Homosexuality: Right or Wrong? (read pg1)

[Floatingaxe]

You said that God is powerful enough to be able to make sure that His message was accurately memorialized. And I responded by observing that His message seems to get butchered all of the time. And you seem to agree. So I don't know where that leaves us ...

It leaves us on a more even playing field!

God is sovereign and omnipotent. Humans are incredibly sinful and rebellious toward Him.

 

[RMDY]

Why would it not excuse her, if the basis for such belief comes from scriptures which she believes may be errant?

I'll use Paul as a good example. He was formerly one named Saul who, in ignorance, persecuted the Church of Christ and murdered christians and spoke blasphamies. Yet, God was merciful upon him and made him an apostle.

God is merciful upon Ohioprof as well. I know this because of what Paul was like before he became an apostle and because God overlooked what Paul did and made him into an apostle.

Your only hope, Ohioprof, is embracing the cross and having faith in Jesus and walking in love. Cast all your cares upon Him because he cares for you.

No matter how many times you confess your sins, it is useless if one does not cast himself upon Jesus and embrace the cross and lay all your sins upon Him. We cannot walk in self righteoussness before the Creator in a lurkwarm kind of faith, in a lurkwarm kind-of-christianity.


Those who have ears to hear, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches:

To the Church in Laodicea

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

 

[RMDY]

Ohioprof, don't you want Jesus to come in and dine with you and you with him? He is knocking at your door.

 

[OllieFranz]

Regardless of the wording of the translation, it is obvious that the Bible is referring to homsexuality in some form or another. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong and your argument is bunk.

This is a very weak argument. As an argument it is almost worthless. Consider if the word for which there was no authoratative definition were in Leviticus 11 (which speaks of which animals are kosher to eat and which are unclean), and there was some uncertainty over what animal was the one that was unclean. Your argument would go:

Regardless of the wording of the translation, it is obvious that the Bible is referring to eating meat in some form or another. Therefore, eating [any] meat is wrong and your argument is bunk.

Which is clearly wrong, since those same verses list several animals that are kosher to eat.

In any case, the two most likely possibilities for the intentions of Paul, and the few Christian writers to also use the word, were that we understand arsenokoites to mean some specific sexual offender, perhaps a "john," or maybe a pimp or some other more nefarious character involved in the "trade," or that we understand it as a reference back to the ban of Leviticus 18:22.

In the first case, we are back to the fact that banning pork is not the same thing as banning all meat. Calling people involved in homosexual prostitution sinners, is not the same as calling all homosexuals sinners.

In the second case, we need to examine the nature of the Levitical ban. Nowhere does the book of Leviticus indicate that there is a moral difference between the commands in, for example chapter 11, and those in chapter 18. While some of the actions forbidden in those chapters, and other chapters are labelled "wicked," and forbidden elsewhere, this is not true of the Levitical dietary restrictions or of "man-lying."

Except for possibly the two Pauline verses which use the word arsenokoiten, there are no other verses which comment on "man-lying," and only one other passage to mention homosexual activity, Romans 1. In other posts, I mentioned that in Romans 1:26-27 the "evil" is not homosexuality, but uncontrolled passion, leading to indiscriminate indulgence.

All of which means that when God used the events chronicled in Acts 10, 11, and 15, and the arguments in Paul's works to nullify the Levitical ban on kosher food, and Sabbath blue laws, etc., there is no logical or Biblical reason that we should still enforce the "man-lying" ban. Indeed it goes against the teachings of Paul, James, and Jesus, himself.

 

[RMDY]

There was no such thing as a same-sex marriage in Israel during the time of Jesus and shortly after his death.

And the fact that Paul talks about consecrating our bodies for the Lord as acts of Spiritual worship, doesn't that sound like a clue to some of you?

From what I gathered last night in prayer, the will of God is spiritual acts of worship by consecrating our bodies, enduring persecutions, and reaping the harvest of our lives rather than waiting tomarrow to do so.

And since there was no such thing as same-sex marriages in Israel during the time of Jesus, same-sex relations would be fornication from what I can deduce.

Top that off with the poetic language in the bible concerning brides and husbands, this makes it certain that the scriptures relates a marriage only between a man and a women, and sexuality being limited between a man and a woman in marriage.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Regardless of the wording of the translation, it is obvious that the Bible is referring to homsexuality in some form or another. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong and your argument is bunk.

um... well ACTUALLY... no, it isn't at all clear that the term being mistranslated refers to homosexuality in general...

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 “thou 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.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ohioprof, don't you want Jesus to come in and dine with you and you with him? He is knocking at your door.

Jesus is always a welcome guest at my dinner table... my homosexual partner and I welcome him.

 

[RMDY]

Jesus is always a welcome guest at my dinner table... my homosexual partner and I welcome him.

EnemyPartyII, my posting of this has nothing to do with homosexuality. I posted it because I believe Ohioprof rejects things that are unacceptable for someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus.
Things such as the Resurrection and the Gospel and the bible as our source for getting to know God and developing a relationship with him.
The truth is----the gospel is the truth----it is this testimony of Jesus----the resurrection and the forgiveness of our sins through his death and resurrection that one must accept if they claim to follow Jesus. Such things are not symbolic or metaphorical but actual truths and events that happened.
Remember, the righteous shall live by faith.

Jesus is always waiting to come in and dine with anyone who will accept him =)

 

[walloffire]

Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

According to the text that Ohioprof believes may be errant.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The problem here is that this is not a secular homosexuality debate forum. This is a christian theology debate forum. And as such, there should be ground rules on what the debate entails, as well as some sort of agreement on the basis of the debates.

Biblical errancy is not the issue, the issue is whether or not homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. Therefore, the debate should be held on this, not whether a poster believes it to be true, or not.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

um... well ACTUALLY... no, it isn't at all clear that the term being mistranslated refers to homosexuality in general...

From the post that you quoted, I didn't make it past the first sentence, since it assumes that everyone on this side of the fence is using the scripture to "prop up personal prejudice". Secondly in that it uses no context whatever and makes blanket statements continuously throughout.

 

[Zecryphon]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The problem here is that this is not a secular homosexuality debate forum. This is a christian theology debate forum. And as such, there should be ground rules on what the debate entails, as well as some sort of agreement on the basis of the debates.

Biblical errancy is not the issue, the issue is whether or not homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. Therefore, the debate should be held on this, not whether a poster believes it to be true, or not.

But if a poster considers the Bible to be errant, their arguments are going to be articulated from that position. They can then reject any argument made under the guise of "I don't believe the Bible is true, therefore your argument is not valid."

I think we need to accept, for the purposes of this debate that the Bible is inerrant and deal with what it actually says and not disregard what it says simply because someone has a personal prejudice against an inerrant Bible. That's a whole separate debate thread.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

From the post that you quoted, I didn't make it past the first sentence, since it assumes that everyone on this side of the fence is using the scripture to "prop up personal prejudice". Secondly in that it uses no context whatever and makes blanket statements continuously throughout.

oh, for Pete's sake...

Go back and read it, please? How do you know it makes blanket statements out of context if you didn't even read it? Geeez...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But if a poster considers the Bible to be errant, their arguments are going to be articulated from that position. They can then reject any argument made under the guise of "I don't believe the Bible is true, therefore your argument is not valid."

I think we need to accept, for the purposes of this debate that the Bible is inerrant and deal with what it actually says and not disregard what it says simply because someone has a personal prejudice against an inerrant Bible. That's a whole separate debate thread.

but even if we were all to agree that the Bible is inerrant, that STILL doesn't mean we are all in agreement as to what it actually SAYS... remember, one's first read impression of the KJV is not necesarily the same as what the original text was meant to mean

 

[walloffire]

You know God is love, but God must also be judge. There is no other judge. If we are commanded not to judge one another, it is only because God is judge. He sees all, he has all the evidence, and he will repay. He is judge, jury, and executioner, and mercy-giver, on HIS terms.

