Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[Brennin]

There is no basis for this weak assertion whatsoever.

Yes, there is. Nuh-uh! is not a legitimate response to the underlying Greek, which is plain.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Eh gays trying to manipualte the bible to rationalize gayism again.

Atleast the OP admitted that the bible makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong even if "it's just a cultural thing."

Thumbs Up for liberals making some progress.

 

[Brennin]

Eh gays trying to manipualte the bible to rationalize gayism again.

Atleast the OP admitted that the bible makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong even if "it's just a cultural thing."

Thumbs Up for liberals making some progress.

They are willing to claim just about anything (including claims which are mutually exclusive) in the desperate hope that something sticks against the wall.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

good OP. I agree.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Yes, there is. Nuh-uh! is not a legitimate response to the underlying Greek, which is plain.

Plain as a tatooist's arms.....

 

[wayseer]

Atleast the OP admitted that the bible makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong even if "it's just a cultural thing."

You are mistaken - I said no such thing. In fact, to suggest that I 'admitted that the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin' is a deliberate re-working of my post I suspect, to suit your own agenda. Your motive is therefore questionable. You may interpret the Bible differently to me and that is your privilege, which I also acknowledged, but do not put your meanings on my words.

Re-read the post - particularly the bits you apparently didn't wish to quote..

 

[ReformedChapin]

You are mistaken - I said no such thing. In fact, to suggest that I 'admitted that the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin' is a deliberate re-working of my post I suspect, to suit your own agenda. Your motive is therefore questionable. You may interpret the Bible differently to me and that is your privilege, which I also acknowledged, but do not put your meanings on my words.

Re-read the post - particularly the bits you apparently didn't wish to quote..

So there was no progress...great.


What agenda? To convince gays they are sinners? I can't do that. Only the holy spirit can.

 

[Tavita]

You make good points and I admit that it is fine line I tread. However, I think you answer your own question when you write a result of self worship. This worship of 'self' is the key I think to understanding Paul.



Nothing like a challenge - let's see.



All from Paul's letter to the Romans which is the culmination of his theological position. The passage Rms 1:18 -32 is Paul's hell and brimstone bit but a key sentence leaches out his real intent. ... they worship and served what God has created instead of the Creator himself ... (Rms 1:25)

'Worship and serving what had been created' - not the Creator. To me this is the defining moment - the fine line of which I speak. Whenever our actions follow a desire to worship 'self' then it seems, for Paul, we move across that line - we move from the Creator to the creation - and most particularly, our bodies and in doing so Paul speaks of 'natural' acts as against 'unnatural' acts.

Here, I don't think Paul is necessarily talking about 'nature' because 'nature' is creation. The 'shameful passion' for Paul is the way we use creation, or nature, sex, not to the glory of the Creator but to glorify ourselves. What then is this glory of God. I think Jesus said all that needed to be said when he issued the new commandment to love - and by demonstrating this love and compassion all of humanity will know we are Christ's disciples. Therefore, I am led to believe, that regardless of our sexual orientation, if we demonstrate love and compassion then it appears we fulfill Christ's commandment. It is when we use our sex to glorify ourself - self worship - we cross that rather blurred line.

I think it worthy of comment that Paul did not reserve his wrath for matters of sex within this passage. He was perhaps even more vehement over matters of gossip, malice, deceit, fighting, pride and failing to keep promises all of which, I suggest, are more destructive that two men, or two women, forming a loving relationship.

Thanks for sharing, wayseer. I've learned something, but I won't comment any further. It just seems to be an impossibility to ask questions for understanding of how others see the scriptures about this subject without bringing on the opposition. We give up discussion and gaining understanding so we can push our own agenda's to be 'right', but is being 'right', righteous? I wonder.

 

[wayseer]

Thanks for sharing, wayseer. I've learned something, but I won't comment any further. It just seems to be an impossibility to ask questions for understanding of how others see the scriptures about this subject without bringing on the opposition. We give up discussion and gaining understanding so we can push our own agenda's to be 'right', but is being 'right', righteous? I wonder.

I think you underestimate yourself. Exploring and thinking are the tools God gave us to find our way home. I hope I'm not claiming any position of being 'right'. My object is to encourage thinking and exploring - I'm struggling along with everyone else - what I do here is part of that process.

