Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[darkshadow]

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.

I will give thumbs up to who ever I want. The act of homosexuality is spoke about in the Bible as being a sin in God's eyes. If you believe it does not well that is something you have to deal with. I do have a question, what authority do you have to tell everyone you are right because you don't like what the Bible says, so it means this instead?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

as long as these beliefs are used to condemn and oppress marginal groups of people.

This is another example of why the essence of these debates on homosexuality are not about homosexuallity but an attack on the Christian faith, which is against the guidlines.
Jesus said all can come to Him John 6:37 "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." So there are no groups Jesus drives away, if you think you are part of a group that Jesus oppresses then you deny what Jesus says; and you have made up your own group. But Jesus went to the outcasts and even said to some of them go an sin no more. John 8. Jesus taught that unless we repent we will also perish Luke 13:3 for sin leads to death, John 8, BUT there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, John 3:17-18. Those in Christ Jesus are the ones who obey Him John 15.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

To KCKID,
This is another example of why the essence of these debates on homosexuality are not about homosexuallity but an attack on the Christian faith, which is against the guidlines.

Brightmorningstar:

Please realize that disagreement is not the same as attack. Also note that there is a certain variety in Christian thought and belief. As Christians, you and I have certain beliefs and values in common. These are the central tenets of the faith as expressed in the historic creeds. At least I assume that you affirm the Nicene Creed since that is sort of the minimum standard for these forums. What you and I disagree about are some issues concerning homosexuality, about which the creeds say not one word. Oh, I think we also disagree about the proper interpretation of Scripture, another subject on which the creeds are silent.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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

No, thats not what I'm saying at all.

I'm acknowledging that we Christians have as much EVIDENCE for our religion as Hindus have for theirs.

I BELIEVE that we are correct, but I acknowledge this belief is built on FAITH, which is NOT the same thing as PROOF, or even evidence.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I will give thumbs up to who ever I want. The act of homosexuality is spoke about in the Bible as being a sin in God's eyes. If you believe it does not well that is something you have to deal with. I do have a question, what authority do you have to tell everyone you are right because you don't like what the Bible says, so it means this instead?

Actually, the only passages in the Bible that even remotely touch on the matter are not discussing homosexual acts as a whole, but rather a very specific subset of homosexual acts, to wit, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts as a form of idol worship.

I have no problem with a condemnation of such acts, however, I see no reason to condemn mutually consentual, loving, monogomous homosexual relationships based on the same passages.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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.
__________________

Except that homosexual relationships are perfectly normal. They are the only form of fulfilling relationship available to 5% of the population, universally, across all representative human populations, and also exist in all higher order mammals.

So... normally DO exist.

 

[KCKID]

I will give thumbs up to who ever I want.

Fair enough.

The act of homosexuality is spoke about in the Bible as being a sin in God's eyes.

In MENS eyes ...maybe. Some are not as convinced of this as are others. You cannot, I'm sure, prove to me that men of the Bible spoke for God. Maybe they did but you cannot prove it. What occurs on this subforum is that some become annoyed simply because others are not as convinced that the Bible is the word of God as THEY are. It really DOES come back to 'you believe as I do or you're wrong'. Is this situation as was intended by God?

If you believe it does not well that is something you have to deal with.

What, precisely, do I have to deal with just because I don't believe as you do on this issue? Do you realize that that sounds sort of arrogant?

I do have a question, what authority do you have to tell everyone you are right because you don't like what the Bible says, so it means this instead?

Don't be silly. I have not said that I don't like what the Bible says on the homosexual issue. I DO believe that the issue of homosexuality has become a HUGE Christian beat-up, however. And, an unnecessary one at that. I don't AGREE with the average CHRISTIAN on this issue and THAT is the big difference! There are, however, any number of things that I personally don't like about what the Bible says, specifically as found in the Old Testament. Don't YOU have questions about the Bible, darkshadow, or is everything crystal clear to you?

 

[Dogbean]

Actually, the only passages in the Bible that even remotely touch on the matter are not discussing homosexual acts as a whole, but rather a very specific subset of homosexual acts, to wit, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts as a form of idol worship.

I have no problem with a condemnation of such acts, however, I see no reason to condemn mutually consentual, loving, monogomous homosexual relationships based on the same passages.

I still disagree with you here. One of the verses I gave you, from the NT, said both "homosexual" and "sodomites." Sodomites is obviously people performing anal sex. That would appear to leave lesbians out, at first glance, but I don't think so, because Paul said "homosexuals" as well. To me, those two words, combined later with sexual immorality and fornication, tells me that God only approves of male to female vaginal sex between a man and a woman. The only other sexual act that I could possibly endorse that does not seem to fit into any of those categories is oral sex between a husband and a wife.

 

[darkshadow]

Fair enough.



In MENS eyes ...maybe. Some are not as convinced of this as are others. You cannot, I'm sure, prove to me that men of the Bible spoke for God. Maybe they did but you cannot prove it. What occurs on this subforum is that some become annoyed simply because others are not as convinced that the Bible is the word of God as THEY are. It really DOES come back to 'you believe as I do or you're wrong'. Is this situation as was intended by God?





What, precisely, do I have to deal with just because I don't believe as you do on this issue? Do you realize that that sounds sort of arrogant?

So you are telling us all that you are a "the Bible is wrong in some areas, and those speaking for God are not really speaking for God, christian, correct? Hmm...who sounds arrogant?

Don't be silly. I have not said that I don't like what the Bible says on the homosexual issue. I DO believe that the issue of homosexuality has become a HUGE Christian beat-up, however. And, an unnecessary one at that. I don't AGREE with the average CHRISTIAN on this issue and THAT is the big difference! There are, however, any number of things that I personally don't like about what the Bible says, specifically as found in the Old Testament. Don't YOU have questions about the Bible, darkshadow, or is everything crystal clear to you?

"I have not said that I don't like what the Bible says on the homosexual issue.", and "There are, however, any number of things that I personally don't like about what the Bible says, specifically as found in the Old Testament" That sure does sound contradictory to me. "I agree with the Bible, but I don't agree with the Bible." Is that like "I voted for it before I voted against it", or "I smoked marijuana but I did not inhale", I'm confused?

I do have questions and I do the research as in prayer, the wording, the original language meanings whether Aramaic or Greek, the context, the noun verb relationship, what other verses say on the subject, different concordances for others opinions, look at the verse in other translations to see if there is a common denominator, along with other criteria. I do not say, "Hey that does not fit my agenda said this way, so I will make it say this" as some do. Does that mean I am always right? Nope. I use the scientific method, this is what I think it says, now the proof. It either says what I thought, or I am proven wrong, either way I learn something.

 

[KCKID]

So you are telling us all that you are a "the Bible is wrong in some areas, and those speaking for God are not really speaking for God, christian, correct? Hmm...who sounds arrogant?

I don't want this to appear to be a 'tit for tat' type of responding but I do need to make one or two things clear ...you understand? What I DO believe is that the Bible is very much misunderstood by many people. I also believe that it is a very much misinterpreted book. Religiosity is often the factor behind that. AND, since the Bible WAS written by humans I'm sure that the Bible also contains many elements of 'human-ness' and THAT means imperfection. And, why not? Otherwise would not God have chosen to write the Bible Himself? But, He didn't and we all know that. At least, I hope we do.

This is what I believe about the Bible and I fail to see why this belief somehow makes me arrogant.

"I have not said that I don't like what the Bible says on the homosexual issue.", and "There are, however, any number of things that I personally don't like about what the Bible says, specifically as found in the Old Testament" That sure does sound contradictory to me. "I agree with the Bible, but I don't agree with the Bible." Is that like "I voted for it before I voted against it", or "I smoked marijuana but I did not inhale", I'm confused?

I don't believe that GOD has much or even anything to say about homosexuality per se. I really don't. MEN of the Bible might have something to say on the issue, however. I don't know. The Bible uses some very archaic language and terminology which, to my ear, isn't very 'user' friendly. Some of the people on this forum have a lot to say against homosexuality as per their understanding of certain archaic scriptures but I simply see them as humans and certainly not as mouth-pieces for God. Understand?

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again since I'm making a point. The writers of the Old Testament don't paint a very good picture of God. Many Christians seem to have no problem with God being little more than a cruel tyrant in the OT but I can't warm to someone like that. I just can't. I guess it's just in my nature. Jesus, however, I can connect to. That Jesus is said to be a part of the god-head matters little to me. If God came to earth as Jesus in human form then I can identify with Him in human form. I sure can't relate to Him in spiritual form. Then again, it seems to be all in the writing of the authors. Of course I don't agree with ALL of the Bible. Why should I? Does it make my Christianity somewhat questionable if I admit to this? On the other hand, I agree with just as much as I disagree with. It's a BOOK for heaven (pardon the pun) sakes.

I do have questions and I do the research as in prayer, the wording, the original language meanings whether Aramaic or Greek, the context, the noun verb relationship, what other verses say on the subject, different concordances for others opinions, look at the verse in other translations to see if there is a common denominator, along with other criteria. I do not say, "Hey that does not fit my agenda said this way, so I will make it say this" as some do. Does that mean I am always right? Nope. I use the scientific method, this is what I think it says, now the proof. It either says what I thought, or I am proven wrong, either way I learn something.

That's cool. By the way, I am not 'gay' so I have no agenda in which to make the pieces fit. I just feel that Christians are giving 'gay' people an unnecessary bum rap. I believe that God will judge the heart of the individual ...NOT who they so happened to 'make out' with. THAT, surely, is immaterial in the great scheme of things ...?

 

[OllieFranz]

I still disagree with you here. One of the verses I gave you, from the NT, said both "homosexual" and "sodomites." Sodomites is obviously people performing anal sex. That would appear to leave lesbians out, at first glance, but I don't think so, because Paul said "homosexuals" as well. To me, those two words, combined later with sexual immorality and fornication, tells me that God only approves of male to female vaginal sex between a man and a woman. The only other sexual act that I could possibly endorse that does not seem to fit into any of those categories is oral sex between a husband and a wife.

Actually that verse says "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai." Each word is only used one other time in the New Testament. Malakos, which means "soft," is used in Matthew 11:18 and Luke 7:25 (both quoting Jesus' words in the same incident) contrasting John the Baptizer's rough life and coarse clothing to the luxury and finery of palace courtiers. So "fops" or "wastrels" would probably be a better translation than "homosexuals."

Arsenokotes is a word that only appears -- in all of Greek literature -- in the two Bible passages (1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11), and in similar Christian sin-lists which were cleary inspired by these verses. Without any context, it is impossible to be certain what the word meant to Paul. I am willing to accept that he used it to refer to those who broke the Levitical command, based on the similarity to the LXX translation of Leviticus 20:13.

But that begs the question of why Paul coined a new word to describe the sin, rather than just use an existing Greek word. As I pointed out in another thread, he obviously did not think any of the existing words fit the sin he was describing. I don't know whether it is because they do not include the idea of force or coersion (that is, rape) or because they do not include the "abominable" aspect of idolatry, or if it is because the sin one only Jews can commit, because the command was given to the Hebrew people as one of the ways they were to stand out apart from the "nations." But whichever it was, he makes it clear that not all "homosexual acts" are included in the condemnation.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Tackleberry and Dark Shadow,
Acn we get these guys telling us where form the Bible they get their ideas, ie Biblical support for gay sex, the other threads are for them to display their doubts and disbelief of the Biblical condemnations of gay sex. Their whole argument is based on if they deny the condemnations they can propose the opposite as not being mentioned.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To regularguy,
Thanks for your reply.

Please realize that disagreement is not the same as attack.

Of course but the poster is basically disagreeing with the Bible which Christians believe is the word of God and sufficient in matters of faith and conduct. But my other point remains, this is another example of why the essence of these debates on homosexuality are not about homosexuallity but about the Christian faith,

Also note that there is a certain variety in Christian thought and belief.

That’s your opinion, please note in my opinion there isn’t such a variety as such disbelief in the Bible.
The base statement of faith here is the Nicene Creed taken from the scriptures. It doesn’t mean that just those bits are true and the rest is based on ‘superstition and archaic culture/beliefs’

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Actually, the only passages in the Bible that even remotely touch on the matter are not discussing homosexual acts as a whole, but rather a very specific subset of homosexual acts, to wit, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts as a form of idol worship.

I think we have shown that isn’t the case.

We have seen passages that countenance man and woman union as God’s creation which excludes same sex unions, and passages that condemn same-sex union outright as things God’s people don’t do.
What we haven’t seen is any scripture to countenance

mutually consentual, loving, monogomous homosexual relationships

All we have seen from you is assumptions and they don’t work as David married so that wasn’t a such a relationship, we can equally assume the centurion had a wife so that’s the end of your argument there.
Can you show us where in the Bible there is a consensual loving monogamous homosexual relationship.

 

[darkshadow]

I don't want this to appear to be a 'tit for tat' type of responding but I do need to make one or two things clear ...you understand? What I DO believe is that the Bible is very much misunderstood by many people. I also believe that it is a very much misinterpreted book. Religiosity is often the factor behind that. AND, since the Bible WAS written by humans I'm sure that the Bible also contains many elements of 'human-ness' and THAT means imperfection. And, why not? Otherwise would not God have chosen to write the Bible Himself? But, He didn't and we all know that. At least, I hope we do.

He did not write it that I agree, except that he did speak to those who did right it and many were witnesses to what they wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." It does not say some, but all. Are the translations skewed with human intentions? Yes, but that is why we are to look at the original languages. Most of your early translations had the Roman church, and Kings involved with there translations. We now, however have better translations. Are they perfect? No, but they still have the same meanings in most cases. Again that is why you never use just one version and you look at the original lanuages. The only reason I stress the lanuage issue is that I once was a "this is what it says believe it" person, now, after really getting into the book myself years ago, I do my own research, and do not just believe what I am told. Since our entire belief system is on the basis of faith, to a point, why would God just write it himself kind of puts a bias on the whole free choice issue does it not.

This is what I believe about the Bible and I fail to see why this belief somehow makes me arrogant.

You might not mean to, but it does sound arrogant to say, "I'm sure that the Bible also contains many elements of 'human-ness' and THAT means imperfection. And, why not? Otherwise would not God have chosen to write the Bible Himself? But, He didn't and we all know that. At least, I hope we do." and, "Of course I don't agree with ALL of the Bible. Why should I?" It sounds very arragant, and in other posts you have sounded maybe not arrogant but an illetest. I am not saying this with any malace or anger, just as informational. I know I can get a little heated myself and let my temper get to me, something I pray and work on everyday. Lets face it we are supposed to humble ourselves before the Lord, but no one likes to be humbled or told they are wrong. I think we can agree on that. I think we can also agree, that we both can get a little self-righteous and forget that we are not in charge, but God is. I know I do.

I don't believe that GOD has much or even anything to say about homosexuality per se. I really don't. MEN of the Bible might have something to say on the issue, however. I don't know. The Bible uses some very archaic language and terminology which, to my ear, isn't very 'user' friendly. Some of the people on this forum have a lot to say against homosexuality as per their understanding of certain archaic scriptures but I simply see them as humans and certainly not as mouth-pieces for God. Understand?

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again since I'm making a point. The writers of the Old Testament don't paint a very good picture of God. Many Christians seem to have no problem with God being little more than a cruel tyrant in the OT but I can't warm to someone like that. I just can't. I guess it's just in my nature. Jesus, however, I can connect to. That Jesus is said to be a part of the god-head matters little to me. If God came to earth as Jesus in human form then I can identify with Him in human form. I sure can't relate to Him in spiritual form. Then again, it seems to be all in the writing of the authors. Of course I don't agree with ALL of the Bible. Why should I? Does it make my Christianity somewhat questionable if I admit to this? On the other hand, I agree with just as much as I disagree with. It's a BOOK for heaven (pardon the pun) sakes.

I agree also that God is more of a vengefull God in the OT, as he says he is in the commandments, but I also think we have to look at what was going on at that time. What if Moses would have given up? Noah didn't build the Ark when told too? Job would have given in to Satan? God had to be stricter with them then, just as our parents are strict with us when we were younger. Tough love, then he said, "Okay, let me make it easier for you" and sent his son. What love, same God, just different side, but the book of Revelation tells us he is not a little loving "puppy", but a God who will judge.

