-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question
- Thread starter Polycarp_fan
- Start date
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
You are welcome to believe that, of course. However, be aware that you have, once again, strayed away from what the Bible actually says and into your own personal interpretation of the Bible.
And Christ never condemns same sex unions, otherwise you could cite me a relevant chapter and verse.
Upvote
0
I have no idea why you are so hung up on WHY male and female were created. The FACTS are that some males/females are sexually attracted to males/females REGARDLESS of the words you keep quoting. I seriously doubt that male and female were created by God to (over)indulge in the diet they do today but it doesn't alter the fact that they do. It seems to me that male and female were created by God to see, to hear, and to walk but that doesn't mean that everyone is born with these faculties. So, what is your point?
Another thing - and maybe you could address this somewhat 'dilemma' - not EVERY heterosexual male is sexually attracted to EVERY heterosexual female. By your reasoning, SHOULD they be? I mean, didn't God create female for male? There are any number of females that I wouldn't give a second look (based on personality, disposition, sexual attraction, general appeal, etc) while there would be the odd one that I might be attracted to. Shouldn't I, a male, be attracted to ALL females according to God's word? And, if I should ignore all of them and remain single all of my life because no female appealed to me would I then be guilty of disobedience to God according to your reasoning? See how tricky this can be?
Also remember, Adam didn't have too many choices in regard to his taking a wife. One would therefore assume that God made Eve 'appropriately' attractive to Adam in order that 'all be fulfilled'. Furthermore, if I could ever meet that female who was formed as an afterthought from one of my ribs I'm sure that she and I would have a relationship that was made in heaven.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
Gen 2 “But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Matthew 19 “that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]?”
Gal 3:26 “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
No you have, I have paraphrased what I have already quoted. Address what the Bible says my friend.
Gen 2 “But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Matthew 19 “that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]?”
Gal 3:26 “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Yes He did and I have cited it many times, Matthew 19, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1) That you don’t believe the Bible is off topic, this thread is about Biblical support for same-sex unions not your disbelief and denial of the Bible.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To KCKID,
Because I believe what the Bible says. Do you believe God made male and female for this reason that a man shall be united with his wife? Obviously not as you are advocating alternatives but the reason was woman for man.
yes but thats irrelevant as some males are attracted to many women and some males are not attracted to anyone, your thinking juts suggests you trust your own ideas more than the Bible as the word of God.
Sorry I dont so hetrosexual and homosexual, I do what God created, male/female, man/woman. Sexual attraction is irrelevant and not mentioned in the Bible. You are also like EnemyPartyII off topic.
Assumption, what we do know is God didnt make Steve for Adam, but somehow you dont. You can see what the Bible says but you cant accept it.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
I'm not seeing the bit that says male+female is the only acceptible form of marriage. Maybe you need to highlight it... if it exists?
Mathew 19: about divorce
1 Cor 6: not said by Christ
1Tim.: not said by Christ
Romans 1: not said by Christ
2 Peter 2: Not said by Christ
Jude 1: Not said by Christ
So, I say again, Christ never condems homosexuality, despite your promise that the sermon on the mount includes such a condemnation.
And the Biblical support for homosexual relationships are multiple, you choose to disregard, ignore and misinterpret them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
If you have support for gay sex provide it chapter and verse.
Well it has been explained ot you many times.
Never said it wasn’t, its also about celibacy and man/woman creation. If I said no it isn’t about divorce I would be lying.
Your views are not Christian, Christians believe the revelation was from Christ, Galatians 1, You are continually off topic, the thread is about Biblical support and not about your disbelief of the Bible.
The thread is specifically about gay sex not homosexuality, I can see Christ condemns same sex unions, I cant see any support for gay sex.
There is no Biblical support for homosexual relationships, there is Biblical support for condemnation of gay sex, there is no support for it.
If you have support for gay sex provide it chapter and verse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
As Christians we believe the epistles of Paul are his revelation from Jesus Christ, not taught by man, (Galatians 1) that Jude and Peter witnessed first hand the teaching of Jesus Christ as much as the gospel writers. Thus the teaching of Jesus Christ condemns same sex unions or homosexual unions if you wish.
If you simply reject the NT outside of the gsopels you have a very different Christianity.
Even when you deny God made Adam and Eve as myth, you still have no Adam and Steve myth of your own.
This thread is about Bible support for gay sex, not your disbelief of the Bible.
You continue to mock and your views are fundamentally un-Christian.
As Christians we believe the epistles of Paul are his revelation from Jesus Christ, not taught by man, (Galatians 1) that Jude and Peter witnessed first hand the teaching of Jesus Christ as much as the gospel writers. Thus the teaching of Jesus Christ condemns same sex unions or homosexual unions if you wish.
If you simply reject the NT outside of the gsopels you have a very different Christianity.
Even when you deny God made Adam and Eve as myth, you still have no Adam and Steve myth of your own.