 

[Tavita]

I think you underestimate yourself. Exploring and thinking are the tools God gave us to find our way home. I hope I'm not claiming any position of being 'right'. My object is to encourage thinking and exploring - I'm struggling along with everyone else - what I do here is part of that process.

I'm sorry I didn't communicate that well...I didn't think you were the one with the agenda of having to be 'right'. I think you are sincerely trying to understand.

 

[Texas Lynn]

They are willing to claim just about anything (including claims which are mutually exclusive) in the desperate hope that something sticks against the wall.

That appears an accurate description of the gay-baiters claiming to worship of a "god of love" who prohibits certain lovers from expressing same merely on a whim. Such a god is no god at all and does not exist except in the imaginations of the reality-impaired. Nothing is more "mutually exclusive" than a "god of love" who encourages the hatreds of the antigay faction.

 

[Texas Lynn]

So there was no progress...great.


What agenda? To convince gays they are sinners? I can't do that. Only the holy spirit can.

Everyone, including every single Christian of every stripe here on this board, is a sinner and will continue to sin throughout life and in the afterlife. It is just no "holy spirit" is going to try to convicne LGBTs they are sinner by being of the sexual orientation they are because a true "holy spirit" would not lie like that. LGBTs are sinners, yes, but no more so than every other individual, and loving another is not one of their sins whatsoever.

 

[GarrettC]

Hunting Man--

I find it interesting that you ignored that Paul was quoting Plato, and that the Romans would have known that, and at the same time you zeroed in on exactly the five words that I referred to when I mentioned that one of the reasons Paul's passage was not verbatim from Plato was that he wanted to include a reference to philosophers after Plato defined as the five symptoms of the sin of intemperence: epithymia (coveting), pathos (emotion), ekkaio (burning), orexis (desire), plane (straying)

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts (epithymia) of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections (pathos): for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned (ekkaio) in their lust (orexis) one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error (plane) which was meet.

How could you know that those five words were a key to understanding the passage and still not know just what the sin is that they are describing?

Paul was using Plato because of his audience. The Romans were very well educated as a general rule, and they would have recognized Plato when they saw it. Paul simply used that passage from Plato's works to get his main point across.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Everyone, including every single Christian of every stripe here on this board, is a sinner and will continue to sin throughout life and in the afterlife. It is just no "holy spirit" is going to try to convicne LGBTs they are sinner by being of the sexual orientation they are because a true "holy spirit" would not lie like that. LGBTs are sinners, yes, but no more so than every other individual, and loving another is not one of their sins whatsoever.

Not according to scripture. Those who are struggling with homosexuality who truthfully follow the triune God will give it all up for their holy God and follow him.

 

[GarrettC]

Everyone, including every single Christian of every stripe here on this board, is a sinner and will continue to sin throughout life and in the afterlife. It is just no "holy spirit" is going to try to convicne LGBTs they are sinner by being of the sexual orientation they are because a true "holy spirit" would not lie like that. LGBTs are sinners, yes, but no more so than every other individual, and loving another is not one of their sins whatsoever.

Homosexuality itself is a sin. It has been shown numerous times that the Bible specifically states this:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)
​

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(1Ti 1:10 KJV)

 

[OllieFranz]

Paul was using Plato because of his audience. The Romans were very well educated as a general rule, and they would have recognized Plato when they saw it. Paul simply used that passage from Plato's works to get his main point across.

And this was exactly my point. Hunting Man And Brennin were denying the obvious connection between the two passages.

 

[OllieFranz]

Homosexuality itself is a sin. It has been shown numerous times that the Bible specifically states this:

There are only four passages where the Bible specifically teaches about a practice which has often been generalized to mean all same-sex physical affection.

In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 it forbids what it calls "man-lying," and which the earliest extant commentaries (those closest in language and culture) interpret to mean taking the "active" role in one specific sexual act. However the act need not be sexual, and in the ancient woorld seldom was. It was often an act of rage, as rape often is even today. And sometimes it was a deliberate act of cruelty, intended to humiliate and "break" the victim. (See 1 Chronicles 19 for an example of exactly this)

In both passages "man-lying" is contrasted to "the lyings of a woman." There are many pairs of words that mean man/woman, and in these verses the words are not from the same pair. "Zakar," "man," means generically "man" and is most often used of strangers, or in hypothetical situations and is usually paired with "neqebah." "Ishshah," "woman," or more properly, "wife," is usually paired with "ish," "husband." Just from that alone, one possible interpretation is that the sin isn't homosexuality, but adultery, giving to a stranger what should be reserved for the wife.

