Does God actually find homosexual relations "abominable"?

[Ave Maria]

neither is butchering His teaching...

blessings,
ken

Who is butchering Jesus' teaching? As far as I know, Jesus never taught a thing about homosexuality!

 

[epistemaniac]

No, God does not find homosexual relations to be abominable, especially not loving homosexual relations. The verses that are often quoted against homosexuality are known as the "clobber passages". I would post a link about them but I can't because I don't have enough posts. So instead, I'll refer you to the website. Do a Google search of "homosexual clobber passages" and a website called Religious Tolerance should be the first on the list. Click on that and take a look at it. You will see differing interpretations of the homosexual "clobber passages". I happen to subscribe to the liberal or progressive interpretations.

yes He does find them ("them" being homosexual acts and thus, the homosexuals who engage in them in unrepentant ways) repulsive as they are contrary to the created order, against nature, a direct violation of commandments regarding the approved sexual relations between a married man and woman... look back in this thread a few pages, from 40 to 41 and you will see that the teaching against homosexuality itself is biblical, and is not quote mining, not misquoting, not "clobber passaging", and teaches that homosexuality is itself immoral and it is not that the bible is condemning "improper homosexual" relations... not "non-monogamous homosexual relations" not any other kind of pretended "approved" homosexual relations you can conjure up, but homosexuality as a whole, as an act, as a lifestyle.
The liberal or progressive "readings" of the passages that condemn homosexuality are innovations, and are not found in the history of the church until homosexuals began to search for justification for their lifestyle, even in the pages of God's word... see Joe Dallas' site in general which debunks many of the gay Christian movements slogans, and his book "The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible" which used to be titled "A Strong Delusion" for more on this issue...

blessings,
ken

 

[Ave Maria]

yes He does find them ("them" being homosexual acts and thus, the homosexuals who engage in them in unrepentant ways) repulsive as they are contrary to the created order, against nature, a direct violation of commandments regarding the approved sexual relations between a married man and woman... look back in this thread a few pages, from 40 to 41 and you will see that the teaching against homosexuality itself is biblical, and is not quote mining, not misquoting, not "clobber passaging", and teaches that homosexuality is itself immoral and it is not that the bible is condemning "improper homosexual" relations... not "non-monogamous homosexual relations" not any other kind of pretended "approved" homosexual relations you can conjure up, but homosexuality as a whole, as an act, as a lifestyle.
The liberal or progressive "readings" of the passages that condemn homosexuality are innovations, and are not found in the history of the church until homosexuals began to search for justification for their lifestyle, even in the pages of God's word... see Joe Dallas' site in general which debunks many of the gay Christian movements slogans, and his book "The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible" which used to be titled "A Strong Delusion" for more on this issue...

blessings,
ken

You are wrong. I would recommend a book for you:

The Bible, Christianity, and Homosexuality by Justin R. Cannon

You can find this book at Amazon.

Another book I'd recommend is:

Living in Sin: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality by Bishop John Shelby Spong

 

[epistemaniac]

Who is butchering Jesus' teaching? As far as I know, Jesus never taught a thing about homosexuality!

Arguing from silence is never convincing, arguing that Jesus would have approved of homosexuality just because He never said anything about it (this is what gay Christians would claim anyway) is butchering His teaching. The fact is, Jesus does teach about God's purpose and ideal in marriage when He pointed back to the Genesis account:

Mat 19:4-6 ESV He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (5) and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

here we have Jesus teaching us what the ideal couple, the ideal marriage would consist of, and it is not 2 women or 2 men, but 1 man and 1 woman. Therefore, in this sense, Jesus teaches against homosexuality, and whenever pro homosexual "Christians' say otherwise, they are butchering His teaching. That is what I meant by using that term....

blessings,
ken

 

[epistemaniac]

Spong is a heretic and I would not let him teach kindergarten Sunday school let alone anything else more complicated...

