• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A systematic look at the Bible and homosexuality

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by fragmentsofdreams, Mar 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Outspoken

    Outspoken Standing in the Gap

    +15
    Christian
    "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.
     
  2. PastorFreud

    PastorFreud Lie back on the couch.

    +173
    Protestant
    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. 
     
  3. leecappella

    leecappella <font size="3&quot ;>DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
    Outspoken:

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

    In Christ,
    leecappella
     
  4. leecappella

    leecappella <font size="3&quot ;>DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
     
  5. xzins

    xzins New Member

    3
    +0
    Sodomy.....homosexuality suggests something that isn't possible.
     
  6. leecappella

    leecappella <font size="3&quot ;>DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
    Xzins:

    Please explain further. Thanks.
     
  7. Apollo Belvedre

    Apollo Belvedre New Member

    35
    +0
    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.   

    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
     
  8. Apollo Belvedre

    Apollo Belvedre New Member

    35
    +0


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

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

     

    1 Corinthians 15:23-24,

    Apollo Belvedre
     
  9. Apollo Belvedre

    Apollo Belvedre New Member

    35
    +0
    I'm getting anxious to move one.
     
  10. PastorFreud

    PastorFreud Lie back on the couch.

    +173
    Protestant
    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.
     
  11. leecappella

    leecappella <font size="3&quot ;>DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
     
  12. Outspoken

    Outspoken Standing in the Gap

    +15
    Christian
    "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.
     
  13. PastorFreud

    PastorFreud Lie back on the couch.

    +173
    Protestant
    So you are saying that homosexuality is on par with murder and rape?  Homosexuality=Malice?
     
  14. leecappella

    leecappella <font size="3&quot ;>DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
    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
     
  15. Outspoken

    Outspoken Standing in the Gap

    +15
    Christian
    "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.
     
  16. Andrew

    Andrew Well-Known Member

    +19
    Non-Denom
    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.
     
  17. leecappella

    leecappella <font size="3&quot ;>DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
    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
     
  18. leecappella

    leecappella <font size="3&quot ;>DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
    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
     
  19. Andrew

    Andrew Well-Known Member

    +19
    Non-Denom
    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!

    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.
     
  20. leecappella

    leecappella &amp;lt;font size=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot ;&amp;gt;DO

    876
    +18
    Christian
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...