True or False?

[Tenebrae]

Sighs, thats why I choose absitnence


I can not reconcile my sexuality and my faith, so I choose to abstain.

 

[OllieFranz]

But the most obvious interpretation and the one that makes the most sense is that it forbids homosexuality. All those other interpretations you listed require more stretching to get there.

Also, that is not the only verse that forbids homosexuality. There is also Leviticus 20:19, which states if a man lies with another man as one lies wiht a woman, they must both be put to death, their blood will be on their own heads. (or something like that).

And did you forget that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, for a reason? God said that a man leaves his mother and father to go unite with a woman (not a man!) and they will become one flesh.

There are also verses in the New Testiment that condemn homosexuality.

"With the male to lie in the lyings of the wife is taboo."

This is the literal translation of Leviticus 18:22. The first "lie" is a form of the word that in every other sexual use in the Bible refers to non-consensual sex (rape). When you consider also that every bad example in the Bible of man-on-man sex is politically based rape (Sodom [Genesis 19], Gibeah [Judges 19], and Ammon [1 Chronicles 19]), and the fact that the entire chapter is telling the Israelites not to follow the customs of the peoples around them, it is a stretch to claim that this is forbidding anything more.

The phrasing is the same in Leviticus 20:13, and the death penalty becomes more understandable if the charge is rape. [The rabbis who wrote the classic commentaries on the Bible (such as the Midrash and the Talmud) did not understand why the victim was also under sentence of death, but accepted it. After all the female victims of rape were stoned for adultery if they did not scream loud enough to bring help in time.]

The "Adam and Steve" remark is so weak that it does not deserve a rebuttal.

There are three verses in the New Testament that directly refer to man-on-man sex. The sex is not the focus of any of these verses, but rather the focus is on sin in general, of which the reference made is only one of many, great and small.

In two of these verses (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11), the sin directly refers back to the ban in Leviticus. Paul invented the term "arsenokoitai" or "man-lie-'ers" in order to focus on the commandment against rape. He could have used already existing words if he was talking about homosexuality in general, but he chose not to.

In the third, he used an already well known example of a "crime against Nature" (which was just the pagan Greek way of calling something a sin). The sin referred to is overindulgence to the point of becoming uncontrolled. Today we would call it addiction. Although Plato had reasons for making the corrupted activity sex, rather than say alcohol, and same sex sex in particular, these elements are not a part of the sin. When he decided to quote this example, Paul went out of his way to distance the sexual aspects of the example from the sinful ones. He was not writing for biased translators who never read Plato, but to native Greek speakers familiar with the source.

 

[Gishin]

False. I believe God is a liar, because I am not a Christian.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Yes, I realize that YOU have been led to believe that this is what the scripture means. But, WHO was doing WHAT to WHOM for the matter to have become an issue in the first place? We're not given an inkling as to what specific event or practice this scripture is addressing. Y'see, for me anyway, a piece of scripture from here and a piece of scripture from there is a rather pointless exercise. I require facts. Something has first to be validated AS an issue before it BECOMES an issue. With the text you gave - one of the favorite 'clobber' passages, I might add - NO specific issue has been established. It just says what it says and so we really have no idea WHY it says what it says.

You with me?

So you don't believe God created the world either, right?

Do you believe that all the people spoke of in the Bible were real people, and the things that went on in their life really happened? I ask just because last I knew we don't have any proof that some of them were even real people, according to what mankind has found so far.

Does the fact that we have found Biblical manuscripts in many different areas that all say the same thing make any difference on whether you believe the Bible or not? Or the fact that the founding fathers of Christianity, in those areas, believed and taught that homosexuality was a sin, matter?

If the Bible is so manmade and abused...............well doesn't it make you alittle nervous about whether we know for sure what it takes to be truely "saved"? Does it really make sense to you that all those scriptures have been kept pure and true, but those that speak of sin, and who will or will not inherit the kingdom of God haven't?

