Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[Zecryphon]

Surely, there's only one kind of "religious" authority, and that's God himself? Anything else is entirely fallible and prone to error.

And as I pointed out earlier, there's no sound Scriptural case for the Scripture = God's Word equation.

David.

"And as I pointed out earlier, there's no sound Scriptural case for the Scripture = God's Word equation."

How does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 fail to solve that equation?

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Here is some commentary from Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Entire Bible, on these verses.

2Ti 3:14-17 -
Those who would learn the things of God, and be assured of them, must know the Holy Scriptures, for they are the Divine revelation. The age of children is the age to learn; and those who would get true learning, must get it out of the Scriptures. They must not lie by us neglected, seldom or never looked into. The Bible is a sure guide to eternal life. The prophets and apostles did not speak from themselves, but delivered what they received of God, 2Pe_1:21.

Here is 2Pe 1:21:

2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

It is profitable for all purposes of the Christian life. It is of use to all, for all need to be taught, corrected, and reproved. There is something in the Scriptures suitable for every case. Oh that we may love our Bibles more, and keep closer to them! then shall we find benefit, and at last gain the happiness therein promised by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the main subject of both Testaments. We best oppose error by promoting a solid knowledge of the word of truth; and the greatest kindness we can do to children, is to make them early to know the Bible.

 

[JayJay77]

from JayJay77:
Why would God NOT want you to read His law, precepts, statutes, decrees, commands and words literally?

from MrPirate:
I find it strange that the very people who want the bible read literally are the first ones to reject the literal reading of the passages they say concern homoseuxuality

Did I miss something? How did I "reject the literal reading of the passages say concern homosexuality?"

 

[JayJay77]

from David Brider:
Surely, there's only one kind of "religious" authority, and that's God himself? Anything else is entirely fallible and prone to error.

And as I pointed out earlier, there's no sound Scriptural case for the Scripture = God's Word equation.

David.

Well I certainly don't trust what God tells you personally, as you don't trust what God tells me personally unless it is backed up by something.

Hmmm. If only we could measure what God tells us to something He's said to everyone else. What could that be? Is it human reasoning? Is it the church? Or is it the Bible?

 

[Markus6]

"And as I pointed out earlier, there's no sound Scriptural case for the Scripture = God's Word equation."

How does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 fail to solve that equation?

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

'Breathed out' by God is not the same as spoken by God. The bible itself only ever calls two things the 'word of God': God's actual utterances and Jesus. The bible contains words of God but I think it is inaccurate to call it 'the word of God' as it also contains words of Paul, of David etc. I believe their words were inspired by God but are still their words.

 

[Zecryphon]

[/COLOR][/SIZE]
'Breathed out' by God is not the same as spoken by God. The bible itself only ever calls two things the 'word of God': God's actual utterances and Jesus. The bible contains words of God but I think it is inaccurate to call it 'the word of God' as it also contains words of Paul, of David etc. I believe their words were inspired by God but are still their words.

If scripture is not the words of God, what evidence do we have that God ever uttered anything? How do you draw the distinction between God breathed and God inspired? What's the difference between those two phrases for you?

This is an excerpt from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on the word "Inspiration" and what it means.

2. Occurrences in the Bible​

Meanwhile, for English-speaking men, these terms have virtually ceased to be Biblical terms. They naturally passed from the Latin Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) into the English versions made from it (most fully into the Rheims-Douay: Job_32:8; The Wisdom of Solomon 15:11; Ecclesiasticus 4:12; 2Ti_3:16; 2Pe_1:21). But in the development of the English Bible they have found ever-decreasing place. In the English Versions of the Bible of the Apocrypha (both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) "inspired" is retained in The Wisdom of Solomon 15:11; but in the canonical books the nominal form alone occurs in the King James Version and that only twice: Job_32:8, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding"; and 2Ti_3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." the Revised Version (British and American) removes the former of these instances, substituting "breath" for "inspiration"; and alters the latter so as to read: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness," with a marginal alternative in the form of, "Every scripture is inspired of God and profitable," etc. The word "inspiration" thus disappears from the English Bible, and the word "inspired" is left in it only once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even misleading mistranslation.

