Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

[ebia]

ebia,
And?
My point was there is no such concept of homosexual and hetrosexual, they are contrary to God's purposes and what God did create.

your two clauses contradict each other. If the bible does not have a concept it does not directly comment on it's value.

But they dont, the only decription is the behavior, either inaccordnace with what God has created or against it.

you're not being consistent. The bible does only talk about behaviour. We have no idea about the sexuality of any given individual in the bible, but in any given historical narrative a percentage of people were homosexual if anyone is, and a percentage were hetrosexual.

No, the liberals must stop using it or leave, we have no intention of the majority being dictated to to by a minority who deny what the Bible says on the matter.

and you can't force anyone to leave. A bit of a corner you back yourself into.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

I didn't say that.

I did. That’s the point, ignore it as God created man and woman to be united, if that has anything to do with sexuality that’s God’s purposes.

I wasn't distinguishing but if you want to then I was talking about it's writing.

ok, but God created man and woman to be in union, which the Bible refers to, before Biblical times.

You seem to have missed the point of my comment.

In what way?

Any of us are only ever partly right.

No I said where does that one person or the other stuff fit with Jesus Christ who is the truth?
Besides how do you know any of us are only ever partly right, have you spoken to everyone in the world?

We need other people who see things differently so between us we can have the whole picture (or at least more of it). That's not the same thing as relativism.

Yes it is. I believe Jesus Christ is right, not you or me. Why do you think the truth depends on you and me?
Besides, if I am only partly right and you are only partly right we would both presumably have to be half right in the two different halves to be fully right, and who would know that?

your two clauses contradict each other. If the bible does not have a concept it does not directly comment on it's value.

You got it! The first clause is not mine, that’s my point, there is no concept of the first clause in the Bible, it’s a modern concept that is at odds and cross purposes with the truth of the Bible.

you're not being consistent.

Then you would need to show me where because I am referring to what the Bible says and rejecting modern concepts of sexuality.

We have no idea about the sexuality of any given individual in the bible,

there you go again with the faulty concept.

but in any given historical narrative a percentage of people were homosexual if anyone is, and a percentage were hetrosexual.

there you go again with the faulty modern concept. The point is according to the Bible men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men are in error and suppressing the truth with wickedness, whether you call them heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant.

and you can't force anyone to leave. A bit of a corner you back yourself into

ok, so get used to the idea the majority dont want any association with the minority, we just see the church full of unbelief and a false gay religion.

 

[HisHomeMaker]

Jesus, fully God and fully man, did not have a wife. Is that against God's creation and NT teaching? Did the disciples have wives and children? How do we feel about people who identify themselves as childless-by-choice or barren? What about those who identify themselves as ACANA members? Or Green Party members? Or Anglicans rather than simply Christian? Should we label ourselves as anything but Christian? Should we label others?

 

[brightmorningstar]

HisHomeMaker,

Jesus, fully God and fully man, did not have a wife. Is that against God's creation and NT teaching?

No, as you must know it is for it. Read for example 1 Cor 7 and Matt 19, and you see the celibacy countenanced as well. What you will not see is same sex relations.

How do we feel about people who identify themselves as childless-by-choice or barren?

What has it got to do with our feelings? Do we believe God’s word and purposes or are we looking to have God change so He is in agreement with us?

 

[lucaspa]

People in these pressure groups are entitled to their views, but they are not Christ's teaching and thus not Christian. The whole gay and lesbian approach to the Bible is from the standpoint of what the Bible is actually saying is a lie.

I would like to add some information, if I may. If you are looking at Jesus' teaching, Jesus did not teach about homosexuality one way or the other.

In Matthew 15:18-20 Jesus gives us a laundry list of things that "defile a man":
"Bt those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

Notice what is not on the list. Of course, you can say that Jesus didn't include everything, but then you are putting words in Jesus' mouth.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Let me recap the OP and thread.
Each man and woman is a person created by God, according to his word. There is no concept in the Bible of a person being created straight or gay, homosexual or heterosexual, indeed the concept 'heterosexual' is against God's purposes for faithful man/woman union if its adulterous, and the concept 'homosexual' is against God's purposes for man and woman.
The concept homosexual is also anatomically dysfunctional especially according to God's purposes.
Now people are free to have same sex relationships, that is not the issue here, the issue is the concept of, and same sex relations are simply not in accordance with God's Biblical testimony, they are directly against it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

lucaspa,

I would like to add some information, if I may. If you are looking at Jesus' teaching, Jesus did not teach about homosexuality one way or the other.

Well yes He did. In the beginning God created them male and female, it was for this reason a man shall .. be united with His wife. Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5. So if the reason He created them man and woman was to be united, He certainly did NOT create them to be man and man and woman and woman.
Men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with men is using your concept 'homosexuality' by definition rather than 'heterosexuality'
You seem to have got confused in the meaning of your concepts.

In Matthew 15:18-20

Let me stop you there. I have no intention of listening to passages from the Bible that you agree with at the expense of those you deny.

 

[ebia]

Besides how do you know any of us are only ever partly right, have you spoken to everyone in the world?

If your idea of The Truth is so small any one person can contain it....

Yes it is.

No it's not. If you don't see the distinction its not suprising you misunderstand what a lot of people are saying. There's a difference between looking at different things and calling them the same thing, and looking at the same thing from different angles and realising they are the same thing even though they look different.

I believe Jesus Christ is right, not you or me. Why do you think the truth depends on you and me?

Likewise and I don't. That's the point. My understanding of Jesus will only ever be partially right. So will yours. So will anyone else's.

Besides, if I am only partly right and you are only partly right we would both presumably have to be half right in the two different halves to be fully right, and who would know that?

If you take drawings of an object from different directions each contains part of the information, but it's not simply a case of adding the drawings together - and indeed the drawings may appear to contradict each other.

You got it! The first clause is not mine, that’s my point, there is no concept of the first clause in the Bible, it’s a modern concept that is at odds and cross purposes with the truth of the Bible.

Because it's a foreign concept I don't think you can say whether it's at odds with the bible or not, any more than you can say the concept of electricity is at odds with the bible. It's a concept that was not around so it's not a question the bible does or could address directly. But if you are going to take your line you need to live it - you need to stop using the concept (and therefore drop all use of the words). You're a bit stuck because Lambeth 1.10 takes the concept for granted; you can't untangle the concept from the motion.

Then you would need to show me where because I am referring to what the Bible says and rejecting modern concepts of sexuality.

The bible does not reject it - it simply does not deal with it.

The point is according to the Bible men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men are in error and suppressing the truth with wickedness, whether you call them heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant.

ok, so get used to the idea the majority dont want any association with the minority, we just see the church full of unbelief and a false gay religion.

There are lots of viewpoints in the church I find difficult to deal with, or to see how people reconcile with Christ.

 

[ebia]

Let me recap the OP and thread.
Each man and woman is a person created by God, according to his word. There is no concept in the Bible of a person being created straight or gay, homosexual or heterosexual, indeed the concept 'heterosexual' is against God's purposes for faithful man/woman union if its adulterous, and the concept 'homosexual' is against God's purposes for man and woman.
The concept homosexual is also anatomically dysfunctional especially according to God's purposes.
Now people are free to have same sex relationships, that is not the issue here, the issue is the concept of, and same sex relations are simply not in accordance with God's Biblical testimony, they are directly against it.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it - to say "the bible does not recognise the concept" and "the bible opposes the concept". You cannot have both of those.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Feed the hungry, comfort the lost. Transform lives.

 

[Phenbert]

Phenbert, some animals also eat their young, but I still believe it would be a sin to follow their example. If a male lion takes over a pride, he will kill all the young that were fathered by the previous head of that pride, but I do not believe it is OK to murder stepchildren.

Nature is (according to Scripture) fallen, or to use C.S. Lewis' phrase from his space trilogy, our world is "bent" because of sin.

The Bible was not written by God (except for the stone tablets of the Law) and it was not dictated, still Paul says it is "God breathed" and of Course Peter affirms that Paul was writing "Scripture" and in what he wrote about the sexual matter in question.

As to the rest of your post, I think my above comments apply.

