The Bible Only Mentions Homosexuality Six Times | Challenge Response

The Bible Only Mentions Homosexuality Six Times | Challenge Response

The Bible Only Mentions Homosexuality Six Times | Challenge Response

1999 Posts

6 views

0



Alan responds to the challenge that the Bible only mentions homosexuality six times.

#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity

——————————– CONNECT ——————————–

Website: https://www.str.org/​​​​​​
STR University: https://training.str.org/​​​​​
STR App: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets​​​​​​
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/

Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.

———————————- GIVE ———————————-

Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://www.str.org/donate​​​​​​

source

27 thoughts on “The Bible Only Mentions Homosexuality Six Times | Challenge Response

  1. Michael Peele

    BTW Alan would love to show you his floors. I believe his address is 3929 La Cadena Drive, Oceanside, CA. I'm not sure about this. Anyway, he works much of the time from home. He home schools his children. Keeps them away from the gays.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  2. Michael Peele

    Sin is a man made rule for a man made religion. It's amazing how brainwashing children at an early age into a religion makes them have delusional beliefs when they become adults. That's why Christians and Muslims go after children to get them while they are young.

    Alan is a fool. He has built his life and career on misleading young people.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  3. Felix Rodriguez

    Good video, but I have a question.  Can you or anybody tell me what is wrong with this argument, if at all? This is how it goes: All science says that Planet Earth had an origin or an age,  but all atheists believe that this statement made by science about Planet Earth having an origin or an age is not possible,  when science says that it is possible, therefore all atheists are anti-science or reason. Thank you!

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  4. Peter Wood

    Up until the half way mark the video appeared balanced and reasonable with remarks regarding how poorly Christian have behaved in the past and how Christians should befriend homosexuals. However, it would appear that you only want to befriend homosexuals to change their sexual orientation to stop them, in your view, living in sin and burning for eternity in hell.

    Outside of a biblical context what is the reason why homosexuality is considered a negative human trait. Without reference to scripture or the perceived desire of a diety, why is homosexuality wrong from a humanist position and how does this relate to the modern world?

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  5. debpem

    IF one call themselves a Christian: How many times does God need to say something is wrong for it to be wrong?

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  6. Teachthecross

    Thanks for your review. I might be able to condense the argument by adding P3 to either P1 or P2, but for the purposes of explaining that my view both honors Scripture and covers all bases, I thought it best to explain each train of thought with a premise. So far as I can tell, the conclusion follows logically from the premises, and each premise seems more likely true than false.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  7. TrueTaike

    2) Adding more premises then necessary make it easier for me to destroy your whole argument simply by showing one of the premises are unlikely, don't follow, or are simply not true.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  8. TrueTaike

    1) Thanks for putting your argument a more clear precise format. I'm not sure if you have taken course in logic if so can give me some pointers on why you put your argument the way you did. If you don't mind me making a few adjustments to make your argument stronger. When making deductive arguments you want to keep your arguments as fool proof, and simple as possible. Your main Premise is P1, the rest are irrelevant to your conclusion. So personally i would drop the rest.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  9. Teachthecross

    Let's minimize the number of comments. My original statement: "Genesis 2 describes marriage between a man and a woman, *but it does not therefore mean that* homosexuality was not planned nor immoral were it unplanned." You weren't reading carefully if you thought I said that homosexuality wasn't planned. You say that homosexuality is excluded implicitly by the union of Adam and Eve, but that's not actually in the text, so you haven't provided any evidence from Scripture stating why it's wrong.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  10. Teachthecross

    Actually my argument goes as follows:

    P1: For a man to be penetrated in the ancient Near East was to be inferior because women, who were penetrated during intercourse, were considered inferior.
    P2: The Bible does not explicitly state *why* homosexuality is wrong, so the best method to find out why is to examine its historical context.
    P3: Said context is inapplicable.
    P4: There are no other good reasons to condemn homosexuality.
    C. Therefore the verses about homosexuality do not apply to today.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  11. TrueTaike

    3. I would also have to assume that Moses and Paul and all the other writer would have reacted in the same way as Lot. And all thought the same way he did. I really have no reason to do so. Thank you for putting up with me, I know I'm not always the kindest in my post. Forgive the fact that i really don't find your arguments at all compelling.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  12. TrueTaike

    2.
    (Gen 19) You know i have never taken understood these passages as you did. For me it sounds like a stretch, and doing psychology on people of the past is never recommended. Couldn't it just have been that homosexuality has always be a shame, and considered one of the biggest taboo, and that Lot was doing what he thought was best out of a difficult situation, and that is to give up his "virgin" daughters as was part of custom, instead of having his guest molested by lustful men.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  13. TrueTaike

    1. "Scripture does not say *why* homosexuality is wrong" Forgive me if i disagree. To distort your words, i believe homosexuality is not what God planned, for he planned that a man and a women would be united in matrimony. And forgive me for distorting i couldn't see any other way to take your words. Perhaps you can tell me what you really meant.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  14. Teachthecross

    You literally pulled "homosexuality was not planned" out of a sentence such as to completely distort its original meaning. Don't deliberately misquote me. Regarding the request for evidence of the ancient Near Eastern understanding of homosexuality through Scripture: As I've explained before, Scripture does not say *why* homosexuality is wrong, though it is significant that in Gen. 19 Lot offers his own daughters to be raped instead of the men, which fits my view far better than yours.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  15. TrueTaike

    "homosexuality was not planned" So God planned heterosexual marriage, but did not plan homosexuality? Is that what you are saying? If God didn't plan it…who did?