and no, I am not wrong... and neither is Joe Dallas... he was a homosexual, he lived it... he tried very hard to justify his lifestyle by using the pro-homosexual tactics that homosexuals are now using, even in this thread, he sees through them, reveals them to be what they are, poor exegesis at best, and justification for engaging in sinful actions and sinful unrepentant lifestyles at worst... you would do well to read his book and you would see just how well he cuts their arguments down to show how absurd and self serving they really are, and that is really what this is all about.... homosexuals seeking to justify their sinful lifestyle by twisting the Scriptures to suit their themselves, to have their itching ears hear what they want to hear, rather than hear what it really has to say...
the homosexual is a sinner like anyone else, just like me.... and we sinners are to conform our lives and lifestyles to the biblical commandments, not the other way around by trying to make the Scriptures conform to what we are already doing... by trying to find ways to skirt the issues and make appeals to Greek philosophy and "contextualize" and "re-contextualize" the Scriptures to so distort and misinterpret the original message as to make them say what they never said in the first place...

blessings,
ken

 

[Ave Maria]

Spong is a heretic and I would not let him teach kindergarten Sunday school let alone anything else more complicated...

and no, I am not wrong... and neither is Joe Dallas... he was a homosexual, he lived it... he tried very hard to justify his lifestyle by using the pro-homosexual tactics that homosexuals are now using, even in this thread, he sees through them, reveals them to be what they are, poor exegesis at best, and justification for engaging in sinful actions and sinful unrepentant lifestyles at worst... you would do well to read his book and you would see just how well he cuts their arguments down to show how absurd and self serving they really are, and that is really what this is all about.... homosexuals seeking to justify their sinful lifestyle by twisting the Scriptures to suit their themselves, to have their itching ears hear what they want to hear, rather than hear what it really has to say...
the homosexual is a sinner like anyone else, just like me.... and we sinners are to conform our lives and lifestyles to the biblical commandments, not the other way around by trying to make the Scriptures conform to what we are already doing... by trying to find ways to skirt the issues and make appeals to Greek philosophy and "contextualize" and "re-contextualize" the Scriptures to so distort and misinterpret the original message as to make them say what they never said in the first place...

blessings,
ken

Spong is a heretic eh? Then why did the Episcopal Church let him become a bishop? Do you honestly think that the Episcopal Church is that wrong or headed in the wrong direction? I think the leaders of the Episcopal Church knew full well enough about Spong's "heresy" before they let him become a bishop.

 

[GenemZ]

Who is butchering Jesus' teaching? As far as I know, Jesus never taught a thing about homosexuality!

He taught about marriage, in case you missed what the subject was.

And, if he did? It would have been an insult to the Jews who already saw homosexuality as being despicable. They saw it as a Gentile - "Goyim disorder." Rabbis have written about such things in ancient writings. Homosexuality was something the Gentiles suffered from, not Jews.

If Jesus preached against homosexuality? It would be like you attending a lecture at a college and the speaker admonishes you not to forget to wipe yourselves before you flush. You would find it insulting to have to be told. The Jews who sat before Jesus were highly moralistic. To preach against homosexuality to the Jews in that day would have made Jesus appear to be non compos mentis.

And, while we are at it? inappropriate behavior with animals must have been OK? For Jesus never preached against it, either. You can throw in incest,too,while your at it. Incest must have been OK. Jesus never preached against it.

Interestingly enough, Jesus did preach against adultery. Adultery involved heterosexuals.




.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Arguing from silence is never convincing, arguing that Jesus would have approved of homosexuality just because He never said anything about it (this is what gay Christians would claim anyway) is butchering His teaching. The fact is, Jesus does teach about God's purpose and ideal in marriage when He pointed back to the Genesis account:

Mat 19:4-6 ESV He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (5) and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? (6) So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

here we have Jesus teaching us what the ideal couple, the ideal marriage would consist of, and it is not 2 women or 2 men, but 1 man and 1 woman. Therefore, in this sense, Jesus teaches against homosexuality, and whenever pro homosexual "Christians' say otherwise, they are butchering His teaching. That is what I meant by using that term....

blessings,
ken

If arguing from silence doesn't do much for you, here are some teachings of Jesus you might need a refresher in...

