Homosexuality - Here I stand.

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

RMDY said:
Lighthorseman,

I appreciate you bringing up your views about Soddom. I was also shocked when the girl was raped in the book of Judges by the Benjamites. I just happened to be shocked more by the Sodom episode because I didn't expect to see that kind of scene in the bible and it was the first explicit one I came across. I actually started at genesis when I began reading the bible, rather than the gospels.

"homosexuality" may or may not be mentioned in the New Testament or by Jesus, but Jesus and the apostles also didn't use the word "beastiality" either. Hands down, beastiality was sexually immoral on moral grounds. Premarital sex was also hands down morally wrong. Clearly, the word used for such things was pornea.

Lighthorsemen, it would be logical to agree that this case is true: that beastiality is also not mentioned in the new testament. So you will have to agree with me that we can't just think of biblical terms from an English perspective, simply because, were talking about a greek text here. Now, the greek word for sexual immorality is pornea. When Jesus mentioned it, it would be safe to believe that it referred to a lot of sexual immoral things like premarital sex, foreplay before marriage such as [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s, various other fornications, beastiality, incest (like father-daughter relationships for example or mother-son relationships). Can we agree on this, Lighthorse?

I appreciate your reasoned discourse, sincerely I do, and I'll even accept that when Jesus said "pornea" that he meant a range of behaviours that were accepted as "immoral" at the time. However, I'll go out on a limb and say that I bet a great many of the things considered immoral at the time are acts that occur today largely uncomented on, heck, I bet you've even done a few yourself, I know I have. "morality" is a contemporary term, and it changes, so even though pornea had a set of acts implicit in it back then, I don't know that it necesarily follows that everything in that set is still included today, or even that some new ones that weren't considered wrong then, but are now, should not be included.

Now, regarding beastiality, incest, etc... I look to Christ's new commandment for clarification. This is me speaking, but the way I interpret the new commandment, it means, "imagine yourself in the other guy's position, and then treat him as you would want to be treated if you were him". Thats my reading of it, and it seems to jive pretty well with the rest of Christs inclusive, non legalist, non judgemental message. After many many hours of meditation and prayer on this issue, believe me, I've given this a great deal of thought, I'm not making it up as I go along, it seems to me that in observance of this "treat others as yourself" commandment, that any act between two or more people who have given there fully informed consent cannot be immoral. ANY act. Now, let me stop you right there because I know what you're going to say next... beastiality? still immoral, because an animal can't give genuine informed consent. Ditto incest, I don't believe both parties in an incestuous relationship can ever be genuinely equal, one always holds some sort of power over the other, so no genuine consent there either. Seriously, it works for every single situation. If there is mutual informed consent for all participants, then I believe Christ is OK with it. Sure, there are some cases where it starts to get tricky to work out, and there are other caveats I'll bring into play, mostly to do with greatest good for greatest number and other similar considerations, but in broad terms, what goes on between two mutually consenting adults is their business and God is fine with it. Go on, please, try to come up with a situation where the adult informed consent of the participants does not negate any apparent immorality?

p.s. wish I knew what you wrote that got [wash my mouth out]ed

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

RMDY said:
Come on man, hands down Jesus summed up lots of sexually immoral things with the greek word pornea

I will agree with this statement. However, what precisely he intended to sum up as immoral, and whether that list is either universal or unchangeing, is, I think, open to discussion.

RMDY · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
I will agree with this statement. However, what precisely he intended to sum up as immoral, and whether that list is either universal or unchangeing, is, I think, open to discussion.

Then I believe we both could agree that it would be quite fair for you to be open to the possiblity that homosexuality may be a form of pornea Jesus perhaps was referring to (along with the other forms of pornea).

RMDY · Feb 12, 2009

Lighthorse,

I want to make it clear to you I am not out to corner you or interrogate you. I am not laying down an argument that will label homosexual as this isolated sin that needs to be prioritized against.

After all, didn't God prophecy that he'd put his laws into our heart? Jesus preached his news, and made his denouncement about what emulates from the heart. Sexuality appears to be a big issue in the New Testament, so it is quite reasonable that sexual morality issues play a big role in the lives of christians, though small they may be. Wearing mixed fabric, mixing breeds of dogs, and eating shrimp is not something that emulates bad character, does it?

