Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[MrPirate]

"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.

The problem with using Leviticus to prop up personal prejudice is three fold.

First we live under a new covenant with the command of Jesus as law. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

to use Leviticus to condemn gay men is to ignore Jesus.

The second problem is one of application. I sincerely doubt that you personally follow all the varied laws listed in Leviticus.
Do you for example cut your hair? (I bet you do) if so you are sinning by breaking Lev. 19:27
Leviticus also says:
That eating pork is a sin (Lev. 11:7)
That eating lobster or shrimp or scallops or oysters is a sin (Lev. 11:10-12)
That wearing clothing made of different fabrics is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That partaking in modern agriculture is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That shaving is a sin (Lev. 19:27)
That contact with a woman during her period is a sin (Lev. 20:18)
That dining on escargot is a sin (Lev. 11:42)
That attending Church while wearing glasses is a sin or allowing anyone wearing glasses into your church is a sin(Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone born with scoliosis into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone who is handicapped into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)

If you do not follow these laws then you have no business picking and choosing other laws of Leviticus to inflict upon others.


And third…and the real problem with using Leviticus to justify personal prejudice is that it does not condemn homosexuality at all.


Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.



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

 

[mont974x4]

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






Not a lot of variations on sodomy is there?



NASB
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.



Any way you slice it, sex oustide of marriage is wrong and a marriage is man and woman.


People can play all the word games they want, the fact remains any and all sexual immorality is sin.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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.

Proved my point again there, friend. I never said anything about not using eyes. Please go back and read again - slowly, carefully.




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.[/quote]

Sorry - I do not read/comprehend each word of it literally.

 

[davedjy]

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

There is much dispute over that lexicon, see the arsenokoites thread, where the definition as a "homosexual offender" or "homosexual" are not proven.

People can play all the word games they want, the fact remains any and all sexual immorality is sin.

Yet nobody including yourself has been able to demonstrate that a same sex, monogamous, life long relationship "is" sin OR sexual immorality.

 

[mont974x4]

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.


Homosexual relationships are never mentioned as a good thing in Scripture. In fact, quite the opposite. To be fair, heterosexual relationships outside of marriage are never seen as a good thing either.

 

[Zecryphon]

The problem with using Leviticus to prop up personal prejudice is three fold.

First we live under a new covenant with the command of Jesus as law. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

to use Leviticus to condemn gay men is to ignore Jesus.

The second problem is one of application. I sincerely doubt that you personally follow all the varied laws listed in Leviticus.
Do you for example cut your hair? (I bet you do) if so you are sinning by breaking Lev. 19:27
Leviticus also says:
That eating pork is a sin (Lev. 11:7)
That eating lobster or shrimp or scallops or oysters is a sin (Lev. 11:10-12)
That wearing clothing made of different fabrics is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That partaking in modern agriculture is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That shaving is a sin (Lev. 19:27)
That contact with a woman during her period is a sin (Lev. 20:18)
That dining on escargot is a sin (Lev. 11:42)
That attending Church while wearing glasses is a sin or allowing anyone wearing glasses into your church is a sin(Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone born with scoliosis into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone who is handicapped into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)

If you do not follow these laws then you have no business picking and choosing other laws of Leviticus to inflict upon others.


And third…and the real problem with using Leviticus to justify personal prejudice is that it does not condemn homosexuality at all.


Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.



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

"The problem with using Leviticus to prop up personal prejudice is three fold."

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


"First we live under a new covenant with the command of Jesus as law. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35

to use Leviticus to condemn gay men is to ignore Jesus."

We're not using it to condemn gay men or gay women. We're saying that God has declared that the act of homosexual relations is a sin. 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 second problem is one of application. I sincerely doubt that you personally follow all the varied laws listed in Leviticus.
Do you for example cut your hair? (I bet you do) if so you are sinning by breaking Lev. 19:27
Leviticus also says:
That eating pork is a sin (Lev. 11:7)
That eating lobster or shrimp or scallops or oysters is a sin (Lev. 11:10-12)
That wearing clothing made of different fabrics is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That partaking in modern agriculture is a sin (Lev. 19:19)
That shaving is a sin (Lev. 19:27)
That contact with a woman during her period is a sin (Lev. 20:18)
That dining on escargot is a sin (Lev. 11:42)
That attending Church while wearing glasses is a sin or allowing anyone wearing glasses into your church is a sin(Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone born with scoliosis into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)
That allowing anyone who is handicapped into your church is a sin (Lev 21:20)

If you do not follow these laws then you have no business picking and choosing other laws of Leviticus to inflict upon others."