Kenith

True, some animals eat their young, but this is not something which is usually observed amongst humans. Homosexuality on the other hand does appear very frequently amongst humans, which could suggest it is natural.
Ok so if we cannot decide whether or not it is natural, what we should perhaps ask ourselves is, is it harmful?
To me it doesn’t seem particularly harmful to wider society, since it relates to an individuals’ personal life. So is it harmful to those involved? I would say on the whole, no not really. Potential problems of disease, infidelity and domestic violence are more or less comparable to those experienced by heterosexual couples. So on that basis, it doesn't seem much like a sin to me.

 

[Catherineanne]

the concept 'heterosexual' is against God's purposes for faithful man/woman union if its adulterous

Heterosexual and homosexual are morally neutral descriptors, denoting orientation, but not denoting activity, behaviour nor practice. As with any other descriptor it cannot itself bear a moral burden. In a nutshell, words do not sin, people do. Therefore it is meaningless to say that as a concept either is against God's purposes.

I think you are confusing several different categories in your search for coherence. I commend your search, but it would appear that you have some way to go.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

True, some animals eat their young, but this is not something which is usually observed amongst humans. Homosexuality on the other hand does appear very frequently amongst humans, which could suggest it is natural.
Ok so if we cannot decide whether or not it is natural, what we should perhaps ask ourselves is, is it harmful?
To me it doesn’t seem particularly harmful to wider society, since it relates to an individuals’ personal life. So is it harmful to those involved? I would say on the whole, no not really. Potential problems of disease, infidelity and domestic violence are more or less comparable to those experienced by heterosexual couples. So on that basis, it doesn't seem much like a sin to me.

Nature is not and can not be our measure of what is moral or immoral. Many things in nature if brought into human society would be (rightly) abhorrent. Eating ones young and killing someone else's young is but the tip of the iceberg, that short list can be expanded many times over in very short order.

Is it harmful, the act is homosexual sex can and does lead to disease. Without going into detail, sexual practices of male homosexuals is very much related to sexually transmitted disease. It is hygienically a dangerous practice for the individual and communities in which it is prevalent. But even that is not a reason to reject it as immoral.

It is immoral because God says as much in both the Old and New Covenants. It not more evil or immoral than adultery or many other sins we can name, but it is a sin.

The Lord revealed to us what is moral and immoral in His Scriptures. Let me repeat what I have already said many times, the whole church agreed on this issue for 1900 years. If moral relativity is wrong, and I believe that to be the case (this is another issue the whole Church has agreed upon for just as long), then what God says in his word remains true today, as it was then.

Phenbert, nature is not a good measure for us to determine what is a good standard for human morality.

"Is it harmful", is (perhaps) a slightly bit of a better standard, but it does not help in defending this issue.

The Bible and the traditions of the Church have always viewed homosexuality to be sin. We are not to follow the traditions, norms and philosophies of the non-Christian world. If we are only a baptised version of the believes of the secular world, ten the Church has no reason to exist.

There are plenty of religions and philosophies that are OK with this lifestyle, but that is not the case of the Bible, or the Christian Faith.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

If your idea of The Truth is so small any one person can contain it....

Well I have already written that my idea of truth is Jesus Christ, who lives in the believer and who taught that we make disciples to obey all He taught. Where does that leave your statement?

No it's not.

Then I don’t see how you can say Jesus Christ is the truth if you think the truth is determined by what you or I or others think. You seem to have the cultural relativism there. Sure we learn from others in fellowship, but only where its tested by us all against the truth.

Likewise and I don't. That's the point. My understanding of Jesus will only ever be partially right. So will yours. So will anyone else's.

I'll speak for me, and not concerning what we know of Christ. What we have recorded we know, which is what I was referring to.

If you take drawings of an object from different directions each contains part of the information, but it's not simply a case of adding the drawings together - and indeed the drawings may appear to contradict each other.

Relativism. Its like the more well known analogy of god as an elephant, to one who feels the trunk, to another who feels the tail, same god but appearing differently and partially. Jesus Christ however was God in the flesh and said if we have seen Him we have seen God. Woh! Jesus Christ says if we obey His teaching we know the truth and the truth will set us free. Where does that leave your statement?

Because it's a foreign concept I don't think you can say whether it's at odds with the bible or not, any more than you can say the concept of electricity is at odds with the bible.

