Homosexuality - Here's how I look at it

[EnemyPartyII]

I answered your question and gave an example and can give others. You ignored my post and brought in the pope. Make your argument about him.



"My world of accredited scholars" are people who are actually practicing Christians, more than peripherally knowledgeable in the scripture, with no vested interest in maintaining slavery, e.g. Granville Sharp. Can you name a pope that qualifies?

I understand that not all popes attained that position based on their spirituality and piety, etc. Just as we have some spiritual leaders, in the U.S., who are highly knowledgeable and above reproach, e.g. Billy Graham, and we have others who are not e.g., Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. So do you have any particular pope in mind?

My point is when someone says "the church" did this or "the church" did that, we need to clarify just who we are talking about. For example, Fred Phelps at WBC is NOT "the church."

Well, you seem to be taking a very "mobile goal posts/no true Scotsman" type position in relation to religious aproval of slaverey.

I humbly submit that anyone I put forward as an example of a Biblical scholar who condoned slaverey, you will dismiss as "not a REAL Biblical scholar", or with a "vested interest in slavery"

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If God made the rule, and he did, it is not arbitrary. Instead of dissing God, the Bible, and his commandments, maybe you should start trying to figure out why he made the rule.

Have given it a GREAT deal of thought, and cannot for the life of me explain why God would make such an irational rule. Which leads me to conclude that any injunction against homosexuality that may be gleaned from the Bible, is an artifact of its irational human authors or editors, and NOT the result of divine inspiration.

A Muslim will always defend another Muslim.

Wow. Jesus' miracle of the loaves and fishes has absolutely NOTHING on your ability to produce more red herring!

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Well, you seem to be taking a very "mobile goal posts/no true Scotsman" type position in relation to religious aproval of slaverey.

I humbly submit that anyone I put forward as an example of a Biblical scholar who condoned slaverey, you will dismiss as "not a REAL Biblical scholar", or with a "vested interest in slavery"[/SIZE]

Meaning you can't back up anything you have claimed about "the church" condoning slavery. I know what I meant when I said it, you twisting my words to suit your assumptions and presuppostions does not constitute me shifting anything. As I said you could point to some wealthy slave owner or slave trader, in the past, who may have read the Bible at some time, and claim they were Bible scholars and represented "the church." And it frosts you no end that I, without even trying, could cite a noted Bible scholar, whose work is cited, and has never been refuted, to this day, who did not support slavery.

Slavery was always exclusive to the wealthy, and then as now the wealthy were a small minority.

If you think you have any historical figure who you think represents the policy of "the church." Then bring it on I have asked more than once. Back it up or pack it up.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Have given it a GREAT deal of thought, and cannot for the life of me explain why God would make such an irational rule. Which leads me to conclude that any injunction against homosexuality that may be gleaned from the Bible, is an artifact of its irational human authors or editors, and NOT the result of divine inspiration.[/SIZE]

Check out any of the numerous false religions which have sprung up in the last century or so. Every one of them makes the same claim. "any injunction against (name your pet sin or doctrine) that may be gleaned from the Bible, is an artifact of its irational human authors or editors, and NOT the result of divine inspiration."

Added: And see Cubanito's excellent post immediately below. I have said the same thing many times, he said much better than I have.

[SIZE=-1]Wow. Jesus' miracle of the loaves and fishes has absolutely NOTHING on your ability to produce more red herring![/SIZE]

WOW! You can't even recognize an analogy. Just as one Muslim will always defend another Muslim, a homosexual will always defend another homosexual. You had just said, "Father's daughter understands my position quite clearly." One gay person referring to another gay person to confirm something they said.

This is an example of one of those personal put downs you claim not to make.

 

[cubanito]

Yes, we are all sinners, but no..we are not all deserving of Hell. Perhaps that is your thought...not mine. I never was one to believe sin is sin. There are may kinds, and in fact, as a child I was taught sin and MORTAL sin. The more common sins you mention I agree with you 100%...and they know no sexuality. Gays and straight people are not immune from any of them.