 

[Chazemataz]

Do you also stone your children if they talk back to you as is commanded in the book of Leviticus? Do you eat shrimp? Do you think women should wear headcoverings in Church? Have you sacrificed your pigeons to God lately? Do you wear clothing of mixed linens?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are breaking the laws in the same book (some even in the same chapter!) as the infamous hellfire Teh Gays must burn!111! verse used by fundies.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Do you also stone your children if they talk back to you as is commanded in the book of Leviticus? Do you eat shrimp? Do you think women should wear headcoverings in Church? Have you sacrificed your pigeons to God lately? Do you wear clothing of mixed linens?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are breaking the laws in the same book (some even in the same chapter!) as the infamous hellfire Teh Gays must burn!111! verse used by fundies.

So do read the NT where we see that no food is bad, and we should only not eat if it offends or will cause a brethen to stumble?

You bring up scriptures as if it is some proof that I don't know what I am saying, but all it shows is that you don't take the Bible as a whole or study history, so when you have done that and want to really speak about the Bible...............

Oh, the mixed cloths was because that is what the priest wore, and this isn't a problem today now is it. Do you want me to go on or would you prefer to pray and study the word for yourself?

The Bible tells us that if we will pray for wisdom and understanding that we will receive it, and I have found this to be true. I will say that everytime I read I might not get the whole meaning, but as I grow in the Lord, He is more than willing to increase my wisdom and understanding.

Good Night.

 

[Chazemataz]

So do read the NT where we see that no food is bad, and we should only not eat if it offends or will cause a brethen to stumble?

You bring up scriptures as if it is some proof that I don't know what I am saying, but all it shows is that you don't take the Bible as a whole or study history, so when you have done that and want to really speak about the Bible...............

Oh, the mixed cloths was because that is what the priest wore, and this isn't a problem today now is it. Do you want me to go on or would you prefer to pray and study the word for yourself?

The Bible tells us that if we will pray for wisdom and understanding that we will receive it, and I have found this to be true. I will say that everytime I read I might not get the whole meaning, but as I grow in the Lord, He is more than willing to increase my wisdom and understanding.

Good Night.

The New Testemant also says nothing about homoseuxality. If we are to go into context and speaking about biblical history, then you should know that the Romans verse was speaking about Pagan worship rituals with included sexual intercourse in them, especially between members of the same sex. Ancient greek men often took younger males as sexual partners and Paul was condemning this practice, and rightly so. he said that "men burned in lust towards one another", this is true because all sex before marriage is a sin and therefore he was right in critising this.
Also the word homosexual used in 1 Corinthians is a mistranslation. There was no such word for homosexuality in Hebrew, if you do not beleive me look it up.

women wearing headdressings is also spoken of in the NT, too. But people don't follow that anymore, and I honestly do not know why because it is as plain as day.

Oh, and btw- I was not speaking to you specifically in my first post in this topic that you quoted, so sorry if you took it as an insult. I really was just speaking in general so sorry if i offended

 

[Floatingaxe]

But we are told by MEN (mere mortals) that God inspired/authored the Bible. So, it's the word of MAN that we have to believe and not the word of God per se. If, as you say, God spoke to Moses face to face and told him what to write, then we have to take the word of Moses (not God) for that belief.

Can you not see the dilemma that this presents for some people?

The only dilemma is in those who just don't want to believe God, but would rather fashion their own set of beliefs apart from God and His truth.

Oh, what SHALL you do??? For heaven's sake, don't attempt to drag others down with you.

 

[Floatingaxe]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." - God.

These words are clinical ...devoid of any love or affection at all. In what context were these words written BY MAN anyway. Christians have the irritating habit of taking one line of an ancient text and applying it to a modern concept ...homosexuality in this case.

What, PRECISELY, is that ONE LINE referring to?

Umm...sexual acts between men, Duh.

It is Love that is telling you that! You want affection with a warning like that? LOL

 

[Floatingaxe]

Yes, I realize that YOU have been led to believe that this is what the scripture means. But, WHO was doing WHAT to WHOM for the matter to have become an issue in the first place? We're not given an inkling as to what specific event or practice this scripture is addressing. Y'see, for me anyway, a piece of scripture from here and a piece of scripture from there is a rather pointless exercise. I require facts. Something has first to be validated AS an issue before it BECOMES an issue. With the text you gave - one of the favorite 'clobber' passages, I might add - NO specific issue has been established. It just says what it says and so we really have no idea WHY it says what it says.

You with me?

