Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[LunarPlexus]

Up until the fall the only thing the Bible tells us they were not allowed to do is eat of the tree. Sin did not enter the world until that point and we know the sexual immorality is sin based on every other time it is mentioned in Scripture.


As to the AOL link, there is nothing there but speculation. That word love is the same word used in

NASB
1Sa 18:16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, and he went out and came in before them.


No one can doubt the sincere closeness that David and Jonathon had, but nothing indicates that it was sexual in nature. If it was, you can bet they would have been punished for it as they new the Law given through Moses..or God would have had mercy and grace on them and the Bible would have told us so.

I did say it was speculation...I personally think that it is logical to interpret it in this way. It may not be true, but it is definitely interesting.

 

[mont974x4]

BTW, Sorry for the font size change. I didn't catch it after copy and pasting the Scripture.

 

[mont974x4]

I did say it was speculation...I personally think that it is logical to interpret it in this way. It may not be true, but it is definitely interesting.

Yes you did. I should have noted that as I didn't mean to imply that you didn't.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Up until the fall the only thing the Bible tells us they were not allowed to do is eat of the tree. Sin did not enter the world until that point and we know the sexual immorality is sin based on every other time it is mentioned in Scripture.

not that homosexuality within a loving commited relationship is immoral

 

[mont974x4]

By God's standard...it is.

 

[LunarPlexus]

Yes you did. I should have noted that as I didn't mean to imply that you didn't.

Okies.

But I think that this relationship between David and Jonathan is an interesting one.

I have a question: If you don't believe that it was sexual, would you accept that it may have been romantic, and not entirely platonic?

Keeping in mind that it doesn't have to be sexual to be romantic.

 

[mont974x4]

Okies.

But I think that this relationship between David and Jonathan is an interesting one.

I have a question: If you don't believe that it was sexual, would you accept that it may have been romantic, and not entirely platonic?

Keeping in mind that it doesn't have to be sexual to be romantic.

For this discussion how are you defining romantic.

Initially I'd have to say no.

 

[LunarPlexus]

For this discussion how are you defining romantic.

Initially I'd have to say no.

I suppose I mean love like that of husband and wife, only completely non-sexual.

Do you think it is possible that this may have been the case?
Also, do you believe that this sort of love can actually work?

 

[mont974x4]

No I don't think it would work.


However, we are all supposed top have agape love for all people....no romance, no sex....just unselfish love. I do see this in David and Jonathons relationship.

 

[LunarPlexus]

No I don't think it would work.


However, we are all supposed top have agape love for all people....no romance, no sex....just unselfish love. I do see this in David and Jonathons relationship.

I think there is a sort of love between platonic love and sexual love.
I have a very close friend who I feel very strongly about, without any sexual feelings whatsoever. I would marry her, and quite happily have a romantic yet non-sexual relationship with her.
This is more what I mean. Love that is far more than friendship but doesn't require sex or lust to work.

In my opinion, David and Jonathan had a similar relationship to that of my friend and I.

 

[mont974x4]

I have some friends that I am very close with, we saw combat together. There aren't many bonds closer than that that I can think of and I doubt I could accurately descirbe it, but there is no romance or sexual aspect to it, but there is an honest love.

 

[Zecryphon]

No... but if you are saying that the only rule they had was not to eat the fruit of the tree, it follows that they could have been homosexual for no violation, right?

As for David and Jonathon... all that sneaking around each others tents, hiding from parents, kissing on the lips, having greater love for each other than they had for any woman... like I say... MUCH supporting evidence...

"No... but if you are saying that the only rule they had was not to eat the fruit of the tree, it follows that they could have been homosexual for no violation, right?"

Who were they going to be homosexual with? They were the only two people on the planet.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"No... but if you are saying that the only rule they had was not to eat the fruit of the tree, it follows that they could have been homosexual for no violation, right?"

Who were they going to be homosexual with? They were the only two people on the planet.

you don't have to be with ANYONE to be homosexual... you could be the last person on the planet and still be a homosexual

 

[EnemyPartyII]

By God's standard...it is.

no its not. Nowhere does God say homosexual sex within a marriage like relationship is a sin

 

[LunarPlexus]

I have some friends that I am very close with, we saw combat together. There aren't many bonds closer than that that I can think of and I doubt I could accurately descirbe it, but there is no romance or sexual aspect to it, but there is an honest love.

Then you will at least have an idea of what I am talking about.
I want to know if you would be able to accept this concept of love that I have been talking about between two men.

 

[Zecryphon]

you don't have to be with ANYONE to be homosexual... you could be the last person on the planet and still be a homosexual

"you don't have to be with ANYONE to be homosexual... you could be the last person on the planet and still be a homosexual"

If you were the last person on the planet, exactly who would you be attracted to that was of the same sex? Also, the verses we are quoting seem to focus on the act of homosexual sex, moreso than having a different sexual orientation. The fact that Adam and Eve went forth, became fruitful and multiplied, strongly suggests that they were not homosexual. There's just no way for you to prove your assertion that either Adam or Eve could be homosexual and I think this whole thing is a strawman constructed by you to take away from the issue being discussed here.

Remember Jesus also said that any man that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew5:27-28. Why would the same condemnation of lustful thoughts not apply to a man looking at another man with lust in his heart or a woman looking at another woman with lust in her heart?

 

[Zecryphon]

no its not. Nowhere does God say homosexual sex within a marriage like relationship is a sin

A marriage-like relationship? What kind of relationship is that exactly? Sex outside of marriage is adultery, regardless of your sexual orientation.

 

[MrPirate]

G733 (from Strongs)
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace
From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

Appeal to authority. And in this case not a very good one

The strong translation is derived entirely from the root fallacy. That is the false assumption that compound words derive their meaning from the meaning of their component words.


This approach defining and translating compound words is linguistically invalid. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair, even if it originally did. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoitai that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Furthermore, the claim that arsenokoitai came from a combination of these two words and therefore means "men who have sex with men" makes the additional error of defining a word by its (assumed) etymology. The etymology of a word is its history, not its meaning. If one is going to use the root fallacy to defend a particular meaning have to contend with other meanings derived form the root words. For example arsenokoitai is just as likely to mean someone who is lazy. The meanings of words are derived form their use not from their component parts.

 

[MrPirate]

What is the biblical basis for the relationship we call marriage? Adam and Eve. Whenever a marriage union is discussed in the Bible it is a man and a woman.

Actually the bible usually describes marriage as consisting of a man and several women some of whom may not actually be married to him…concubines or slaves forced to submit to their owners sexual whims.

Homosexual relationships are never mentioned as a good thing in Scripture. In fact, quite the opposite.

The only time same gendered sex is mentioned is in context of rape

To be fair, heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are never seen as a good thing either.

Again incorrect. Remember Hagar, brave girl that she was, decided she didn’t want to be raped by the sex pervert Abraham so she escaped. But she was sent back to be raped by God
Judges 21:10-24 details how kidnapping and rape is used to force a woman to be your wife

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 God tells his followers that raping the women of a conquered town is their right and just reward

Judges 5:30 also talks about women as a reward for soldiers



unless you think rape is a good thing

 

[MrPirate]

Ah, so it's a matter of personal prejudice now. Okay. I see how this is gonna go.

Is there any other reason?

We're not using it to condemn gay men or gay women.

Yeah right…tell us another one.

We're saying that God has declared that the act of homosexual relations is a sin.

An unfounded claim

If you'd read the text there in Leviticus 18:22 you will not see a condmenation of gay men there. The verse never addresses the person, it addresses the actions of a person.

The action is rape. Which has no more to do with gay sex than rape has to do with straight sex.

I am not picking and choosing what to inflict upon others. The mantra of "gay persecution" is really getting old. The Levitical verses are not the only ones that condemn homosexuality. It is condemned in the NT as well.

Unless you follow all the laws of Leviticus then yes you are cherry picking and choosing.

It condemns homosexual relations which are the defining factor of homosexuality as a sexual orientation.

As noted male on male rape is no more the defining factor of a same sex relationship that male on female rape is the defining factor of an opposite sex relationship

Ah but it is a sin. The sin of adultery. It is as much a sexual sin as two heterosexual people having sex outside the confines of marriage.

Changing the goal posts again I see

Never said it was.

"As for arsenokoites: refer to http://foru.ms/t6218395-arsenokoités.html and the lack of evidence that this word translates as homosexual"

I'll look into it.

Good luck with that