I disagree with you a billion % with stating that "they demand scripiture be changed to accomodate their sin"...that is way outta line and I'm sorry that you feel that way and feel as if you got it all right in your beliefs. How dare you make a statement that classifies a group of people demanding a sin be accepted. TO YOU it is a sin..to many it is NOT. What gay people demand, if anything, is RESPECT, UNDERSTANDING and ACCEPTANCE...yes...acceptance, right along with the divorced christians, the self-righteous christians, the unwed sexaully active christians, etc...No one says that they demand anything, but gay people "demand". That's a terrible thing to suggest. Perhaps the way I have always been taught the Bible is that God is a God of Love, of acceptance, of compassion, of caring. The wicked, the sinners, the sick, the lepars, etc..flocked TO HIM. He embraced ALL of them. It comes across as "demanding" to some simply because they are HATERS out there to people that are different than them.

What is normal my friend??? Is it normal to have one arm? Is it normal to be blind? Is it normal to have cancer? Define to me what normal is? LOVE between 2 people is NORMAL. On that same level, please don't tell me what is in "open difiance of God". Unless you had dinner with him last nite, and he said yes, go ahead and cast judgement in my place, then you have on ground to make such a call. I think open difiance to God is the hypocrocy that is more prevalent than homosexuality. That being the christian who PROFESSES the faith, yet lives the life of a judgemental, condeming, and self-righteous person (as you stated above). The God that I have always known would never look down on a committed relationship regardless of what sex is involved.

Finally again, how dare you even suggest homosexuals call God a "liar"...the very thing you speak of is what you are representing here and it's called self-righeousness. Again, I respect you as a dr however, you have lost any respect I may have had for you as Christian. Your post disgusts me. In my prayers tonite I will ask for xtra help to rid me of the feelings I have towards you as a fellow Christian.

1- Any sin not repented of is sufficient to cast a person to eternal damnation. This is straightfoward doctrine shared by Roman Catholics and conservative "protestants." It is true that the RC divides sin into Mortal and Venial, but the very fact that one refuses to repent of ANY sin is a "Mortal" sin.

2- I do NOT claim that all homosexuals twist the Scriptures. I know of 3 personally who fight this tendency daily because they will not deny Scripture. They have all the tendencies, and on occasion they fall prey to it, but they will not make themselves feel better by denying what God has said: that it is a sin. I count these 2 men and one woman as of great honor, and tell them so.

3- My problem is with anyone who wants to excuse a sinful act, such as my gluttony, by re-interpreting Scripture to suit their own evil tendency. We have ALL gone astray. There is not one righteous, no not even one. Deny that and you deny the Christian faith.

4- I agree that among many circles (most?), homosexuality is seen as a greater sin than promiscuity, divorce and child abandonment. I agree this is wrong. T

5- The greater sin than all of those is the refusal to recognize sin when it is clearly pointed out. Any sin that is understood as such has the potential to be repented from, and forgiven. Refusal to admit homosexual acts are sin leave the person unforgiven. REPENT comes before salvation. One may indeed be forgiven for ignorance, but once it has been pointed out as sin, by the Scriptures, by other people and/or your conscience you are now liable for that sin.

How dare I? It is not I who seek to re-interpret the clear teaching of Scripture to continue what gives me pleasure, and you ask me how I dare...

Again and again, the sin of refusing God's verdict is a far greater sin than homosexuality or gluttony---both "mortal" sins, BTW.

JR

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=+1]1- Any sin not repented of is sufficient to cast a person to eternal damnation. This is straightfoward doctrine shared by Roman Catholics and conservative "protestants." It is true that the RC divides sin into Mortal and Venial, but the very fact that one refuses to repent of ANY sin is a "Mortal" sin.

2- I do NOT claim that all homosexuals twist the Scriptures. I know of 3 personally who fight this tendency daily because they will not deny Scripture. They have all the tendencies, and on occasion they fall prey to it, but they will not make themselves feel better by denying what God has said: that it is a sin. I count these 2 men and one woman as of great honor, and tell them so.

3- My problem is with anyone who wants to excuse a sinful act, such as my gluttony, by re-interpreting Scripture to suit their own evil tendency. We have ALL gone astray. There is not one righteous, no not even one. Deny that and you deny the Christian faith.

4- I agree that among many circles (most?), homosexuality is seen as a greater sin than promiscuity, divorce and child abandonment. I agree this is wrong. T

5- The greater sin than all of those is the refusal to recognize sin when it is clearly pointed out. Any sin that is understood as such has the potential to be repented from, and forgiven. Refusal to admit homosexual acts are sin leave the person unforgiven. REPENT comes before salvation. One may indeed be forgiven for ignorance, but once it has been pointed out as sin, by the Scriptures, by other people and/or your conscience you are now liable for that sin.

How dare I? It is not I who seek to re-interpret the clear teaching of Scripture to continue what gives me pleasure, and you ask me how I dare...

Again and again, the sin of refusing God's verdict is a far greater sin than homosexuality or gluttony---both "mortal" sins, BTW.

JR[/SIZE]

Excellent! It bears repeating.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Check out any of the numerous false religions which have sprung up in the last century or so. Every one of them makes the same claim. "any injunction against (name your pet sin or doctrine) that may be gleaned from the Bible, is an artifact of its irational human authors or editors, and NOT the result of divine inspiration."

Added: And see Cubanito's excellent post immediately below. I have said the same thing many times, he said much better than I have.



WOW! You can't even recognize an analogy. Just as one Muslim will always defend another Muslim, a homosexual will always defend another homosexual. You had just said, "Father's daughter understands my position quite clearly." One gay person referring to another gay person to confirm something they said.

This is an example of one of those personal put downs you claim not to make.

But by your definition I'm not even gay. Because to you, being gay means having sex with someone of the same gender. By your definition, I'm just someone more attracted to the same gender than the opposite gender.

Once you get down to it, there is, again, nothing wrong with homosexuality that will physically or mentally harm someone. THIS IS THE MAJOR FLAW. When it's not paired with any other sin, simply attraction doesn't harm society or the person who feels that attraction. Because that's all homosexuality is is an attraction to the same sex. Don't refute this by saying "spiritual guilt" because anything can be spiritual guilt if you're religious and some one tells you something is against your religion.

There are no commands God just gives. There is a reason for all of them. The only one with no obvious harm is this world is following Him and Him only but there are so many obvious reasons why that is a sin. Homosexuality can't be determined as unnatural simply by reading Genesis and it isn't the reason Paul describes the nature as sinful. Homosexual attraction doesn't harm the person in any humane way or any other person in any humane way. This sets it a part from every other sin, all of which have SOME SORT OF CONSEQUENCE OR HARM.

Murder - Someone else is sent to death. Harm to society.
Cheating - Failure later in life from not doing it right. Harm to self.
Stealing - Same as cheating.
Adultery - Loss of trust and loss of love. Harm to self and society.
Homosexuality - Nothing if people would stop making such a big deal about it.

God doesn't make sins so He can tell us what to do. He makes sins so we can protect ourself and life prosperous lives for him. Assume for a second there is no sin. God's only command is to live a prosperous life. Cheating, stealing, murder and adultery, along with all the others, would not lead to a prosperous life on earth. It would lead to distrust and downfall. Homosexuality wouldn't cause this. In fact it may help (since attraction is the first step to a relationship and spouses are important in helping through life).

In short, homosexuality being a sin by Christian standard of sin is...well, it doesn't make sense. Okay. Rant over.

 

[david_x]

I think what she's trying to say is, if homosexuality is a mental disorder, then it isn't a sin if God is all-loving. If a person is born mentally unstable and so attracted to the same sex in that way, then for God to condemn them would go against the description of God.

And homosexuality being a mental disorder is a HUGE argument against homosexuality, especially for Christians. There are many homosexuals who don't like the idea including me. But I take an actual psychological stand point since the only possible symptom is confusion and that imbalance can be connected to other disorders.

I don't actually see it as a disorder was what I meant. It is not even that it is very real in ones mind, it can be. In the larger sence it is wrong though. People have tricked themselves into believing many things, thus people commiting mass suicde in cults.

 

[UnitedInChrist]

1- Any sin not repented of is sufficient to cast a person to eternal damnation. This is straightfoward doctrine shared by Roman Catholics and conservative "protestants." It is true that the RC divides sin into Mortal and Venial, but the very fact that one refuses to repent of ANY sin is a "Mortal" sin.

