Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII
We seem to have two contrasting worldviews here. I recognise Christians as believing the NT testimony of Jesus Christ as the truth. So I expect to see Dogbean citing and quoting from the Bible. You seem to be claiming it isnt reality. Can I aks you what your defintion of belief is.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I do not have to. Citations abound from at least as early as the 2nd century BCE that associate the sin of Sodom with rampant homosexuality.

Ah, goal post shifting... at first it was the claim that "sodomite has always meant homosexual" now we're reaching broader, trying to shoe horn any reference to homosexuality in Sodom as the same thing...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Every time I make a good post, you change the topic. I really don't appreciate working for over half an hour, digging through the Bible and carefully crafting a post for you to dismiss it in two seconds to have you call it "not an accurate version of reality." Either Paul is right, or you are right and Paul lied 11 times, while saying that he is not a liar. My money is on Paul, for if you were full of the truth and logic and insight you say you are, then you would be much more famous than you are in Christian circles. Face the facts; you don't accept the scripture and use it as a double-edged sword, you reject basic Biblical truths, you go to great lengths to justify sin, and your answer about why you should get into heaven was works-based, not based on grace through faith.

I really hope you consider these things. I'll be praying for you, and your partner, and others I've traded blows with in these threads.

Well gee, I'm sorry... I mean, I never questioned that Paul refers to himself as an Apostle... maybe I should have been clearer?

I mean, I appreciate the research you've done, but once again, I worry that you are looking merely for Bible verses to quote, without for a moment considering the history and context of them, why they were written, what the actual authors intent was, and sometimes more importantly, what the author's motivation was...

reject basic Biblical truths

Really? I think the most basic Biblical truth is that Jesus came and told us to love one another and consider others before ourselves.

Which, to me at least, OKs homosexual relationships, but makes condemnation of homosexuals, well... not really in the Christian spirit. Thats my take on "basic Biblical truths".

and your answer about why you should get into heaven was works-based, not based on grace through faith.

dude.. I told you... I have faith, so theres that one sorted... but as James tells usm faith without works is dead... so I think both faith AND works is important... are you criticising for trying to help my fellow man here?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
We seem to have two contrasting worldviews here. I recognise Christians as believing the NT testimony of Jesus Christ as the truth. So I expect to see Dogbean citing and quoting from the Bible. You seem to be claiming it isnt reality. Can I aks you what your defintion of belief is.

I believe the NT testimony of Jesus Christ without reservation. I love Jesus Christ.

But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, Jesus never mentioned homosexual relationships, and all his teachings about loving one another and accepting everyone, combined with his teachings against blind legalism (phariseeism) makes me pretty comfortable about God's view on homosexuality.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Really? I think the most basic Biblical truth is that Jesus came and told us to love one another and consider others before ourselves.

Which was the second greatest command. The first was to love God. Love isn’t sex. If we love God we don’t violate our bodies against what God created us for. As you have seen God created man and woman to be united Genesis 2, and sexual sin is a violation of our own body 1 Corinthians 6.

Which, to me at least, OKs homosexual relationships, but makes condemnation of homosexuals, well... not really in the Christian spirit. Thats my take on "basic Biblical truths".

Then you don’t have all the basic Bible truths, you have cherry picked and are guilty of the very thing you have accused other of.

Furthermore most of your arguments have been devoid of any Biblical citation or quotation, and indeed you have made little or no attempt to address the ones given except seem unable to recognise what they say. I fully agree with Dogbean
carefully crafting a post for you to dismiss it in two seconds is not even entering the spirit of the forum which encourages us to cite and quote Bible passages to support the views.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

I believe the NT testimony of Jesus Christ without reservation. I love Jesus Christ.

But we who post the scripture don’t claim we believe the NT testimony we just post the scripture as what we believe; you who don’t believe the scriptures we post are reality claim you do believe the NT testimony. The evidence shows you do not believe the testimony of Jesus Christ without reservation and indeed were you to, you would be believing what you have described as not reality.

But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, Jesus never mentioned homosexual relationships,

But that’s because you refuse to recognise He did, as pointed out to you. He taught that God created woman to be united with man Gen 2, Matthew 19, and that’s heterosexual not homosexual. So that tells you what God created was heterosexual not homosexual in nature. Jesus NT teaching describes men lusting after men instead of women as un-natural, you don’t agree, so you don’t believe the testimony of Jesus Christ that you say you do. Romans 1 describes men committing indecent acts with other men as error, you don’t agree, so you don’t believe the testimony of Jesus Christ without reservation.

combined with his teachings against blind legalism (phariseeism) makes me pretty comfortable about God's view on homosexuality.

But like the Pharisees you don’t believe Jesus teaching.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The evidence shows you do not believe the testimony of Jesus Christ without reservation and indeed were you to, you would be believing what you have described as not reality.

I believe the teaching of Christ without reservation. Tell me one thing I have said that suggests otherwise?

But that’s because you refuse to recognise He did, as pointed out to you. He taught that God created woman to be united with man Gen 2, Matthew 19, and that’s heterosexual not homosexual.

Normative, not proscriptive. STOP CITING THESE PASSAGES! They have nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But like the Pharisees you don’t believe Jesus teaching.

I do, without reservation, I believe every word of Christ.

You, on the other hand, cling to Biblical literalism looking for excuses to condemn and villify minorities, which is utterly against what Christ taught.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

I believe the teaching of Christ without reservation. Tell me one thing I have said that suggests otherwise?

I repeat, The evidence shows you do not believe the testimony of Jesus Christ without reservation and indeed were you to, you would be believing what you have described as not reality

But that’s because you refuse to recognise He did, as pointed out to you. He taught that God created woman to be united with man Gen 2, Matthew 19, and that’s heterosexual not homosexual.

Normative, not proscriptive.

On the contrary its most definitely proscriptive, and men with men is by definition always homosexual and never heterosexual. Men with men instead of women as un-natural doesnt mean that isnt always the case otherwise love your neighbour might not always be what we should do.

But I do, without reservation, I believe every word of Christ.

That’s my point, you don’t believe what has been presented, so you don’t in my view.

You, on the other hand, cling to Biblical literalism looking for excuses to condemn and villify minorities, which is utterly against what Christ taught.

evidence?

The Biblical evidence shows same sex union is dysfunction and error.

 

[Dogbean]

I mean, I appreciate the research you've done, but once again, I worry that you are looking merely for Bible verses to quote,

Because they apply. Why should I try to say something when God says it better?

without for a moment considering the history and context of them, why they were written,

Paul wrote that to let us know he was an apostle, and to show his authority for writing these letters

what the actual authors intent was,

Again, to authenticate himself as an apostle before proceeding with the letters.

and sometimes more importantly, what the author's motivation was...

See above.

Really? I think the most basic Biblical truth is that Jesus came and told us to love one another and consider others before ourselves.

God counts as "others" too. Are you concerned with what God thinks? Or is what you and your partner want foremost in your life? From my interaction with you here the past couple months, it appears the latter is foremost in your life.

Which, to me at least, OKs homosexual relationships, but makes condemnation of homosexuals, well... not really in the Christian spirit.

Then it appears you think Christ is unchristian.....because he condemned it, first by quoting Genesis, then by teaching on marriage, only mentioning one man and one woman, and then by having further teaching handed down on it by the apostles.

Thats my take on "basic Biblical truths".dude.. I told you... I have faith, so theres that one sorted... but as James tells usm faith without works is dead... so I think both faith AND works is important... are you criticising for trying to help my fellow man here?

But your answer was only works....that you did enough good stuff, that you're a good person, there was nothing in your original answer about being saved by grace through faith. What you need to remember is that none of us deserves salvation. No human can do enough good to earn God's favor.

 

[Brennin]

Ah, goal post shifting... at first it was the claim that "sodomite has always meant homosexual" now we're reaching broader, trying to shoe horn any reference to homosexuality in Sodom as the same thing...

You could not advance a legitimate argument against me to save your life. Where did I state "sodomite has always meant homosexual?"

I won't hold my breath for a legitimate response from you, since my statement was and is that Sodom and the other cities of the plain were guilty of rampant homosexuality.

 

[Yuyuchan]

There are no passages in the Bible that support same sex relationships or marriage.

 

[Zaac]

I do, without reservation, I believe every word of Christ.

You, on the other hand, cling to Biblical literalism looking for excuses to condemn and villify minorities, which is utterly against what Christ taught.

How is pointing out a sinners sin condemning and villifying a minority? Aren't sinners sinners?

 

[Crazy Liz]

A simple question:

Where is/are the passages, scriptures, or statements, in the Bible, from either the Old Testament (or rather, the Tanakh, if you like) or from the New Testament, that promotes, supports or encourages "anyone," to engage in same-gender sex acts?

How about Esther? What do you think "perfuming" is a euphemism for?

 

[mercutio1562]

Interesting question.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Its not interesting at all, its another assumption, my assumption is its not a euphemism for anything releveant.
We could deal with assumptions all day but those of us that have presented direct evidence dont need to.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How is pointing out a sinners sin condemning and villifying a minority? Aren't sinners sinners?

Sure sinners are sinners, but the Bible clearly says in a number of places that it isn't up to YOU to determine who is a sinner, but God.

So, because conscience is what convicts us of sin, anyone who hinestly doesn't believe themselves to be a sinner, is not a sinner.

And restricting someone's rights because YOU percieve them to be a sinner, certainly IS condemning and vilifying a minority, which is what I see most of the anti-homosexual contingent doing.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,

Sure sinners are sinners, but the Bible clearly says in a number of places that it isn't up to YOU to determine who is a sinner, but God.

That’s what we have been saying.

So, because conscience is what convicts us of sin, anyone who hinestly doesn't believe themselves to be a sinner, is not a sinner.

So a thief who doesn’t think he is a sinner means he isn’t and theft isn’t a sin? Sorry I don’t agree. God has said theft is a sin (Mark 10) and so is same sex union (Romans1 ) whatever gays or thieves say.

And restricting someone's rights because YOU percieve them to be a sinner, certainly IS condemning and vilifying a minority, which is what I see most of the anti-homosexual contingent doing.

We aren’t doing but you are.

God says same sex unions are sin as in Romans 1:27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

[KCKID]

God says same sex unions are sin as in Romans 1:27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

You just L O V E that scripture, don't you, bms?

Tell me, precisely WHAT is 'indecent' about two consensual adults of the same gender who choose to commit their lives to one another? I'm simply not getting what you're so desperately trying to sell, bms.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

You just L O V E that scripture, don't you, bms?

Not really, remember I don’t have the same understanding of love as you do, and besides what your fascination with what I love? The text says what it says whether you think I love it or not.

Tell me, precisely WHAT is 'indecent' about two consensual adults of the same gender who choose to commit their lives to one another? I'm simply not getting what you're so desperately trying to sell, bms.

The passage tells you it is indecent.