• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
H

hasnoname

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
493
30
Plano, Texas
✟23,487.00
Country
Aruba
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here is what I see. All of you can read the Bible. All of you know the Bible says

1 Corinthians 6:8-10
But you yourselves wrong and defraud--even your own brothers![a] 9Do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.



Ok, that is a basis. I see two (although there are probably more) instances that must exist in order to argue that homosexuality is not a sin.

1) You do not believe that the Bible is the inherent word of God. You believe that Christ died for your sins, he is Lord, Savior, God. But you do not believe everything else necessarily. Understandable. It is a very old document (although there are over 24,000 documents that are used to translate the Bible). It was written by men (although claims to be the word of God). My problem is, why take Christ and leave the Word? Really the leading record we have of Jesus is the Bible. And if you don't believe all of the Bible, isn't Christ then just some crazy man who claimed on multiple occasions to be king of the Jews and Lord God? He might have done cool things, and said nice truths, but he also condemned people and spoke of eternal suffering after the day of judgment.

I think this point can also manifest itself in not trusting translations. While there is a need to question translations, by assuming that all translations are wrong, you are in essence arguing that the Bible is not the living word. It is dead and God cannot be in it. For if there is one translation error that is not meant to be (such as homosexuality not supposed to be there) then it would devoid the entire Scriptures, as it claims to be God breathed. This argument is not saying that we are misinterpreting a word (from our English Bibles) but that there is something that was intentionally changed so that homosexuality would be wrong. That negates the argument that Scripture is God-breathed (which is said in the Bible), and thus all of it is invalid.


2) You believe that all of the Bible is true, but refuse to admit that homosexuality can be wrong because scientists claim absolutely that is something that is born into. I can see it Scripturally. Honestly, I can see how you can be born homosexual according Scripture. Even Paul was given a thorn in his side so that he would not become prideful. We are born -- totally depraved. We are born into sin. Is it that far of a stretch to assume this is part of our sin?


However, even though Biblically I know that homosexuality is sin, I do not think it is mutually exclusive of Christianity. If you are not regenerate, and there is no sanctification by the time you die, I pray for your soul. But you know what? I am overcoming an addiction to pornography. Is that any different? I was still living in sin. I am incredibly prideful. How is that different from homosexuality? It can be argued that pride is the MOST deadly sin when it comes to following Christ. It means that you can know of Jesus and still rely on yourself, but thinking you are following Christ because you are so prideful.


Jesus ate with those who reputably were the "biggest sinners" (I don't agree there are biggest sinners, although there are hardened hearts). He spent more time with them, loving them, than the stupid Pharisees which so many of us Christians are completely alike (I am guilty of that at times, although through Christ there is recovery).
 

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
44
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Formal equivalencies have really gone downhill then -_-

ESV was translated from an evangelical outview, which is probably why they chose not to have a formal equivalency there (a pity; what were the translators afraid of?). A better translation which has a more ecumenical and thus less biased outview is the RSV. Here is what it reads:

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

The word "homosexual" is a decidedly eisegesis translation. The Greek is far more ambiguous.
 
Upvote 0
W

WashedBytheSon

Active Member
Jul 2, 2007
183
9
MN
✟22,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

I believe the Bible to be inerrant, and I don't take what fits my lifestyle and forget the rest. I change, to conform to what God wants.

Homosexuality is not proven to be something someone is born into. It is speculated by psychologists. It is also no worse than any other sin. It is made clear that homosexual behavior is wrong (Leviticus 18:22), Romans 1:26, which would mean homosexual feelings are wrong.

Any sexual behavior or feelings outside the covenant of marriage is wrong. Marriage, according to the bible, is between a man and a woman. Therefore, homosexuality is by default, sinful and wrong.
 
Upvote 0
G

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
WashedBytheSon said:
<snip>
Any sexual behavior or feelings outside the covenant of marriage is wrong. Marriage, according to the bible, is between a man and a woman. Therefore, homosexuality is by default, sinful and wrong.
Click to expand...

Show where the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Most of the Bible's teaching is about marriage is about respecting one's partner within the marriage, not about who to marry. The few verses that are about who to choose are more concerned about their faith than about anything else

Yes, in many of the verses it is assumed that a male reader will have a female spouse, but that is because that is the norm (average -- in this case, both the mode and the median). It is no more significant than the use of the masculine pronoun "he" for an unknown person who could later just as easily turn out to have been female in the sentence "Someone's been eating my porridge, and he ate it all up."

So if your whole claim is that "homosexuality is by default, sinful and wrong," because it is always outside marriage, it falls apart as soon as same-sex marriage is brought into the equation.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
PaladinValer said:
[SIZE=-1]Not what the Bible says...what your dynamic equivalency says.

Formal equivalency, please.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...


[c]Review of Mel White’s What the Bible Says—and Doesn’t Say—about Homosexuality
By:
Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.[/c]

Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater.

Mel White was a ghostwriter for several Christian leaders, including Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell. After years in ministry, working for the religious right, he came out of the closet. He and his wife divorced, though she is still good friends with him and is supportive of his new ministry.
* * *
Third, he overstates his case in a couple of key areas. His emphasis in this pamphlet is that we need to reexamine the Bible to see what it says. At the beginning of his work, he writes in large, bold print, “LIKE YOU, I TAKE THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY!” Under his first premise, which bemoans biblical ignorance in America, he says, “Only six or seven of the Bible’s one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way” (p. 4). That is misleading on two fronts: (a) there are nowhere near one million verses in the Bible. The exact count is actually just over 31,000! That’s a far cry from one million, and it raises a disturbing issue: If White can be so cavalier, so loose with the data, about the very thing that he says we all need to pay more careful attention to, perhaps he hasn’t done his homework as he said he did. (b) Regardless of how many verses there are in the Bible, one can’t play games with what it addresses on this issue.
* * *
Fourth, his fourth premise is flawed: “The Bible is a book about God—not a book about human sexuality” (p. 8). Actually, the Bible is a book about God’s relation to human beings and his instructions for how we are to relate to each other. The problem with how White has stated this fourth premise is that he seems to want to say that the Bible doesn’t really deal with homosexual behavior as we understand it today. Yet all through his booklet he also argues that the Christian faith is about love for one’s neighbor. You can’t have it both ways. If the Bible is only a book about God, then why even mention how we should relate to each other? And as for sexuality, I think the Bible speaks very much to this issue. It starts in Genesis by laying out a pattern of behavior that God has designed.
* * *
He goes on to dismiss the Bible’s teaching about several things related to marriage and sex. But he’s really doing a Cuisinart reading of these texts. By mixing the Old Testament commands with the New Testament commands, he’s not wrestling with the progress of revelation or the likelihood that we are no longer under the law. Yet all of the passages he discusses here (Deut 22.13-21, 22; Mark 10.1-12; Lev 18.19; Mark 12.18-27; Deut 25.11-12) are speaking about OT law (even the ones in Mark). My concern here is not simply over small quibbles. It’s over the very thing that White says many Christians are doing incorrectly: carefully reading the Bible. On the one hand, we don’t have the right to pick and choose what we want to believe. On the other hand, we need to nuance our faith so that we are in line with progressive revelation, especially the revelation that has come through God’s Son. I take it as axiomatic that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. The NT gives plenty of evidence to this effect.
* * *
Fifth, the fifth premise also seems a little off: “We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating what they say about sex” (p. 10). It’s not an either/or: the Bible is about both God and man, about God’s relation to man, and about human beings’ relation to one another. White’s treatment of Genesis 1 is simply unconvincing precisely at the key word “natural.” White argues that some Christians see in Genesis 1 that it is “natural” for a man and woman to have sex and bear children, and thus “some people think this means gay or lesbian couples are ‘unnatural.’” This is the word that Paul camps on in Romans 1 (though it’s not used in Genesis 1) as the basis for his proscription against homosexual behavior.
* * *
Sixth, his treatment of Rom 1.26-27 leaves a lot to be desired. He argues that the only people Paul had in view were temple priests and priestesses. It may be true that they were on his radar, but it’s hardly the whole picture. Further, where does it say that only these folks are in view? That’s an assumption that White brings to the text. Yes, Paul knew of the orgies at the pagan temples, but he also knew of other kinds of perversions. Indeed, drunken orgies in which people experiment with each other’s bodies is almost surely not the focus of this passage. White assumes that it is, but there is no evidence that Paul is restricting his exegesis to just these folks.
* * *
Paul’s indictment against same-sex relations among women first notes that these women exchanged the natural sexual relations for that which is unnatural. The key terms here are in italics. The exchange that these women did was more than a momentary experimentation, which they would revert back from in more sober times. No, it’s the same exact word that is used in v. 25 for people exchanging the truth of God for a lie. That’s not something done on a whim; it’s a lifestyle decision, not one you easily retreat from. And the exchange in v. 25 is most important: if the immediate result of exchanging the truth of God for a lie is all sorts of sexual perversion (including heterosexual perversion), then, by definition, Paul is saying that when someone makes the commitment to a homosexual lifestyle (or to a perverted heterosexual lifestyle), this commitment is against the truth of God.
* * *
How well does the standard pro-gay exegesis in Rom 1.26-27 do in this passage? The standard pro-gay view is to see pederasty here. That also is quite unlikely, but at least it’s more likely than temple priests and priestesses as the only ones in view. It’s unlikely because (a) Paul starts by discussing women having sex with women (v. 26), and that was all but unheard of in the ancient world when it came to pederasty; (b) Paul then speaks of men with men, but says that these men “abandoned the natural sexual relations with the females.” Abandoned is a strong word, suggesting that this was a lifestyle change. But again, this won’t work for pederasty: unmarried nobles would have sex with pre-teen boys, usually slaves, until they got married. Pederasts, thus, abandoned sex with boys for sex with their wives. That’s just the opposite of what Paul is describing. But it seems to be similar to what we see today: men who abandon their wives for their homosexual partners. (c) They burned in their own passions “for one another.” The reciprocal punishment suggests reciprocal responsibility, but this too could not be true of the slave-boys in a forced pederast scenario.
* * *
Others argue that “natural” (vv. 26, 27) mean “natural inclination.” (This is implicitly what White argues for, too.) Thus, if a person has a natural inclination to homosexuality it would be a sin for him to abandon that and go for the unnatural inclination. The only problem with this view is twofold: (a) Paul does not address whether homosexual inclination is even possibly to be considered as a natural inclination; (b) that which is natural is not inclination at all, but what is designed. And this gets back to the Genesis record on which Paul so heavily depends for his argument. God designed men and women to be sexual creatures that would be compatible only with each other—not men with men, not women with women, not humans with animals, etc. “Natural” thus refers to physical design, not psychological inclination.
* * *
But where I think he’s missed the point is that v. 25 explicitly says that people abandoned the truth of God for a lie, and this prompted God to ‘hand them over’ to homosexual acts.
* * *
The fact is that homosexual infidelity is significantly higher than heterosexual infidelity. For example, in a recent issue of The Advocate (a pro-gay magazine), 20 percent of those surveyed had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.1 But if I were just to speak anecdotally as Smedes has done on this point, I would say that I have known many homosexuals who simply can’t reign it in. Their addiction to sex is far worse than that of most heterosexuals.
* * *
In sum, Rom 1.26-27 almost surely is speaking generically about homosexual behavior, and is condemning it absolutely. It is not restricted to temple prostitutes, nor pederasts, nor is it implicitly excusing those with a “natural inclination” toward homosexuality. The language is very clear that these specifics are not on the horizon. And the basis for the argument, once again, is Genesis 1. Paul in fact uses the language of Genesis 1 to drive this point home: he doesn’t say ‘men’ and ‘women’ but ‘male’ and ‘female,’ words taken directly out of Gen 1.26.
* * *
Seventh, White’s exegesis of 1 Cor 6.9 and 1 Tim 1.10 is, frankly, a whitewash over the real meaning of the text. He speaks of the ambiguity of malakos and arsenokoites. But he doesn’t mention that the authoritative lexicon of the NT, known as BDAG, does not speak so ambiguously. This lexicon has about a 120-year history, over which time the scholars putting it together have been able to compile plenty of illustrations for the Greek of the NT. To be sure, there are places where the meaning is quite ambiguous. Because of their scholarly reputation, they do not hesitate to mention doubts about the meaning of a word if there are any. What do they say about these words then? For arsenokoites they note that it means “a man who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex.” They add “pederast” as a second meaning, which would depend on the context (viz., if boys were in view rather than adult males). White is correct that this term should not be translated “homosexual” and that there is no ancient Greek word for “homosexual.” But that is a far cry from saying that there was no concept of homosexuality because the Greeks didn’t use just one word for it! That is to make a lexical-conceptual equation that was debunked nearly fifty years ago. To take one example: Eskimos don’t have a single word for snow. Does this mean that they don’t know what snow is? Rather, precisely because they have multiple words for snow indicates that they were well aware of it, even to understanding it in its various states. The arsenokoites was the active partner in male sex. The malakos was the passive partner in such sex acts. BDAG is unequivocal on both of these points. Incidentally, BDAG also notes that
“Paul’s strictures against same-sex activity cannot be satisfactorily explained on the basis of alleged temple prostitution… or limited to contract w. boys for homoerotic service.”​
* * *
Besides—and this is one thing that was never addressed in White’s book: If fornication is sin—that is, sex outside of marriage—wouldn’t that equally apply to heterosexual and homosexual relations? If Paul was not talking about homosexual behavior, shouldn’t he have sanctioned homosexual marriages? That thought never crossed his mind, nor Jesus’, and the silence is almost deafening. Is it really possible that God could have overlooked the needs of millions of homosexuals in the only book that is our final revelation of his will, just so that we could sort out what to do thousands of years later?

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4494​
 
Upvote 0
W

WashedBytheSon

Active Member
Jul 2, 2007
183
9
MN
✟22,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Genesis 3:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Homosexuality is by default, wrong, because it is outside of a marriage, which is between men and women according to scripture. Homosexual marriage wouldn't be sanctioned by God (because it is not between a man and a woman), so it would in effect not matter if they got that privilege.

All of the verses that talk about marriage talk about the partners being male and female. When any verse talks about men being with men or women being with women sexually or romantically, it is pointed out as sinful. That gives a pretty good indication on God's stance about homosexuality.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Dear PaladinValer,
Perverts is a poor translation of arsenokoites as pornos and malachos could also quite equally be translated perverts.
However Jesus makes it clear that porneia and mocheia break marriage and the alternative is celibacy .. see Matthew 19 and 1 Cor 7 for example. Arsen and koites are actually men and to lay/bed (fam) so its likely to be specifically same-sex acts especially as 1 Tim 1:10 uses it with porneia in reference to the law. Which of course points us straight to the septuguint Lev 18 a man 'arsen' shall not lie 'koites' with another man 'arsen' as with a woman.
The motivation behind your claim is that same-sex sex isnt a sin, yet it must be if fornication and adultery break the marriages and the alternative is celibacy. Besides we know that God made woman for man for this reason Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5 etc. If you dont believe that there is becoming quite a lot you don't believe.
if you ar claiming interpretation, then I think 1 Cor 6 is saying that same-sex sex is definately a sin and beware what PaladinValer claims (althought the text says nothing of the sort, thats my interpretation nonetheless ).. I dont think so.
 
Upvote 0
G

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
WashedBytheSon said:
Any sexual behavior or feelings outside the covenant of marriage is wrong. Marriage, according to the bible, is between a man and a woman. Therefore, homosexuality is by default, sinful and wrong.
Click to expand...


WashedBytheSon said:
Genesis 3:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Click to expand...

As I said, a man and a woman is the norm (average -- in this case both the "median" and the "mode"). Of course if it only gives one example it will give the norm.


Homosexual sex outside marriage is wrong, just as heterosexual sex outside marriage is. But there is nothing in the Bible (other than Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which are part of the "holiness code," intended to keep Jews a separate people, just like the dietary laws, etc. and which were superceded by Acts 11 and 15) to say that gay sex is sinful just because it is gay. There is no basis for the claim that God would not sanction it within marriage.


One more time: of course in the general case the Bible assumes a man and a woman. That's the norm.

Name one verse that "talks about men being with men or women being with women sexually or romantically, [and]it is pointed out as sinful." And before you mention Genesis 19 or Judges 19 or 2 Sam 10, these are all stories about gang rape. You can't use them to prove that all gay sex is wrong.

I'm glad, though that you included romantically as well as sexually, however, since then I can point out David and Jonathan (1 Sam) without worrying about you whinging that I can't prove they had sex.
 
Upvote 0

BreadAlone

Hylian Knight
Aug 11, 2006
8,207
702
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Visit site
✟29,272.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Even if (and I strongly stress that if in the most hypothetical sense) the Bible didn't specifically say marriage is for one man and one woman; it doesn't matter as homosexuality is explicitly said to be wrong in numerous places, not just in the Corinthians passage.

If homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes, then homosexual marriage is equally wrong and an abomination to God, something that he would not and would NEVER condone..
 
Upvote 0
W

WashedBytheSon

Active Member
Jul 2, 2007
183
9
MN
✟22,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

heterosexuality is not the "norm" it is the requirement for a God-sanctioned marriage. God did not intend for men to be with men or women to be with women, if He did He wouldn't call homosexual sex an abomination, which He does (and it is punishable by death) in Leviticus. Sexual rules still apply. Leviticus says adultery is wrong, and premarital sex is wrong, and it is still wrong. The same goes for homosexuality. Homosexual sex/relationships will never NOT be sinful because they are homosexual, and homosexuality is a sin.

Romans 1:26 also speaks out against men being with men and women being with women.

David and Jonathan were not homosexuals. They were close friends. I pretty much share one soul with my best friend Amy, but we are not homosexuals. Friendship/deep bond does NOT equal homosexuality.

It is clear that you pervert what the scriptures say to fit your ideals. If you claim to be Christian, I seriously doubt the sincerity in that claim.
 
Reactions: IamRedeemed
Upvote 0

HaloHope

Senior Member
May 25, 2007
506
165
✟17,438.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
WashedBytheSon said:
David and Jonathan were not homosexuals. They were close friends. I pretty much share one soul with my best friend Amy, but we are not homosexuals. Friendship/deep bond does NOT equal homosexuality.
Click to expand...

While I completely disagree with your post, this point kinda drew my attention.

Ive seen a lot of fundamentalist Christians here often talk about friendship and deep bonds with members of the same sex. Im curious as to if the general consensus among you is that homosexuals who are in long term commited relationships think that the people involved are getting those feelings of freindship mixed with romantic love?

Just curious.

I would consider my girlfreind to be my best friend you see.
 
Upvote 0
G

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
WashedBytheSon said:
When any verse talks about men being with men or women being with women sexually or romantically, it is pointed out as sinful. .
Click to expand...

You still have not backed up this statement. Name just one pasage where the Bible mentions two men or two women being close and saying that it is sinful.

WashedBytheSon said:
heterosexuality is not the "norm" it is the requirement for a God-sanctioned marriage.
Click to expand...

Another statement that you have not backed up.

God did not intend for men to be with men or women to be with women, if He did He wouldn't call homosexual sex an abomination, which He does (and it is punishable by death) in Leviticus.
Click to expand...

Other "abominations" (toevah) in the Torah include:
  • Israelites and Egyptians eating a meal together (Gen 42:32)
  • Israelites and Egyptians fraternizing (Gen 46:34)
  • Foreign idols and the gold and silver that adorn them (Deut 7:25-26, 27:15)
  • Child sacrifice and/or sacrifice to foreign gods (Deut 12:31, 13:12-17)
  • The eating of unclean animals (Deut 14:3)
  • Sacrificing diseased animals to the LORD (Deut 17:1)
  • Certain (religious) practices of the Canaanites (Deut 18:9-12, 20:18, 32:16)
  • Cross-dressing (Deut 22:5)
  • Tithing with money earned in the (sexual) worship of foreign gods (Deut 23:18)
  • Re-marrying a woman whom you divorced for sexual indecency (adultery?) and who was later married to someone else (and is now divorced again, or widowed) (Deut 24:1-4)
Do you eat pork? Lobster? Shrimp?

Other things earning the death penalty in the Torah include:
Do you ever do work on the Sabbath?

The strictures of the Holiness code have been loosed by the New Covenant through Christ. As explained in Acts 11 and Acts 15.


Sexual rules still apply. Leviticus says adultery is wrong, and premarital sex is wrong, and it is still wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, adultery is still wrong. Not simply because Leviticus says that it is wrong, but because destroys families; because Jesus specifically spoke out against it; and because Paul rebuked specific adulterers within the churches to which he wrote his letters.

Yes, fornication is still wrong. In Acts 15, when the Council in Jerusalem agreed with Peter's vision and realized that the Levitical code no longer applies, they specifically mentioned that fornication is still a sin. That it is not part of the holiness code.

The same goes for homosexuality. Homosexual sex/relationships will never NOT be sinful because they are homosexual, and homosexuality is a sin.
Click to expand...

You still have not established that claim.

Romans 1:26 also speaks out against men being with men and women being with women.
Click to expand...

Good attempt. But read the verse in context. Instead of cherry-picking one sentence, read all of Romans 1:18 - 2:3. Better yet, read the whole letter.

David and Jonathan were not homosexuals. They were close friends. I pretty much share one soul with my best friend Amy, but we are not homosexuals. Friendship/deep bond does NOT equal homosexuality.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that it did, or that David and Jonathan were ever physically intimate beyond the specific instances given in 1 Samuel. In fact, I said that I was free to bring up their relationship because you included "romantic" same-sex relationships and not just sexual ones as being sinful.

It is clear that you pervert what the scriptures say to fit your ideals. If you claim to be Christian, I seriously doubt the sincerity in that claim.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
W

WashedBytheSon

Active Member
Jul 2, 2007
183
9
MN
✟22,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

It depends on the person.
 
Upvote 0
W

WashedBytheSon

Active Member
Jul 2, 2007
183
9
MN
✟22,949.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

There is nothing wrong with friendship between two members of the same sex. Romantic relationships (which include sex) is forbidden. Romans 1:26,27 makes this clear. I pointed that out before, but I guess you want the exact quote, so here it is:

"For this reason God gave them up to their vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."

How about the fact that there are no homosexual relationships in the bible? There is no history of homosexual marriage in the bible, and when homosexuality is talked about in the Bible, it is talked about as being sinful. That would clearly indicate that any homosexuality is always wrong.

The rules about the sabbath passed away with Jesus. The only other rules that passed away with Jesus were the rules about what kinds of food you can eat, and the need for sacrifice, as well as eating with gentiles being wrong (since gentiles can be saved as well). Everything else of the law is still in play. Adultery is still wrong, premarital sex is still wrong, homosexuality is still wrong, dishonoring parents is still wrong, murder is still wrong... and so on and so forth.

As for the claim about homosexuality, refer to the second paragraph of this response. Romans 1:26, 27. Clear as day, in the New Testament. It isn't taken out of context. It is clearly talking about homosexuality and how it is wrong amongst other things that are also wrong. I have read the entire letter. How exactly is it taken out of context?

You implied that David and Jonathan were homosexuals and had a romantic relationship. Friendship does not equal homosexuality, sorry.

You have to ignore much of what the bible clearly states to believe it condones homosexuality, when it clearly does not.
 
Upvote 0

kagol

Active Member
May 17, 2007
68
5
✟22,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
 
Upvote 0
G

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
WashedBytheSon said:
There is nothing wrong with friendship between two members of the same sex. Romantic relationships (which include sex) is forbidden.
Click to expand...

So, romantic relationships include sex? Apparently you are saying that they include sex by definition. I pity your poor children. The moment they become teenagers and begin to become interested in dating, are you going to kick them out of your house because you assume they are automatically vile fornicators?

A romantic relationship is a strong, heartfelt relationship worthy of being celebrated in a romance -- a saga or epic telling. As David and Jonathan's is in 1 Samuel. Sex is not a necessary requirement of the definition.


As I said, read the whole context. Cherry picking individual verses is dangerous. There is the old story of the man who picked random verses to plan his day. First he picked Matthew 27:5 "[Judas]...went and hanged himself." then he picked Luke 10:37 "Go thou and do likewise."


So you can list every person in the Bible and tell me exactly what kind of relationship he or she was in with everyone else? And you can show that no same-sex relationship was anything more than friendship? Does that include the centurion and his pais (Matt 8; Luke 7)? Does it include Ashpenaz and Daniel? Does it include Potiphar and Joseph? On what basis do you claim that you know beyond doubt that no one mentioned by name in the Bible was homosexual?

Of course there is no homosexual marriage in the Old Testament. The Jews were under the Levitical code, and their spiritual leaders always expanded the restrictions to make sure that the holiness code was not broken even by accident. Consider how the command that "you shall not seethe a kid in his mother's milk" (Ex 23:19; Ex 34:26; Deut 14:21) became an elaborate dietary code where meat and dairy cannot be served on the same dishes.

As far as the New Testament goes, how many marriages does it list in total? Zacharias and Elizabeth, Mary and Joseph, maybe three or four others?

"Homosexuality" is not talked about in the Bible, except in modern, biased translations. The word has only been in existence for less than 200 years. The sin of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is only mentioned in four verses. The other two verses are 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:9-10. Again, it is important to read for context.


So it is still wrong for a woman to wear slacks? It is still wrong to wear a linen-blend blouse or a wool-blend skirt? There are a lot of Levitical prohibitions besides the dietary laws, and the sabbath laws. The two lists I posted were some of the ones that carry the death penalty or are called "abominations" (toevah). And that was to show that neither could be used, as you tried, to define a holiness law as a moral one.

The council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) explained the four holiness laws that remain in effect: meat must be humanely and bloodlesly butchered, and cannot have been sacrificed to idols, and fornication is still forbidden. If Leviticus 20:13 was still in effect, it would have been included here as well.


Re-read Romans 1:18 -2:3 as a single teaching one more time. This time let your heart focus on verses 2:1-3 instead of verses 1:26-27. If you still don't see the point of the passage, I'll explain it in detail later.

You implied that David and Jonathan were homosexuals and had a romantic relationship. Friendship does not equal homosexuality, sorry.
Click to expand...

Not just me. David said that it was (2 Sam 1:19-27). Saul went quite a bit further and accused Jonathan of impropriety (1 Sam 20:30-31)

Of course Freindship does not equal homosexuality. It does not make any sense to think that it does. Likewise Romance does not equal homosexuality.

But friendship can bloom into romance. And it can whether the friend is a man or a woman, whether you are gay or you are straight.

You have to ignore much of what the bible clearly states to believe it condones homosexuality, when it clearly does not.
Click to expand...

And you have to read a lot into it that's not there to be so positive that it condemns it.
 
Upvote 0
G

GwynApNudd

Regular Member
Apr 3, 2007
114
39
✟23,130.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

I agree. Except for one thing: was "the homosexual act" "strongly" forbidden under the law? I don't believe that we agree on the meaning of the two enquoted phrases.
 
Upvote 0

kagol

Active Member
May 17, 2007
68
5
✟22,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
GwynApNudd said:
Other things earning the death penalty in the Torah include:
The strictures of the Holiness code have been loosed by the New Covenant through Christ. As explained in Acts 11 and Acts 15.
Click to expand...

I agree. Except for one thing: was "the homosexual act" "strongly" forbidden under the law? I don't believe that we agree on the meaning of the two enquoted phrases.
Click to expand...

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


How does this not strongly forbid it?

How can this verse mean anything other than the homosexual act?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Enslaved to God
Replies
0
Views
165
Daily Devotionals
Christsfreeservant
I Rejoice at Your Word
Replies
7
Views
333
Daily Devotionals
BibleBeliever1611
An Effectual Doer
Replies
0
Views
345
Deeper Fellowship
Christsfreeservant
Is there a sacred vs secular divide to work?
Replies
9
Views
300
General Theology
Rose_bud
Where Does the Bible Talk About Mortal Sin?
Replies
0
Views
73
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Menu
Log in
Register