In addition, this is separated from the "wicked" ("zimmah") practice of adultery within the family described in verses 6-17 and sandwiched between two idolatrous practices: child sacrifice to Molech and mating with the god or goddess through the vehicle of an animal sacred to the diety. These practices are labelled taboo, or "abominations," because of their association with worshipping false gods. It is possible that the "abomination" of man-lying is also due to its association with idolatry.

Even though it only condemns one act, and only one of the participants; even though there are three good reasons to believe the command was further restricted than even that based on the motive and/or relationship; even though is does not consider a relationship between two women at all, it is usually generalized to condemn all same-sex physical affection. That is reading one's prejudices int the passages.

In the other two passages (1 Corinthian 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11) the focus is on a word that does not appear anywhere before Paul wrote, and later occurances all show the influence of Paul's usage. Most of them appear in lists of sins and/or sinners (as in Paul's letters) so context can tell us little more than that, whatever the word refers to, the authors did not approve. The similarity between the word ("arsenokoites") and a phrase from the LXX Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13 gives us a good working hypothesis. But it also makes understanding the meaning of "arsenokoites" depend on understanding the meaning of "man-lying" in Leviticus.

There are other passages that touch on "homosexual themes," but they are histories and/or examples and not "teachings" or they are not about sex, but rather about false gods or false doctrine. Genesis 19 is not about homosexuality. It is not about sex, but about torture and humiliation, as a comparrison with Judges 19 and 1 Chronicles 19 will attest.

Romans 1 is, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, an example, not of the "sin of homosexuality" but of the "sin of intemperance." A comparison of Jude with 2 Peter will show that the "strange flesh" that he is warning about is corrupt doctrine, just as the Old Testament prophets used the sexual imagery of adultery against God to depict idolatry.

 

[wayseer]

Homosexuality itself is a sin. It has been shown numerous times that the Bible specifically states this:

I remain unconvinced. There are not the numerous passages in the Bible that say homosexuality is a sin as you imagine. As I outlined in my OP, Paul certainly had some words to say about homosexuality but what he said has be taken in the broader context of his exegeses.

There is much heat generated by the issue of homosexuality yet I fail to see that same degree of heat directed at all the 'offences' Paul mentions in his letter to the Romans. Why is this? (Rhetorical question - you just need to think about it).

As I suggested, it was Philo who raised the matter of homosexuality in connection with the destruction of Sodom. Yet, his claim is without significant historical foundation. And Philo lived and wrote at the same time as Paul. It would be reasonable to accept that Paul was not unaware of Philo's writings being himself so well acquainted with Jewish legalism. Yet, that is not the context in which Paul wrote - his words had a wider spread I would argue. And it is that wider spread that leaves me with the distinct impression that Paul is talking about idolatry - the worship of self - that is the sin that separates us from God.

Then you have to balance the life and work of Jesus. Jesus demonstrated many times that it was the 'unloved' that were loved by God - that all were equal before a loving God. (And I reject the cliche that we are taught to love the sinner and not the sin - subject being cliche). Jesus did not come loaded with an itemized list of sins to be condemned - in fact quite the reverse - something about the beam in our own eye might come to mind.

Further, Jesus did something that other teachers had not done previously - he taught without directing. His parables were a teaching tool and we are left to make up our own minds. Jesus gave us the freedom and permission to 'think'. He invited 'thinking'. How often have you read the phrase - let those with ears. This requires some effort on our part - because freedom requires effort. If we are to do nothing more than follow a set of rules where then is the freedom?

Many may not like homosexuality - but the Bible is rather vague, at best, as providing the definitive answer on the matter.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Not according to scripture.

That's a highly selective literal interpretation and not an accurate one according to some interpretations. What appears in Leviticus and is implied in a handful of vague Pauline passages reflect the culture and little more.

Those who are struggling with homosexuality who truthfully follow the triune God will give it all up for their holy God and follow him.

That would be a mistake on their part. No God demands such. Such demands are merely oppression of a minority and based only on a desire to continue said oppression. The scriptures have been used many times to harm others and this is no exception.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Homosexuality itself is a sin. It has been shown numerous times that the Bible specifically states this:

The clobber passages are always misused as such and incorrectly applied in this manner.