2- I do NOT claim that all homosexuals twist the Scriptures. I know of 3 personally who fight this tendency daily because they will not deny Scripture. They have all the tendencies, and on occasion they fall prey to it, but they will not make themselves feel better by denying what God has said: that it is a sin. I count these 2 men and one woman as of great honor, and tell them so.

3- My problem is with anyone who wants to excuse a sinful act, such as my gluttony, by re-interpreting Scripture to suit their own evil tendency. We have ALL gone astray. There is not one righteous, no not even one. Deny that and you deny the Christian faith.

4- I agree that among many circles (most?), homosexuality is seen as a greater sin than promiscuity, divorce and child abandonment. I agree this is wrong. T

5- The greater sin than all of those is the refusal to recognize sin when it is clearly pointed out. Any sin that is understood as such has the potential to be repented from, and forgiven. Refusal to admit homosexual acts are sin leave the person unforgiven. REPENT comes before salvation. One may indeed be forgiven for ignorance, but once it has been pointed out as sin, by the Scriptures, by other people and/or your conscience you are now liable for that sin.

How dare I? It is not I who seek to re-interpret the clear teaching of Scripture to continue what gives me pleasure, and you ask me how I dare...

Again and again, the sin of refusing God's verdict is a far greater sin than homosexuality or gluttony---both "mortal" sins, BTW.

JR

The scriptures read clear to you..and the original scriptures read clear to me. Anyone that uses scripture to define homosexuality and it's sinfulness is doing the same thing they did when drawing on scripture to keep the black man down and reinforce the God given need for slavery. it is wrong. yes, I will open my bible and I will see the typical Leviticus and the Romans, and Paul and all the other things said with man lying with man, etc.. To read that one would think it is talking about homosexuality, etc..I deny no one that thought pattern. What I'm saying as I got older, I dug deeper that what was translated into english in both the NIV and KJV bibles. Both of which, by the way, wer translated by a biblical council made up of you guessed it, evangelicals, baptists, lutherans, methodists, etc...Do you think they would use terms that perhaps meant anything other than what they personally believed? When you look back at the ORIGINAL text, it is very possible, in fact, probable, that the words that were used for our good are misused. People talk about Sodom and Gomore and where the term sodomy came from, when that ENTIRE passage is about temple prositutes, and the unwelcoming of guests etc.. People always refer to that as the condemnation of homosexuals, but you NEVER hear that Lot gave his two virgin daughters to the visitors to be raped. Interesting.
Also, Leviticus talks about man shall not lay with man, etc... We all know how that goes. If that was the true translation, they would have used words that reflected that, however, when yu look at the ancient text, the words were more closely related to temple prostitutes, idol worshiping, and taking man like a woman to make him feel cowardly, etc... Today, that is all take to mean "gay". In the mean time, again, like all the other scriptures, you take the piece that you like and forget all the rest that was said. Tatoos and piercings of skin...condemnable...a child sassing a parent, cut their tounge out. Mixed fibers in clothing. Eating shellfish etc...but no...hold on to the homosexual thing and forget the rest. The notion alone shows how pathetic.
In short, no ones mind is changing here. Your truth is yours...mine is mine. I don't know what the truth is..but I do know I am not turning my back to Christ by refusing to repent for a sin which to me is the way he made me. I sin no doubt. But when I follow my sexualilty...I am not a sinner. If it is...I'll find out soon enough...until then I would greatly appreciate human beings, whom are no different than me and have no more knowledge of the truth than me, refrain from saying "repent" and "refusal to acknowledge your sin" etc...

 

[MercyBurst]

From the OP:

On that note... Homosexuality is just another sin. It doesn't rank higher in God's eyes than any other sin. Sin is sin, and Homosexuality is just another facet of it. God isn't up there fuming more over the homosexual than he is over any other sin.

Good, we all agree now that gay sex is sin. Nothing but praises from the gay side I see:

Originally Posted by UberLutheran
After the flame fest which has gone around in here over the past six weeks, this post is nothing short of amazing -- and a badly needed breath of fresh air (as well as an excellent reality check).

Reps to you!

ok, so "it's sin" gets a thumbs up from Uber.


