A systematic look at the Bible and homosexuality

[Outspoken]

"His response mirrors Christ's law of love: "

*chuckles* good, I'm glad. The point is christ never told people it was okay to sin either. You dont' see him running after the "rich young ruler" saying, no no, its okay....The fact is homosexuality is sinful and I won't dilute my salt, but you can if you want to.

"You May Be Going to Hell if You..... "

Again read romans, but I guess you didn't do it when I first told you so broken record I be.

 

[PastorFreud]

Yesterday at 10:50 AM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #58



I hope you're not implying that to damage oneself is perfectly alright.

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.  All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."  Mark 7:21-23

Five things are listed in these verses that if perpetrated would damage other people.  Six are listed that would merely damage oneself, yet they are still considered as evil. 

   

I'm not following what you mean.  Which one only damages oneself?

 

Marriage.  I am not sure why God is so concerned with government sanctioned sex.  Of course, it wasn't government sanctioned in the beginning, it was God sanctioned.  The church has given authority to the state that may not belong there.  Lifelong committment in relationship is the intended nature.  This was once recognized by the church, now by the state.

The problem with this argument will be when marriage is approved for homosexuals.  When the state agrees, and some states do already, to recognize gay marriage, then gays will have state sanction. 

 

[leecappella]

Outspoken:

I did read Romans. See page #5, post #42.

In Christ,
leecappella

 

[leecappella]

Today at 02:12 AM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #60
"Its interesting though what you appear to be saying.  Your description of "a committed sexual relationship of monogamy for life" sounds a lot like marriage."

My Response: That is exactly what I am saying. After all, what is it when two people vow to one another before God to stay with one another for life because of the love one spirit shares for the other spirit? Marriage!  

"Which is the only relationship that is meant to be sexual correct? And what's the bible's position on marrige?"

My Response: Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge (Hebrews 13:4). The words to focus on and define in the greek language in this text are 'marriage', 'honorable','whoremongers', and 'adulterers'. Again, nowhere in scripture are two same sex persons pointed out because of their love and condemned thereafter because of that love. Read the story of David & Jonathan to see how scripture views the love that is shared between two persons of the same sex. I do not refer you to this story to prove that their relationship was sexual. I do not know. My point is that whatever it was, it was an intense strong love that could have possibly been such. Only God knows. Whatever it was, it involved two men who professed their love for one another despite those opposed to them. If this were a man and woman, I'm sure the reader would conclude to some extent that the two were in love. It should also be mentioned that the biblical definition of 'marriage' in hebrew and greek, if I'm not mistaken, is simply nuptials or a ceremony. To whom is included in the nuptials or ceremony is not specified.

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."  Genesis 2:24

My Response: In the context of the creation story, this verse is simply saying because the woman was made out of Man ('Man' is capitalized in my bible for some reason. I will look into that and its Hebrew significance.), she will be called wo-man and, therefore, or because of these before mentioned reasons, the two (man/woman) shall become one when they cleave to one another because one came out of the other or one is part of the other. It does not say that because woman came out of Man that cleaving is only limited to the man/woman couple. For me, it is simply setting the stage for creation itself and explaining it. What better way to explain how the earth gets populated than the use of the man & woman? Upon reading Genesis 2:24, there also seems to be an implication that all males will leave father and mother and be joined to a wife. Scripture makes it clear that there are those who will not get heterosexually 'joined' (Matthew 19:10-12) or bear children (Isaiah 56:3-5). Marriage is a spiritual union of spirits. Ponder this: Any christian male is the 'bride' of Christ.

Always in love,

leecappella

 

[xzins]

Sodomy.....homosexuality suggests something that isn't possible.

 

[leecappella]

Xzins:

Please explain further. Thanks.

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

Today at 07:55 AM leecappella said this in Post #64

Again, nowhere in scripture are two same sex persons pointed out because of their love and condemned thereafter because of that love. Read the story of David & Jonathan to see how scripture views the love that is shared between two persons of the same sex. I do not refer you to this story to prove that their relationship was sexual. I do not know. My point is that whatever it was, it was an intense strong love that could have possibly been such. Only God knows. Whatever it was, it involved two men who professed their love for one another despite those opposed to them. If this were a man and woman, I'm sure the reader would conclude to some extent that the two were in love. It should also be mentioned that the biblical definition of 'marriage' in hebrew and greek, if I'm not mistaken, is simply nuptials or a ceremony. To whom is included in the nuptials or ceremony is not specified.

I've heard people suggest that David and Jonathan's relationship was a homosexual one before, but closer inspection proves that to be totally absurd.  Read 1 Samuel 20:17, this is what it says:

And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.

Notice that Jonathan's love for David is clarified, informing the reader that "he loved him as he loved his own soul."  Sound familiar?  It should.  Brotherly love is one of the most repeated themes throughout the Bible.  Jesus' second command was to, "Love your neighbor as yourself."  Even Hebrews 13 begins with, "Let brotherly love continue."  Loving another person as you love yourself does'nt denote either a sexual, or a romantic relationship.  Rather it's the highest level of agape love that one can achieve.   

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."  Genesis 2:24

My Response: In the context of the creation story, this verse is simply saying because the woman was made out of Man ('Man' is capitalized in my bible for some reason. I will look into that and its Hebrew significance.), she will be called wo-man and, therefore, or because of these before mentioned reasons, the two (man/woman) shall become one when they cleave to one another because one came out of the other or one is part of the other. It does not say that because woman came out of Man that cleaving is only limited to the man/woman couple. For me, it is simply setting the stage for creation itself and explaining it. What better way to explain how the earth gets populated than the use of the man & woman?

First of all let me just say that the Bible does not give one example of two men ever being wed.  The institution of marriage is always portrayed as between a man and a woman.  Genesis 2:24 specifies that when a man cleaves to his wife, that they will become one flesh.  This isn't repeated for the instance of men cleaving to other men, because that situation is'nt addressed at all.  Malachi 2:15 explains that God's reason for making man and wife one flesh is to produce godly offspring.  It goes without saying that men cannot produce offspring with other men.  Now before you start saying that "marriage is the spiritual union of spirits," refer back to Mark 12:25.  After being told of a woman who marries her husband's six brothers after he dies, Jesus is asked whose wife she will be in the resurrection.  Jesus responds that "when they rise from the dead...they are not given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven."  As Christians our souls are wed to God when we die (1 Corinthians 6:17).  That is why men are refered to as "brides" of Christ just as women are.  Its an idiom to describe the union between man and God.           

 

1 Corinthians 15:23-24,

Apollo Belvedre

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

Today at 01:05 AM PastorFreud said this in Post #62

I'm not following what you mean.  Which one only damages oneself?

Foolishness, pride, blashpemy, envy, lasciviousness, covetousness.

The problem with this argument will be when marriage is approved for homosexuals.  When the state agrees, and some states do already, to recognize gay marriage, then gays will have state sanction.

Good point.  There is no witness to marriage higher than God.

 

1 Corinthians 15:23-24,

Apollo Belvedre

 

[Apollo Belvedre]

I'm getting anxious to move one.

 

[PastorFreud]

Yesterday at 06:11 PM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #68

Foolishness, pride, blashpemy, envy, lasciviousness, covetousness.

Apollo Belvedre

I see these as injurious to society.  Don't get how you think these are all "personal" sins.  I realize you are eager to move on, but you could try being clearer.

 

[leecappella]

Today at 12:53 AM Apollo Belvedre said this in Post #67
"I've heard people suggest that David and Jonathan's relationship was a homosexual one before, but closer inspection proves that to be totally absurd.  Read 1 Samuel 20:17, this is what it says:

"And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul.""

My Response: Again, my explanation for bringing that up was explained. I too, obviously, have heard of the interpretation of others regarding this story. I can only go by what I see. I was not there. Your point makes sense, however, all other aspects of the story may suggest otherwise as well. It could fall either way as far as I am concerned.

"First of all let me just say that the Bible does not give one example of two men ever being wed." 

My Response: True, but the argument of silence does not carry much weight. The bible doesn't mention a lot of things, but I'm sure that does not stop you, me or others from having something to say about one thing or the other as it relates to our view of the bible! Also, does the bible give an example of a man and woman being wed as they now wed today: fall in love, get engaged, and then wed? I ask because it seems you believe we should live by the biblical examples as set in the bible and what is not given as an example should be strayed from. The biblical concept of marriage was nothing like it is today. That being the case, are we missing the mark in the marriage area?

"The institution of marriage is always portrayed as between a man and a woman.  Genesis 2:24 specifies that when a man cleaves to his wife, that they will become one flesh.  This isn't repeated for the instance of men cleaving to other men, because that situation is'nt addressed at all."

My Response: I have already made that point, though I was taking it in another direction I suppose it's just as easy to be opposed to something that scripture does not deal with as it is to be in favor of it.

"Malachi 2:15 explains that God's reason for making man and wife one flesh is to produce godly offspring.  It goes without saying that men cannot produce offspring with other men." 

My Response: I'm not sure that is what Malachi is saying. I would have to read it all in its context. Regardless though, producing offspring is not a good reason either. The argument that two same sex persons cannot reproduce while an opposite sex couple can is not good grounds for opposition. It implies that all heterosexual couples can reproduce and that being unable to reproduce is some how a dreadful thing to God. You and I both know that there are some heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce, therefore the argument does not hold in my opinion. If you see a same sex couple as being unable to reproduce and the feelings you have are based upon that in one way or another, then I see it only fair to view a heterosexual couple in the same way with the very same feelings you may be having since you base your argument on the ability to have children.

"Now before you start saying that "marriage is the spiritual union of spirits," refer back to Mark 12:25.  After being told of a woman who marries her husband's six brothers after he dies, Jesus is asked whose wife she will be in the resurrection.  Jesus responds that "when they rise from the dead...they are not given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven."  As Christians our souls are wed to God when we die (1 Corinthians 6:17).  That is why men are refered to as "brides" of Christ just as women are.  Its an idiom to describe the union between man and God. 1 Corinthians 15:23-24"

My Response:  Note in Mark 12 that no seed is ever produced. Just mentioned that because it is neither criticized by Christ because no children were reproduced. Another reason your 'two men can't reproduce' argument does not hold up. Also, I am perfectly aware that as christians, we are one spirit, not soul. I've pointed that out previously also. I mentioned the 'bride' of Christ concept to say that I believe that God is completely aware of the possibility of a spirit in a man's body to be joined with a spirit in another man's body to the extent that the two develop a love for one another that is equal to the love that a man and woman may share. The feelings are the same. The only difference is anatomical. God is not concerned with anatomics. (1Samuel 16:7)   

With respect & love,

leecappella

Ps. This post is in bold because for some reason, it posted partically in bold and partially not in bold, so I just went ahead and made it all bold since when I tried to undo the bold parts, it would not respond. Nothing is meant by it unless otherwise expressed in a post that is in regular font. Thanks.

 

[Outspoken]

"I did read Romans. See page #5, post #42."

You mean the usual banter and misunderstanding of scripture to justify sin? No thanks, read too much of that from others already. I don't care to see sin justified again. From your response I can see you haven't studied Paul that much. He was a very detail orentied man when it came to making a point. He was very good at hitting all sides of an argument and from many points to justify what he said. He ment all homosexuals, that is why he said what he did. All homosexual relationships are wrong, that's just the simple truth about it. If you want to rationalize your way into sin, go for it, that doesn't make it right. Might as well justify murder, rape and other types of malace while youre at it.

 

[PastorFreud]

11th April 2003 at 09:01 PM Outspoken said this in Post #72 


 All homosexual relationships are wrong, that's just the simple truth about it. If you want to rationalize your way into sin, go for it, that doesn't make it right. Might as well justify murder, rape and other types of malace while youre at it.

So you are saying that homosexuality is on par with murder and rape?  Homosexuality=Malice?

 

[leecappella]

Outspoken:

Explain to me your views as to why Paul speaks of same sex activity in relation to those who worship idols? Why does he speak of these two things as if one has to do with the other? Thanks.

leecappella

 

[Outspoken]

"So you are saying that homosexuality is on par with murder and rape? Homosexuality=Malice?"

In terms of being sinful, yup 100%.

"Why does he speak of these two things as if one has to do with the other?"

Its a causal relationship. Because they worshiped idols God gave them over to their sin which included homosexuality.

 

[Andrew]

Read the story of David & Jonathan to see how scripture views the love that is shared between two persons of the same sex. I do not refer you to this story to prove that their relationship was sexual. I do not know. My point is that whatever it was, it was an intense strong love that could have possibly been such. Only God knows.

In mid-eastern culture, its ok for men to hold hands. Its like putting your hand over the shoulder of your buddy. That dont mean its a homosexual relationship. Also, consider when Jesus asked Peter if he loved him and Peter replied 3 times that he did. Now does them make them gays? Of cse not!

It's amazing how Christians can still think the Bible condones or approves of gay relationships!

Le 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.

"mankind" -- 02145 rkz zakar {zaw-kawr'}

from 02142; TWOT - 551e

AV - male 67, man 7, child 4, mankind 2, him 1; 81

n m
1) male (of humans and animals)
adj
2) male (of humans)

YLT -- Le 20:13 ÔAnd a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

 

[leecappella]

Today at 05:36 AM Outspoken said this in Post #75
"Its a causal relationship. Because they worshiped idols God gave them over to their sin which included homosexuality."

My Response: What does it mean to you, when it says that God gave them over to their sin? Define the phrase 'gave them over'. Thanks.

Leecappella

 

[leecappella]

Andrew (in response to each point you made):

My Response: You are correct. However, not saying with 100% certainty (how could I or anyone else?), the David & Jonathan story has much more aspects to it than holding hands or putting your hand on another man's shoulder.  


My Response: Again, you are correct. Your implication is that I would go so far as to say even that is a homosexual situation. I do have my limits! <IMG onmouseover="this.style.cursor='hand';" style="CURSOR: hand" onclick="smilie('');" alt=wink src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif" border=0>&nbsp;That would be stretching it a bit! If that were the case, no man could say he loved another. No father to his son, no son to his father, and so on! David &amp; Jonathan's story is much more than these.

My Response: Even more so amazing how some christians think the bible condemns gay relationships of love when that particular issue is not even dealt with in the bible.


My Response: Compare the hebrew word for 'man' (#376). The text does not read If a man lies with a man. It reads, if a man lies with mankind. The #376 word for 'man' denotes any man in general. 'Mankind', in the levitical context, refers to not just any man, but one who is worthy of rememberance, mentioning, calling to mind, etc. In your #2145 defintion of the word, you did&nbsp; not include the word from which it originated from, which means 'to remember'. That has a huge difference on the meaning of a word. This is why it does not refer to any general, random male, but one who is worthy of your attention, etc. One who is purposely being spoken of though his name is not being identified. In context with Leviticus, it is a male temple prostitute and/or the idol itself. If a man lies with a male temple prostitute and/or an idol via a male temple prostitute....it is abomination (idolatry, in context). Note, there is no way that Leviticus would condemn only male homosexuality, in general, and not condemn female if it were not referring to some specific act as opposed to homosexuality in general. It has other female related prohibitions in its do's and don'ts, but no lesbianism? Well, then it was not condemning it in general. There were specific acts in mind and the acts were male temple prostitution and those who lie with them (idol worhippers).

In love,

leecappella

 

[Andrew]

David & Jonathan's story is much more than these.

They were certainly not homosexuals if that's what you mean. Gay "Christians" like to use this example to to support their lifestyle. Any "Christian" who insists in living in sin can always twist Bible scriptures to support their sinful habits to absolve themselves of guilt. Jus like in another thread, someone is saying that at the pt you have sex with your boyfriend, God considers you married! What nonsense!

My Response: Compare the hebrew word for 'man' (#376). The text does not read If a man lies with a man.

I've given Strong's meaning (male of humans and animals). And given the context (it's talking abt sex with daughter in law, sex with Father's wife etc) its clear it is refering to man-man sex or male-male ie homo-sex.

 

[leecappella]

Andrew:

"They were certainly not homosexuals if that's what you mean. Gay "Christians" like to use this example to to support their lifestyle. Any "Christian" who insists in living in sin can always twist Bible scriptures to support their sinful habits to absolve themselves of guilt."

My Response: As I stated elsewhere, the David &amp; Jonathan story can fall either way as far as I am concerned. I do not know. I was not there! My point was that more was going on than simply placing one's hand on the other's shoulder, that's all. As far as twisting the bible to support what one believes, that goes on across the board. I don't think it is intended by some, but by others it is. Some people accept the bible literally and at point blank face value, others do not. If the two bible readers come together, one will accuse the other of doing some twisting. The case may not be so much twisiting, but difference in approach to bible reading and bible study. Not everyone approaches the bible in the same manner. You may open it up and read what you see and take it at face value. Others open it up and go deeper than looking at its surface. They define words in hebrew and greek, they use a concordance, they read historical sources about the culture, etc. The difference in methods used can and has led to different conclusions. My point is that some deliberately twist, some simply approach the bible differently with more or less steps in their study and the result is different conclusions. When these different conclusions come face to face, like you and me, one is accused of 'twisting'. Twistiing is true in some cases, but not in all cases and not in this one. Basically, you are telling me that if I don't come to the same conclusion as you do, then I am in the wrong. I would have to wonder about that

"I've given Strong's meaning (male of humans and animals). And given the context (it's talking abt sex with daughter in law, sex with Father's wife etc) its clear it is refering to man-man sex or male-male ie homo-sex."

My Response: Strong's #376 means male, opposite of female. Strongs's #2145, means male, but it comes from the root word meaning 'to remember'. This implies not just any male, as #376 would imply, but it implies even more so a male who is worthy of being remembered, mentioned, honored, etc. That male, in context, would be the male temple prostitute and/or the idol that is being worshipped and remembered in memory via the male temple prostitute. In context, my guess is that the male idol is Molech or some other idol in association with Molech.

Always in love,

leecappella