That's cool. By the way, I am not 'gay' so I have no agenda in which to make the pieces fit. I just feel that Christians are giving 'gay' people an unnecessary bum rap. I believe that God will judge the heart of the individual ...NOT who they so happened to 'make out' with. THAT, surely, is immaterial in the great scheme of things ...?

I did not mean agenda as in a gay agenda, more of an I don't want it to say that agenda. We all have a tendency, again, not to like to be told we're wrong even by God. As I said before I don't. You believe one way, I believe another. Do those beliefs cause one of us to go to Hell? I do not believe so, we are each juded on are own "merits" if you will. In other words I to agree in the great scheme of things it is not in my hands. I would also like to point out that I have never condemed a homosexual person, just the act, and have pointed out that it is no more a sin, my believing that the act is a sin, then any other sin. There are to many "christians" who think its the only sin out there. Funny the church only would have fought this hard when school prayer, and creationism were under attack. Oh well. I would also like to say, Even though I do not agree with your position I have respect for the fire and passion you have when it comes to your beliefs. Even if they are wrong. LOL.

 

[Kerwin]

Actually that verse says "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai.

I read what you wrote and then studied the actual words. Malakoi like you said does mean soft but it also has a slang meaning basically equivalent to pansy ie an effeminate male. Arsenokoitai is a compound word when broken down becomes “arreen” which means man or male and “koite” meaning bed which is slang for sexual intercourse. In other words Paul was probably addressing both the male and female partner in a gay relationship. Some believe arsenokoitai means homosexuals in general.

I doubt very much that being a fop would be considered a sin though being a wastrel very well would be. Still I have heard of no connection of the Greek word Malakoi to them except the connection you just made.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Kerwin,

Arsenokoitai is a compound word when broken down becomes “arreen” which means man or male and “koite” meaning bed which is slang for sexual intercourse. In other words Paul was probably addressing both the male and female partner in a gay relationship. Some believe arsenokoitai means homosexuals in general.

Most people know and acknowledge arsenokoites means same sex union. But your statement is illogical. Firstly, male bed hardly means female when 1 Corinthians 6 notes fornication (pornos) which breaks the man woman union (Matt 19) and adultery (moichos) which breaks the man/woman union as well as malakos and arsenokoites. Arsenokites as male bed obviously means same sex union. Both words can be seen as taken from the Septuagint, Leviticus 18 and 20 a man shall not lie with another man as with a women. It is no accident that it is translated variously sodomite, men abusers of themselves with mankind and in modern terms homosexual/homosexual offender, the idea that it isn’t hasn’t stood up to scrutiny. Secondly could you explain what you mean by both the male and female partner in a gay relationship? What is a gay relationship? Gay means having same sex attraction, so a gay relationship must mean a same sex attraction relationship, or a same sex relationship. You cant have male and female in a same sex relationship.

But we are looking for Biblical support for gay sex, (same sex acts) not whether you believe the condemnations or not.

 

[OllieFranz]

And once again, BMS, you show that you are so quick to attack anything you don't understand. You saw that Kerwin broke down the parts of arsenokoites and used the word female in the same paragraph and launched into an attack, without bothering to work out the fact that he agrees with you.

He was trying to counter my post. But unlike some who argue about the meaning of arsenokoites, I am willing to accept that Paul may have had the LXX translation of Leviticus 20:13, so his point on that issue is moot.

He did not connect koites with female, but was making a totally separate point about malakos. Female was a poor choice of words on his part, since (I believe) he was actually referring to an effeminate male. I don't agree with his point, but even if we were to assume malakos referred to effeminate male prostitutes, would they have been any less of sinners or of prostitutes if they had been female prostitutes, or butch male prostitutes? Is not prostitution sin enough to get them listed?

 

[KCKID]

I would also like to say, Even though I do not agree with your position I have respect for the fire and passion you have when it comes to your beliefs. Even if they are wrong. LOL.

Thanks for the response, darkshadow. I appreciate it. And yes, I could be wrong.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz,

You saw that Kerwin broke down the parts of arsenokoites and used the word female in the same paragraph and launched into an attack, without bothering to work out the fact that he agrees with you.

Ah yes I see. Well my apologies to Kerwin, he holds the majority and Christian view and thanks to you my friend for pointing that out, I appreciate it. J