For the Greek word in this passage - θεόπνευστος, theópneustoš - very distinctly does not mean "inspired of God." This phrase is rather the rendering of the Latin, divinitus inspirata, restored from the Wycliff ("Al Scripture of God ynspyrid is....") and Rhemish ("All Scripture inspired of God is....") versions of the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) The Greek word does not even mean, as the King James Version translates it, "given by inspiration of God," although that rendering (inherited from, Tyndale: "All Scripture given by inspiration of God is...." and its successors; compare Geneva: "The whole Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is....") has at least to say for itself that it is a somewhat clumsy, perhaps, but not misleading, paraphrase of the Greek term in theological language of the day. The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a "spiring" or "spiration." What it says of Scripture is, not that it is "breathed into by God" or is the product of the Divine "inbreathing" into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, "God-breathed," the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. The "breath of God" is in Scripture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. "By the word of Yahweh," we read in the significant parallel of Psa_33:6 "were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." And it is particularly where the operations of God are energetic that this term (whether רוּח, rūaḥ, or נשׁמה, neshāmāh) is employed to designate them - God's breath is the irresistible outflow of His power. When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture" or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed," he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

"Sentence 1 - your literalism cripples you, obviously."

Nice tone of condescension there. It is totally not needed in a civil conversation, such as the one I'm trying to have with you. I mean, come on, don't you see the silliness in the first part of your own statement? "I do not read it with the eyes..." Apparently not.

I'm sorry. I was trying to use the exact same tone as you were using when you said: "You don't read it with your eyes? How do you do it then? "

But actually, you have proven my point. In my statement: "I don't read the bible with the eyes, heart, or agenda of a literalist." You misread that I don't read with my eyes. Please, feel free to read the sentence again - the WHOLE sentence.

This is why I made the assertion that reading literally can cripple you. You read something, but you did not read it all, and you came to a false conclusion about what I said. In fact, I would assert that you read with some sort of AGENDA to prove me wrong, and so you were able to interpret my words the way you did...even when looking at them, you really cannot come to that conclusion.

And that provides us with a nice segue:

Also, what is the "agenda" of a literalist? Why is it that people who take it symbolically don't have an agenda? Why this need to try and villify people who take it as it is written? You suggested that people who take the Bible literally do so with their eyes and heart focused on an agenda. Now what agenda would that be? Care to elaborate?

No villification. The agenda is to prove gay Christians wrong in the way we read scripture. I did not villify you. I merely stated what I feel to be true.

"I did not villify anyone."

Oh but you did. See, when you bring a word like agenda into a conversation, a word that very often has a negative connotation to it, you are saying that people have a motive in mind prior to coming to the word of God. You are saying that we have a preconceived understanding and that this preconceived understanding will hamper us in some way. A preconceived understanding will hamper everybody, that's why it is best to read what is plainly written, word for word, and then proceed from there.

The way you phrased your statement makes it sound like those who take the Bible as it is written, have a different purpose than you do, when we all have the same purpose in mind, to come to God's word to increase our understanding of who God is revealing himself to be and to increase our understanding of how He wants us to live so we can best glorify Him.

I used the word "agenda" on purpose. Because it is so often used to bash, demean, lie about and marginalize gay people. Sure it's a loaded word. I am not the one who loaded it with negative connotation. Don't like it? You and your friends should stop using the term. (same goes for "gay lifestyle")

I did NOT say that literalists have a different purpose. I truly believe you think you are doing God's work. But I am doing his work as well.

What I won't abide is somebody who goes no further than simplistic literalism to judge me or my life, or my walk with Jesus. That dog won't hunt.

If I have offended you with my words, in this post or earlier ones, I do apologize. I am trying to be clear, not harsh. Thanks.

 

[Markus6]

If scripture is not the words of God, what evidence do we have that God ever uttered anything?

I don't call the bible as a whole the word of God. I do, as I said, believe it contains words of God. That should answer your question

How do you draw the distinction between God breathed and God inspired? What's the difference between those two phrases for you?

This is an excerpt from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on the word "Inspiration" and what it means.

OK, so 'God inspired' is not a sufficient replacement for 'God breathed'. I still don't see how 'God breathed' = 'God's word' and I really don't think the quote from Psalms covers it.

The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspiring or of inspiration: it speaks only of a "spiring" or "spiration." What it says of Scripture is, not that it is "breathed into by God" or is the product of the Divine "inbreathing" into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, "God-breathed," the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. No term could have been chosen, however, which would have more emphatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than that which is here employed. The "breath of God" is in Scripture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His creative word. "By the word of Yahweh," we read in the significant parallel of Psa_33:6 "were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." And it is particularly where the operations of God are energetic that this term (whether רוּח, rūaḥ, or נשׁמה, neshāmāh) is employed to designate them - God's breath is the irresistible outflow of His power. When Paul declares, then, that "every scripture" or "all scripture" is the product of the Divine breath, "is God-breathed," he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation.

 

[Zecryphon]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]

I'm sorry. I was trying to use the exact same tone as you were using when you said: "You don't read it with your eyes? How do you do it then? "

But actually, you have proven my point. In my statement: "I don't read the bible with the eyes, heart, or agenda of a literalist." You misread that I don't read with my eyes. Please, feel free to read the sentence again - the WHOLE sentence.