Why don't you go ask a Jew who has studied the Torah what he thinks it means? The understanding of the ancient texts has been handed down to us by them...and better still, we have the Holy Spirit which tells us precisely what it all means for He leads us into ALL TRUTH as said in John 16:13:
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.






You with Him?

 

[KCKID]

But we are told by MEN (mere mortals) that God inspired/authored the Bible. So, it's the word of MAN that we have to believe and not the word of God per se. If, as you say, God spoke to Moses face to face and told him what to write, then we have to take the word of Moses (not God) for that belief.

Can you not see the dilemma that this presents for some people?
​

The only dilemma is in those who just don't want to believe God, but would rather fashion their own set of beliefs apart from God and His truth.

Oh, what SHALL you do??? For heaven's sake, don't attempt to drag others down with you.

Alright. How about offering me PROOF right now that the Bible is the word of God? By the way, I'm not saying that it isn't ...I really don't know. So, come on, Floatingaxe, offer some proof right now.

 

[savedandhappy1]

The New Testemant also says nothing about homoseuxality. If we are to go into context and speaking about biblical history, then you should know that the Romans verse was speaking about Pagan worship rituals with included sexual intercourse in them, especially between members of the same sex. Ancient greek men often took younger males as sexual partners and Paul was condemning this practice, and rightly so. he said that "men burned in lust towards one another", this is true because all sex before marriage is a sin and therefore he was right in critising this.

All sex before marriage is a sin, and so there would be no reason to mention homosexuality if it was only the fact that is was pre-marital sex, so no that doesn't work.

How young were these males that it would make age a factor? Since the girls were being married at ages 14, and I would have to check to be sure, but I think even 12.

I realize that they are changing the meaning of the scriptures to try and make it just about ritual pagan sex, which is a sin, but that isn't what it is say. If this wasn't a life and death issue I would have to laugh at how people trust Bible scholars today over the people that live at that time and think that makes sense. Even Pluto, I believe it was, wrote and spoke of homosexuality being sinful. We see them try to credit his writing as to why Paul said certain things in his, which again would be laughable if I didn't feel that people will go to hell because of this belief, practice, and encouraging of other to follow this unsound doctrine.

Also the word homosexual used in 1 Corinthians is a mistranslation. There was no such word for homosexuality in Hebrew, if you do not beleive me look it up.

I believe you may have error, because 1 Corinthians is in the NT, which was Greek. It was the OT that was written in Hebrew.

How strange that the founding church fathers would teach against homosexuality as far back as 50 AD, if I am remembering correctly, the records I study. Being that close to when Christ walked and taught on the earth, you think they would know more then the scholars that now study and try and change the meaning, wouldn't it?

women wearing headdressings is also spoken of in the NT, too. But people don't follow that anymore, and I honestly do not know why because it is as plain as day.

1 Cor 11:2-16
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Is the above scriptures the scriptures you are referring to? If they are I would ask what your understand the above scriptures to say, with special attention to verse 13, which ends with a question mark. Also, your understanding of verses 15 and 16, if you don't mind.

Here is my understanding of the above scriptures. First, we need to understand why this chapter was written. Paul had received a letter from the Corinthian church regarding many problems it was encountering. This epistle was written to help straighten out some confusing issues. One of these was the question of whether a woman should veil, or cover, her head in church since the custom was that most women kept their heads covered in and out of the church. The reason this was a much discussed issue was that one of the oral Jewish traditions dictated that when entering the temple for worship, the males, or "heads of the house," were to wear the Jewish tallith, or veil. According to the Jewish tradition this was a sign of reverence toward God and a condemnation of sin. Paul was very strongly against all Jewish legalism (circumcision being one of these) being imposed on new Christian converts. He was also opposed to the veiling or covering of men because they were no longer under any condemnation or guilt since Jesus took that away through His sacrifice.

Now the question had come up over women veiling or covering in church. What would he say for them to do? Paul seized the opportunity to teach them by presenting a spiritual analogy that would enable them to arrive at their own conclusion. We find Paul's conclusion to their question of women veiling in verse 16, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." He simply says this is a custom of the women, but it is not a church ordinance. This explanation clarifies the matter for us today, but we will miss a beautiful spiritual application if we fail to look at these verses further as every portion of the Scriptures contains some deep and eternal principle applicable to every age. We can see that Paul is using an analogy here. He is not discussing a cloth covering, or veil, when he speaks of a woman having her head covered, because in verse 15 he clearly says a woman's hair is given to her for a covering. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

Oh, and btw- I was not speaking to you specifically in my first post in this topic that you quoted, so sorry if you took it as an insult. I really was just speaking in general so sorry if i offended

Thank you for explaining, although since I am considered a fundie, conservative, and all those other 4 letter words , well I guess you were speaking to me in a way.

Let me explain just how much of a hater and bigot I am...........................I don't want anyone to go to hell, and yet I am told that I think I am a better Christian and have fears because I am homophobic, for not wanting this.

I wonder if someone can explain why I and most of the people here who believe homosexuality is in the list of things that will keep a person out of the Kingdom of Heaven, would stay if it was out of hateful prejudice and or fear?

I am to love a person enough that I would die for them, now that is love, but is it love to say nothing? If I am right about what the Bible says should I really say nothing?

Let's say that I am married and you find out that I am having an affair with another person, what does the Bible say you are to do? Do you love me enough to do it?

Need to get to bed, VBS starts tomorrow, and I have to try and get myself around and maybe my 2 yr. old grandson.

 

[katautumn]

Is what God said true or false?

If you believe what God said is false, please explain why you are more qualified to declare the truth than the all-knowing Creator of the universe.

I refuse to select an option in your horrendously skewed poll. I don't follow the same concept of God as you do, so I do not adhere to the Bible as the basis for my opinion; however, that does not mean I would ever call God a "liar". I swear some of you people get more and more desperate to try and make us look bad with every post you create.

 

[katautumn]

God talked to Moses face to face and told him what to write.

The Bible was written down by men, but authored by God.

Actually, God did not speak to Moses face to face. According to the Bible, God spoke to Moses through angels and various omens.

Exodus 33:20-23 Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put theein a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Alright. How about offering me PROOF right now that the Bible is the word of God? By the way, I'm not saying that it isn't ...I really don't know. So, come on, Floatingaxe, offer some proof right now.

God's Word is true because it stands up to scrutiny. The countless promises of God are all honoured by Him when we follow after Him and His principles in obedience.

The written word is alive with power and is able to change lives and situations when believed and followed. It reveals the heart of God--His love for us and His faithfulness to us. It reveals His message of salvation in Jesus Christ our Messiah so you don't have to undergo judgment.

There is nothing like it anywhere in the world! Nothing has ever stood the test of time and remained unchanged. God has guarded His very word so that there is no alteration, but only His very message to your heart remains intact forever.

All it takes is a tiny amount of faith and one can believe wholeheartedly in the bible as God's inerrant word.

 

[katautumn]

There is nothing like it anywhere in the world! Nothing has ever stood the test of time and remained unchanged. God has guarded His very word so that there is no alteration, but only His very message to your heart remains intact forever.

The Bible has had books removed, passages added to it, various translations throughout the years. So there have been alterations. I believe it is a book that was written by men based upon personal accounts of historical events and folklore that was passed down throughout the generations. But it cannot be claimed that the Bible remains totally unchanged. Even the KJV has passages removed and added to it.

 

[katautumn]

Please do not make such accusations. I am not "purveying a lie". I have been respectful enough to not flame you personally, I ask that you return the courtesy.

So are you implying that when the King James Version was being edited prior to final printing that any alterations to passages or books that were conducted were done so under the direct authority and inspiration of God? There are books that were included in the original sacred text that were omitted during the King James translation.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

The poll presents a false dichotomy.

There are may options that exist other than "God is a liar" and "the Bible is inerrant."

 

[CaDan]

Really? Have you consulted the Muratorian Canon? The Festal Letter of Athanasius? The Canons of the Council of Carthage?

Heck, have you even considered the differences in the canons of the Roman Catholic Church and your Protestant demonination? Or the differences in the Ethiopic Canon?

No?

Might I suggest you do even a tiny amount of basic research before opening your mouth and calling people liars. It is quite unseemly.

 

[CaDan]

I know what I know. Your lack of knowledge and faith is noted.

Well, have you consulted the available sources or haven't you?