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

RMDY said:
Then I believe we both could agree that it would be quite fair for you to be open to the possiblity that homosexuality may be a form of pornea Jesus perhaps was referring to (along with the other forms of pornea).

I am indeed open to the possibility. However i have as yet seen no compelling evidence of such. And it seems to me that if God was so rabidly opposed to homosexuality as many here seem to think, then he'd have made such evidence easier to find.

A very good friend of mine used to post here, "EnemyPartyII". She's a homosexual, and she issued a challenge, something to the effect "I will instantly renounce homosexuality if anyone can give me a clear example of Christ condemning homosexuality, OR, if anyone can give me a purely secular ethical reason to consider homosexuality wrong". The thread ran out to like 600 or so posts, and the best anyone could come up with was various permutations of "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible SAYS!". So, I don't really want to rehash covered ground, you can look up her thread if you want, but i think her point is exceptionally valid. Whats wrong with homosexuality that isn't wrong with heterosexuality?

"The Bible SAYS" is not sufficient reason to consider anything wrong, because I believe that is backwards reasoning. The Bible says certain things are wrong because of non Biblical reasons, nothing is wrong purely because the Bible says. I would contend that out of every possible immoral act, there is a clear "causes harm to third party" reasoning behind it. Murder, adultery, theft, tax evasion... all cause harm to third parties. It is my belief that out of every act that is currently considered immoral, homosexuality is the ONLY one that doesn't have a clear "causes harm to third party" element to it. So I can't see any reason to consider it immoral. Can you?

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

RMDY said:
Lighthorse,

I want to make it clear to you I am not out to corner you or interrogate you. I am not laying down an argument that will label homosexual as this isolated sin that needs to be prioritized against.

After all, didn't God prophecy that he'd put his laws into our heart? Jesus preached his news, and made his denouncement about what emulates from the heart. Sexuality appears to be a big issue in the New Testament, so it is quite reasonable that sexual morality issues play a big role in the lives of christians, though small they may be. Wearing mixed fabric, mixing breeds of dogs, and eating shrimp is not something that emulates bad character, does it?

Oh, I didn't for a moment think you were trying to interogate or corner me... I'm finding this quite a friendly and respectful conversation, which I always welcome. Please do continue.

Your second paragraph probably deserves further expansion... I mean, its all a matter of interpretation. Yeah, sexual immorality is a big part of the NT... but not homosexuality, specifically, so we could draw the conclusion that sexual morality in the generally accepted sense (i.e. monogomous heterosexual sex) is a big deal, but homosexuality less so. Either way, its all kind of conjectural. Like I said before, I try to use Christ's new commandments as my yardstick, and, as such, I can't find an obvious problem with homosexuality.

RMDY · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
I am indeed open to the possibility. However i have as yet seen no compelling evidence of such. And it seems to me that if God was so rabidly opposed to homosexuality as many here seem to think, then he'd have made such evidence easier to find.

A very good friend of mine used to post here, "EnemyPartyII". She's a homosexual, and she issued a challenge, something to the effect "I will instantly renounce homosexuality if anyone can give me a clear example of Christ condemning homosexuality, OR, if anyone can give me a purely secular ethical reason to consider homosexuality wrong". The thread ran out to like 600 or so posts, and the best anyone could come up with was various permutations of "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible SAYS!". So, I don't really want to rehash covered ground, you can look up her thread if you want, but i think her point is exceptionally valid. Whats wrong with homosexuality that isn't wrong with heterosexuality?

"The Bible SAYS" is not sufficient reason to consider anything wrong, because I believe that is backwards reasoning. The Bible says certain things are wrong because of non Biblical reasons, nothing is wrong purely because the Bible says. I would contend that out of every possible immoral act, there is a clear "causes harm to third party" reasoning behind it. Murder, adultery, theft, tax evasion... all cause harm to third parties. It is my belief that out of every act that is currently considered immoral, homosexuality is the ONLY one that doesn't have a clear "causes harm to third party" element to it. So I can't see any reason to consider it immoral. Can you?

A very fair opinion. I look to what Jesus may have said that defiles a person: Pornea. The second thing I look at was Paul's argument, that pornea defiles a person and that we should flee from it and fear God.

Branching off from there, other arguments could be made, but I choose to keep it simple if you know what I mean.

As far as I see it, if people felt there was more compelling evidence to show homosexuality was a form of pornea, perhaps people would be more inclined to have a different attitude towards same-sex relationships.

My two cents. Good talking with you.

Rudolph Hucker · Feb 12, 2009

one11 said:
I've seen that trick before posted on Christian forums and didn't think it worth my time to answer. It's been circulating for years, and I do not believe was originally written to Dr. Laura at all period.

Doh, we don't sacrifice animals because Jesus became that. doh Read the NT.

Gentiles are released from having to look outwardly Jewish, including even circumcision. doh Read the NT.

Exodus is not the law. doh

Do I need to go on?

Ah yes, the old "that bit doesn't apply" ploy.

one11 · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
So you miss the bit where I said the 10 commandments have been superceded by Christ's new commandments?

If you take the 10 commandments, how come you are wearing mixed fibre clothing right now? Since you claim accepting the commandments means you take the whole of the law, including the Levitical minutiae, which is, I think what you are saying.

And where does it say injured people are to be excluded from the church? Why, right here... Lev 21:16-23

16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy. [a] ' "

You said they (injured people) were excluded from the church. They were not. You are talking about the offerings.

Also, what I read into that passage is almost a prophesy, as those are the one's Yeshua healed through his miracles to reveal God.

Also, so I don't have to quote another post of yours, where do you have the archaeological evidence to prove that homosexuality was added into the OT in the 9th Century?

one11 · Feb 12, 2009

Rudolph Hucker said:
Ah yes, the old "that bit doesn't apply" ploy.

It's true. The Kosher laws of diet did not apply to Gentiles (but it is a choice if one wants to follow the common sense of them as proven by the medical and nutritional fields to have many benefits, including fasting), nor did the outward appearance have to be any longer including circumcision. However, Jesus never overturned the moral laws of pornea. Also, Gentiles are grafted in heirs to the promise seed which was promised to Abraham. The promised seed is Jesus, the Christ, who became all the sacrificial laws.

Jesus also BECAME the High Priest (Judge) in the NT (though this High Priest reigns in Heaven), and Jesus became the altar also.

You need to spend time reading the NT to learn. Then start reading the OT.

Also, I don't want to get into shellfish again because it's quite well known that shellfish are insects. Lobster is the giant cockroach of the sea; crab a spider; shrimp kind of look like worms. Also, shellfish are omnivores and clean up the fecal matter of the sea, that's why God said not to eat them as well as the fact they are insects. You wouldn't want to pick up cockroaches off the ground and eat them, would you?

And as far as post #615, pigs are omnivores and God send don't touch them when they die; not when the skin is preserved and turned into a football. One needs to use common sense for Heaven's sake!

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

one11 said:
You said they (injured people) were excluded from the church. They were not. You are talking about the offerings.

Also, what I read into that passage is almost a prophesy, as those are the one's Yeshua healed through his miracles to reveal God.

Also, so I don't have to quote another post of yours, where do you have the archaeological evidence to prove that homosexuality was added into the OT in the 9th Century?

If you read what was actually written we may get somewhere... I didn't say homosexuallity was added to the OT in the 9th century, I said the tradition of linking the destruction of Sodom dates from about the 9th century. Read the OT. Read the NT, nowhere does it mention homosexuality in relation to Sodom. Chapter and verse me if you think I'm wrong

And its my bad, I should have said 6th Century

The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 500s AD. Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, was the first to declare that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them, in order to create homosexual scapegoats for recent earthquakes and other disasters of his time (see Extreme weather events of 535-536), but most of all to enact anti-homosexual laws that he then used upon personal as well as political opponents in case he could not prove them guilty of anything else
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy#Medieval_Christianity_on_sodomy

.

one11 · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
If you read what was actually written we may get somewhere... I didn't say homosexuallity was added to the OT in the 9th century, I said the tradition of linking the destruction of Sodom dates from about the 9th century. Read the OT. Read the NT, nowhere does it mention homosexuality in relation to Sodom. Chapter and verse me if you think I'm wrong

And its my bad, I should have said 6th Century .

So, none of these Hebrew words existed before then according to the church of the wikipedia?

Nimrod from נמרוד, a mighty hunter, specifically the ancient King Nimrod (mentioned in the Book of Genesis)Pharaoh from par'ohSabbath from שׁבת "Shabbat" ("rest")Sack from שק saq ("sackcloth") or its Phoenician cognateSatan from שטן satan ("adversary")Schmooze from shemu'oth ("news, rumours")Schwa from שווא sheva ("a neutral vowel quality")Shamus perhaps from שמש shamash ("servant")Shekel from שקל sheqelShibboleth from שיבולת shibbolet ("ear of grain")Sodomy from סדום s'dom ("Sodom")Tush from תחת tahat ("beneath")

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

one11 said:
So, none of these Hebrew words existed before then according to the church of the wikipedia?

Nimrod from נמרוד, a mighty hunter, specifically the ancient King Nimrod (mentioned in the Book of Genesis)Pharaoh from par'ohSabbath from שׁבת "Shabbat" ("rest")Sack from שק saq ("sackcloth") or its Phoenician cognateSatan from שטן satan ("adversary")Schmooze from shemu'oth ("news, rumours")Schwa from שווא sheva ("a neutral vowel quality")Shamus perhaps from שמש shamash ("servant")Shekel from שקל sheqelShibboleth from שיבולת shibbolet ("ear of grain")Sodomy from סדום s'dom ("Sodom")Tush from תחת tahat ("beneath")

Wha...? What does ANY of that have to do with what I said?

one11 · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
Wha...? What does ANY of that have to do with what I said?

I don't know how to help you understand that the Hebrew language existed thousands of years before Latin, and that the wikipedia often if not nearly ALWAYS ignores the Hebrew.

I'll believe the Hebrew Bible over the Latin and RCC. Thanks.

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

one11 said:
I don't know how to help you understand that the Hebrew language existed thousands of years before Latin, and that the wikipedia often if not nearly ALWAYS ignores the Hebrew.

I'll believe the Hebrew Bible over the Latin and RCC. Thanks.

Yes, I'm sure the Hebrew language has existing for thousands of years... but when did the hebrew word for Sodom become associated with Sodomy? Date and reference the etymology please.

one11 · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
Yes, I'm sure the Hebrew language has existing for thousands of years... but when did the hebrew word for Sodom become associated with Sodomy? Date and reference the etymology please.

You're going to have to study it yourself. I'm eating popcorn.

The book of Jude mentions the word s'dom (sodomy) and was written HUNDREDS again HUNDREDS of years before the writings listed in the wikipedia you posted.

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

one11 said:
You're going to have to study it yourself. I'm eating popcorn.

The book of Jude mentions the word s'dom (sodomy) and was written HUNDREDS again HUNDREDS of years before the writings listed in the wikipedia you posted.

In what context does Jude use it?

As for me studying it myself, you're the one making the claim, it is therefor up to you to back it up

one11 · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
In what context does Jude use it?

As for me studying it myself, you're the one making the claim, it is therefor up to you to back it up

Jude 1 (New International Version)

Jude 1

1Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by[a] Jesus Christ:
2Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
The sin and doom of Godless men

3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. 5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own homethese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animalsthese are the very things that destroy them.
11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualmshepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprootedtwice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.
A call to persevere

17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." 19These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. 20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fearhating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
Doxology

24To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy 25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

LightHorseman · Feb 12, 2009

one11 said:
Jude 1 (New International Version)

Jude 1

1Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by[a] Jesus Christ:
2Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
The sin and doom of Godless men

3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. 5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own homethese he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animalsthese are the very things that destroy them.
11Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
12These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualmshepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprootedtwice dead. 13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage.
A call to persevere

17But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." 19These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. 20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. 21Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
22Be merciful to those who doubt; 23snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fearhating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
Doxology

24To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy 25to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

OK, thanks... um, I don't see the bit where its equating sodomy with homosexuality... perhaps you could highlight it for me?

one11 · Feb 12, 2009

LightHorseman said:
If you read what was actually written we may get somewhere... I didn't say homosexuallity was added to the OT in the 9th century, I said the tradition of linking the destruction of Sodom dates from about the 9th century. Read the OT. Read the NT, nowhere does it mention homosexuality in relation to Sodom. Chapter and verse me if you think I'm wrong

And its my bad, I should have said 6th Century .

I was relating my posts to this one, regarding Sodom, and showing you Jude.

Do you understand? If not, we've crossed understandings here.

I was relating that the Hebrew words regarding Sodom existed long before the 500-600 a.d. as quoted in the church of the wikipedia.

Homosexuality - Here I stand.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1 John 1:9

1 John 1:9

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1 John 1:9

Senior Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency