Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[Hentenza]

Lets look at those two passages (Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24) in light of Leviticus 18:22.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, Leviticus does not use a paired set of words for the man and the woman; instead, it uses the word from one pair (zakar) for the man, and the word from another (ishshah) for the woman. Let's look at these two verses and see what words they use:

So God created man (adam) in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male (zakar) and female (neqebah) created he them.
Genesis 1:27

Therefore shall a man (ish) leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife (ishshah): and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2:24

​

Genesis 1:27 uses "adam" and then the pair "zakar" and "neqebah." Genesis 2:24 uses the pair "ish" and "ishshah."

"Adam" means man generically, often without regard to sex. The first part of the verse says that god created "adam" mankind. The second part mentions that mankind ("adam) comes in two varieties, man and woman, male and female. This is simply descriptive, and not proscriptive. Just as in verse 1:24, God created beasts: both cattle and "creeping things." Exact same construction. In this case it clearly just descriptive. Unless you want to say that the breeding of milk cows is wrong, since they should only be cross-bred with snakes.

"Ish" and "ishshah," husband and wife speaks of the marriage bond. The verse says that it is stronger even than the bond between child and parents. That is why when (in Matthew 19) Jesus quoted this verse -- in the context of a discussion on divorce -- He added "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." There is nothing in this verse or in Jesus' use of it that forbids a marriage bond from forming between two men or two women, other than that it is not typical in most cultures.

The use of the split pair "zakar" and "ishshah" in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 suggests (but does not demand) the problem with "man-lying" is adultery: giving to another (a stranger or relative stranger) that which rightfully belongs to the spouse. If it relates at all to Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19, it is a sin because it betrays the marriage bond he has with his spouse. On the other hand, if the other man is his spouse, there is no betrayal.

The pun and playing of words does not change God's creation of one man and one woman. God's intention in creating just a man and a woman becomes evident in Genesis 1:28 where God describes the purpose of His creation. Isolating verses is dangerous since it negates the intended meaning only possible by reading the verse in context. How would God's purpose of creating a man and a woman so that they could procreate and populate the earth factor into God condoning homosexual sex and marriages? The answer is that it doesn't. It is inescapable that God did not create homosexual sex or homosexual relationships. This makes it proscriptive instead of merely descriptive. BTW-That does not in any way take away from heterosexual marriages that are barren and is a different topic.

The word "adam", as used in Genesis 1:27, could certainly translate as "mankind" but that is not the only possible translation since the most common translation is "man" not "mankind" and to make matters worse for your theory "adam" is a masculine noun and not generic in gender. To get the proper perspective on the intended meaning of "Adam" one has to take into consideration the beginning verses of Genesis 5.

1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

The verses above clarifies God's creation and the interchangeability of the meaning of "Adam" but in the proper context. God created "Adam" (man) in his likeness. God created only male and female and called them "mankind" ("adam"). Genesis 1:27 along with Genesis 5:1:2 clarifies that the only possible marriage combination is between a man and a woman. It also clarifies that sexual intercourse between someone other than a man and a woman (in marriage) is not God's creation purpose and threfore is not of God.

With regards to Matthew 19, the context is indeed divorce but you are ignoring the "composition" of the marriage described in verse 5. Again, isolating verses is dangerous. Matthew 19:4-6:

4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Verse 5 is specific as to what constitues a marriage since the beginning (male and female from verse 4). A man ("anthropos" translated as the masculine gender "man") is joined to his wife ("gune" which only translates as the feminine gender of either wife or woman) and become one flesh. This is specific and excludes homosexual marriage and consequently homosexual sex. A man and a man or a woman and a woman is not what God created at the beginning to become one flesh and therefore is not of God.

With regards to Leveticus 18:22 and 20:13, there is very little chance that you can support your theory. The verses clearly specify what God considers a man 'laying" with a man. This verses are not about adultery and nothing in the verses even suggests that the context is about adultery. In Leveticus 18:22 God makes homosexuality against Gods law and in Leveticus 20:13 God explains what the penalty for braking His law is. God is clear about what He thinks of homsexual sex.

 

[HuntingMan]

"Ish" and "ishshah," husband and wife speaks of the marriage bond. The verse says that it is stronger even than the bond between child and parents. That is why when (in Matthew 19) Jesus quoted this verse -- in the context of a discussion on divorce -- He added "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." There is nothing in this verse or in Jesus' use of it that forbids a marriage bond from forming between two men or two women, other than that it is not typical in most cultures.

Sorry but you have yet to prove that Gods defines marriage as anything OTHER than a male and a female. There isnt a single passage in scripture anywhere that is contradictory to the fact that it is a man and a woman.

And in EVERY single mention of same gender sexual relations it is spoken of in a negative tone.
*IF* this were a jury trial with an UNbiased jury homosexuality would absolutely guilty of being against the God of the scriptures in both the old and new testaments.

 

[OllieFranz]

Sorry but you have yet to prove that Gods defines marriage as anything OTHER than a male and a female. There isnt a single passage in scripture anywhere that is contradictory to the fact that it is a man and a woman.

And in EVERY single mention of same gender sexual relations it is spoken of in a negative tone.
*IF* this were a jury trial with an UNbiased jury homosexuality would absolutely guilty of being against the God of the scriptures in both the old and new testaments.

And also in EVERY single mention of cross gender sexual relations it is spoken of in a negative tone.
*IF* this were a jury trial with an UNbiased jury heterosexuality would also be absolutely guilty of being against the God of the scriptures in both the old and new testaments.

 

[wayseer]

You keep going back and forth on this. Do you or don't you think that any passage at all asserts that homosexuality is a sin?

I thought I made that rather clear. Unless someone comes up with a piece of scripture or some particular piece of information to alter my position - I fail to see anywhere in the Bible where it can be confirmed that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[wayseer]

The pun and playing of words does not change God's creation of one man and one woman.

As I indicated earlier if you want to talk about marriage please start you own thread - you are derailing this one.

 

[wayseer]

It looks like there are those intent on derailing this thread. I can only therefore conclude that all that needs to be said about homosexuality has been said and the subject matter is no longer relevant. I thank all those taking part - particularly those who challenged my reasoning - you have help me sharpen my own thoughts on the subject.

God bless.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Sorry but Christ declared ALL foods clean when He said nothing we take into our body defiles it.
In Acts 15 those parts of the law that the gentiles were to follow were given...one of which includes fornication/illicit sex....NONE of which include not eating shellfish.
The lengths to which some go to justify what God has shown to be sin VERY clearly in His word is quite astounding.

Gentiles and the Mosaic Law - Acts 15
New Testament "fornication" defined by Mosaic Law -Acts 15
Homosexuality

How convenient. IOW, conservatives pick and choose which parts of scripture they choose to take literally.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Sorry but you have yet to prove that Gods defines marriage as anything OTHER than a male and a female.

And you have yet to prove that "Gods" does.

 

[Dogbean]

And you have yet to prove that "Gods" does.

Remove the scales from your eyes, Texas Lynn! Jesus defined marriage by quoting Genesis.

 

[Hentenza]

As I indicated earlier if you want to talk about marriage please start you own thread - you are derailing this one.

Unfortunately the topics are intertwined since most proponents of homosexual sex use the debate premise that homosexual sex within a "committed relationship" is not sin and therefore as valid as heterosexual relationships. I am merely addressing that premise.

 

[wayseer]

Unfortunately the topics are intertwined since most proponents of homosexual sex use the debate premise that homosexual sex within a "committed relationship" is not sin and therefore as valid as heterosexual relationships. I am merely addressing that premise.

You have a point but that is not my purpose - to muddy the waters.

I am talking about homosexuality and by bringing 'marriage' into the equation is a not so subtle tactic of derailing the thread into what you want to talk about and in doing so miss the very thing that Paul is talking about. I can understand that desire because what Paul talks about would be very discomforting to middle class Australians and Americans.

So please address the topic.

 

[wayseer]

Remove the scales from your eyes, Texas Lynn! Jesus defined marriage by quoting Genesis.

Stick to the thread topic - which is NOT about marriage.

If you want to talk marriage please start your own thread and stop trying to derail this one.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Remove the scales from your eyes, Texas Lynn! Jesus defined marriage by quoting Genesis.

That's out of context. He wasn't a flunky for the Webster Dictionary Company.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

All the Christians here should love gay men.

Right? So what's the difference.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

For many years in England, homsexuality was illegal.

If you were a king, like James I, nobody mentioned it. Move on a couple of centuries and f you were a wit, like Oscar Wilde, you got jailed.

Later on, in the 40's and 50's it was tolerated if not flaunted. In the 60's it became socially acceptable, and a little later was made legal.

I left the country before it became compulsory.

 

[Texas Lynn]

All the Christians here should love gay men.

Right? So what's the difference.

? But not lesbians, bis, and transfolk?

 

[Texas Lynn]

For many years in England, homsexuality was illegal.

If you were a king, like James I, nobody mentioned it. Move on a couple of centuries and f you were a wit, like Oscar Wilde, you got jailed.

Later on, in the 40's and 50's it was tolerated if not flaunted. In the 60's it became socially acceptable, and a little later was made legal.

I left the country before it became compulsory.

SoKo is pretty gay too ya know. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Dogbean]

There's everything wrong with that! But good episode of Seinfeld!!

 

[davedjy]

Remove the scales from your eyes, Texas Lynn! Jesus defined marriage by quoting Genesis.

He never quoted Genesis to show gays and lesbians that their relationships are not included.

 

[Dogbean]

He never quoted Genesis to show gays and lesbians that their relationships are not included.

But He did quote Genesis to define what marriage is supposed to be.