(Isa 6:3) And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

(Rev 4:8) And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

He is holy. Just because he judges, doesn't make him "mean" or evil or anything of the sort. When a judge in your country sentences a mass murderer to death, do you judge the judge for judging the murderer? Why then do you judge God, whose job it is to judge the wicked of the world? like hitler and so forth? So that they don't just "get away with it"? The victims of many crimes have cried out to God, the Judge, for millenia for God to repay their oppressors. God will do it, he will bring the proud low and raise up the humble. He will judge those wicked deeds, for he is the only one wise enough, holy enough, and fit enough to judge properly, and to execute punishment appropriately. So stop judging God, the Judge, for judging the wicked, which is his responsibility and duty.

 

[Zecryphon]

but even if we were all to agree that the Bible is inerrant, that STILL doesn't mean we are all in agreement as to what it actually SAYS... remember, one's first read impression of the KJV is not necesarily the same as what the original text was meant to mean

but even if we were all to agree that the Bible is inerrant, that STILL doesn't mean we are all in agreement as to what it actually SAYS...

Hence, the debate we're currently having. But we can not continue to have this debate if we do not establish some ground rules for it, such as for the purposes of this debate the Bible is inerrant.

"remember, one's first read impression of the KJV is not necesarily the same as what the original text was meant to mean"

Then you should go back to the original languages and read what it says there. How are you in Greek and Hebrew?

 

[Ohioprof]

But if a poster considers the Bible to be errant, their arguments are going to be articulated from that position. They can then reject any argument made under the guise of "I don't believe the Bible is true, therefore your argument is not valid."

I think we need to accept, for the purposes of this debate that the Bible is inerrant and deal with what it actually says and not disregard what it says simply because someone has a personal prejudice against an inerrant Bible. That's a whole separate debate thread.

I completely disagree with this. The assumption that the Bible is inerrant is merely an assumption, and one that cuts off much of the real debate. It's like saying, in a forum on evolution, that we must assume the Bible to be inerrant. That assumption by itself wipes out real debate, because it cuts off the opposing argument right from the beginning.

To my mind, the assumption that the Bible is inerrant is both wrong and dangerous. I see this belief as a way in which people can and do rationalize the worst prejudices and the worst forms of discrimination. All people have to do to try to justify prejudice and discrimination is to point to the Bible. They can remove themselves from the requirement that they truly examine what they are doing and its real life impact. They take the debate entirely out of the realm of real life and the real effect of their beliefs and their behavior on others. This is what I find most offensive about the belief in Biblical inerrancy....people use this belief to undermine real thinking and real discussion of the effects of human behavior in the real world.

The secular world is the world we live in, whether people like it or not. The world of the Bible is mostly imaginary. If people refuse to grapple with and live in the real world, then they are hiding in an imaginary universe. They have invented God in their own image, and they have manipulated their understanding of reality so that it bears little resemblance to the world we actually live in.

 

[Ohioprof]

Hence, the debate we're currently having. But we can not continue to have this debate if we do not establish some ground rules for it, such as for the purposes of this debate the Bible is inerrant.



Then you should go back to the original languages and read what it says there. How are you in Greek and Hebrew?

No, I will never agree to your groundrules. And you are not empowered to set the rules of the forum anyway.

 

[Zecryphon]

I completely disagree with this. The assumption that the Bible is inerrant is merely an assumption, and one that cuts off much of the real debate. It's like saying, in a forum on evolution, that we must assume the Bible to be inerrant. That assumption by itself wipes out real debate, because it cuts off the opposing argument right from the beginning.