Judge not lest you be judged
Let him that has no sin cast the first stone
Do not point out the mote in your brother's eye

And Mathew 19 is a discussion about divorce, NOT intended as a description of all and every type of marriage acceptible to Christ. Thats what "quote mining" is, when you deliberately take something out of context and try to pass it off as meaning something the original author never intended.

 

[GenemZ]

If arguing from silence doesn't do much for you, here are some teachings of Jesus you might need a refresher in...

Judge not lest you be judged
Let him that has no sin cast the first stone
Do not point out the mote in your brother's eye

And Mathew 19 is a discussion about divorce, NOT intended as a description of all and every type of marriage acceptible to Christ. Thats what "quote mining" is, when you deliberately take something out of context and try to pass it off as meaning something the original author never intended.

What you said was a diversion away from having to deal with what was said. Jesus plainly stated that God's design was for male and female in marriage. It was not mining.

Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning

the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said,

'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother

and be united to his wife, and the two will become

one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one.

Therefore what God has joined together,

let man not separate."​

While you're at it.. Show us just one gay relationship mentioned in the Bible? You should, if what you claim were the truth. You can not. You can not even mine quote one.

And, its not judging what we do. If gays would stop trying to tell Bible believing Christians that the Bible is not against homosexual relations? You would not be having to use the "judge not" card. You are not being honest with the Word of God when you try the "monogamous" homosexual card, either.

1 Timothy 1:3
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there
in Ephesus so that you may command certain men
not to teach false doctrines any longer."

​

What homosexuals present here is false doctrine! Its false and distorted. Its perverting God's Word. You come here and correct some point or detail, but then you try and use that correction to say all that we believe must be false? I may have called an SUV a truck. But that does not mean I am wrong when I say it will not start without the proper key.

1 Timothy 6:3
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to
the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and
to godly teaching."
​

Dueling with those who promote false doctrines is not judging in the way Jesus warned against. We are told to refute false doctrine. Just stop pumping it out and you will not need to hide behind the "judge not" card.


.

.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What you said was a diversion away from having to deal with what was said. Jesus plainly stated that God's design was for male and female in marriage. It was not mining.

Jesus did no such thing. I get that you;d really, really LIKE that to be an accurate interpretation of that passage, but it just ain't so.

Show us just one gay relationship mentioned in the Bible involving godly people? You should, if what you claim were the truth. You can not.
.

Jonathon and David.
Ruth and Naomi.
The centurian and his servant.

There's 3.

 

[GenemZ]

Living in Sin: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality by Bishop John Shelby Spong

Spong????

He claimed that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth!

Its no wonder he is a good reference for pro gay propaganda.

.

 

[Ave Maria]

Spong????

He claimed that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth!

Its no wonder he is a good reference for pro gay propaganda.

.

Do you have any proof that he claimed that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth???

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Originally Posted by genez

What you said was a diversion away from having to deal with what was said. Jesus plainly stated that God's design was for male and female in marriage. It was not mining.
​

Jesus did no such thing. I get that you;d really, really LIKE that to be an accurate interpretation of that passage, but it just ain't so.

Show us just one gay relationship mentioned in the Bible involving godly people? You should, if what you claim were the truth. You can not.
.
​

Jonathon and David.
Ruth and Naomi.
The centurian and his servant.

There's 3.

 

[GenemZ]

Originally Posted by genez

What you said was a diversion away from having to deal with what was said. Jesus plainly stated that God's design was for male and female in marriage. It was not mining.
​

Jesus did no such thing. I get that you;d really, really LIKE that to be an accurate interpretation of that passage, but it just ain't so.

Show us just one gay relationship mentioned in the Bible involving godly people? You should, if what you claim were the truth. You can not.
.
​

Jonathon and David.
Ruth and Naomi.
The centurian and his servant.

There's 3.