This is why I made the assertion that reading literally can cripple you. You read something, but you did not read it all, and you came to a false conclusion about what I said. In fact, I would assert that you read with some sort of AGENDA to prove me wrong, and so you were able to interpret my words the way you did...even when looking at them, you really cannot come to that conclusion.

And that provides us with a nice segue:
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

No villification. The agenda is to prove gay Christians wrong in the way we read scripture. I did not villify you. I merely stated what I feel to be true.



I used the word "agenda" on purpose. Because it is so often used to bash, demean, lie about and marginalize gay people. Sure it's a loaded word. I am not the one who loaded it with negative connotation. Don't like it? You and your friends should stop using the term. (same goes for "gay lifestyle")

I did NOT say that literalists have a different purpose. I truly believe you think you are doing God's work. But I am doing his work as well.

What I won't abide is somebody who goes no further than simplistic literalism to judge me or my life, or my walk with Jesus. That dog won't hunt.

If I have offended you with my words, in this post or earlier ones, I do apologize. I am trying to be clear, not harsh. Thanks.

"I'm sorry. I was trying to use the exact same tone as you were using when you said: "You don't read it with your eyes? How do you do it then? ""

Perhaps I should have put an LOL after that statement or some sort of smiley to convey a sense of silliness or joking.

"But actually, you have proven my point. In my statement: "I don't read the bible with the eyes, heart, or agenda of a literalist." You misread that I don't read with my eyes. Please, feel free to read the sentence again - the WHOLE sentence."

That's your interpretation of what happened. What I did was point out the silly nature of your comment. There is no way to read anything without the use of a person's eyes.


"This is why I made the assertion that reading literally can cripple you. You read something, but you did not read it all, and you came to a false conclusion about what I said. In fact, I would assert that you read with some sort of AGENDA to prove me wrong, and so you were able to interpret my words the way you did...even when looking at them, you really cannot come to that conclusion."

There is no agenda on my part to prove you wrong. I pointed to the silliness of your comment and it is a silly one to make even though you were attempting to drive home a different point. You were trying to set yourself apart from Biblical literalists, which we all have to be, before we can move on to the deeper meanings contained in the scriptures. You know the second you read something if it can be taken literally or not, it's automatic. So automatic, you forget you're even making a distinction between literal and figurative statements.

"And that provides us with a nice segue:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zecryphon
Also, what is the "agenda" of a literalist? Why is it that people who take it symbolically don't have an agenda? Why this need to try and villify people who take it as it is written? You suggested that people who take the Bible literally do so with their eyes and heart focused on an agenda. Now what agenda would that be? Care to elaborate?



No villification. The agenda is to prove gay Christians wrong in the way we read scripture. I did not villify you. I merely stated what I feel to be true."

Gay Christians aren't the only ones who read scripture in a non-literal way, so that can't be the supposed agenda you have assigned to me and others who take the scriptures as they are written.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zecryphon
"I did not villify anyone."

Oh but you did. See, when you bring a word like agenda into a conversation, a word that very often has a negative connotation to it, you are saying that people have a motive in mind prior to coming to the word of God. You are saying that we have a preconceived understanding and that this preconceived understanding will hamper us in some way. A preconceived understanding will hamper everybody, that's why it is best to read what is plainly written, word for word, and then proceed from there.

The way you phrased your statement makes it sound like those who take the Bible as it is written, have a different purpose than you do, when we all have the same purpose in mind, to come to God's word to increase our understanding of who God is revealing himself to be and to increase our understanding of how He wants us to live so we can best glorify Him.

"I used the word "agenda" on purpose. Because it is so often used to bash, demean, lie about and marginalize gay people. Sure it's a loaded word. I am not the one who loaded it with negative connotation. Don't like it? You and your friends should stop using the term. (same goes for "gay lifestyle")"

If you will go back through this thread you will see that I too objected to the use of the phrase "gay lifestyle" and said that a gay person's lifestyle is only different than that of a heterosexual person in terms of their sexual partners. Everything else is pretty much the same. I also have not used the phrase "gay agenda" anywhere in this thread. So it seems that me and my friends are not out to "get you" or whatever it is you think of us. You are coming to this thread with a hostility that is not warranted by anything I have done or said. As I haven't used either the phrase "gay lifestyle" or "gay agenda". Two claims by you that are false and easily proven false if you read back through this thread.

"I did NOT say that literalists have a different purpose. I truly believe you think you are doing God's work. But I am doing his work as well."

You know perfectly well what the use of the word "agenda" indirectly says about someone.

"What I won't abide is somebody who goes no further than simplistic literalism to judge me or my life, or my walk with Jesus. That dog won't hunt."

Well it's a good thing I'm not passing judgment upon you or your life. What people seem to be telling you is what God has said on the matter. If our interpretations of the scriptures that address homosexuality are wrong, show us how. What people like me don't like is being told we're wrong, but not being shown how we're wrong. We also get told we're judging people and beating people up with our Bibles, when we're just sharing what we have received from the Holy Spirit on this issue. We get false claims about us and our motives and/or agendas, in place of the facts.

"If I have offended you with my words, in this post or earlier ones, I do apologize. I am trying to be clear, not harsh. Thanks."

It takes more than this to offend me. I fully expect this kind of behavior when talking about homosexuality on the internet. So there's been nothing surprising to me thus far.

 

[Zecryphon]

[/COLOR]
I don't call the bible as a whole the word of God. I do, as I said, believe it contains words of God. That should answer your question
[/COLOR]
OK, so 'God inspired' is not a sufficient replacement for 'God breathed'. I still don't see how 'God breathed' = 'God's word' and I really don't think the quote from Psalms covers it.

Then you should probably continue to investigate this. The Bible is God's progressive revelation about Himself to us. It's a revelation about Jesus Christ also known as the Word of God. See John 1:1. The Word God sent from Himself to us, so that we could be reconciled to Him.

 

[MrPirate]

Did I miss something? How did I "reject the literal reading of the passages say concern homosexuality?"

Not specifically directed at you

Though I do recall any number of posts where you reject literalism when it comes to the topic of homosexuality.

If one reads the bible literally then there are no condemnations for homosexuality.

 

[mont974x4]

Actually a literal reading certainly does point to homosecxuality and many other sins as very serious issues.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Actually a literal reading certainly does point to homosecxuality and many other sins as very serious issues.

A literal reading also demands the stoning death of innocent rape victims... so what's your point?

 

[mont974x4]

No stoning in the NT, but definately a serious addressing of sin.

 

[mont974x4]

NASB
1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1Co 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
1Co 6:13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body.
1Co 6:14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.
1Co 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."
1Co 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
1Co 6:18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
1Co 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No stoning in the NT, but definately a serious addressing of sin.

well... if we are only going off a literal reading of the NT... then loving one another as one's self is the most important commandment for our inter human relations... no condemnation of homosexualit there

 

[mont974x4]

No condemnation at all...only rightful discerning what is sin and holding brothers and sisters accountable as the Bible tells us too.


Notice I did not single out homosexuality, I posted the whole group of sins from 1 Cor 6 and I have expressed in these threads that I wish ALL sin was held to the same standard and that homosexuality is NOT the super sin some people make it out to be?

 

[Zecryphon]

well... if we are only going off a literal reading of the NT... then loving one another as one's self is the most important commandment for our inter human relations... no condemnation of homosexualit there

"well... if we are only going off a literal reading of the NT... then loving one another as one's self is the most important commandment for our inter human relations... no condemnation of homosexualit there"

No one has said that that verse condemns homosexuality. Mont has posted a verse that condemns it, perhaps you could give us the figurative or symbolic interpretation of this verse or any of the others that condemn homosexuality so we may learn how to correctly interpret those verses? Since the literal interpretation is obviously not the right way to understand them.

If you need the other verses that have been cited they are:

Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9 (which we see here) and 1 Timothy 1:10.

 

[MrPirate]

Actually a literal reading certainly does point to homosecxuality and many other sins as very serious issues.

Literal includes the literal and contextual translation of words such as mishkabh and arsenokoites. However when one does this the condemnations of homosexuality disappear. To ignore this fact is to reject literalism while claiming to be a literalist.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"well... if we are only going off a literal reading of the NT... then loving one another as one's self is the most important commandment for our inter human relations... no condemnation of homosexualit there"

No one has said that that verse condemns homosexuality. Mont has posted a verse that condemns it, perhaps you could give us the figurative or symbolic interpretation of this verse or any of the others that condemn homosexuality so we may learn how to correctly interpret those verses? Since the literal interpretation is obviously not the right way to understand them.

If you need the other verses that have been cited they are:

Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9 (which we see here) and 1 Timothy 1:10.

Well Leviticus isn't in the New Testament is it?

Can we cement these goal posts please? Are we talking about a literal reading of the whole Bible, or just the NT?

 

[MrPirate]

NASB
1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

By no coincidence there is an entire thread devoted toe the literal translation of arsenokoites http://foru.ms/t6218395-arsenokoités.html

200+ post later no one has been able to provide evidence that the word translates as homosexual. If you have such evidence please go there and post it for all to examine.