To my mind, the assumption that the Bible is inerrant is both wrong and dangerous. I see this belief as a way in which people can and do rationalize the worst prejudices and the worst forms of discrimination. All people have to do to try to justify prejudice and discrimination is to point to the Bible. They can remove themselves from the requirement that they truly examine what they are doing and its real life impact. They take the debate entirely out of the realm of real life and the real effect of their beliefs and their behavior on others. This is what I find most offensive about the belief in Biblical inerrancy....people use this belief to undermine real thinking and real discussion of the effects of human behavior in the real world.

The secular world is the world we live in, whether people like it or not. The world of the Bible is mostly imaginary. If people refuse to grapple with and live in the real world, then they are hiding in an imaginary universe. They have invented God in their own image, and they have manipulated their understanding of reality so that it bears little resemblance to the world we actually live in.

"I completely disagree with this."

Of course you do.

"The assumption that the Bible is inerrant is merely an assumption, and one that cuts off much of the real debate."

The real debate is about a statement the Bible makes, not whether or not the whole work is true or not. This debate is more focused than you'd like it to be.

"It's like saying, in a forum on evolution, that we must assume the Bible to be inerrant."

No, because evolution never mentions the Bible or takes it into consideration and the evolution argument is not dependent upon anything the Bible says. In this forum, where we are discussing what the Bible says concerning homosexuality and all that that entails, the inerrancy of the Bible has to be established before the debate can even take place. You are rejecting what the Bible says about this issue out of hand because you believe the Bible is errant. Therefore the opposition can not present anything to you that you will accept as being true, because of your presupposition that the Bible is not true.

"That assumption by itself wipes out real debate, because it cuts off the opposing argument right from the beginning."

Which is exactly what you want. You don't want anything about homosexuality called into question or called, dare I say, sinful.

"To my mind, the assumption that the Bible is inerrant is both wrong and dangerous. I see this belief as a way in which people can and do rationalize the worst prejudices and the worst forms of discrimination."

Now, say the Bible is errant. How can you claim to have faith in the promise of salvation in a book that is flawed? Also, how do you tell where it is flawed or mistaken? How do you decide something like that?

"All people have to do to try to justify prejudice and discrimination is to point to the Bible. They can remove themselves from the requirement that they truly examine what they are doing and its real life impact."

People have had issues with discrimination and hate long before the Bible. It's not the Bible that initiates this behavior, it's our fallen state before God. It's our sinful nature that dictates that behavior, not faith in the Bible.

"They take the debate entirely out of the realm of real life and the real effect of their beliefs and their behavior on others. This is what I find most offensive about the belief in Biblical inerrancy....people use this belief to undermine real thinking and real discussion of the effects of human behavior in the real world."

Real thinking like, "the Bible is flawed when it comes to declaring same-sex sex a sin, but it's absolutely truthful when it comes to my being saved"? How does that work?

"The secular world is the world we live in, whether people like it or not. The world of the Bible is mostly imaginary."

The secular world of today is not that different than the world of Biblical times. People haven't really changed all that much. What's imaginary about Biblical times?

"If people refuse to grapple with and live in the real world, then they are hiding in an imaginary universe."

Which real world? Yours? The one where homosexuality is okay? To alot of people it is YOU who is hiding in the imaginary universe. Now, how do we decide who is right and who is wrong? Oh I know! We'll just use the post-modern mindest. If you want to believe you are right, you will be right. If I want to believe I am right, I will be right. See? We can both be right and live in peace. LOL

"They have invented God in their own image, and they have manipulated their understanding of reality so that it bears little resemblance to the world we actually live in."

No, that would be you and your UU buddies, who sit around and conceptualize a god according to their imaginations. Christians on the other hand, believe in the God who has revealed Himself in the scriptures.

 

[Zecryphon]

No, I will never agree to your groundrules. And you are not empowered to set the rules of the forum anyway.

I know. Rebellion just oozes out of every pore of your body. I never said I was setting the groundrules for the entire forum. I was limiting it to this debate. Do try and read what I actually write.