meant by heterosexual sin was foreign context to our "advanced" contemporary society, or what Paul meant by bestiality, or drunkenness, or lying, etc. Just as Brown pointed out, Vine's position does assume that God's Word doesn't address sin for all time.
Listening to the debate I couldn't help but think over and over how Vines' views requires a massive amount self-deception and/or demonic deception. Either that, or he's a self-conscious fraud pretending to believe he's a Christian when he knows he's not in order to change the church's views on homosexuality from the "inside" (knowing he's really on the outside).
If there were a category of "loving gay relationships" (as Vines believes) that doesn't fall under the prohibition and condemnation of Scripture, then it only makes sense that Scripture would somehow allude to it explicitly or implicitly. Or as Brown pointed out, in the ≈ 31,000 verses of the Bible.
Either the writers of Scripture were aware of such "loving and committed gay relationships" or not. If they were, why didn't they make an exception. If they weren't, that would be really strange since such relationships have existed in every age and the Bible was written in a span of many centuries. Are we really to believe that in the ≈ 1500 years it took to write the Scriptures none of it's authors were aware of such relationships? Really? Seriously?
Vines claims that the Bible and Paul refers to homosexual relationships that undermine Biblical patriarchy, or violate marriage (e.g. the homosexual extra-marital affair of a man married to a woman), abusive homosexual relationships (catamite, pederasty etc.) et cetera. But we can easily imagine how two male or two female adults can develop a sexual relationship due to economic circumstances. For example poverty. Economic expediency might require two men or two women to pool their efforts and financial resources to survive which can lead to the development of a homosexual relationship. Or people stranded on an island, in the desert, wilderness, or in prison, or in a leper colony (or anywhere away from society) can lead to a development of caring homosexual relationships.
While homosexuals use phrases like "loving and committed gay relationship", I don't because 1. it's UNLOVING to intentionally form a relationship that leads both people into hell (which homosexual relationships do), 2. a relationship can be (subjectively) caring without being (objectively) loving, 3. I believe the term "gay" gives away ground to the homosexual agenda because it's a "nicer" term that's less precise and less upfront. Though, I'm wiling to talk about a "caring and committed homosexual relationship" which is still nevertheless sinful and harmful spiritually if not also physically.
I believe that part of the reason why the homosexual party is winning culturally is because they are winning the language and semantic war over the issue. They have successfully replaced the term "homosexual" with the term "gay" making it not only less offensive, but replacing it with a term that has the connotation of happiness. Since, the other and original meaning of "gay" is "happy."
I suspect part of the reason why homosexuals dislike the term "sodomy" is because whether we're conscious of it or not, there's (at least) a subconscious connotation of "sadness" to "sodomy" even though they have no etymological connection.
Think of it. "Sod" and "Sad" are similar sounding. Calling homosexuals "gay" subconsciously leads people into thinking that homosexuals are (or can be) just as happy or even generally HAPPIER than heterosexuals.
Similarly, I suspect part of the reason why some Arminians are so hostile to Calvinism is because of the Bouba/kiki effect. Even knowing very little about Calvinism, some people have an immediate initial dislike of it because of the beginning hard (and therefore harsh) "K" sound of Calvinism.
The whole "Paul was talking about something else" argument is grasping for straws in my opinion. This argument can be used (and is used) to justify anything Biblically. One could just as easily argue that what Paul meant by heterosexual sin was foreign context to our "advanced" contemporary society, or what Paul meant by bestiality, or drunkenness, or lying, etc. Just as Brown pointed out, Vine's position does assume that God's Word doesn't address sin for all time.
ReplyDeleteThen you get contrite nonsense like this from a so-called "conservative Catholic":
ReplyDeletehttp://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/27/i-was-wrong
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteListening to the debate I couldn't help but think over and over how Vines' views requires a massive amount self-deception and/or demonic deception. Either that, or he's a self-conscious fraud pretending to believe he's a Christian when he knows he's not in order to change the church's views on homosexuality from the "inside" (knowing he's really on the outside).
ReplyDeleteIf there were a category of "loving gay relationships" (as Vines believes) that doesn't fall under the prohibition and condemnation of Scripture, then it only makes sense that Scripture would somehow allude to it explicitly or implicitly. Or as Brown pointed out, in the ≈ 31,000 verses of the Bible.
Either the writers of Scripture were aware of such "loving and committed gay relationships" or not. If they were, why didn't they make an exception. If they weren't, that would be really strange since such relationships have existed in every age and the Bible was written in a span of many centuries. Are we really to believe that in the ≈ 1500 years it took to write the Scriptures none of it's authors were aware of such relationships? Really? Seriously?
Vines claims that the Bible and Paul refers to homosexual relationships that undermine Biblical patriarchy, or violate marriage (e.g. the homosexual extra-marital affair of a man married to a woman), abusive homosexual relationships (catamite, pederasty etc.) et cetera. But we can easily imagine how two male or two female adults can develop a sexual relationship due to economic circumstances. For example poverty. Economic expediency might require two men or two women to pool their efforts and financial resources to survive which can lead to the development of a homosexual relationship. Or people stranded on an island, in the desert, wilderness, or in prison, or in a leper colony (or anywhere away from society) can lead to a development of caring homosexual relationships.
While homosexuals use phrases like "loving and committed gay relationship", I don't because 1. it's UNLOVING to intentionally form a relationship that leads both people into hell (which homosexual relationships do), 2. a relationship can be (subjectively) caring without being (objectively) loving, 3. I believe the term "gay" gives away ground to the homosexual agenda because it's a "nicer" term that's less precise and less upfront. Though, I'm wiling to talk about a "caring and committed homosexual relationship" which is still nevertheless sinful and harmful spiritually if not also physically.
I believe that part of the reason why the homosexual party is winning culturally is because they are winning the language and semantic war over the issue. They have successfully replaced the term "homosexual" with the term "gay" making it not only less offensive, but replacing it with a term that has the connotation of happiness. Since, the other and original meaning of "gay" is "happy."
DeleteI suspect part of the reason why homosexuals dislike the term "sodomy" is because whether we're conscious of it or not, there's (at least) a subconscious connotation of "sadness" to "sodomy" even though they have no etymological connection.
Think of it. "Sod" and "Sad" are similar sounding. Calling homosexuals "gay" subconsciously leads people into thinking that homosexuals are (or can be) just as happy or even generally HAPPIER than heterosexuals.
DeleteSimilarly, I suspect part of the reason why some Arminians are so hostile to Calvinism is because of the Bouba/kiki effect. Even knowing very little about Calvinism, some people have an immediate initial dislike of it because of the beginning hard (and therefore harsh) "K" sound of Calvinism.
DeleteYouTube video on the Bouba/kiki effect
http://youtu.be/VjFCaGK7gX8?t=1m4s
Bouba/kiki effect on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect