1 Corinthians 6:9

[HaloHope]

If the homosexual act was strongly forbidden under the Law then it is the same under Grace.

That assumes that it was condemned under the old covenant in the first place though. There are certainly other ways of seeing homosexuality as not a sin other than dismissing the old covenant.

 

[HaloHope]

It depends on the person.

Then what would you say was the main cause for a same-sex relationship that started as best friends in most cases?

 

[IamRedeemed]

Amen. God did not make a man and a woman and ask Adam which he would prefer. Women were made with "receiving" sexual parts and men with "giving" sexual parts. God never intended our bodily waste exits to be used for expressions of love by anyone regardless of sex or our preferences. The organ was made to "expel waste", not receive anything.

If homosexuality was an alternative choice given by God, He would have also provided alternative bodies or made us all hermaphrodites so that we could "go either way".

Additionally, if it were God's intended plan for everyone to match up with whomever as long as they were having a "loving monogamous relationship", all combinations of two would be able to be fruitful and multiply, yet it is only possible with ONE COMBINATION of humans. One male and One female.

It doesn't take a biological scientist to figure that truth out. It does however take amoral individuals and those who pervert the natural use of the bodies that God gave them.

Woman was made as a PERFECT MATCH for man.
That is why she is WO-man, for she was taken out of man, to be a perfect match FOR man.

In addition to that, if it was aok with God, He would NEVER have expressed in no uncertain terms that it is definitely NOT okay with Him. And He has indeed expressed that as has been shown over and over in these forums.

One person here in an attempt to derail the Scripture to suit their point, used a translation for what is clearly identifying homosexuals (effeminate, sodomites, catamites) as "perverts" and for some odd reason felt that, this term validated their point, but as we can see from any dictionary, the word "pervert" means to use for a purpose other than what was intended, and another on the list is one who practices sexual perversion, and another is deliberately distort which is what all of those who say gay is good with God are doing, so there is just no getting around it unless you tear that page out of your Bible (which many here already do, mentally if not literally, as IF God was created with the minds and hands of man, that we can change what He says)

Just make yourself a wooden idol, or a golden calf. There is no difference, because those who dismiss the Word of God for their own desires are putting God and His opinion under their feet any way, and if they do it after having received Christ, they are additionally trampling Christ and His blood under their feet, so therefore the truth is not in them and they worship an entirely different God, than the God of the Bible, which is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
A God they have created in their image.

It doesn't matter if you get all of mankind to see it your way, you are just deceiving yourselves. You can't change what God has ordained before the foundations of the world no matter what you do, and since He is the only one that matters as He is the only one who can offer us salvation through His Son Jesus Christ.

So, if we choose to follow another doctrine, we are none of His, and there is no other that can save us, and we are not found, but are yet lost in our darkened world of sin stricken blindness and deceit.



PS..amen, Jonathan and David were were not lovers, but the best of friends.

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.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Then what would you say was the main cause for a same-sex relationship that started as best friends in most cases?

I do think it is confusion of friendship, but I can't speak for everyone. That's why I said it depends on the person.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

That assumes that it was condemned under the old covenant in the first place though. There are certainly other ways of seeing homosexuality as not a sin other than dismissing the old covenant.

How do you get 'homosexuality is ok' from anything written in the bible?

 

[WashedBytheSon]

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.



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.



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

Romantic relationships include the desire for sex. The desire for homosexual sex is still wrong. And you don't know what kind of a mother I will be, so be quiet. I don't consider my close friendships with my female friends romantic relationships.

I know without a doubt that none of those relationships were homosexual because God condemns homosexuality. He does not contradict Himself.

What does the food have to do with it? The dietary restrictions were revoked. What is considered to be sexual sin was not. Let's stay on topic.

Again, how is Romans 1:26, 27 taken out context?

When talking about David and Jonathan, are you speaking about 2 samuel 1:26 specifically, where David says, "Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of a woman" ?

That doesn't mean homosexual. The loyalty and selfless devotion they had toward each other, neither had felt for a woman. Does that equal homosexual? No. It equals a strong friendship. I am loyal and selflessly devoted to my friend Amy, she is the same for me. We are not homosexual. It is commonly heard from both men and women that they trust their friends more than the opposite sex.

Way to take 1 Samuel 20:30-31 out of context. Saul was mad because Jonathan sided with David. Saul was shaming Jonathan for choosing to be loyal to David over his own father.

Ok. Let's make this simple. Give me three verses that state homosexuality is ok.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Amen. God did not make a man and a woman and ask Adam which he would prefer. Women were made with "receiving" sexual parts and men with "giving" sexual parts. God never intended our bodily waste exits to be used for expressions of love by anyone regardless of sex or our preferences. The organ was made to "expel waste", not receive anything.

If homosexuality was an alternative choice given by God, He would have also provided alternative bodies or made us all hermaphrodites so that we could "go either way".

Additionally, if it were God's intended plan for everyone to match up with whomever as long as they were having a "loving monogamous relationship", all combinations of two would be able to be fruitful and multiply, yet it is only possible with ONE COMBINATION of humans. One male and One female.

It doesn't take a biological scientist to figure that truth out. It does however take amoral individuals and those who pervert the natural use of the bodies that God gave them.

Woman was made as a PERFECT MATCH for man.
That is why she is WO-man, for she was taken out of man, to be a perfect match FOR man.

In addition to that, if it was aok with God, He would NEVER have expressed in no uncertain terms that it is definitely NOT okay with Him. And He has indeed expressed that as has been shown over and over in these forums.

One person here in an attempt to derail the Scripture to suit their point, used a translation for what is clearly identifying homosexuals (effeminate, sodomites, catamites) as "perverts" and for some odd reason felt that, this term validated their point, but as we can see from any dictionary, the word "pervert" means to use for a purpose other than what was intended, and another on the list is one who practices sexual perversion, and another is deliberately distort which is what all of those who say gay is good with God are doing, so there is just no getting around it unless you tear that page out of your Bible (which many here already do, mentally if not literally, as IF God was created with the minds and hands of man, that we can change what He says)

Just make yourself a wooden idol, or a golden calf. There is no difference, because those who dismiss the Word of God for their own desires are putting God and His opinion under their feet any way, and if they do it after having received Christ, they are additionally trampling Christ and His blood under their feet, so therefore the truth is not in them and they worship an entirely different God, than the God of the Bible, which is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
A God they have created in their image.

It doesn't matter if you get all of mankind to see it your way, you are just deceiving yourselves. You can't change what God has ordained before the foundations of the world no matter what you do, and since He is the only one that matters as He is the only one who can offer us salvation through His Son Jesus Christ.

So, if we choose to follow another doctrine, we are none of His, and there is no other that can save us, and we are not found, but are yet lost in our darkened world of sin stricken blindness and deceit.



PS..amen, Jonathan and David were were not lovers, but the best of friends.

Thank you!

 

[ReformedChapin]

That assumes that it was condemned under the old covenant in the first place though. There are certainly other ways of seeing homosexuality as not a sin other than dismissing the old covenant.

You mean besides the entire bible which clearly states that homosexuality is a sin?

 

[kagol]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GwynApNudd
Other things earning the death penalty in the Torah include:

• Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)

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

Quote:GwynApNudd
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.

by Kagol
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kagol


If the homosexual act was strongly forbidden under the Law then it is the same under Grace.

by HaloHope
That assumes that it was condemned under the old covenant in the first place though. There are certainly other ways of seeing homosexuality as not a sin other than dismissing the old covenant.

Could somebody please respond to this post from earlier, because this is one of the clear sticking points for me. I cannot see any other meaning to it than what is plainly stated. Please explain to me what I am missing!!

Hi HaloHope

 

[GwynApNudd]

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?

This certainly forbids one particular act under one particular set of circumstances for one particular people. No argument there.

There has been disagreement as to what particular act was forbidden, under which particular circumstances it was forbidden. and to whom, in particular the ban applied. There is no Biblical mandate for expanding the prohibition beyond its particulars.

 

[ReformedChapin]

This certainly forbids one particular act under one particular set of circumstances for one particular people. No argument there.

There has been disagreement as to what particular act was forbidden, under which particular circumstances it was forbidden. and to whom, in particular the ban applied. There is no Biblical mandate for expanding the prohibition beyond its particulars.

Well the same act is referenced in different scriptures and is compared to other acts such as murder and abomination to always be unethical. If we apply your hermanutic to the scriptures we can make all morality to an acient time span.

 

[HaloHope]

This certainly forbids one particular act under one particular set of circumstances for one particular people. No argument there.

There has been disagreement as to what particular act was forbidden, under which particular circumstances it was forbidden. and to whom, in particular the ban applied. There is no Biblical mandate for expanding the prohibition beyond its particulars.

"What Gwynapnudd said" is something that I find myself wanting to type nearly all the time lately. But yeh, this sums up my viewpoint too.

 

[GwynApNudd]

Romantic relationships include the desire for sex. The desire for homosexual sex is still wrong. And you don't know what kind of a mother I will be, so be quiet. I don't consider my close friendships with my female friends romantic relationships.

There may or may not be the potential for a Romance to include physical initmacy (which may or may not include sexual intimacy). It is not required.

I know without a doubt that none of those relationships were homosexual because God condemns homosexuality. He does not contradict Himself.

So let me get this straight: you know that God condemns all homosexuality because there is no homosexuality in the Bible, and you know that there is no homosexuality in the Bible because God condemns all homosexuality. Have you ever heard of circular reasoning?

What does the food have to do with it? The dietary restrictions were revoked. What is considered to be sexual sin was not. Let's stay on topic.

The dietary restrictions were mostly revoked (there were three exceptions). That fornication is considered to be sexual sin was not.

You correctly stated that there were no same-sex marriages in the Old Testament. I explained why. The rabbis expanded the ban of Lev 20:13 into a general ban, just like they expanded the ban of Deut 14:21 into the complex dairy vs meat laws.

Again, how is Romans 1:26, 27 taken out context?

I won't have time for a full exegesis until the weekend. But in preparation, let me ask you: what is the lesson Paul wants us to learn from this passage (Romans 1:18-2:3? (Hint: the moral of the passage is in verses 2:1-3)

When talking about David and Jonathan, are you speaking about 2 samuel 1:26 specifically, where David says, "Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of a woman" ?

That doesn't mean homosexual. The loyalty and selfless devotion they had toward each other, neither had felt for a woman. Does that equal homosexual? No. It equals a strong friendship. I am loyal and selflessly devoted to my friend Amy, she is the same for me. We are not homosexual. It is commonly heard from both men and women that they trust their friends more than the opposite sex.

If you check back through the posts in this thread, you will see that I never claimed that their love was sexual. I never claimed to know anything about it beyond what the Bible says. You are the one who claimed to know more about their relationship than the Bible tells us. And you are the one claimed that my statement of the Biblical account implied that they were homosexual.

Way to take 1 Samuel 20:30-31 out of context. Saul was mad because Jonathan sided with David. Saul was shaming Jonathan for choosing to be loyal to David over his own father.

Of course Saul's outburst can't be used to prove that there was anything untoward in D&J's relationship. It is even likely that Saul didn't really think so at all. After all at this time Saul was apt to become irrational when David's name came up. But once he made the outburst, the shadow of the accusation did not go away. And the Biblical record preserves it.

Ok. Let's make this simple. Give me three verses that state homosexuality is ok.

Exactly what do you mean by "ok"?

In any cse, the three verses you requested are: 1 Cor 6:12; 1 Cor 10:23; and Titus 1:15

 

[GwynApNudd]

Well the same act is referenced in different scriptures and is compared to other acts such as murder and abomination to always be unethical. If we apply your hermanutic to the scriptures we can make all morality to an acient time span.

Please back up this statement. Where, exactly, is it compared to murder? Listed with murder in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1Tim 1:9-10 is not the same as compared with murder, unless you are claiming that covetousness and drunkenness are also compared with murder. Paul is making a point in these passages. It is the same point James makes when he says

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

 

[GwynApNudd]

"What Gwynapnudd said" is something that I find myself wanting to type nearly all the time lately. But yeh, this sums up my viewpoint too.

Thank you very much

Really. You are too kind.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Please back up this statement. Where, exactly, is it compared to murder? Listed with murder in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1Tim 1:9-10 is not the same as compared with murder, unless you are claiming that covetousness and drunkenness are also compared with murder. Paul is making a point in these passages. It is the same point James makes when he says

Timothy 1:8-11
1:8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 1:9 realizing that law 11 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, 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 12 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 1:11 This 13 accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God 14 that was entrusted to me. 15

 

[GwynApNudd]

Timothy 1:8-11
1:8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 1:9 realizing that law 11 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, 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 12 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 1:11 This 13 accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God 14 that was entrusted to me. 15

What is your point? all you did was quote a passage that I specifically mentioned, and already showed that it does not make your case.

Romans 1:18-2:3, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 all make the same point as James 2:8-11, namely we are all sinners; it does not matter if our sin is serial murder or one "little white lie," we have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It is the same as the lesson of Matthew 5:17-48 and Matthew 7:1-5.

Don't look around at others and say "My sin isn't as bad as their sins, so I'm a good person." No matter what your sin you need Jesus gift of salvation.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

 

[ReformedChapin]

What is your point? all you did was quote a passage that I specifically mentioned, and already showed that it does not make your case.

Romans 1:18-2:3, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 all make the same point as James 2:8-11, namely we are all sinners; it does not matter if our sin is serial murder or one "little white lie," we have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

It is the same as the lesson of Matthew 5:17-48 and Matthew 7:1-5.

Don't look around at others and say "My sin isn't as bad as their sins, so I'm a good person." No matter what your sin you need Jesus gift of salvation.

Sorry just because you don't want it to make the point that it does doesn't mean that it doesn't. Also there is a different in the context of the passage which derives unrepenant sinners. Of course we all sin against God that doesn't imply that those of us who are trying to stop are not different. A person with homosexual tendancies is no better or worse than I if he/she is trying to stop sinning.

 

[AngelusSax]

Quick question to both sides of this argument:

Does the church have authority to decide on matters such as this? Even to the point of claiming that a law is no longer valid?

 

[kagol]

This certainly forbids one particular act under one particular set of circumstances for one particular people. No argument there.

There has been disagreement as to what particular act was forbidden, under which particular circumstances it was forbidden. and to whom, in particular the ban applied. There is no Biblical mandate for expanding the prohibition beyond its particulars.

Good grief!! I'm amazed!! I never knew that was how you saw it!!

So does that mean that this

11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

only applies to men and mothers-in-law and it's ok for women and fathers-in-law.

and this


12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

12 - only applies to men and daughters-in-law and it's ok for women and sons-in-law.