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.


"And third…and the real problem with using Leviticus to justify personal prejudice is that it does not condemn homosexuality at all."

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


"Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins."

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.

"And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality."

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.

 

[Zecryphon]

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Proved my point again there, friend. I never said anything about not using eyes. Please go back and read again - slowly, carefully.




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.

Sorry - I do not read/comprehend each word of it literally. [/QUOTE]
"Proved my point again there, friend. I never said anything about not using eyes. Please go back and read again - slowly, carefully."

The first part of your sentence says "I do not read the Bible with the eyes," you later go on to specify which eyes, but I found the humor in the first part of your statement. This is really a dead issue and does not need further discussion.

 

[davedjy]

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.

As mentioned, this is no way shows this is the only exclusive relationship allowed.

 

[mont974x4]

As mentioned, this is no way shows this is the only exclusive relationship allowed.

Then show an account in Scripture where it is mentioned in a good light?

We can not deny the fact that the Bible does specifically speak out against it in more than one place.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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.

If Adam and Eve is your yardstick for family values... do I take it you therefore approve of incest amongst your children?

Then show an account in Scripture where it is mentioned in a good light?

David and Jonathon

 

[mont974x4]

At the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't yet a sin, was it?



There is no proof that David and Jonathon had a homosexual relationship.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

At the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't yet a sin, was it?



There is no proof that David and Jonathon had a homosexual relationship.

Hang on... are you claiming Adam and Eve mark the paradigm of family or not?

You can't say "Adam and Eve did X, therefore X is the only path acceptible to God, but when they did Y, that wasn't a sin yet, so it doesn't count"

Try to maintain some consistency, will ya?

And yes, there is no PROOF that David and Jonathon were homosexuals, just like there is no PROOF of the existence of Belgium.

However, there IS lotsa and lots of EVIDENCE supporting the conclusion that Jonathon and David were homosexual lovers

 

[mont974x4]

I am being consistent. The only rule at first was to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. All the others rules cames later.



There are maps and documents that verify Belgium exists, there is nothing but speculation about David and Jonathon by people trying to justify sin. Heck, we all try to justify our sin until we finally repent.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I am being consistent. The only rule at first was to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. All the others rules cames later.



There are maps and documents that verify Belgium exists, there is nothing but speculation about David and Jonathon by people trying to justify sin. Heck, we all try to justify our sin until we finally repent.

so if the only rule was that they shouldn't eat the fruit... whats to say Adam and Eve couldn't be homosexual?

and yes, maps and documents support the contention that Belgium exists, they don't prove it.

Just the same way the Bible supports the contention that Jonathon and David were gay

 

[mont974x4]

There is absolutely zero evidence to support Adam and Eve could have been gay. They were joined as man and wife, blessed and told to be fruitful and multiply.


There is none for David and Jonathon being gay either, if there is some, please post references.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There is absolutely zero evidence to support Adam and Eve could have been gay. They were joined as man and wife, blessed and told to be fruitful and multiply.


There is none for David and Jonathon being gay either, if there is some, please post references.

Stick to the actual quesdtions please...

Are you seriously saying that Adam and Eve ONLY had one rule, not to eat the fruit of the tree? that that is IT? The ONLY rule they had?

 

[mont974x4]

Is there another rule that I missed prior to God punishing Adam, Eve, and the serpent?



Please support your claim regarding David and Jonathon.

 

[LunarPlexus]

Is there another rule that I missed prior to God punishing Adam, Eve, and the serpent?



Please support your claim regarding David and Jonathon.

Possibly not, but at the same time are you able to tell us what else Adam and Eve were and were not allowed to do?

As regards to David and Jonathan:

http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/jonathan.htm

It is speculation, but it raises a good point.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Is there another rule that I missed prior to God punishing Adam, Eve, and the serpent?



Please support your claim regarding David and Jonathon.

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...

 

[mont974x4]

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.