Swiss cheese is very holey !

individual,

<<Swiss cheese is very holey!>>

So are holey arguments!

//So are holey arguments!//

And crap puns that weren't really funny the first time and certainly don't bear repetition.

Bren,

<<The Bible never resolves these issues anyway. You end up moving from ethical arguments to debates about interpretation of the Bible.>>

That is not true. You may not like its conclusion, but the Bible most definitely resolves the homosexual issue, placing it in the same category as those who do wrong, commit sexual sin, idolatry, adultery, prostitution, practise homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, and those who are abusive or cheat people'. 'None of these will inherit the Kingdom of God' (1 Cor 6:9-10).

There are more consequences from homosexual behaviour: 'God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness ...

'So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved' (Rom 1:18, 24-27)

The good news, through Christian salvation, is 'Some of you were once like that' (1 Cor 6:11).

<<Many Christians (like the author referred to in the article) no longer believe in literal interpretations of the Bible.>>

You didn't read my article carefully. I demonstrated how literal interpretation contains figures of speech, symbols, etc. I'd be up the creek if I didn't read your post literally. Or do you want me to invent my reader-response interpretation to make your post mean whatever I want it to say, in spite of your intent?

(continued)

Bren (continued),

<<Scientific discoveries in the fields of astronomy and biological evolution have discredited the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge>>.

You gave not one illustration, thus committing the faulty generalisation fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization.

Remember that it is the THEORY of evolution! It has not yet been proven. I am waiting to see droves of transition forms uncovered of chimpanzees to human beings.

On 6 December 2017, the Huffington Post, hardly a Judeo-Christian supporter, published, '2,500 Year Old Jewish Tablets Discovered in Iraq'. It stated:

'2,500 year old Babylonian tablets have been discovered in Iraq which provide a glimpse of Jewish life in Babylonian exile. Put simply, the tablets corroborate the Biblical tale. They describe a town called Al-Yahudu i.e., “the village of the Jews”, by the river Chebar, mentioned in Ezekiel 1:1. They also attest to Judaic names such as “Gedalyahu”, “Hanan”, “Dana”, “Shaltiel” and a man with the same name as Israel’s current Prime Minister, “Netanyahu”. The “yahu” ending to these names is called “theophoric”, meaning, they attest to a belief in the God of the Torah, by including part of God’s name in people’s personal names. The tablets also record everyday business transactions and witness to the Jewish return to Jerusalem (Nehemiah 6:15-16), as commemorated in personal names such as “Yashuv Zadik”, meaning, “the righteous shall return [to Zion]”'.

What did this article conclude? 'This discovery is a remarkable confirmation of the historical reliability of the Biblical text'.See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/2500-year-old-jewish-tabl_b_6579996.html.

<<If this is extended to issues of ethics (something less common), then there is a licence to draw as long a bow as you like, so that virtually anything goes.>>

Haven't you read the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), 9 of which were affirmed by Jesus (Matthew 5-7)?

<<I don't place any moral weight on what the Bible allegedly says about homosexuality.>>

However, God does!

<<I think that these issues need to be judged by their broader effects on society, including social costs and benefits, and individual freedoms>>.

Are they your absolutes or are you a moral relativist? Are these 'broader effects on society' in Australia or Saudi Arabia?

ttbn,

I don't find it helpful to use labelling of people as left or right. You may not know Dr Robyn Whitaker from Trinity College, Melbourne. Neither did I when I began writing this article.

Please deal with the issues raised by Whitaker against Court. While I had published 3 'holey Bible arguments' in this article, I found Fourteen Holey Bible arguments against Margaret Court. There may be more holes in Whitaker's arguments against Court. See: http://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/2018/10/26/holey-bible-arguments-against-margaret-court/

I agree with you that Dr Court has been treated abominably by the LGBTIQ+ community and the mass media. I showed examples of that.

The issues boil down to:

1) How do I read any literature literally, whether The Sydney Morning Herald, Captain Cook's journals, the lyrics of Slim Dusty songs, or the Bible?

(2) When the Bible is interpreted to get the meaning out of the text and not imposing meaning on the text, what does it say about sinful homosexual behaviour and God's consequences for such actions?

(3) How the Bible describes homosexual behaviour: 'Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error' (Rom 1:26-27).