Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[EnemyPartyII]

God is a creative creator, and he designed our bodies to honor him, not to honor ourselves in fulfilling our lusts. Procreation or not, we are made in his imagine, and when people commit homosexuality, they defile the image of God and sin against their own bodies.

God made humans with bodies "designed" to honour him.

Well, fine, lets say he did. What makes you think homosexual unions don't honour him?

 

[RMDY]

Yes.

Among others, Jonathon and David, the sermon on the mount, the Centurian and his servant, and the letter to the Galatians that states that men and women are the same before God (i.e. gender doesn't matter to God, therefore he doesn't care about the gender makeup of a committed relationship)

Oh how I love it when people bring this up! It gets me all excited to refute this argument!

Among others, Jonathon and David

They were not gay. Jonathon was honoring David.

the sermon on the mount

Does not suppose homosexuality. Care to explain how you believe the sermon supports homosexuality?

and the letter to the Galatians that states that men and women are the same before God

Jews and gentiles are also equal before God as well? So are slaves and freemen. This verse does not support homosexuality but promotes equality before God as a result of the cross of christ---because everyone in christ now becomes a holy nation, a people (reference from letters Peter wrote).

therefore he doesn't care about the gender makeup of a committed relationship)

Orange fruit is also called a color, therefore, the color orange is also a fruit!



God does care about gender, that is why he created us differently. And there is a law to design: there is a laws to math, to science, to authority, to the church, to government, to sports, to everything that has order and a cause. And likewise, there are kinds of laws (not moses but order) that exist between men and women, men and men, and women and women, and to break them is to create disorder. Homosexuality is a kind of disorder---a sin---one that defiles yourself and dishonors God.

 

[RMDY]

God made humans with bodies "designed" to honour him.

Well, fine, lets say he did. What makes you think homosexual unions don't honour him?

Think about it, the design of our bodies; can two keys fit together? Can two locks unlock a door themselves? No, both were designed for each other---a lock and a key---not for themselves. They were created that way.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

They were not gay. Jonathon was honoring David.

Honouring his brains out... if they weren't romantically linked, why does all the language refer to them in romantic terms?

Does not suppose homosexuality. Care to explain how you believe the sermon supports homosexuality?

Sure. The whole love one anothewrs as yourself bit. To me, that translates as "Consider yourselves in the position of the other person in all things to determine if your actions are righteous"

And if you do this, it is impossible to condemn homosexuals. Murderers, thieves, adulterers, tax cheats... they all fail the "would I like it if I was in the other guy's shoes" test. Homosexuality does not.

God does care about gender, that is why he created us differently. And there is a law to design: there is a laws to math, to science, to authority, to the church, to government, to sports, to everything that has order and a cause. And likewise, there are kinds of laws (not moses but order) that exist between men and women, men and men, and women and women, and to break them is to create disorder. Homosexuality is a kind of disorder---a sin---one that defiles yourself and dishonors God.

Except that homosexuals are, to use your word "designed" to be homosexuals. So to be anything else would be going against "God's purpose"

Think about it, the design of our bodies; can two keys fit together? Can two locks unlock a door themselves? No, both were designed for each other---a lock and a key---not for themselves. They were created that way.

Um, homosexuals fit together perfectly well, thank you very much. If you want to use the "argument from design" here, the anal orgasmic nerve endings and the exposed female [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] make the most sense viewed from a homosexual design perspective.

Not to mention that the size of the human ball indicates it was "designed" to function in a polyamarous, infedelitous social group... which is a whol other arguement, of course. But my point is that if we work only off apparent "design", then there are all sorts of things that you wouldn't approve of that we should apparently be doing.

 

[Dogbean]

I don't believe that procreation is the sole purpose God has for people. Sounds like a pretty sad way to look at life if thatsd all you see people as.

You'll probably view this as egotistical and selfish on God's part too, but man's chief end is to glorify God. How do we do that? Doing what He says. He says don't have gay sex. Therefore, refraining from gay sex will glorify God.

 

[Dogbean]

God made humans with bodies "designed" to honour him.

Well, fine, lets say he did. What makes you think homosexual unions don't honour him?

Because He said not to do it!

On an old board I was on they had a smiley bashing itself into a brick wall. I need that here.

 

[Dogbean]

Honouring his brains out... if they weren't romantically linked, why does all the language refer to them in romantic terms?

What romantic terms? Quote it for us, and I'll answer.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You'll probably view this as egotistical and selfish on God's part too, but man's chief end is to glorify God. How do we do that? Doing what He says. He says don't have gay sex. Therefore, refraining from gay sex will glorify God.

Hey, I agree that doing what God says glorifies God...