I remember reading a book by a psychotherapist who had many homosexuals as patients. One of the consistent traits he noticed was how homosexuals would readily project homosexuality into aspects of normal life that others would not. What you just posted is proof that this doctor knew what he was talking about. I read that book long before ever reading a Bible. It was just one of his points that always stuck and I remembered. With the centurian and his servant? Its possible. Bisexual/homosexual expression was very common amongst the Romans. That is why the Jews in Jesus day saw homosexuality as being a Gentile disorder.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I remember reading a book by a psychotherapist who had many homosexuals as patients. One of the consistent traits he noticed was how homosexuals would readily project homosexuality into aspects of normal life that others would not. What you just posted is proof that this doctor knew what he was talking about. I read that book long before ever reading a Bible. It was just one of his points that always stuck and I remembered. With the centurian and his servant? Its possible. Bisexual/homosexual expression was very common amongst the Romans. That is why the Jews in Jesus day saw homosexuality as being a Gentile disorder.

So you're just going to hand wave away my 3 examples are you? Nice.

But you asked for an example of righteous people in a homosexual relationship in the Bible, even if you don't accept david and Ruth (because, lets face it, its not like you'd go with what's obvious when it hurts your position so much) the centurion and his servant, whether they were Roman, Chinese or martian, are still an example.

You asked for an example, I gave you at least 1 that even you seem to accept. Are you big enough to follow through on your promise and reconsider my point?

 

[Ave Maria]

Read the reviews as well. The man is nuts! But, liberals who do not know the first thing about salvation, just love the man.

Sorry, I had to remove your link in order to be able to post. That said, are you trying to say that I, as a liberal, don't know the first thing about salvation?

 

[AngelusSax]

Jonathon and David.
Ruth and Naomi.
The centurian and his servant.

There's 3.

Okay, I've got to just say this:
I don't know about Ruth and Naomi, but I doubt it. Centurian and servant... possible, but again I don't know. Jonathan and David, I highly doubt. I get the whole thing about becoming of one spirit and having the deepest love they'd known, and in today's way of speaking, that would be a homosexual relationship, and that's sad.

It's sad that we live in a time and culture when two men cannot express affection and a friendship so deep as to even be considered soulmates, unless it is about being gay. The idea of deep love being constrained to the realm of romance is ludicrous, in my opinion. It is possible to have a love so deep as to transcend all other earthly love and it not be a romantic relationship, and I believe Jonathan and David had one such relationship. Of course, the Bible doesn't explicitly rule out a romantic relationship that I know of, but it doesn't actually mention one either, except by our own interpretation of what that means based on what it means to most of us today.

 

[OllieFranz]

From the Schreiner excerpt that Ken posted"

At least two pieces of evidence, however, indicate that an argument from the created order is constructed in Rom. 1:26–27. First, Paul selected the unusual words θῆλυς (thēlys, female) and ἄρσην (arsēn, male) rather than γύνη (gynē, woman) and ἀνήρ (anēr, man), respectively. In doing so he drew on the creation account of Genesis, which uses the same words (Gen. 1:27 LXX; cf. Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6). These words emphasize the sexual distinctiveness of male and female (Moo 1991: 109), suggesting that sexual relations with the same sex violate the distinctions that God intended in the creation of man and woman. Second, the phrase “contrary to nature” (παρὰ φύσιν) is rooted in Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions that saw homosexual relations as violations of the created order (see below).

By missing the fact that Paul was citing an example from a work of Plato's, Schreiner falsely attributed Plato's word choices to Paul, and jumped to unsupportable conclusions

The latter point is borne out by verse 27, which specifies in three ways what constitutes the unnatural activity for men: (1) in forsaking sexual relations with women (ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας); (2) in burning in desire for other men (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, exekauthēsan en tē orexei autōn eis allēlous); and (3) in doing that which was shameful with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι, arsenes en arsesin tēn aschēmosynēn katergazomenoi).7 Verse 27 gives no indication that only specific kinds of homosexual activity are prohibited. Instead, homosexual relations in general are indicted.

Burning (ἐκκαίω ekkaiō) and lust (ὄρεξις orexis) are two of the five parts, or symptoms of the vice of Passion. Paul inserts all five symptoms into this passage in order to point out the actual sin. The other three parts are desire (ἐπιθυμία epithymia), found in verse 24, emotion (πάθος pathos), found in verse 26, and error or wandering [from the path of Reason] (πλάνη planē), found in verse 27. Rather than describing the awfulness of "homosexuality," their purpose is to point to the actual sin being described.

