Confused ?

[Shuggiegreen]

I am confused I am trying to follow the debate on Homosexual Ministers in the church of Scotland currently I believe they have one known Homosexual Minister.Now my understanding of homosexuality is that if God made you and he made you a homosexual there is no sin in that,However,if you choose to practice homosexuality that is a sin and the Bible does say practiceing homosexuality is a sin.I therefor cant understand why they take so much time debating the issue surely a being a practising homosexual and a Minster is wrong or am I wrong ?

 

[drich0150]

You are right, their should be no debate. At least not to a church who uses the bible as a guide.

 

[solarwave]

In my opinion homosexuality in the Bible isn't homosexuality as we know it today. As far as I know the understanding was that only heterosexuals existed and that these heterosexuals practised homosexual acts just for the sake of pleasure outside of a meaningful relationship. This would then be called unnatural (as it is by Paul) because it would be wrong for a heterosexual to have sex with another heterosexual just for pleasure.

Today we know that homosexuality exists as an orientation and that it can be practiced in a commited relationship which is totally different from what Paul likely would have known about.

 

[salida]

You are right, their should be no debate. At least not to a church who uses the bible as a guide.

Exactly!

 

[salida]

In my opinion homosexuality in the Bible isn't homosexuality as we know it today. As far as I know the understanding was that only heterosexuals existed and that these heterosexuals practised homosexual acts just for the sake of pleasure outside of a meaningful relationship. This would then be called unnatural (as it is by Paul) because it would be wrong for a heterosexual to have sex with another heterosexual just for pleasure.

Today we know that homosexuality exists as an orientation and that it can be practiced in a commited relationship which is totally different from what Paul likely would have known about.

That is a new definition that I never heard of before.

 

[salida]

I am confused I am trying to follow the debate on Homosexual Ministers in the church of Scotland currently I believe they have one known Homosexual Minister.Now my understanding of homosexuality is that if God made you and he made you a homosexual there is no sin in that,However,if you choose to practice homosexuality that is a sin and the Bible does say practiceing homosexuality is a sin.I therefor cant understand why they take so much time debating the issue surely a being a practising homosexual and a Minster is wrong or am I wrong ?

The minister is clearly wrong. This debate has been established already with adam and eve.

 

[purnhart]

Now my understanding of homosexuality is that if God made you and he made you a homosexual there is no sin in that,However,if you choose to practice homosexuality that is a sin and the Bible does say practiceing homosexuality is a sin.I therefor cant understand why they take so much time debating the issue surely a being a practising homosexual and a Minster is wrong or am I wrong ?

God did not make a person a homosexual. that's like saying God made me a rapist or a murderer. Not going to happen. Because of Adam and Eve, sin is in the world. What sin a person commits is not predetermined by God.

 

[Cuddles333]

I say lets let science prove to us if certain males are born with too much of what belongs to the female in their brain, and vise-versa.

Perhapse it already has. If so, it just means we have to refocus our Biblical understanding. We've been wrong before (witch burnings, book burnings, racial separation, sexism) we may be wrong other subjects in the future as well. It is only bad if after we are handed the truth on something and we still refuse to change.

 

[drich0150]

In my opinion homosexuality in the Bible isn't homosexuality as we know it today. As far as I know the understanding was that only heterosexuals existed and that these heterosexuals practiced homosexual acts just for the sake of pleasure outside of a meaningful relationship. This would then be called unnatural (as it is by Paul) because it would be wrong for a heterosexual to have sex with another heterosexual just for pleasure.

Today we know that homosexuality exists as an orientation and that it can be practiced in a committed relationship which is totally different from what Paul likely would have known about.

How can you say that when Homosexuality is by name listed as a sin? Where in the bible does it say that a committed relationship is the sole definition of a marriage?

Know that simply explaining away the usage of the word that condemns homosexuality is not the same as granting permission for that act.

It Is Because we have very clear book chapter and verse that points to a Heterosexual marriage as being the Only union that is sanctified before God. With out this sanctified marriage union, ALL SEX is a sin.

So again this defines any and all homosexual acts as a sin.. if you use the bible as your guide. This does not mean you can't simply make things up as you go and call it the will of God.. (well it does if you are interested in the whole heaven/hell bit) But as a rule, without book chapter and verse any "new doctrine" is not from God.

 

[purnhart]

I say lets let science prove to us if certain males are born with too much of what belongs to the female in their brain, and vise-versa.

Perhapse it already has. If so, it just means we have to refocus our Biblical understanding. We've been wrong before (witch burnings, book burnings, racial separation, sexism) we may be wrong other subjects in the future as well. It is only bad if after we are handed the truth on something and we still refuse to change.