But here's the issue. I don't believe God says "don't have gay sex"

All my (admitedly, potentially biased) academic studies indicate that the closest the original language of the Bible comnes to saying anything remotely like this, is condemning pagan idolatrous sexual ceremonies... which simply are chalk and cheese to monogomous, loving, homosexual relationships.

As I've stated repeatedly, just saying "The Bible SEZ!" Is not enough of an argument to pursuade me to give up a significant part of my life and identity. I don't believe God gives us illogical or unjust commands. So, really simply put, until or unless someone can come up with a logical and justifiable reason not to have "gay sex", I'm just not going to believe that its a command from God.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What romantic terms? Quote it for us, and I'll answer.

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.

Simply put, the description of Jonathon and David's relationship is in terms that had a sexual connotation at the time they were written, when perfectly good non-sexual phrases were available.

Seems an odd choice for the author to make, if not trying to tell us they were romantically linked, nes pas?

 

[darkshadow]

So he had the Israelites kill them, including their children? Well, at least the children could die happily, knowing that they weren't being sacrificed to false gods!

So why didn't he just send a prophet to convert them?

So why do some people, like me, feel exclusively homosexual feelings?

To answer this I will have to break a forum rule, namely that no-one on these forums may promote any viewpoint except the Christian. However, if the moderators will allow me:

First, atheism is not a religion. It is a denial that god exists. (Someone has wittily said: Atheism is a religion in the sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby.)
But why do I feel that atheism is right? Well, because there is no good evidence for the existence of any god. To say: 'God exists, because the Bible says so. The Bible is the word of God, because the Bible says so' is a circular argument.
Modern biology shows that there is no reason to postulate a designer (and lots of reasons not to postulate a designer).
Modern physics traces everything back to a single instant... there is no evidence that any intelligence caused the Big Bang.
The commandments of the various religions all look as if they were designed by very fallible (and in the case of the Abrahamic religions, ill-tempered and narrow-minded) human beings, not by a wise and benevolent supreme being.
SO, for these reasons, I am an atheist.

They had the Law of Moses, and guess what when you do the crime you do the time.
Regarding your evolution theory, Look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Fossil Records, enough said.

I have answered the rest of your rambling already but I will reply to your speech on atheism and it not being a religion.

1. The suffix -ism denotes a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine, or theory, that guides a social movement, institutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution, class, or group.
2. Definitions:
Religion - n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Atheism - n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Hinduism - n.A diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice native to and predominant in India, characterized by a belief in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and natures, by the view that opposing theories are aspects of one eternal truth, and by a desire for liberation from earthly evils.
Humanism - n.
A is a broad category of ethical philosophies http://www.answers.com/topic/ethics-legal-term that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality
Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of Humanism are compatible with some religions.
Christianity - n.
The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Christians as a group; Christendom.
The state or fact of being a Christian.
Sure sounds like a religion to be, full of beliefs, that and doctrine.

 

[darkshadow]

Even heterosexual sex is not primarily 'for' procreation, but for recreation (and intimacy). Otherwise there'd be no abortion clinics, and straight men would never buy condoms.

Are you ready for this...Wait for it.....
I agree with you in a since, God did create sex for enjoyment also.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

I don't believe that procreation is the sole purpose God has for people. Sounds like a pretty sad way to look at life if thatsd all you see people as.

It isn’t the sole purpose and bears no relation to what I wrote.
If you believed that God's creation purpose is woman to be united with man Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark, 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, Hebrews 13, and that celibacy is the alternative Matt 19, 1 Corinthians 7, and that same sex unions are error Gen 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1, you would be making the assumptions you are. As it is, adding my assumptions of those passages there are 20 passages against same sex unions as oppsoed to your 4 for.

This also applies with your response to Tackleberry.

Simply put, the description of Jonathon and David's relationship is in terms that had a sexual connotation at the time they were written, when perfectly good non-sexual phrases were available.

Tackleberry laid out in detail with references the assumption that David and Jonathan didn’t have any sex. That’s more than you have with your assumption, yet you seem to be offering 4 assumptions against at least a dozen direct exclusions and condemnations.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,
You wrote..

Must be nice when you find a book that supports your pre-existing views...

In response to

That is because all other religions are wrong! They don't have the way, the truth, and the life!

What was written was in the Bible, Jesus Christ said He is the way the truth and the life and no-one comes to the Father except by/through Him. So it’s an essential Christian view and we have a book to support it.

Of course, the fact is, that there is just as much empirical evidence supporting Hinduism as the way, truth and life as there is for Christianity. Faith is the only thing to tell them apart.

If one has faith in Jesus Christ as the only way one cant have faith in Hinduism as the way. Johnchapter14 and I have faith in Jesus Christ, you seem to have a pluralistic secular appreciation of both Jesus Christ and Hinduism.

Again the issue seems to be more about attacking Christian beliefs than homosexuality itself.

 

[darkshadow]

Again the issue seems to be more about attacking Christian beliefs than homosexuality itself.

AMEN, You are so right and on point.

 

[RMDY]

Must be nice when you find a book that supports your pre-existing views...

Of course, the fact is, that there is just as much empirical evidence supporting Hinduism as the way, truth and life as there is for Christianity. Faith is the only thing to tell them apart.

I hope your not being like Oprah here, and suggesting there is more than one way to God.

The bible clearly says gentiles, without christ, are separated from God.

The Way ---> They don't have the way to God because they do not have Jesus

The Truth ---> They do not know the gospel, and their faith is a lie, superstitution, or something from devils.

The Life ---> They have not accepted Jesus into their life.

Those are the three pillars of the christian faith. You have to accept them all---in the same way---that you have to accept that the earth is a circle, or how an orange is an orange, or how you read about the holocaust is evil.

I remember Hinduism teaches reincarnation and many gods, not just one---but many gods. And hinduism isn't really one exact faith but many, from I recall, over a time. You can be almost anything depending on the god you follow---> a monotheistic, a polytheistic, ect. What kind of a truth is that?

God is one...no two...no wait! Maybe the universe is God?










HUH?






You know another interesting thing about Hinduism is reincarnation (I recall somewhere it teaches this). Reincarnation can never purify oneself, because, it teaches that if we do bad things in our life, we reincarnate into something else in our next life as a way or purifying ourselves from our sins, to the point where we reincarnate so much we have no more sin! And that totally does not make sense. Can a rag become bleached again by itself? Can you divide 1 "x" number of times until it becomes zero? How about 2? How about 3, 4, even 5? Of course not! There will always be a sin if someone tries to purify it. And what more is that would mean you would have to live a sinless life! And that totally contrasts with the bible, which says no one is good, no not one and there is no one without sin---otherwise you'd be lying.

So there you have it, a few reasons why I believe Hinduism is not the way, the truth, nor the life.

 

[RMDY]

God made humans with bodies "designed" to honour him.

Well, fine, lets say he did. What makes you think homosexual unions don't honour him?

Excellent question =)

God says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord."
Isaiah 55:8

If you go by your feelings, you should think again:

"The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"
Jeremiah 17:9

For even God declared that "If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity"
Leviticus 5:17

So what I am saying is we do not naturally know God's way because are our hearts are deceitful and our ways are not God's ways. And if we do something we shouldn't do even if we don't know it, we still sinned.

For example, if you commit adultery, it is a sin whether you know it or not.

And likewise, I believe homosexuality is a sin in the bible whether you know it or not, accept it or reject it.

And since God created men male and female, for each other, there is a design there. To me, homosexual unions are counterfeit to a natural marriage between men and women------things that normally do not exist, but do, simply because of the way of mankind and not of God.

 

[RMDY]

Concerning David and Jonathan were passionate for each other, not because of eros, but because of agape---kind of like how Jesus is agape for us and we are for him. Agape is a love that surpasses the love of a women.

That is how we are able to love our enemies.

That is a kind of love that allowed a loving saviour to die for our sins and give us the gift of eternal life.

Jonathan was honoring David and exalting him over himself. That is why he gave the armor.

I urge you to go download e-sword and read the commentaries about those passages.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Concerning David and Jonathan were passionate for each other, not because of eros, but because of agape---kind of like how Jesus is agape for us and we are for him. Agape is a love that surpasses the love of a women.

I need to point out that you are making a distinction among Greek words and applying them to a Hebrew text.

I don't have any skill with Hebrew, but I thought it would be an interesting exercise to look up 1 Sam 18:1 in the LXX, to see which of the Greek words for love was used. Guess what? 1 Sam 18:1-5 aren't in the LXX.

So, I took a glim at the Strong's numbers for 1 Sam 18:1 in the Hebrew. I don't pretend that being able to use Strong's makes one an expert in the original languages of Scripture, but it can be a handy tool. Interestingly, the Hebrew for "love" in this verse is "ahab." The semantic range of "ahab" covers all sorts of affection, from "friendship" to "sexual affection".

Now, I'm not saying that this necessarily makes Jonathan and David gay lovers, but it does not preclude that possibility either. The language of the passage does seem romantically charged.

It might be worth noting that the verb "ahab" seems to have been a favorite word of the author of the Song of Solomon.

 

[Dogbean]

I urge you to go download e-sword and read the commentaries about those passages.

What is e-sword?

 

[KCKID]

Again the issue seems to be more about attacking Christian beliefs than homosexuality itself.

AMEN, You are so right and on point.

No way. Christian beliefs that are likely based on superstition and archaic culture/beliefs SHOULD be attacked as long as these beliefs are used to condemn and oppress marginal groups of people.

Please don't give the 'thumbs-up' to discrimination in the guise of Christianity.