Here's from eastcoast_BC:

Good post. I found it to be well thought out and reasoned. I am sure the Zealots are allready seething with contempt.

ok, so "it's sin" gets a wink and a knod from EC.

 

[DZoolander]

...along with pretty much every other human activity...including in some way probably the fact that you have posted on this board.

You apparently missed the point of the post

 

[MercyBurst]

Ezoolander... kudos for not condemning people for being different to you...

may I now suggest that you take the next step and try to understand that homosexuality is not necesarily sinful?

Pray on the matter if it helps

OK, so EP says you are stepping in the right direction, just don't call it sin anymore. Yep, that's where we disagree. You'll never hear a gay admit that gay sex is sin, NEVER.

Ezoo, you apparantly missed this point as well, because I did not disagree with you.

 

[DZoolander]

OK, so EP says you are stepping in the right direction, just don't call it sin anymore. Yep, that's where we disagree. You'll never hear a gay admit that gay sex is sin, NEVER.

Ezoo, you apparantly missed this point as well, because I did not disagree with you.

Sorry - I'm quick to assign intent after the nonsense that has followed the goal of my original post

 

[Nimrauko]

Sorry - I'm quick to assign intent after the nonsense that has followed the goal of my original post

I hope I didnt bring any of the non sense

 

[UnitedInChrist]

From the OP:



Good, we all agree now that gay sex is sin. Nothing but praises from the gay side I see:



ok, so "it's sin" gets a thumbs up from Uber.


Here's from eastcoast_BC:



ok, so "it's sin" gets a wink and a knod from EC.

..and once again, here is our resident gay wanna be MercyBurst who is on every gay thread morning, noon, and nite. Do you work? Do they pay you while you are on this site all day long? does your wife know about your fixation on gay culture as well as these boards? What about your kids? I think you said you have a bro that is bi-sexual. Is this perhaps your thing too? have you been str8 your entire life...or r u on a fence not knowing which way to fall this late in life? To be honest....I'm thinking about starting a MercyBurst thread to get peoples take on you. As I said before...I find you fascinating. I think you know just about everything and then some on gay culture...more than most of my gay friends anyway.

 

[DZoolander]

I hope I didnt bring any of the non sense

Ya know - lol - the intent of my original post was simply to point out that there are SO many more worthwhile things to worry about in this life than who someone chooses to rub up against. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people have some weird fixation on what two consensual adults do in the privacy of their own home.

I don't get it...and after reading page after page after page of replies that are completely off topic...I still don't get it.

In the end - we're all damned. The punishment is equal. I'm not interested in the semantics of it - who thinks what's a sin - etc. The point is - salvation rests upon your acceptance of Christ and his Grace. That's it. That's really all you should be worried about with respect to sin. What sin holds what rank is to be left in God's hands...not man's.

Focus upon the things that truly *do* have an impact upon the quality of life of people here on this planet. The fact evangelical nuts are so focused on what people decide to do with their reproductive organs is just lame.

...but that was lost in the mix. There are 26 pages of just utter crap, no different than what you would find in any other thread in this forum. I don't know if you're part of the nonsense or not...I stopped paying attention. lol

I was also engaged in a discussion with some individual on the main ethics board - who would like to legislate Christian "ethics". Ya know - history bears out what a bad idea that is...but...no matter how much you talk to people...you're not going to change their minds.

It's like that saying goes about arguing on the internet. Even if you win - you're still an idiot. I'm done with my half of that equation

 

[Der Alte]

