My struggle on the Bible's beliefs about homosexuality

[SkyWriting]

10 Things Everyone Should Know About a Christian View of Homosexuality

What Does the Bible Say About Neighbors who are Women, Gay Men, Fat, Lazy, Lesbians, or Etc? - OpenBible.info

 

[DeaconDean]

From Bible.org

"Homosexuality is a controversial issue in many societies. For some it has become an equal rights issue to legalize same-sex marriage. For many it is also a religious and moral issue because it is addressed within the Bible. Debates, discussions, arguments, and, very sadly, sometimes even violence occurs from interactions on this issue.

For some this issue of the Biblical perspective on homosexuality has a merely academic attraction. This would perhaps be the person who is neither a Christian, nor a homosexual. The topic might not personally affect them, but since it is a current issue it is of interest. For others this is very personal. This would perhaps be the person identifying as a Christian, as a homosexual, or as a homosexual Christian. Regardless, this article is intended to be a gracious, loving, and truthful resource. In that manner then, this article will detail the Biblical-Christian view of homosexuality.1

It will not take long for the reader to uncover that the direction of this article will move towards the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin. With this designation a couple things need to be clearly stated to prevent any misunderstanding.

1. This author, all Christians, and all non-Christians have sinned and are sinners. Sadly this is one equality that all are fully involved in. It is not a unique situation.

2. This article presents the logical conclusions on how Christians should respond to this Biblical teaching on homosexuality. While it does not deal with every situation it does present the attitude and heart from which every response should come: grace and love. There is no room for any violence, insults, or mistreatment by Christians toward any other person. It is with genuine love and care for all my fellow human beings that this article has been written.

With that in mind, this article will look at homosexuality in the Old Testament, homosexuality in the New Testament, and Jesus’ teaching on sexuality –before finishing with some personal remarks. Each point will have its own concluding section. An additional question/answer section may be found after the main article. Likewise, further resources are provided for your consideration at the end of the article. See the table of contents below to quickly jump to a specific location.

I. Introduction

II. Homosexuality in the Old Testament

III. Homosexuality in the New Testament

IV. Jesus on Sexuality

V. Conclusion: Loving in Truth—My Background

VI. Questions and Answers

VII. ResourcesVIII. Detailed Table of Contents

II. Homosexuality in the Old Testament
In the Old Testament homosexuality is most explicitly discussed in four passages. Two are prohibitions in the law against homosexual activity. The other two are historical events: Sodom/Gomorrah and Gibeah. We will not attempt to answer every issue that could be raised about each text. This has already been done in a number of resources that will be referenced. However time will be taken to clearly establish the Bible’s viewpoint, and therefore the perspective that the Christian should hold. In Lev 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

This straightforward law prohibits all homosexual acts. It makes no distinctions as to whether or not they were consensual. It comes in the midst of a section of laws related to sexual relationships. No consequence is given here in each verse for the individual laws, but rather they are all listed as things that must not be done. All of the items in this chapter’s list are said to “defile” (Lev. 18:24) and are called “abominations” (Lev. 18:27, 30). In balance, homosexuality here is not singled out from among the rest of the sexual sins (which themselves are being highlighted), but is included with the rest. Likewise, those who break any of these laws are to be “cut off from the midst of their people” (Lev. 18:29). Lev. 18:24). Thus in the law homosexuality was an offense against God. It, along with the other sexual sins, was not to exist in Israel at all.

B. Leviticus 20:13, Punishment of Homosexuality in the Law
Lev 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

This straightforward law gives the consequences for homosexual acts as they were to be carried out under Israel’s theocratic government. It comes in the midst of a section detailing crime and punishment lists. This particular section deals with sexual offenses and their judgments.Leviticus 18. Thus in the law homosexuality was a sin against God that required capital punishment.2

C. Genesis 19:1-11, Sodom and Gomorrah
In Genesis 18:20-21 God declared that He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the “outcry…is so great and their sin so blatant.” When two angels went to see “if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests,” they were inhospitably treated by all of the inhabitants except Lot. Indeed all the men of the city tried desperately to rape them. Attempts have been made to see the sin here as only inhospitality, or of unnatural relations with angels. However the text nowhere points out that anyone in the city knew they were angels—instead they are called “men” by both the citizens and Lot (Gen. 19:5, and Gen. 19:8 respectively). Similarly, the face value reading that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah included not only inhospitality but also the homosexual activity is the best interpretation.3 Jude 1:7 corroborates this:

Jude 1:7 So also Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns, since they indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire in a way similar to these angels, are now displayed as an example by suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

While aspects of this verse (unnatural desires similar to angels) may raise questions, it definitely extends the sinful conduct beyond hospitality to sexual immorality. 4 The only sexual immorality that we are told of in Sodom and Gomorrah is the attempted homosexual acts against the angels (indeed, they scorned the effort to mollify them through the offer of heterosexual immorality—Gen. 19:9).

Judges 19 another example of inhospitality and attempted homosexual rape occurs. In this instance it is not all of the men of the city, but rather “some good-for-nothings.” Here, however, they were pacified with the man’s concubine who was sent out to them in his place. She died after their treatment of her.

These actions led to the first civil war in Israel’s history, and the near extinction of the tribe of Benjamin. This war was sanctioned by God’s approval after Gibeah refused to hand over the offending men for judgment (Judges 20:18; 20:23; 20:28; 20:35).

Like many real life issues today, the sin that resulted in all this seems to have been an array of actions. First, these men attempted to do a “wicked thing” and “know” these men sexually (19:22-23a).5 Secondly, to compound that, it was attempted on a person who was under the hospitality of another—a “disgraceful thing” (Judges 19:23b). Thirdly, they raped and abused the traveler’s concubine all night and caused her death (Judges 19:25-30). Fourthly, the rest of the tribe of Benjamin refused to turn these men over to punishment (Judges 20:13).

The brief re-telling of the story to the tribes (Judges 20:5) does not focus on the sexual side of the intent towards the traveler like the original event does (Judges 19:22-24). In the re-telling it seems that there was more of a focus on the actual offenses rather than on the intended ones. However, the attempt is included in the longer record of the event and distinctly labeled as wrong. Consequently, it is fully appropriate to see it as part of the events being judged. For 6

Thus, after the giving of the law, attempted homosexual rape was part of the sin that resulted in a God-sanctioned civil war.

Conclusion to Homosexuality in the Old Testament
Both before the law was given and then under the law, homosexuality was considered to be sin for Israelites and non-Israelites. This was true for consensual and non-consensual cases. It resulted in God’s judgment and death.

Before the law was given this was not the only incident of God directly judging the sinfulness of man on a large scale (cf. the far greater judgment of the flood in Genesis 6— which incidentally makes no mention of homosexual activity). Likewise, after the law was given, God’s acts of judgment occurred for other sins (cf. God’s judgment for idolatry and related sins: on Israel in 2 Kings 17, on the Assyrians in 2 Kings 19, and on Judah in 2 Kings 24-25).

Far from minimizing (or maximizing) any particular sin, this shows that God is active both in declaring many deeds to be sin and in punishing them all. There is no injustice with God. His actions were not limited to one particular sin, and many other examples from the Old Testament could be cited showing His involvement in dealing with sin. This emphasis on judgment for idolatry, homosexuality, and other sins should not surprise us since part of the purpose of the law was to reveal sin as sin, and God’s righteous standard as determinative (Rom. 7:7-14). It is possible, though, that the variety of sexual sins and their subsequent connection with idolatry may have been more strictly punished and warned against as a whole (cf. Lev. 18:24-30, and the judgments listed above).

However this is not where the story ends in the Old Testament. Many examples could likewise be cited of God’s grace: Noah and his family, Lot and his family, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Aaron, David (a prime example of grace to one whose sins deserved death under the law), the Acts 15:20; 15:29, 1 Thess. 4:3, Heb. 13:4, Rev. 21:8; 22:15). These commands would include homosexuality. However, homosexuality is most explicitly discussed in three passages. The first of these three discusses homosexuality at length. Whereas the last two are in lists of sins. Like the discussion in the Old Testament section this will not be an attempt to discuss every Rom 1:20-32 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. (21) For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. (22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. (24) Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. (25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

(26) For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, (27) and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (28) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. (29) They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. (32) Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

This text discusses homosexuality more extensively than any other New Testament passage. However, homosexuality is not the overarching theme of this section. Paul wants to clearly explain the gospel. To do that though, it is necessary to show that all people are under God’s judgment and condemnation—and thus in need of the gospel. He starts by declaring that because the testimony of God is visible in nature all are without excuse for their rebellion against Him. The just wrath of God is on all ungodliness (Rom. 1). Then he shows that in condemning the sin of others we actually condemn ourselves (Rom. 2). Likewise even the Jewish people with the law are still fully under God’s condemnation for their sin. Furthermore they are incapable of remedying the situation (Rom. 2-3). Thus it does not matter whether one is apart from the law or under it. All people stand condemned without partiality. This paves the way for explaining God’s grace in Jesus—which is the good news of the gospel. There is indeed one way of deliverance from this predicament.

So this section on homosexuality occurs in the portion showing why God’s wrath is upon humanity, and how humanity is inexcusable before Him. Before moving to the negative, Paul starts with the positive good news that he is intent on sharing. The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel which is received by faith (Rom. 1:17). By contrast the wrath of God is revealed as being upon the ungodliness of mankind (Rom. 1:18). Where is this ungodliness seen? Where is this suppressing of the truth seen? It is seen in the inexcusable idolatry of humanity. All have seen in creation the invisible attributes of God, His eternal power and nature (Rom. 1:19-20). However instead of worshipping the true creator, humanity moved to idolatry and worshipping creation (Rom. 1:23-25). The existence of nature demands that there be a designer. This truth is suppressed and turned to the worship of self or some other created thing. One of God’s judgments for this behavior is the turning over of humanity to their own sinful desires (Rom. 1:24). This giving over to sinfulness and its consequences specifically includes homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-28). It also includes a whole list of other sins more briefly mentioned (Rom. 1:29-32).

An objection has been proposed against this text’s discussion of homosexuality. It states that this passage only refers to heterosexuals committing homosexual acts (or the “abuses” of homosexuality), and that this would not apply if one’s “natural” desire was for the same sex and carried on monogamously (or in some kind of “marriage”). This does not hold up under examination. Paul is not talking about what is or has become “natural” desire. He is talking about function. God has designed men and women with functional capabilities. According to this text these capabilities are rebelled against through homosexual acts.7

From this text then, we see that homosexuality is an example of God having delivered people over to the consequences of having rebelled against Him. It is not the only sin listed, but is indeed the highlighted one. It seems that this example is given because homosexuality diametrically opposes the clear design of God. God made people in His image (Gen. 1:27) with a built in complementary design in the marriage of a male to a female (Gen. 2:22-25). To commit actions clearly opposite God’s plan at the nature level distinctly declare the reality of rebellion. It declares that God’s very design and plan were wrong and inadequate. As it is listed here, homosexuality and the rest of the sins listed, are a part of God’s immediate (though not final) judgment. Sin is a judgment upon itself—in that it reaps what it sows.8 Additionally, the willful exchange of the truth of God for a lie can result in God delivering people over to a depraved mind. One’s ability to reason or view things in an accurate moral way can be seriously impaired (Rom. 1:28).

However, lest any become self-righteous, Paul immediately moves on to showing that all are condemned under sin. Indeed, condemning the sin of others condemns oneself (Rom. 2:1-5). The only reason Paul can share any of this in a worthwhile way is because he is not relying on his own righteousness. He is relying on the righteousness of God. This has been given to him in Christ Jesus by the grace of God. He himself has been forgiven of his sin. The point was not to condemn others in order to justify himself. The point was to make clear the existence of sin for every individual so that the grace of God that had rescued him could be shared with fellow humans who needed deliverance just like he had needed it.

The same purpose and point that Paul had here in the book of Romans remains for Christians to share today. We too are fellow sinners. We too were under God’s full and immense wrath. I too am a sinner condemned by these truths. By God’s grace we may be forgiven. Yet even with that grace, in ourselves we are not any better than anyone else. We have nothing of which to boast. This shows God’s work to be that much more amazing. That He would love and redeem us while we were His enemies in such a deep rebellion against Him is almost incomprehensible. This same grace that has changed and is changing our lives and that will bring us eternity with God in a perfected existence is available to the whole world. No person, gender, race, nationality, ethnic group, 1 Cor. 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (10) thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (11) Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Some have raised questions about the two Greek words for homosexual activity in this verse. They would interpret them as referring only to a moral softness (μαλακος), and to a male prostitute (αρσενοκοιτης). However this kind of translation disagrees with the premier Biblical Greek Lexicon (BDAG).9 Beyond that it essentially disagrees with most (if not all) the other standard English lexicons and is not a good translation for these words here.10 Thus these words in context do refer to the two different roles in homosexual relationships.

Unequivocally then this is a strong and definitive statement about sin and its consequences as well as about the one way to be rescued from them. In this context Paul is powerfully reminding the Corinthian church that these kinds of behavior are not compatible with the kingdom of God. In this portion of the book Paul has been dealing with quite a number of behavioral and ethical problems that have been plaguing the church. Their former behaviors were influencing their lives presently in a completely inappropriate way. Apparently it had gotten so bad that Paul even challenged them in a following letter to examine themselves to see whether they had truly become believers (2 Cor. 13:5).

These sins in and of themselves were nothing that would keep them from truly accepting the grace of God and becoming children of God. However a continuation in them as a manner of life11 would be an indication that they were not truly believers and not going to inherit the kingdom of God (cf. 1 John 3). Quite helpfully for us today, this is a clear statement that some of the Corinthians had become believers out of that manner of life. This should lead us to at least two conclusions:

1. Like other sins, homosexual behavior may be forgiven. God’s grace is not limited by this or any other sin. As Romans 5:20 states:

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: (21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (KJV)

2. Since Christians have come out of such sins, they should be the ones most desirous to share God’s love with others. As 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 states:

So then, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; what is old has passed away — look, what is new has come! (18) And all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and who has given us the ministry of reconciliation. (19) In other words, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting people’s trespasses against them, and he has given us the message of reconciliation. (20) Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though 1 Tim. 1:8-15 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, (9) realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers — in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. (11) This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me. (12) I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry, (13) even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, (14) and our Lord’s grace was abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus. (15) This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” — and I am the worst of them!

In this list Paul points out the purpose of the law in contrast to the view of others who were misusing it (1 Tim. 1:6-7). The law reveals sinfulness and the need to be “saved.” In the examples that Paul then gives, homosexuality is clearly included as being unrighteous.12 As far as the hypothetical “righteous person” here (v. 9) it should be noted that Jesus was the only righteous person (Heb. 4:15, Rom. 3:10-24).

Some people may try to appear as if they were righteous. However this should not be confused with truly being righteous. They will receive the judgment of God, because it is His holy standard that is the measuring line. The only thing that they will accomplish with this attempt is that they will have in their own minds mentally removed themselves from the offer of God’s grace. How could it apply to them if they will not acknowledge their need?

This list of sinful activity includes homosexuality and many sins that might be considered by people to be the “worse” ones: killing parents, sexual immorality, kidnapping, profanity, and lawlessness. It is highly interesting that at the end of this list Paul says the bottom line is that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners and that he (Paul) was the worst of them. From what we know of Paul elsewhere in Scripture he was blameless in front of the righteousness of the law (Phil. 3:6).13 Paul may not have committed certain sins that to others or to the letter of the law would be the most heinous. Yet he knew that before God they were indeed still the most wicked. No doubt I too am the worst of sinners. Thanks be to God through the Lord Jesus Christ that in Him I no longer have any condemnation. Nor need you.

Conclusion to Homosexuality in the New Testament
Homosexuality is indeed sin. It is not okay. It is not moral. It, along with all other sins, reaps the judgment of God. These Scriptures confirm that. Yet that is not where it stops. Nor should we as we discuss the Biblical view of homosexuality. The Biblical and Christian view of homosexuality is that it is wrong, but God’s grace—just like it did for us—offers freedom from sin to all people. God’s grace can bring new life and help every step of the way."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[SkyWriting]

A few things to know about non-denominational Christians:

• A non-denominational Christian church is one that is autonomous and not under a central authority (i.e. governing board, Magesterium, Patriarchs) on matters of doctrine, ordination, policy or discipline. They may, however, be part of an association to share resources.
• We believe that Bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the only authoritative and infallible rule of Christian faith and practice.
• We believe in the Triune nature of God (Trinitarianism) and therefore the topic of non-Trinitarianism may not be discussed in this forum. Please discuss this topic in the Controversial Theology forum.
• We believe the only true basis of Christian fellowship is Christ's (agape) love, which is greater than differences one may possess, and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
• Salvation is by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose again, providing eternal redemption to those who believe. It is not by our works or works of the law. (Eph 2: 8-9)
• Since salvation is by grace, promotion of the doctrine of salvation by works and Saturday (seventh-day) worship is not allowed. Please discuss these topics in Sabbath and The Law forum.

-Non-Denomionational Statement of Purpose

I see quite a few differences.

So you think I follow to a list you found somewhere?
Not gud thinkin.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (10) thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The list leaves out committed couples with families. The largest group
of adoptive parents.

 

[DeaconDean]

The list leaves out committed couples with families.

"Commited couples" I can only guess as to what you imply here.

The fact remains, God instituted marriage in the Garden with Adam and Eve.

Jesus goes back to the institution of marriage saying:

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -Mt. 19:4-6 (KJV)

This is also repeated in Mark 10: 6-9.

To use an old cliché:

"Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

I don't care if Tom and Fred are a "commited couple", scriptures are clear.

Crystal clear.

But, since you say I'm wrong, and the scriptures allow it, I shall not debate this any further with you.

The scriptures LIE!

God LIES!

Do as you please.

You are now on my ignore list, so don't reply as I will not be able to see what you post.

I'm outta here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

In the first place, the thread was directed at "homosexual" activity.

That I deal with by showing scriptures.

I did not specifically use the passage from Leviticus, but I did start with the New Testament.

Secondly, rule site-wide state "address the post, not the poster".

That is what I did.

Thirdly, I stated the position of the rules for this area, Non-Denominational by definition is not and cannot be called be confused or tied to Fundamentalism.

Fourthly, only one believe do some Non-Denoms share with Fundamentalists:

A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";

Source

"We believe that Bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the only authoritative and infallible rule of Christian faith and practice."

Non-Denominational Statement of Purpose

By rule, by truth, by self-identification, that poster claims for themselves to be : "non-Denominational", and therefore, by rule, not allowed to debate here.

In the fifth place, I addressed the OP, not that poster. That poster, than attacked me and what the scripture says.

I have done everything "by-the-book".

Since they obviously chose to disregard what scripture says in regards to "homosexuality", a reminder of the rules was needed.

Now if their view of scripture is called into question, then start another thread.

Otherwise, I have provided the correct exegesis of the scriptures.

I have fulfilled my duty in regards to the topic of this thread.

And besides, it is also clear fo0r their viewpoint, how they pick and choose, and interpret scripture to suit their viewpoint, any further debate would be useless, even futile. So why bother?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I was actually supporting you, by way of showing that since the poster teaches contrary to Biblical rules, including his baseless "love" hermeneutic, then it should hardly be expected he sees a problem with contracting forum rules regarding who may post here, and which "So you think I follow to a list you found somewhere?" confirms.

But since the mods here only seem to be concerned over people's feeling being hurt, even by warranted reproofs, and not by how offensive and provocative the heretical postings are that call for such, then perhaps we can conclude that the class restrictions on forums need not be taken seriously.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Committed couples" I can only guess as to what you imply here.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave nor free,
nor is there
male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them

Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed the man of dust
from the ground and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

1 Timothy 5:1-2
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father,
younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women
as sisters, in all purity.

Genesis 2:22
And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman
and brought her to the man.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave nor free,
nor is there
male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Timothy 2:11-14
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave nor free,
nor is there
male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 11:5
But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head,

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1 Corinthians 14:34
The women should keep silent in the churches.
For they are not permitted to speak, but should
be in submission, as the Law also says.

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you,
do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish
that others would do to you,
do also to them, for this is
the Law and the Prophets.

Proverbs 21:19
It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you,
do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1 Timothy 2:9
Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever
you wish that others would do to you,
do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[DeaconDean]

I was actually supporting you, by way of showing that since the poster teaches contrary to Biblical rules, including his baseless "love" hermeneutic, then it should hardly be expected he sees a problem with contracting forum rules regarding who may post here, and which "So you think I follow to a list you found somewhere?" confirms.

But since the mods here only seem to be concerned over people's feeling being hurt, even by warranted reproofs, and not by how offensive and provocative the heretical postings are that call for such, then perhaps we can conclude that the class restrictions on forums need not be taken seriously.

My apologies if my post was taking incorrectly.

I merely wanted to show that according to every rule in the book, according to every rule of CF, I have done what was expected.

My sincerest apologies if it was taken the wrong way.

And you are correct, the member I was responding to holds the "Liberal" position in support of this topic.

Proof is in their posts.

And also, according to CF, which apparently, is starting to be relaxed, does not allow promotion of said topic.

"CF Statement on Marriage
CF has taken the stand that marriage was established by God who created us male and female (Genesis 1:27-28). We regard marriage as a sacred institution that symbolizes the mysterious bond between Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:23-24, Ephesians 5:32). We believe that marriage is much more than a civil contract between two persons, it is a sacred joining together of a man and a woman into one flesh, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:21-25). Therefore, we only recognize heterosexual marriages here at CF. If you are in a same sex marriage you must select a marital status of either "Legal Union (Other)" or "Private" in your profile."


Which is funny, BTW, in that I used the same verse in my rebuttal as listed above.

It also says:

"Topics Requiring Special Consideration:

Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, transsexualism and transgenderism may not be promoted* on CF (including member profiles). Several debate forums allow homosexuality, same-sex marriage, transsexualism and transgenderism to be discussed from a political, legal, historical, and civil rights point of view. Please check the Statement of Purpose thread for individual debate forums before posting. Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, transsexualism and transgenderism may be discussed, without promotion*, in the Congregational in line with each group's beliefs there. You may post without promotion* in the Struggles with Sexuality and Ask a Chaplain forums solely for the purpose of seeking support with personal struggles related to these issues.


Source

I also found this, and it is one of the best descriptions of "Non-Denominational" thus far:

"A non-denominational church is a church that is not part of an organization or hierarchy. Usually founded by the local pastor, it has no bishops, elders, or other structured leadership over it. It is independence of other churches and free to teach whatever it wants. A suppose a person attending such a church could be referred to as a non-denominational Christian, but the word really refers to the church not the people.

A fundamentalist in anything (including Christianity) is someone who holds to the fundamental doctrines and beliefs of a group. For Americans, it would be someone who sees the Constitution has the "fundamental" doctrine for the country and consently goes to it as their source for understanding American and how it should work.

A fundamentalist Christian would be one who goes to the "source" of their religion. For the Protestant "scripture only" crowd, that would be the Bible. They look to it as a reliable and God-inspired source for understanding the Christian faith and the world in which they live. For a Catholica, it would be the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church, usually embodied in the person of the Pope. They would look to their church and its understanding of God and the world as their source.

A non-denomiational church COULD be "fundamental", holding to the Bible as their source for faith. Or it could be a liberal church with no central source, or even a cult such the Jim Jones, David Koresh or the FLDS."

Source

It is my conclusion that what was promoted by somebody, even though they "claim" the bible as their "infallible rule of faith", when presented with scripture contrary to their view, they continue in the "Liberal" viewpoint, the Bible as their "infallible rule of Faith" is not what they hold to, and therefore would disqualify them from posting here.

Perhaps it would be best if CF would make a statement on this topic for the Fundamentalist area, considering it does not have one.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[SkyWriting]

And also, according to CF, which apparently, is starting to be relaxed, does not allow promotion of said topic.

I don't promote any other persons sexuality or interest.
I have plenty of issues to work through with my spouse
and no interest in asking others to join us in anything.

I very strongly promote the premise of treating others just
as you would wish them to treat you. But no interest in
deciding for others what that should be. That would be
insanely rude.

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets.

