I regretfully stumbled upon John Fugelsang’s Twitter, a platform where he frequently shares flawed arguments without offering reasoned responses to more substantial challenges. It appears intellectual engagement is not his strong suit.

TheSire: Notice that John didn’t directly address the question. If he acknowledges that homosexuality is considered wrong and deserving of death in the Old Testament, the crucial question is: What in the New Covenant negates or modifies this stance? Moreover, why does Paul, in the New Testament, still refer to the Old Testament to condemn homosexuality? (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9)

John Fugelsang: So, you’re cherry-picking Leviticus to suit your agenda? Using a book you don’t fully follow to target a minority group you dislike? This selective application of scripture seems hypocritical. It appears you’re giving Jesus the finger by misusing the Bible to hurt others.

TheSire: Responding to your claim is challenging. If you argue that the Old Testament law is arbitrarily chosen, you should demonstrate that instead of just asserting it. Most major theological systems view the Law as informative on ethical matters (Romans 7:12).

John Fugelsang: You’re stuck quoting Leviticus and Paul, but what about the non-homophobe Jesus? If you don’t follow or respect Leviticus, why selectively cite it to harm others?

TheSire: Likewise, you’re quoting supporters of certain lifestyles but neglecting the perspective of Jesus. The New Testament contains prohibitions against homosexuality, and Paul explicitly alludes to Leviticus in his condemnation of it. Was Paul cherry-picking? (Romans 1:22-25, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)

John Fugelsang: It seems you prioritize Paul over being a true Christian. Jesus instructs you to treat LGBT individuals as you would treat Him. You seem to be seeking a spiritual loophole to justify bigotry, but Jesus won’t provide one. And, by the way, Romans isn’t primarily about gay men.

TheSire: Paul indeed alludes to Leviticus in Romans 1:22-25 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, referencing Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The New Testament contains explicit prohibitions against homosexuality. Why would Jesus, who is God, command against it if He were fine with sexual freedom? (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

John Fugelsang: Jesus never issued such a command.

TheSire: Did Jesus give the Law to Moses? (Exodus 19:3-6)

John Fugelsang: No, Jesus was not physically present during Exodus. The Father gave the law to Moses. You seem to be using this as a pretext to discriminate against a minority you dislike, but you don’t follow all that’s in Exodus either.

TheSire: Firstly, it’s crucial not to dismiss questions. Ignoring them weakens the conversation. Secondly, covenant theology explores why certain OT laws apply to us. They are often divided into civil, ceremonial, and moral laws.

Jude 1:5 states:

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

John Fugelsang: Where does Jesus’ name appear in the OT, and where does the entire Bible explicitly mention the Trinity?

TheSire: While Jesus is not explicitly called by name in the OT, he appears as the Angel of the LORD. Explicit teachings are as authoritative as implicit ones. (Genesis 19:24, Mark 12:36, John 1:1-3)

1. Genesis 19:24: “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”
2. Mark 12:36: “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”'”
3. John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John Fugelsang: Sodom had nothing to do with consensual same-sex relationships.

TheSire: I didn’t argue that Sodom was about consensual same-sex relationships; I presented it as an example of the Trinity in the Old Testament. (Genesis 19:24).

Another compelling perspective on this matter is rooted in the biblical understanding that marriage, according to Jesus, is the exclusive and ordained framework for proper sexual relations between humans. A fundamental tenet of this viewpoint is that marriage, as defined in the Bible, is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.

In various passages, the Bible explicitly underscores the heterosexual nature of marriage. In Genesis 2:24, it states, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’ This foundational description of marriage involves a union between a man and a woman, forming a profound and exclusive bond.

Furthermore, when addressing the issue of divorce, Jesus reaffirms the divine intention for marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, quoting Genesis: ‘He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’

The New Testament consistently upholds the traditional understanding of marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman. The apostle Paul, in Ephesians 5:31, echoes the language of Genesis, emphasizing the unique bond within heterosexual marriage: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’

This biblical perspective on marriage inherently excludes homosexual relationships from the divine design for sexual intimacy. Moreover, the broader biblical narrative lacks a supportive case for extramarital sexual relations. The consistent biblical teaching emphasizes the sanctity of marriage and discourages sexual activity outside of this sacred covenant.

Traditionally, fornication is regarded as incompatible with the Christian calling. I suppose that, nowadays, many men and women in various churches, seminaries, and Evangelical colleges would regard this prohibition as a big joke or Victorian hang-up.

However, both Jesus and Paul treat fornication as a bar to heaven (Mt 15:19; Gal 5:19). It doesn’t get more serious than that.

Some people feel that the advent of contraception has made fornication acceptable. This assumes that the Biblical prohibition was based on the relation between sex and pregnancy.

But the Bible never says that, and Scripture condemns certain other sexual expressions where pregnancy is not in the cards (e.g., sodomy, bestiality, adultery with a post-menopausal woman.

Paul has an interesting analysis of fornication in 1 Cor 6:12-20. Here he argues that fornication consummates a common law marriage. This would lead directly to adultery, for if the fornicator then had sexual relations with anyone else, he would be an adulterer in relation to his very first sexual partner.

In addition, Paul says that fornication is in a class by itself, for it commits a sin against the sinner. His reasoning seems to be that the body is both the medium of sexual and social intercourse. When you form a sexual bond, you become one with another, not merely in the flesh, but on a plane of moral transference. If you unite yourself to a whore, you become the moral equivalent of a whore. You exchange your own identity with whomever you unite yourself to.

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-2.html

If you aim to avoid appearing as uninformed as John Fungus, it would be prudent to engage with the genuine arguments that true Christians present regarding Jesus’ stance on homosexuality. Additionally, it’s worth noting the questionable Christology that John employs to rationalize his deviation from traditional Christian beliefs on sexuality. His denial of the divinity of Christ raises concerns about the theological foundation underlying his views. It’s essential to recognize that rejecting the divinity of Christ is considered heresy within orthodox Christian theology, and Jesus’ own words in John 8:24 emphasize the significance of acknowledging his divine nature.