My understanding of Scripture is not based on man's science. Man if falliable; God is not.

 

[solarwave]

How can you say that when Homosexuality is by name listed as a sin?

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that there is a word which is translated to homosexuality? If homosexuality simply means sex with someone of the same sex then it isn't clear if this is refering to a straight man having sex with another straight man or if it means two gay men having sex in a commited relationship.

Where in the bible does it say that a committed relationship is the sole definition of a marriage?

To be honest I'm not sure where in the Bible it says what the requirements for marriage are.

Know that simply explaining away the usage of the word that condemns homosexuality is not the same as granting permission for that act.

If there is no reason to think it is wrong then we probably shouldn't think it is wrong.

It Is Because we have very clear book chapter and verse that points to a Heterosexual marriage as being the Only union that is sanctified before God. With out this sanctified marriage union, ALL SEX is a sin.

I'll give you my reply to the verse when you tell me what it is.

 

[Catherineanne]

How can you say that when Homosexuality is by name listed as a sin?

The term homosexual was coined in the 19th century, and was given a meaning that had not existed prior to that time. It essentially indicated a non normative sexual desire, equating at that time to an illness or pathology. Very few people take this definition seriously today, but the ripples of that kind of thinking still exist, in places.

Before this term was coined, same sex relations were far more accepted than they were subsequent to it.

In relation to ancient times, same sex relations in Hellenic culture took a very specific form, which the Romans did not like, and which the Jews also did not like. I won't go into details here, but the term for what the Hellens got up to is pederasty. It equates far more to child abuse than to what we would call gay relations.

The Romans had their own version of same sex relations, but they very much looked down on the Hellenic version. In particular what they despised was any man taking the passive or female role; that was fit only for slaves. The Jewish view in Scripture echoes this Roman view; it is not the being gay that is condemned, but the taking the female role in lying with another man. They did not say anything about being homosexual, because that concept simply did not exist.

Like it or not, in ancient times, and up until very recently, there was not the distinction that we now feel the need for, between homosexual and heterosexual. Most men had a go at anything they felt like getting up to, and did not feel the need to fall into one of the two categories. They had the freedom to fall into gay behaviour, and out again, and their masculinity was not challenged in either case. Most Hellenic pederasts had a wife and family at home, and were very happy with that. We would be horrified if anyone today lived as they did, because our society is different, and has a different set of cultural mores.

It, of course, goes without saying that devout men in any time and any place would refrain from licencious behaviour with either men or women, and would honour their marriage commitment instead. This is true for Jews and Romans, and may have applied to a few Greeks as well, but frankly not many of them.

 

[drich0150]

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that there is a word which is translated to homosexuality?

The English word homosexuality is a relatively modern term. But the principle of homosexuality is not. The bible usually mentions a phrase that is translated men having sex with men, rather than use a single word term. primarily because all single word terms that describe homosexuality at the time, were considered "curse words."

It wasn't until Homosexuality was accepted in part of the culture was it necessary to give it a term that was not derogatory in nature. And, if a word is seldomly recorded, it is quickly forgotten to time. So instead of using one single term/curse the bible simply uses the phrase "Men having Sex with Men." Subsequently; The Bible consistently tells us that "Men having sex with men" or what has been shortened in some cases as Homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27) Are some examples.

If homosexuality simply means sex with someone of the same sex then it isn't clear if this is referring to a straight man having sex with another straight man or if it means two gay men having sex in a committed relationship.

Actually it is because there is absolutely no sanctified setting in which this type of sex is permitted. Unlike sanctified sex with a woman.

To be honest I'm not sure where in the Bible it says what the requirements for marriage are.

Is this a question or statement?

If there is no reason to think it is wrong then we probably shouldn't think it is wrong.

These verses tell us it is wrong. (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27

Nothing tells us it is right.

We are to speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent.

The bible speaks against Homosexuality.

It is silent in giving us a context where the homosexual act is permitted by God.

Yet you speak against what the bible says, and you want to remain silent when you need a command to permit this deed.
There is much compromise in the believers life that has to happen to make this not a sin.

I'll give you my reply to the verse when you tell me what it is.
Tell you what verse is what???

The verse that tells us that man shall leave his parents for a woman, and the two shall become one flesh?
(Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31).

That sex outside of the confines of a sanctified marriage is a sin?
You lucked out on this one because the whole of 1 Corinthians 7 speaks to the reasons and responsibility of marriage.

 

[drich0150]

The term homosexual was coined in the 19th century, and was given a meaning that had not existed prior to that time. It essentially indicated a non normative sexual desire, equating at that time to an illness or pathology. Very few people take this definition seriously today, but the ripples of that kind of thinking still exist, in places.

Before this term was coined, same sex relations were far more accepted than they were subsequent to it.

In relation to ancient times, same sex relations in Hellenic culture took a very specific form, which the Romans did not like, and which the Jews also did not like. I won't go into details here, but the term for what the Hellens got up to is pederasty. It equates far more to child abuse than to what we would call gay relations.

The Romans had their own version of same sex relations, but they very much looked down on the Hellenic version. In particular what they despised was any man taking the passive or female role; that was fit only for slaves. The Jewish view in Scripture echoes this Roman view; it is not the being gay that is condemned, but the taking the female role in lying with another man. They did not say anything about being homosexual, because that concept simply did not exist.

Like it or not, in ancient times, and up until very recently, there was not the distinction that we now feel the need for, between homosexual and heterosexual. Most men had a go at anything they felt like getting up to, and did not feel the need to fall into one of the two categories. They had the freedom to fall into gay behavior, and out again, and their masculinity was not challenged in either case. Most Hellenic pederasts had a wife and family at home, and were very happy with that. We would be horrified if anyone today lived as they did, because our society is different, and has a different set of cultural mores.

It, of course, goes without saying that devout men in any time and any place would refrain from licentious behavior with either men or women, and would Honor their marriage commitment instead. This is true for Jews and Romans, and may have applied to a few Greeks as well, but frankly not many of them.

Know that I am prone to grammatical errors most frequently. I do ask for leniency when it comes down to matter of splitting hairs. For me to point out the fact that there was no one term to described this act is besides the point. Primarily because this act is listed by description. Just because the ancients did not coin a term to match ours does not mean that what they described could not be lumped into that category now. again from my perspective this flare of knowledge is merely a futile distraction to the heart of the matter.

I do appreciate your efforts, as I had to make this point myself in a previous post, and perhaps if I learn to use the proper grammar none of this would be necessary, but at the same time if people were to look and accept what is being taught by the bible this effort wouldnot be necessary at all.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

There is certainly no changing Gods laws Jesus said, Mat 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So the question I have for you christians preaching homosexuality is do you want to be a sinner and seen as having no spiritual understanding, have you no knowledge that as a Christian you can't sin (I don't mean you can't be forgiven of a sin if you commit one) you can't live in a life style of sin, do you want some real Godly power. If you want to live as Jesus did you better get your message right first. But not just the message your relationship with God needs to improve, if you knew him you would not sprout out such nonsense. I pray God saves the souls of those ministers before they and their congregations are sent to hell.

 

[Catherineanne]

I do appreciate your efforts, as I had to make this point myself in a previous post, and perhaps if I learn to use the proper grammar none of this would be necessary, but at the same time if people were to look and accept what is being taught by the bible this effort wouldnot be necessary at all.

Nobody on earth can look at the Bible and understand all that there is to be known of God from it. Every single denomination on earth interprets what the Bible says to its congregations, and this interpretation varies according to their best understanding of what God wanted to say to us.

In other words, the Bible does not interpret itself.

Therefore, it is meaningless to say that all we need to do is to accept the Bible. However tempting it might be to believe such a thing, there is a lot more to our faith than that.

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright

 

[Catherineanne]

There is certainly no changing Gods laws Jesus said, Mat 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So the question I have for you christians preaching homosexuality is do you want to be a sinner and seen as having no spiritual understanding, have you no knowledge that as a Christian you can't sin (I don't mean you can't be forgiven of a sin if you commit one) you can't live in a life style of sin, do you want some real Godly power. If you want to live as Jesus did you better get your message right first. But not just the message your relationship with God needs to improve, if you knew him you would not sprout out such nonsense. I pray God saves the souls of those ministers before they and their congregations are sent to hell.

Who here has 'preached homosexuality', exactly?

You have a fine line in righteous indignation, but I think you could have chosen your pitch a bit more carefully.

 

[Catherineanne]

The bible speaks against Homosexuality.

Actually, it doesn't. Homosexuality is a term coined in the 19th century, originally as a medical term, and it has no equivalent in the Bible. The terms used in the Bible do not denote homosexual, but something else. Anywhere this term is used to translate a Biblical reference it is necessarily out of context and anachonistic.

The Bible can no more speak against homosexuality than it can speak against steam trains, electric light bulbs or the Panama Canal.

Whatever it is that the Bible speaks of, needs much more careful thought than the term 'homosexual'. Clearly it says something, about something, but it is important that we find out what exactly is meant, rather than just assuming that what we have been told is necessarily right.