 

[DeaconDean]

Here is a "snapshot" of what has happened over the last 30 years.

"Am I a Fundamentalist"

By: Dave Hunt

"You're a fundamentalist!" The accusation was directed at me, a freshman in university just out of the military in 1947. From the stinging tone of contempt no explanation was needed to understand that being branded a "fundamentalist" was the ultimate insult in the proud world of academia. I replied something like this: "If to be a fundamentalist means that one adheres to the sound fundamentals of math, accounting, chemistry or whatever one's profession, then I happily accept the label. And since the Bible is literally God's Word and inerrant, embracing and standing true to its fundamentals is the only intelligent choice." That response only increased the frustration and fury on the part of those who had been heatedly debating me for the last two hours.

The occasion was the first meeting of "The Critics' Hour," newly organized by students and faculty to ridicule and disprove the Bible. Among the crowd of spectators were a number of Christians whom I recognized from the campus Christian club, yet not one of them spoke a word. I stood alone in that auditorium against the onslaught of arguments from every side, all in favor of evolution and atheism. Being a rather naive 21-year-old, I was shocked at the animosity so openly displayed against the Bible and the God of the Bible.

At that point in my life I had barely heard of Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of New York's First Presbyterian Church, a key figure in American liberalism/modernism, nor did I have the faintest idea of the growing rejection of the infallibility of the Bible among large numbers of those who called themselves Christians. The name of J. Gresham Machen was completely unknown to me, as was the losing battle he had fought at Princeton Seminary in the 1920s against heresy before that school went completely liberal and took most of the Presbyterian Church with it.

Satan's most effective servants are masters of doublespeak. Fosdick claimed to honor doctrine, but warned of an ever present "danger in emphasis on doctrine...." He taught that "nothing fundamentally matters in religion except those things which create private and public goodness...and social progress."1 Fosdick was recognized at the time by most true Christians for the unbeliever he was. Yet Norman Vincent Peale, no less a heretic, managed to find acceptance virtually everywhere, as has his chief disciple, Robert Schuller.

The modernist takes the latest ideas of the secular world and deceitfully dresses them in Christian language. No one has pulled off that scam as neatly as have today's Christian psychologists, who somehow manage to take the anti-Christian theories of sworn enemies of the gospel and "integrate" them into theology. Peale was the first to do so. In 1937 he established a "Christian" psychiatric clinic at his church, the model for today's numerous clinics which have made fortunes for their founders.

Machen accurately pointed out that intimidation by science and the desire to obtain acceptance and respectability in the academic community had resulted in compromises that effectively neutralized the gospel. That passion increasingly motivates Christian schools, from Fuller to Wheaton. Machen accused liberals of "trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science."2

Many of today's evangelicals seem to think scientists know more about the universe than does its Creator. The Bible suffers from God's ignorance? The result is a deadly compromise of the faith. We have seen this in the acceptance of theistic evolution by Christianity Today, Promise Keepers and many seminaries and Christian universities, even though it clearly contradicts the Bible and undermines the gospel (TBC, Mar. 1997 ). The same compromise is made by questioning the biblical account of the flood.

Billy Graham, who decades ago renounced his fundamentalism, recently said he was not sure Noah's flood was worldwide. InterVarsity's New Bible Commentary (p. 88) likewise says, "The [Bible] narrative does not directly affirm a universal flood...." To the contrary, the Bible leaves no room for such waffling:

[E]verything that is in the earth shall die. (Gen:6:17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
See All...);...every living substance...will I destroy from off the face of the earth. (7:4);...the mountains were covered. And all flesh died....Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark. (7:20-23)

God's instructions to Noah to bring two of every species into the ark only make sense if the flood was worldwide. God promised never to destroy the earth by water again (Gen:9:11And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
See All...), yet there have been many great regional floods. The future destruction of the world prophesied by Peter would be merely a local fire if the flood, to which he compares it (2 Pt 3:6-7), were local. Finally, Jesus likens His future worldwide judgment of all mankind to the flood (Mat:24:38-41 [38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, [39] And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. [40] Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. [41] Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
See All...).

We must believe the whole Bible. That is biblical fundamentalism. If Genesis is not accurate in every detail, then why trust anything else in the Bible? If the Bible is wrong about man's origin and fall, why rely upon what it says about man's redemption and eternal destiny? In fact, the Bible is 100 percent accurate in all it addresses.

Whether the latest science agrees with the Bible or not is of no concern to a fundamentalist. Because we trust in God, we are not intimidated by man. Only a fool would exchange God's infallible Word for the changeable and fallible opinions of men. Scientists make mistakes and are often ruled by prejudices. In his book, Great Feuds in Science, historian Hal Hellman documents that even the greatest scientists have been "influenced by pride, ambition, greed, belligerence, jealousy, and the undeniable urge to be right."3

Tragically, diminishing numbers of those who call themselves Christians still stand for biblical inerrancy and sufficiency, as Harold Lindsell documents in The Battle for the Bible. Fuller Theological Seminary is only one example he gives. Of course, biblical inerrancy is hardly an issue with multitudes in the charismatic/revival movement who rely upon experience and emotion rather than doctrine. Love for Jesus is, for many today, a wonderful feeling divorced entirely from the truth which Jesus declares Himself to be. In The Bible in the Balance (pp. 319-20) Lindsell confesses that "the term evangelical has become so debased that it has lost its usefulness....Maybe it would be better to accept the term fundamentalist with all of the pejoratives attached to it by its detractors."

Fundamentalism has gotten a bad name for two reasons: 1) Some Christian fundamentalists are fanatics and carry separation from other Christians to unbiblical and unreasonable extremes; and 2) Muslim fundamentalists demand that everyone must adhere to the same dress and customs that Muhammad practiced in the seventh century. Devoted to Islam's goal of conquering the world by force, they are responsible for much of today's terrorism worldwide. Consequently, even Christian fundamentalists, whose law is love, are often painted with that fanatical brush.

Those who would implicitly trust and obey Christ's Word and be His true disciples (Jn:8:31-32 [31] Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; [32] And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
See All...) must be willing like Daniel and his friends to stand alone. Afraid to be different, most Christians run with the herd. Eager for this world's plaudits, they "love the praise of men more than the praise of God" (Jn:12:43For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
See All...). C.H. Spurgeon stood virtually alone, abandoned even by former students and friends, when he was censured by the British Baptist Union for his unwillingness to tolerate apostasy within that body. Shortly before his death, A.W. Tozer declared, "I have preached myself out of nearly every pulpit in North America." What an indictment of those pastors and churches!

Christ warned, "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets" (Lk 6:26). He declared that true faith in God is impossible when we "receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only" (Jn:5:44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
See All...). John Ashbrook writes that the "new evangelicalism has been determined to impress the world with its intellect. It has craved the respect of academia. It has determined to earn plaudits at the fountainheads of secular learning."4 Carl Henry noted that "in deference to the growing mood of tolerance...the Christian belief is packaged for greater marketability."5

The only enemy of liberalism is fundamentalism's firm adherence to Scripture. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones bemoaned the fact that many evangelicals have moved from "preaching to sharing...," which subtly exchanges the authority of God's Word for human experience and opinion.6 Compromise won't help the unbeliever to see the light; it only further blinds him. Tolerance winks at man's unwillingness to bow to God's authority. Liberalism inevitably hardens itself against truth. We see that today worldwide.

The acceptance of homosexuality, professedly in the name of tolerance and liberalism, has bred an increasing intolerance of any other point of view. The entire world, which for thousands of years viewed homosexuality as unnatural and shameful, is being forced to abandon that conviction. Homosexuals, who pleaded for tolerance, have proved to be totally intolerant now that they have power. They viciously attack, verbally and physically, any who wish to retain an independent opinion. The world has been coerced into granting homosexuals a special privileged status. This, in spite of the fact that the so-called gay lifestyle is replete with the most unhealthy practices which spread diseases that threaten society at large and cut life expectancy nearly in half. The incurable disease of AIDS, though in epidemic proportions affecting even the innocent and fatal to anyone contracting it, is granted a dangerous secrecy and privileged status because of its pervasiveness among homosexuals.

We see the same intolerance on the part of evolutionists who accuse creationists of narrowmindedness. Science is supposed to promote freedom to investigate and accept the facts. Yet in the name of science, the theory of evolution is forced upon every child in public schools as fact, while the factual evidence against it is suppressed and the biblical and rational alternative of creation by God is not allowed to be so much as considered."

Source

This bears out also in the fact that at the University of North Carolina, students were required to read the Quran.

Thanks to the Westboro Baptist Church, what is known as "Christian Fundamentalism" has really taken a beating. Their intolerance of anything that goes against their particular beliefs makes some Fundamentalists look extremely bad.

From its earliest days, Fundamentalists have taken a stand against "homosexuality".

"By definition, fundamentalists also believe in some form of creationism, the doctrine that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago, rather than the billions claimed by modern science, and that God created man and woman and all the species outright, rather than by a process of evolution. (Creationists differ over how to explain fossil records that “appear” to be millions of years old. Some believe God created them that way on purpose, others, that they were put there by Satan to mislead humanity.) Fundamentalism, or the adherence to the fundamentals of Christianity, grew at least in part out of a desire by fundamentalists to return to the days of a less ethnically and religiously diverse America, a time that predated not only the empirical approach to biblical criticism but also the influx of large numbers of immigrants from Southern Europe and the Mediterranean rim, mainly Roman Catholics and Jews. They especially sought a return to a world in which moral laws were absolute, men dominated women, and the laws of the Bible were strictly adhered to. Throughout the 20th century, for example, fundamentalist Christians have staunchly opposed equal rights for women and the legalization of homosexuality and abortion. For these reasons, fundamentalist Christians tend to be intolerant of those who practice modernized, liberalized, or less rigorous forms of their religion (something that is true to some extent of all religious fundamentalists, including Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs). They lobby to have their beliefs, including creationism, taught in public schools and, increasingly, they have moved into the political arena by promoting candidates for public office — from local school boards to the presidency of the United States. The extremist fringe of fundamentalism advocates militant action that may include civil disobedience, violence, and even murder.*

*Note here mine: The asterisk here is inserted by me to emphasize that this is predominately the viewpoint of so-called "Fundamentalists" like the Westboro Baptist group.

Source

Historically, Fundamentalism has been opposed to homosexuality.

Just wanted to bring that out.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Historically, Fundamentalism has been opposed to homosexuality.

This is true, but do they have valid analytical reasons for doing so?

 

[SkyWriting]

From its earliest days, Fundamentalists have taken a stand against "homosexuality".

Lots of people do this. It's not a unique feature.

 

[SkyWriting]

"By definition, fundamentalists also believe in some form of creationism, the doctrine that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago,

They shouldn't. Scripture says the hills are everlasting.

 

[SkyWriting]

God created man and woman and all the species outright, rather than by a process of evolution.

The scriptures state clearly that all life came from the earth by God's direction.

 

[SkyWriting]

the biblical and rational alternative of creation by God is not allowed to be so much as considered."

Anything rational is not held by faith.

 

[SkyWriting]

The modernist takes the latest ideas of the secular world and deceitfully dresses them in Christian language.

As of late, I take scripture and see how much it differs from fundamentalism.

 

[davidbenephraim]

I have struggled in how the Bible views homosexuality. I struggle to find or believe it is a sin. I feel as if I were to believe that homosexuality is wrong, then I am truly am homophobic. However, if I were to believe that there are people who are gay who wants to change but cannot because of any beliefs or interpretations of the Bible. Can gay people truly change? While I do have this struggle, I do or did believe at one time that it was a sin. It is as if some people pick on or make fun of homosexuals. Should I struggle with this? I know it is strange, but if someone were to ask me why they should live and love as they please.

They are in love, as far as husbands or wives go. Then how can that be wrong. If I were to believe that homosexuality is a sin, then how should or would explain why to him or her? These questions are just about homosexuality for now. I am not a homosexual, but I find homosexuality should not be about punishing people or believing it is about vile affections, but it clearly states that in the Bible. However, was Paul wrong or have I been guilty of misinterpreting those verses pertaining to homosexuality?

Shalom and good afternoon, I want to ask you a question. Are adultery and fornication sexual sins? The Bible says they are.

Adultery is understood as sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who isn't their husband or wife (example: Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky 20 years ago). Fornication is understood as premarital sexual intercourse between two unmarried people such as a teenage boy and his teenage girlfriend or an adult man and woman cohabiting without being married. Now two unmarried people can be in love with one another but the minute they climb into bed to engage in sexual intercourse they are committing sin.

The same is true for a married man who falls in love with another woman who is not his wife and has sexual intercourse with her. In such a case the married man is still guilty of adultery even thought he is in love with two women (i.e. his wife and the other woman). Just as all I have written is true about adultery and fornication as pertaining to heterosexual couples, it is also true of homosexuals. Just because two homosexuals are in love with one another, they are still guilty of sin the minute they climb into bed to have sexual intercourse with each other. 1st John 3:4 says that sin is the transgression of the Law of Moses which prohibits homosexuality. As it is written:

1) “Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law” — 1st John 3:4 (KJV)

2) “You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” — Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

3) “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” — Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)

The Bible is clear about its prohibition of sexual sins of which homosexuality is among them. It should be kept in mind that in the same chapter of Leviticus (i.e. 18) Yahweh also prohibits adultery and inappropriate behavior with animals. As it written:

4) “Moreover you shalt not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to defile yourself with her” — Leviticus 18:20 (KJV)


5) “Neither shall you lie with any beast to defile yourself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion” — Leviticus 18:23 (KJV)

If being in love is a justifiable reason to set aside the Bible's prohibition of homosexuality then being in love can also be used to justify setting aside the Bible's prohibition of adultery, fornication, inappropriate behavior with animals and let's not forget the Bible's prohibition of incest and rape.

So to answer your question(s) succinctly, no Paul was not wrong and yes you are guilty of misinterpreting the Bible.

Baruch Hashem Yahweh,

David

 

[LEAA/SOFR]

Make no apologies for the Bible or yourself: homosexuality, like all sexual deviance, is SIN.
Why do you think God ordered an angelic airstrike to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

[tkolter]

My view is simple the Bible is pretty clear its a sin there is nothing to struggle about this issue, however, its vital Christian compassion also be manifested in dealing with those struggling with these inclinations and wishes to change and have a Godly life as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Zoii]

Make no apologies for the Bible or yourself: homosexuality, like all sexual deviance, is SIN.
Why do you think God ordered an angelic airstrike to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah?

Wait - I didnt think homosexuality was a sin, but rather the act of having sex with the same sex - and that can occur whether your straight, bi or homosexual.