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  16. TrueTaike

    "Under threat of death, men would be discouraged from humiliating other men through rape."
    Every single "homosexual" verse has nothing to do with "Humiliation, death threats, or rape.(with exceptions to Sodom and Gomorrah which is still a "stretch"")" so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything?

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  17. TrueTaike

    "Paul teaches that Scripture is profitable for teaching, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16), not all timeless."

    Gods word ""Is"" Timeless however…. I"m not sure why you wrote its "not all timeless what exactly are you saying?."

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  18. TrueTaike

    "the Bible elevates that standard to preserve male dignity." Can you give me a verse to back that up?
    "God inspired Scripture in accordance with the hardness of the hearts of the original audience." Can you give me a verse to back that up?

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  19. Teachthecross

    This is not to say that all commands do not teach us timeless facts about the nature of God. The prohibition of homosexuality teaches us God's justice and mercy. In the surrounding cultures, it was common to only penalize the man who was penetrated, but the Bible elevates that standard to preserve male dignity. Under threat of death, men would be discouraged from humiliating other men through rape. Paul teaches that Scripture is profitable for teaching, etc. (2 Tim. 3:16), not all timeless.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  20. Teachthecross

    Jesus spoke about marriage in Matthew 19, and Genesis 2 describes marriage between a man and a woman, but it does not therefore mean that homosexuality was not planned nor immoral were it unplanned. It only follows that heterosexual marriage *was* planned. Again, God inspired Scripture in accordance with the hardness of the hearts of the original audience. In His infinite wisdom, God knew that telling the original audience that slavery, for example, is wrong, would have meant certain rejection.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  21. TrueTaike

    I apologize for Jumping to conclusions, your comment on on "morality" being gradually discovered" sounds by itself extremely relativistic, thanks for making it clear. On inerrancy, I have never heard of anyone who is able to dismiss ""multiple"" passages simply because the prophets/apostles were writing out of their own "inclinations"/beliefs. Where exactly was God when the these verses were writen? Perhaps i need to read a bit more hermeneutics, but I does raise my eyebrows.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  22. TrueTaike

    Is Jesus not talking about marriage in Mathew 19? And is sex not made specifically for marriage? And does Jesus not say that Marriage is between a Man and a woman? And does that not therefore mean homosexuality is not what God planed for human beings? I get that its about divorce. But the entire point to this passage is to speak on what Marriage is, and what it has always been.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  23. Teachthecross

    Hold on. I didn't espouse relativistic morality. I said we gradually discover (implying that they exist objectively) rather than invent moral facts. Also, there are several points that you merely asserted. You condescendingly called my view on inerrancy false without explaining why, nor did you explain how Scripture contradicts my "assumptions" (I assume you mean the patriarchal attitude of the ancient Near East?) Last, this isn't about what we feel we can agree to; this is about what's true.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  24. TrueTaike

    I really appreciate your comments. Everything you've said have shown me exactly why I cannot hold to your position. I cannot believe in the relativistic morality that you believe in. I cannot agree with your false view on inerrancy of the scriptures, I have no reason to hold to your assumptions about Paul (and others) because the scriptures are really quite clear to the contrary. Thanks for you time. Peace.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  25. Teachthecross

    Why might God operate within false cultural assumptions? Due to the hardness of men's hearts, as He does with divorce (Matthew 19:8). Speaking of Matthew 19, it is inappropriate to assume that Jesus would have appealed to Genesis for this issue as He did with divorce; we simply aren't in a position to know. As for the last few questions, moral values depend upon moral facts, which we gradually discover. Something may appear immoral, but actually be discovered to be moral later, like this topic.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  26. Teachthecross

    P1: Tackling these issues in order: you needn't assume that Paul and the other biblical writers thought like their contemporaries, but if their rationale was different, they ought to have explained why. *The Bible gives no explicit answer as to why homosexuality is sinful*, and thus it is fair to assume that their argument is identical to their contemporaries. The Bible can still easily be regarded as inspired; it would merely be the case that God operated within false cultural assumptions.

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply
  27. TrueTaike

    P2. Last things. Even if the bible's passages on homosexuality are irrelevant to people today, that in no way means that homosexuality is morally right. The bible also say plenty about how things ought to be like in (Mathew 19:3-6). I have to ask you, was homosexuality ever immoral? Or has it always been moral right, and the bible was mistaken? If it was once immoral, why? If it was never immoral then would you say that you do not believe the bible was inspired by God but rather by men?

    October 26, 2021 at 1:58 am Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *