Matthew Vines: The Bible and Homosexuality

[Stygian]

What are your thoughts?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
[be warned, long video! 1:07:19]

[neo-x]

This was discussed eariler, here is my original response to it, you can read more on this thread
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 32#p127432

I watched the video, thank you for mentioning it. I did enjoy listening to him.

I think for most people he made a really sound case. I have no doubt that he loves God when he says he do. And I do not think that he is being dishonest about his cause.

What I really liked was that he remained cool headed throughout the debate(that's something I'd like to see more in Christians)
That he made his point in a good cohesive perspective, at least from his side they make sense.

But the problem is, while half of what he said is true, the rest of it is just based on bad exegesis, now I am not saying that because I am already dead set on believing the homosexuality is wrong, no. If God doesn't see homosexual behavior as sinful, I ca assure you I would be the first one to admit it regardless of what others around me say. As a teenage I struggled with sexual orientation for some years, so I at least know an have experienced something he says.

And for you or those of you who have watched this video, I'll point out where I find some trouble with his arguments.

I'll start off with the usual assumption that gay people are born gay, except for this assertion from gay people we yet have no clear evidence that this is the case. This alone can actually discard the entire reasoning put forth by Matthew Vines. But I am not going to do this. Lets go on.

He is right that the law does not apply to us and that we should not look at the old testament for laws. While some people would like to object and go down this road, keep some of the law and reject the rest and fight vines' reasoning on that ground, would have a hard time because simply put, it makes the law quite subjective as to what we think should apply today and what should not. Either the law applies whole or it doesn't. and that is not because of the nature of the law but to whom it was given and the N.T clearly states that it has been "done away with". So in my view not much help going down that road at all.

However problems arise when we enter the N.T. First lets look at Romans,

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

for one, the word used Rom 1:26 for nature is "physikēn" in greek "φυσικὴν" meaning"natural" as in pertaining to one's nature or instinct.

the comparison that vines make is with 1 Corinthians 11:14-15
“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?”

the word used for nature here is "physis" "φύσις" meaning nature. But we can not look at the word alone but also to the context to which the word is being applied to.

In first century Rome, the head covering was the sign of a woman being married. Since this was the social norm that was followed, if a wife were to go about with her head uncovered or her hair cut short it brought dishonor and disgrace upon both her and her husband. Paul means that a woman praying or prophesying uncovered puts herself in public opinion on a level with a courtesan, which is shameful and disgraceful. Women covering theirs heads was the norm in Rome, sometimes covering the complete heads. Some women, when being taught that they were no longer inferior to men in Christ, stopped covering heads, Paul advised them that they were going against the norm of their culture and they would be seen as prostitutes/courtesans or women in mourning and not Christians.

Paul also appears to be saying that it is unnatural for a man to exercise the cultural norms of the opposite sex, as it may come across to others as though he wishes he were actually a member of the opposite sex.

But based on this why do I reject vines argument? its rather simple, because the context differs. You should see that while Paul says that failure to observe these traditions may be dishonorable and disgraceful as he says in 1 Cor 11:4-6, he never mentions them as sinful. But in Romans chapter one, Paul is not talking about cultural norms at all rather his focus is on God, sin and those who are fallen.

Vines is reasoning on a premise which is unwarranted that "those who turned away from God, knew God once" That is not what the passage in Romans says, it says that there is no excuse for them to not identify God, because God is manifested in everything, his attributes are shown through his creation, for God himself made them visible, yet the people followed their own imaginations and performed idolatry, replacing god with their own perversion. And he then goes on to say that even God gave them up because they were rejecting God’s designed order of nature and his moral command against such a lifestyle . It is inline with what Paul is saying, because rejecting God, leads in deviation from his norms.

[Stygian]

Thank you for your input. I will agree that Vines seems to be a passionate, smart speaker. For that, I respect him, and he's a refreshing contrast to the "I'm-pro-free-speech-until-I'm-offended' modern-day liberal XD

[PaulSacramento]

The thing is that homosexuality is NOT a natural sexual act as per WHY we have sex, ie: reproduction.
As such it is an unnatural sexual act.
As per the bible parts that speak of it, it is a sin.
I don't think that it is a greater sin than any other, it certainly wasn't "big enough" to be included in the "Big 10" or for Jesus to state a view on it at all, but it is a sin nevertheless.
BUT let me be clear here that, IMO, the sin is the ACT of homosexuality and the sin is NOT being a Homosexual.
One maybe born a homosexual but it is only when one engages in homosexual acts that one is sinning.
Some people are born with the proclivity to kill, to steal but they do not.