Two other words are often highlighted in this passage to point out how awful "homosexuality" was in Paul's eyes: dishonored (ἀτιμία atimia) and shameful (ἀσχημοσύνη aschēmosynē). The second one is referenced in the Schreiner paragraph above.

It is true that atimia is the negative of time (honored), just as in English, unfaithful is the negative of faithful. But something atimia is not necessarily worthy of scorn. The Potter can make from the same lump of clay two vessels, one honored and one dishonored. Nor does shame (aschemosyne) necessarily come from sin. Paul in several passages speaks about the shame he endured for the sake of preaching the gospel. Both of these words, along with their opposites appear in 1 Corinthians 12:23, where Pual tells us to honor the dishonored, and to exalt the shamed:

And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness.​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Okay, I've got to just say this:
I don't know about Ruth and Naomi, but I doubt it. Centurian and servant... possible, but again I don't know. Jonathan and David, I highly doubt. I get the whole thing about becoming of one spirit and having the deepest love they'd known, and in today's way of speaking, that would be a homosexual relationship, and that's sad.

It's sad that we live in a time and culture when two men cannot express affection and a friendship so deep as to even be considered soulmates, unless it is about being gay. The idea of deep love being constrained to the realm of romance is ludicrous, in my opinion. It is possible to have a love so deep as to transcend all other earthly love and it not be a romantic relationship, and I believe Jonathan and David had one such relationship. Of course, the Bible doesn't explicitly rule out a romantic relationship that I know of, but it doesn't actually mention one either, except by our own interpretation of what that means based on what it means to most of us today.

Of course heterosexual men can display affection.

But when the original language uses terms that are specific to romantic relationships, when they are said to love one another "more than any woman", when they spend all that time sneaking around behind Saul's back, the hanging around each other naked... Ever heard the saying about "if it walks like a duck"? I mean, its POSSIBLE they were just really, really good friends, who never even thought about physical intimacy, but the description really doesn't read that way, and the deeper you research it, the more like a homosexual relationship it sounds.

Heres a fun experiment for you, change the names and describe Jonathon and David's relationship as though its two friends you know and are concerned about, with the parental consern, the loving each other more than women, all of it, to your nearist pulpit bashing anti-homosexual, and watch them froth at the wrongness of the relationship. If it were any other 2 men described in such terms, anywhere outside the Bible, I don't believe there would be any question at all that Jonathon and David's relationship was erotic, and if you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

[AngelusSax]

Of course heterosexual men can display affection.

But when the original language uses terms that are specific to romantic relationships, when they are said to love one another "more than any woman", when they spend all that time sneaking around behind Saul's back, the hanging around each other naked... Ever heard the saying about "if it walks like a duck"? I mean, its POSSIBLE they were just really, really good friends, who never even thought about physical intimacy, but the description really doesn't read that way, and the deeper you research it, the more like a homosexual relationship it sounds.

Heres a fun experiment for you, change the names and describe Jonathon and David's relationship as though its two friends you know and are concerned about, with the parental consern, the loving each other more than women, all of it, to your nearist pulpit bashing anti-homosexual, and watch them froth at the wrongness of the relationship. If it were any other 2 men described in such terms, anywhere outside the Bible, I don't believe there would be any question at all that Jonathon and David's relationship was erotic, and if you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree.

Oh I don't think it can be ruled out either way. When I read it, I often get a romantic impression, but I don't know how much of that is my 21st century American mind imposing that into the text, and how much isn't. I think the debate over whether it was a homosexual relationship misses the point of the story, though. I think the point had more to do with two people who would stick with each other even when the going got really, really rough, and how God's Grace is evident in such a relationship. Any romantic involvement is incidental, I think, though like I said, I cannot rule it out, and certainly if it is true that they had a romantic relationship and there was no punishment for it, and even blessing because of it, that would be a huge deal with how churches should approach this issue. But as for the story itself, the romance or lack thereof is secondary point, at the highest, in my opinion.