The scriptures read clear to you..and the original scriptures read clear to me. Anyone that uses scripture to define homosexuality and it's sinfulness is doing the same thing they did when drawing on scripture to keep the black man down and reinforce the God given need for slavery. [[size=+1]Illogical and fallacious. Not related[/size]] it is wrong. yes, I will open my bible and I will see the typical Leviticus and the Romans, and Paul and all the other things said with man lying with man, etc.. To read that one would think it is talking about homosexuality, etc..I deny no one that thought pattern. What I'm saying as I got older, I dug deeper that what was translated into english in both the NIV and KJV bibles. Both of which, by the way, wer translated by a biblical council made up of you guessed it, evangelicals, baptists, lutherans, methodists, etc... [[size=+1]Irrelevant. I don’t use any of those translations. See how ancient Jews and the early church translated the verses, below[/size]] Do you think they would use terms that perhaps meant anything other than what they personally believed? When you look back at the ORIGINAL text, it is very possible, in fact, probable, that the words that were used for our good are misused. [[size=+1]Not true. See ancient Jews and the early church references, below[/size]] People talk about Sodom and Gomore and where the term sodomy came from, when that ENTIRE passage is about temple prositutes, and the unwelcoming of guests etc.. [[size=+1]NOT true! The ancient Jews and early church NEVER made that distinction[/size]] People always refer to that as the condemnation of homosexuals, but you NEVER hear that Lot gave his two virgin daughters to the visitors to be raped. Interesting. [[size=+1]IRRELEVANT! Ancient Jews were responsible to protect guests at the risk of their own lives[/size]]
Also, Leviticus talks about man shall not lay with man, etc... We all know how that goes. If that was the true translation, they would have used words that reflected that, however, when yu look at the ancient text, the words were more closely related to temple prostitutes, idol worshiping, and taking man like a woman to make him feel cowardly, etc... [[size=+1]Absolutely FALSE! See references to ancient Jews and early church below[/size]] Today, that is all take to mean "gay". In the mean time, again, like all the other scriptures, you take the piece that you like and forget all the rest that was said. [[size=+1]Illogical and fallacious and untrue[/size]] Tatoos and piercings of skin... [] condemnable...a child sassing a parent, cut their tounge out. [[size=+1]Totally false! No such verse exists and I have told you this before[/size]] Mixed fibers in clothing. Eating shellfish etc.. [[size=+1]Abrogated in the New Testament[/size]] but no...hold on to the homosexual thing and forget the rest. The notion alone shows how pathetic.
In short, no ones mind is changing here. Your truth is yours...mine is mine. [[size=+1]Cop out! The truth is the truth it is NOT relative to individuals[/size]] I don't know what the truth is..but I do know I am not turning my back to Christ by refusing to repent for a sin which to me is the way he made me. I sin no doubt. But when I follow my sexualilty...I am not a sinner. If it is...I'll find out soon enough...until then I would greatly appreciate human beings, whom are no different than me and have no more knowledge of the truth than me, refrain from saying "repent" and "refusal to acknowledge your sin" etc... [[size=+1]I have NEVER said that in this forum[/size]]

Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a [Teaching of the Jewish scholars from the time the laws was given.]

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED. . . . Our Rabbis taught: If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]. . .

Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.1 . . . whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:2 and it is further said, . . .

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. . . .

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind.13 . . .

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), . . .(see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . .

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C​

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halkhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth

The two verses in the book of (Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah’s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.”​

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":

"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -— their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."​

 

[Der Alte]

Previous post continued.

The early church interpreted [size=+1]&#945;&#961;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#954;&#959;&#953;&#964;&#951;&#962;[/size]/arsenokoités variously as, “”sodomy,” “filth of sodomy,” lawless lust, “lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc.

Quoted from; Ignatius, 30-107 AD; Polycarp 65 - 155 AD; Irenaeus, 120-202 AD; Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD; Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD; Tertullian, 145-220 AD; Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and Origen, 185-254 AD.

Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years.

Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

So also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle [Paul] testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9].

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers],

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.

And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned?

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice is used for “lechery.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.


Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.

Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God;" [1 Cor 6:9]

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65. That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9][/b].

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and
integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]​

 

[Der Alte]

..[SIZE=-1]and once again, here is our resident gay wanna be MercyBurst who is on every gay thread morning, noon, and nite. . .[/SIZE].

"Gay" must be something bad if you try to insult someone by calling them "gay." Followed by more insults.

 

[MercyBurst]

Originally Posted by rick0824
..[SIZE=-1]and once again, here is our resident gay wanna be[/SIZE]

So you finally admit a person can wanna be or not wanna be involved in gay sex. Choice IS involved. Hooray. You are making progress. Cheers....

who is on every gay thread morning, noon, and nite.

At last count I'm active on a whopping incredible two threads in the past week or so. That's gotta be a record, right? You wouldn't be exagerrating just a little bit would 'ya? And like many people, I ask myself why gays seem to over-exaggerate so much. Is it rationalization and denial at work?