Wait until you hear his lies thoroughly refuted by James White. Brownson also has declined to debate other scholars for YEARS! That should speak volumes to you unless you’re naive or looking to have your ears tickled.
@@The_Word_Is_The_Way I'll give James White one thing. His Koine Greek is...passable, sure. However, plenty of scholars in Greek and Greek Classics have refuted the arguments put forth by people like White and Gagnon.
@@The_Word_Is_The_Way Jean Fabrice-Nardelli, an ACTUAL scholar in the Greek language, Greek history, and Greek classics, has refuted Gagnon's understanding of the Greek passages. I know you mentioned White, but most conservative traditionalists default to Gagnon (whose work on traditional views on marriage are more extensive than White's).
@@pauln5785 I specified the importance of a debate which you conveniently sidestepped. A refutation within a vacuum isn't as solid as you imagine. You didn't produce a debate nor express the interest in such which proves you are sympathetic to the abysmal tactics followed by Brownson. Again, he has publicized people of wrong doing and misunderstanding but refuses to meet the challenge of those he has accused. This is not biblical conduct and unethical aside from being a violation of decorum when it comes to public discourse. I specified Brownson has been on the run for years (over a decade now) and no one in the realm of academia should be taken seriously if this is their tactic. Moreover, this isn't simply about the Greek text because Hebrew and Israelite history is central to this issue. Brownson (like many other revisionists) makes his argument from a Roman Greco lense, independent of Rabbinical Israelite culture. This is essentially arguing for a Christ not of the Bible because He is a Jew. You can't isolate the Biblical authors from their culture and understanding. That is intellectually dishonest. Where are the references from Rabbinical teaching? Where are the citations from Rabbis?
The key to this text are the words "in the same way". The natural relations with the opposite sex were exchanged for lust towards each other. The "each other" clearly defined as being persons of the same sex. What may be misunderstood in verse 26 alone, is made as clear as daylight by the use of "in the same way" in verse 27. Never in this exposition are these verses allowed to stand next to each other as even a first grader would read it, otherwise you might get the truth out of this text! Sexual immorality still points back to Lev 18. 1 Cor 5 points to the man that married his fathers wife, still sexually immoral, he was handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. The act is found in Lev 18, same penalty as the man who lies with another man as with a woman deserves.
@@camerong5513 I find that arguments from authority like the Bible, does not mean much when you do not respect that authority at all and make up your own laws from your misguided emotions. If you believe that sexual immorality is good and pleasing to God, I hope your eyes will be opened soon.
Sadly men like this go around their elbow to get to their thumbs. God's WORD has the final say on any topic. To twist the Holy Scriptures the way this false teacher has is the worst type of contortion that I have ever seen. To take the word nature and state that if a man has a natural tendency to be a sodomite then it is no longer a sin is gross ignorance or willful ignorance. To teach that would make what the Apostle Paul said in Ephesians 2:3 ..."and were by NATURE the children of wrath." mean that every sin is OKAY!! It's only natural that we sin. We were all born with this sin nature so sin is no longer wrong and everything is right. Do you see how weird you have to make everything else just to justify sodomy?? If sodomy is OK the so is fornication, adulterer, polygamy, incest, rape! Where are you going to stop? In their view the only thing that is wrong is for us to not agree with them.
I would encourage also looking at the failure that is Reparative therapy (try to find someone who has changed their actual orientation and are not just in a miserable straight marriage for appearances). Look at God's creation and the animal kingdoms ability to sustain life-long same-sex relationships. There is growing evidence of genetic factors. Let science inform your faith. Just like the instance where we learned the Earth is not the center of the Solar system it changes how we /see/ certain verses, but not the righteousness of the Bible itself. It doesn't change how God always meant those verses. The Bible is the final word on the subject, yes, and it condemns lustful and power play same-sex relationships such as pederasty (as indicated by the original language). It does not address committed relationships or orientation (the latter because it represented science Paul did not have access to and God would have had to work with that limitation; see the figurative language used to describe the future in Revelation). If you are going to try to condemn and separate an entire community from the love and support and guidance of the church, maybe come up with a more complete counter argument?
@@meriahbradley6994 - interestingly you did not even address my argument about the nature of man. It is man's nature, before regeneration, to satisfy the desires of his own flesh. God strongly condemns homosexual relationships period. It has nothing to do with one person dominating another. It's nature, like in the animal kingdom, when a dog comes into heat for every male dog in the neighborhood to try his best to bred her. The bottom line is sin is sin. You are never going to change that no matter the length you all go to to justify it. Remember one day you will stand before God and you will give an account to Him.
Bad academic, as are most. Samson was an exception. The whole point of his vow was that it set him apart from others, that it wasn't the norm. Before that, this hack known as Brownson points to an extrabiblical source and says that because some heathen says that it is "natural" for men to want to get into politics, therefore "natural" refers to communal sense of things. That does not follow *at all*. It is natural for a man to protect his family -- "communal" responsibility -- but that doesn't mean the man obeying his natural impulse to do so is obeying a communal sensibility. He's still following his own urge. Man, Brownson. You're just terrible.
@@letitbeclassytuesday Hi Kendall, thanks for contributing. Unfortunately, your snark isn't actually worth responding to. Rather than flaunt my credentials, I provided substantial argument. I have credentials -- some related to Koine Greek -- but those don't matter. If you'd like to engage honestly and thoughtfully, I look forward to it. If you're bitter that someone dare disagree with Doug, then I won't bother.
Dr Brownson You are a profound liar. Paul references Genesis at several points and by no means uses stoicism as the lens to which to appeal to the gentiles. What Paul is teaching is rejecting God who is creator results in a mind inverted away from God’s glory and holiness. Why don’t you debate other scholars as opposed to hosting pow-wows with the naive?