This thread is about Bible support for gay sex, not your disbelief of the Bible.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
I suggest thats because you don't WANT to see it, lest you lose your percieved Biblical justification for your pre-existing notions.
I have, repeatedly, but one last time with feeling...
In Matthew and Luke Jesus is portrayed as tolerant of a pederastic relationship between the centurion and his "boy." A centurion had a slave (doulos) whom he valued highly (or who was very precious); this slave was ill and near death. Hearing about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders with to request Jesus to save his slave's life. The centurion had faith He could cure him. Jesus said "I tell you, nowhere, even in Israel, have I found faith like this." and healed the slave boy. (Luke 7:2-10). The slightly different version in Matthew (8:5) refers in each instance to the boy as "boy" (pais), not slave (doulos). "Boy in Greek connotes a catamite or youth in a homosexual/pederastic relationship in the Greco-Roman world. These relationships were socially acceptable and not uncommon in that culture. The boy would not be trained to become a lifelong or adult homosexual if he was naturally heterosexual but often would remain bisexual. This public acceptance of pederasty, an institution which the Romans inherited from the Greeks, was accompanied, however, by a measure of public anxiety. Effeminacy and submissiveness, for example, were viewed with contempt. Roman aristocratic families increasingly protected their young men by law from such assignments. Hence the pederastic relationship was increasingly assigned to slaves, who had no social reputation to lose.
Mathew 5,6, and 7
and
Jonathan and David cared deeply about each other in a way that was arguably more tender and intimate than a platonic friendship.
The relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as loving heterosexual relationships in the Hebrew Testament: e.g. 'ahavah or אהבה (see Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon, Hebrew word #160; Gen. 29:20; 2 Sam. 13:15; Pro. 5:19; Sgs. 2:4-7; Sgs. 3:5-10; Sgs. 5:8) When they are alone together, David confides that he has "found grace in Jonathan's eyes", a phrase normally referring to Romantic or physical attraction. Throughout the passages, David and Jonathan consistently affirm and reaffirm their love and devotion to each other. Jonathan is willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David.
The covenant made between the two men strengthens a romantic rather than political or platonic interpretation of their relationship. At their first meeting, Jonathan strips himself before the youth, handing him his clothing, armor, and weapons, remaining naked before him[citation needed]. This is when they first make their covenant, not long after their first meeting (1 Sam. 18:3-4). Each time they reaffirm the covenant, love (though not necessarily sexual in nature) is the only justification provided. Additionally, it should be observed that the covenants and affectionate expressions were made in private, like a personal bond, rather than publicly as would a political bond.
The fact that David refers to Jonathan as "brother" does not necessarily signify a platonic relationship. "Brother" was often used as a term of romantic, even erotic, affection in some ancient Mediterranean societies, and the word "sister" is used many times in the bible to represent a bride or a loved woman. For instance, "brother" is used to indicate long-term homosexual relationships in the Satyricon (eg. 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, 25, 79, 80, 91, 97, 101, 127, 130, 133), in the poetry of Catullus (Poem No. 100) and Martial (ie. 2.4, 7.24, 10.65), and in Apuleius' The Golden Ass (8.7). "From the middle of the second millennium B.C.E. ... it became usual for commoner husbands [in parts of the Mediterranean] to call their wives 'sister'" when they were in fact not siblings[3].
Although David was married, David himself articulates a distinction between his relationship with Jonathan and the bonds he shares with women. David is married to many women, one of whom is Jonathan's sister Michal, but the Bible does not mention David loving Michal (though it is stated that Michal loves David). He explicitly states, on hearing of Jonathan's death, that his love for Jonathan "passes the love of women" (2 Sam. 1:25-26). Furthermore, social customs in the ancient Mediterranean basin, did not preclude extramarital homoerotic relationships. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Books of Samuel, depicts a remarkably similar homoerotic relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
I don't need an "Adam and Steve" myth, because I understand that homosexuality is a perfectly natural facet of human evolution... that arises perfectly naturally out of heterosexual relationships.
In other words, even if God really did create Adam and Eve just like Genesis says, then he included in that creation a recessive homosexual gene that gave rise to homosexual and/or bisexual decendants.
Or did God Create every part of Adam and Eve EXCEPT the genetic predisposition to homosexuality?
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
Ok that’s your view and not a Christian one, please stick to the topic, this thread is for Biblical support for gay sex not your disbelief of the Bible.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Nothing non-Christian about having a basic understanding of biology and evolution.
So you're wrong, again.
But as for the topic, which you seem awfully happy to disregard when it suits you, I have cited numerous Biblical passages that support homosexual unions.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
You are offering an assumption in response to direct references.
My assumption is that if one saw a homosexual relationship here it would be because they wanted to see it from pre-existing notions. Even from contemporary history we see Roman centurions didnt always have sexual relations with slaves and did so more with slaves than servants, they did so because the passive acts was considered demeaning, so one would assume if the centurion was fond of the slave there was no pederasty.
Secondly the centurion was sympathetic to the Jews and vice versa, which suggests this wouldnt have been pederasty.
Ok thats your assumptions cancelled out by mine. And I think my assumption is far more convincing.
We have been through this and my assumption is that there in no difference between the love each other had and the love Jesus and His disciples had. David is not recorded as sinning in same sex, but in murder and adultery. David is recorded as seeing a woman as attractive and sleeping with her and marrying women If the writer needed to describe David and Jonathan finding each other attractive sexually and sleeping together the writer could have done so, but the writer didnt.
The idea that the relationship was romantic is also somewhat additional as the thread question is specifically about gay sex.
That the term "brother" does not necessarily signify a platonic relationship. Also does not necessarily signify a sexual relationship. Reference to extra-Biblical contemporary history such as the Satyricon is only useful to a point as it is not Jewish anyway, David and Jonathan were.
But you yourself admit Davids marriage to Michal or his other women is not described as loving, yet he did sleep with them, so how can you assume love might be sexual?
In short thats your assumptions cancelled out by mine. And I think my assumption is far more convincing. But I could offer loads of assumptions, what we want is direct references.
I suggest that is entirely what you are doing based on the evidence.
Thats an assumption, there is no indication of that.
You are offering an assumption in response to direct references.
My assumption is that if one saw a homosexual relationship here it would be because they wanted to see it from pre-existing notions. Even from contemporary history we see Roman centurions didnt always have sexual relations with slaves and did so more with slaves than servants, they did so because the passive acts was considered demeaning, so one would assume if the centurion was fond of the slave there was no pederasty.
Secondly the centurion was sympathetic to the Jews and vice versa, which suggests this wouldnt have been pederasty.
Ok thats your assumptions cancelled out by mine. And I think my assumption is far more convincing.
Well thats another assumption.
We have been through this and my assumption is that there in no difference between the love each other had and the love Jesus and His disciples had. David is not recorded as sinning in same sex, but in murder and adultery. David is recorded as seeing a woman as attractive and sleeping with her and marrying women If the writer needed to describe David and Jonathan finding each other attractive sexually and sleeping together the writer could have done so, but the writer didnt.
The idea that the relationship was romantic is also somewhat additional as the thread question is specifically about gay sex.
That the term "brother" does not necessarily signify a platonic relationship. Also does not necessarily signify a sexual relationship. Reference to extra-Biblical contemporary history such as the Satyricon is only useful to a point as it is not Jewish anyway, David and Jonathan were.
But you yourself admit Davids marriage to Michal or his other women is not described as loving, yet he did sleep with them, so how can you assume love might be sexual?
In short thats your assumptions cancelled out by mine. And I think my assumption is far more convincing. But I could offer loads of assumptions, what we want is direct references.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
But as for the topic, which you seem awfully happy to disregard when it suits you, I have cited numerous Biblical passages that support homosexual unions.
__________________
So you are wrong again as the thread isnt about basic biology whether you like it or not, and basic biology is that the man and the woman aere identified by their sexes, their sexual organs and not their sexual attractions, so homosexual is biological dysfunction.
But as for the topic, which you seem awfully happy to disregard when it suits you, I have cited numerous Biblical passages that support homosexual unions.
__________________
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Homosexuality is not biological dysfunction, and homosexuals are still identified as men and women by their sex organs
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
There are no direct references to homosexual unions in the bible at all. all we are left with is assumption and deduction.
And assumption and logical deduction don't lead to homosexual condemnation for any reason I can see.
Why would God have a problem with homosexual unions?
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
But whilst that is irrelevant to the thread which is about Biblical support for gay sex, God created man and woman not heterosexual or homosexual which suggests homosexuality as a dysfunction is a Godly view as well.
that’s just an unsupported claim again. I believe homosexuality is biologically dysfunctional as the male sex organ is designed biologically for the female one to reproduce, so same-sex attraction is biologically dysfunctional.
But whilst that is irrelevant to the thread which is about Biblical support for gay sex, God created man and woman not heterosexual or homosexual which suggests homosexuality as a dysfunction is a Godly view as well.
Rubbish, men and woman are identified by their sex organs a man with a penis could be heterosexual or homosexual according to your claim.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To EnemyPartyII
In short that’s your assumptions cancelled out by mine. And I think my assumption is far more convincing. But I could offer loads of assumptions, what we want is direct references.
In short that’s your assumptions cancelled out by mine. And I think my assumption is far more convincing. But I could offer loads of assumptions, what we want is direct references.
Of course there are, men lusting after men instead of women and committing indecent acts with other men is homosexual not heterosexual.
Why would He not have? He created woman for man as Jesus said, so I should think that’s pretty obvious.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Um... a man with a penis CAN be heterosexual or homosexual... what did you think?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