I can say most definitely and so can any believer and so does most of the Anglican Communion. The question is how come you can’t. Again all you have done is offer your opinion with no reasoning or evidence. If, as the Bible says, the reason God created male and female was so that man shall be in union with woman, and to multiply, then how can it have been His purpose for man and man? Sure if some want to suggest just because that’s not natural for them they are entitled to do so, but its disbelief, and also anatomically dysfunctional.
But the NT calls this where false teachers introduce heresy, call it a foreign concept if you like.

It's a concept that was not around so it's not a question the bible does or could address directly.

Sorry God created male and female and for this reason a man shall be united with his wife, where men abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with other men its error. So tell me how the homosexual concept can be anything other than a direct contradiction to God’s truth?

You're a bit stuck because Lambeth 1.10 takes the concept for granted; you can't untangle the concept from the motion.

Sorry if you believed what Lambeth 1.10 says you wouldn’t be saying you don’t know whether its at odds with the Bible, Lambeth says homosexual practice is. Lambeth 1.10 is only using language so people with the concept can understand how it doesn’t fit with the truth.

The bible does not reject it - it simply does not deal with it.

Of course it deals with it, men abandoning natural relations with women and committing indecent acts with men is which, heterosexual or homosexual?
The definition of homosexual in wiki is “Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.”
Men abandoning natural relations with women and committing indecent acts with other men is not heterosexual, its homosexual by definition! As God created male and female for the reason man shall be united with woman then the Bible most definitely does exclude and condemn the practice part of the concept of homosexuality. You are simply not willing to accept the truth.

The Bible doesnt recognise the concept, what the Bible says exposes the concept as against God's purposes. Lambeth 1.10 recognises and outlines how believes need to address it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Naomi4Christ,

Feed the hungry, comfort the lost. Transform lives.

1 Cor 6 for example deals with tranformed lives of those who used to be men who have sex wit men. Good point. Lambeth addresses that.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Catherineanne,

Heterosexual is a morally neutral descriptor, denoting orientation, but not denoting activity, behaviour nor practice.

Hopeless!! Not according to the dictionary definitions which include behaviour…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

and this is what the gay factions believe..
http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/3558
As to
There is a distinction between temptation and practice.

Colin Coward: I think that this distinction is not now and never has been tenable.

I think you are confusing several different categories in your search for coherence. I commend your search, but it would appear that you have some way to go.

The gay factions believe it includes behaviour, the dictionary defines it including behaviour and the Bible describes the behaviour as error. Seems you are too deceived or confused to be trying to suggest others are.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
Well I have already written that my idea of truth is Jesus Christ, who lives in the believer and who taught that we make disciples to obey all He taught. Where does that leave your statement?

Then I don't see how you can say Jesus Christ is the truth if you think the truth is determined by what you or I or others think. You seem to have the cultural relativism there. Sure we learn from others in fellowship, but only where its tested by us all against the truth.

I'll speak for me, and not concerning what we know of Christ. What we have recorded we know, which is what I was referring to.

Relativism. Its like the more well known analogy of god as an elephant, to one who feels the trunk, to another who feels the tail, same god but appearing differently and partially. Jesus Christ however was God in the flesh and said if we have seen Him we have seen God. Woh! Jesus Christ says if we obey His teaching we know the truth and the truth will set us free. Where does that leave your statement?

I can say most definitely and so can any believer and so does most of the Anglican Communion. The question is how come you can't. Again all you have done is offer your opinion with no reasoning or evidence. If, as the Bible says, the reason God created male and female was so that man shall be in union with woman, and to multiply, then how can it have been His purpose for man and man? Sure if some want to suggest just because that's not natural for them they are entitled to do so, but its disbelief, and also anatomically dysfunctional.
But the NT calls this where false teachers introduce heresy, call it a foreign concept if you like.
Sorry God created male and female and for this reason a man shall be united with his wife, where men abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with other men its error. So tell me how the homosexual concept can be anything other than a direct contradiction to God's truth?
Sorry if you believed what Lambeth 1.10 says you wouldn't be saying you don't know whether its at odds with the Bible, Lambeth says homosexual practice is. Lambeth 1.10 is only using language so people with the concept can understand how it doesn't fit with the truth.

Of course it deals with it, men abandoning natural relations with women and committing indecent acts with men is which, heterosexual or homosexual?
The definition of homosexual in wiki is "Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender."
Men abandoning natural relations with women and committing indecent acts with other men is not heterosexual, its homosexual by definition! As God created male and female for the reason man shall be united with woman then the Bible most definitely does exclude and condemn the practice part of the concept of homosexuality. You are simply not willing to accept the truth.

The Bible doesnt recognise the concept, what the Bible says exposes the concept as against God's purposes. Lambeth 1.10 recognises and outlines how believes need to address it.

Your idea of God, it seems, is way too small for me to be interested. Have fun. I'll stick with the much more interesting and vast idea of God I glimpse in Jesus, Scripture, Creation, People, ...

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

Your idea of God, it seems, is way too small for me to be interested. Have fun. I'll stick with the much more interesting and vast idea of God I glimpse in Jesus, Scripture, Creation, People, ...

Ok well my idea of God seems to be scripturally sound and yours drifting into fantasy on account of you not sure of the scripture.

The OP and thread is infact about people looking at the Biblical testimony from a viewpoint culturally derived, which the Biblicial text shows is faulty.
This is why the divide is so huge, even though the minority dont see it. For the majority it looks like anyone who is isn't sure of scripture on an issue so much so as to be able to entertain the opposite view when scripture clealry, and holistically throughout the Bible affirms one thing and condenms the opposite, will easliy be "tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming." - Ephesians 4

 

[Catherineanne]

Catherineanne,

Hopeless!! Not according to the dictionary definitions which include behaviour…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

and this is what the gay factions believe..
http://changingattitude.org.uk/archives/3558
As to
There is a distinction between temptation and practice.

Colin Coward: I think that this distinction is not now and never has been tenable.

The gay factions believe it includes behaviour, the dictionary defines it including behaviour and the Bible describes the behaviour as error. Seems you are too deceived or confused to be trying to suggest others are.

Not at all. I just don't base my linguistic knowledge on wikipedia, or on factions of any kind.

However, you might care to revisit the definition you quoted, and note the word 'or'. This means that attraction alone, without behaviour, is indeed sufficient.

Here it is again. Homosexual is a term that was coined in the 19th century, with a particular medical meaning. Any term translated 'homosexual' in modern Bibles will NOT have been originally intended to carry that same definition, because the ancients did not have any concept of a division between homosexual and heterosexual. They recognised practices as being accetable or unacceptable, based on cultural mores, but they did not recognise two distinct categories. They were, in fact, probably much closer to the reality, which is that pretty well anyone can dabble in either, given the right circumstances, and that preference is very often much more fluid and context dependent than we like to think.

Therefore, the Bible has nothing whatever to say about our modern understanding of these two distinct categories, and certainly cannot be said to condemn homosexuality per se. Certainly it says something negative about a certain behaviour, but what that behaviour is needs much more careful consideration than simply applying the label 'homosexual.'

 

[brightmorningstar]

CatherineAnne,

Not at all. I just don't base my linguistic knowledge on wikipedia, or on factions of any kind.

The pro-gay factions claim both, some dictionary definitions state both. In fact I have seen some pro-gay arguments even here deny it when it suits them and imply or claim it in the next breath.

As I pointed out, God created male and female so that a man shall be united with his wife. There is no concept of hetero and homo sexual in the Bible, yet people like yourself keep insisting on trying to explain the history and meaning. Men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with other men, means any meaning concerning behaviour you or the pro-gay factions try and claim is still men abandoning the natural use of woman and committing indecent acts.

because the ancients did not have any concept of a division between homosexual and heterosexual. They recognised practices as being acceptable or unacceptable, based on cultural mores, but they did not recognise two distinct categories.

I would tend to agree with you, but disciples of Christ are disciples of Christ not human culture.

Therefore, the Bible has nothing whatever to say about our modern understanding of these two distinct categories, and certainly cannot be said to condemn homosexuality per se. Certainly it says something negative about a certain behaviour, but what that behaviour is needs much more careful consideration than simply applying the label 'homosexual.'

Not according to the pro-gay factions, the pro-gay factions also talk about behaviour men with men instead of women, which the Bible condemns. This is the whole point of the thread.
You are presenting the same obvious deception, trying to claim the modern concept of an orientation somehow means men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with is not error. Wrong! The Bible describes it as wickedness suppressing the truth and a barrier to the Kingdom.

The OP describes the error you are making