Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

[GodIsLove1]

GodisLove,
Firstly if one says God’s word is affected by culture then how would it be God’s word, it would really be human word. Thats the humour.

No. Not at all. It would be God's Word affected by human culture.

Where in scripture does it say that the entire institution of slavery is EVIL and that humans OWNING other humans is wrong at all times and in all places?

C'mon. Where? But do YOU believe that sometimes it is a Good thing for one human to OWN another? No. Of course not.

Secondly there is no concept of homosexuality in the Bible because the modern concept of homosexuality give creedance to things other than same-sex sexual relations.

Okay, You've just Got to make this clearer. What in the world are you trying to say? It makes no sense.

Just because the same sex acts condemned are in some translations referred to as homosexual doesn’t address the modern concept of sexual orientation. Of course one wont find the translated word ‘homosexual’ in older translations, there one finds the word sodomy or sodomites to describe the condemned same sex relationships, or abusers of themselves with mankind.

Actually,... as I pointed out, "there one" DOESN'T find the "word sodomy or sodomites to describe the condemned same sex relationships, or abusers of themselves with mankind." -- THERE, one finds Exactly "the abusers of themselves with mankind." Not some other word to describe this concept.

I see, also, that you think if you can throw your personal "dogma" into the middle of a sentence that I'll either let it slip by unnoticed, or that I can't extract it and show it for what it is. You write

"the condemned same sex relationships"

. .. as though you are clarifying me. But the very point I made, and most clearly, was that this has NOTHING to do with "same sex relationships," AT ALL. Sodomy, if we're true to the scripture IS male-on-male RAPE. But we'll get to that in a moment.

Now sodomy derives from Genesis 19, and we see that men wanting sex with men (call it rape if you will, the text doesn’t say that) was wicked but Lot’s offer of the virgin daughters wasn’t (call it rape if you will)

Right, unwanted sex to be Forced on another? Yeah, I MIGHT call that the threat of "RAPE." Male or Female. Unless I missed the passage about the "come-hither-looks" the Angels were throwing around on their way into town.

So the obvious question is why do YOU think homosexual rape is ok but not heterosexual?

WHAT?!! COULD YOU, IN YOUR OWN WILDEST IMAGININGS, POSSIBLY BE MORE OFFENSIVE??!!

Reel-Yourself-Back-In, Son.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The Bible only describes God's creation purpose for man and woman in union, Jesus NT teaching affirms this. Celibacy is the only alternative given. The Bible also describes men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men are in error. So the concept of 'sexuality', the orientation to a sex, is therefore not described in the Bible and is meaningless as it makes no difference what sexuality a person has, if they indulge in any sexual relationship outside faithful man/woman marriage they are in error whether they feel they are heterosexual or homosexual.

The gay thinking assumes people are heterosexual or homosexual, not only is there no scriptural support for this thinking, such thinking cuts accross God's truth and purposes and corrupts it.

The very contention, which is the raison d'etre of groups such as changingattitude is against God's word and purpose.
This is not a question of interpretation such as women's ordination in the light of the Corinthians and Romans passages which permit women to speak and which have women as leaders, but is a scriturally baseless argument which disputes all the scriptures that do pronouce on the subject. This is a ridiculous precedent as it means any group could say whole themes of the Bible are wrong if it suddenly became a cultural norm.


We are seeing an increase in agreesive intimidation from gay activism throughout the western society...
R. Albert Mohler Jr.: Evangelicals and the Gay Moral Revolution - WSJ.com

Support traditional marriage? 'You're dead'

Where’s the ‘pride’ when you bully someone to march in your parade? | LifeSiteNews.com

New York Marriage Defenders Hit by Cyber Bullies | CitizenLink

 

[brightmorningstar]

All across the West gay rights are trampling the rights of everyone else.
Has anyone here been involved in charity work with children in care?
Illinois ends contracts with Catholic adoption agencies over homosexuality | LifeSiteNews.com

Forced to shut because they dont share gay thinking. Children in care do not need loving adopters and fosterers removed just because they dont place them with same sex couples who cant even produce children in the first place.

Christ asked Christians to stand up for the victimised, the unloved and the orphans.
Christians, dont let the sexually immoral penalise the orphans.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodisLove,

No. Not at all. It would be God's Word affected by human culture.

Then it would no longer be God’s word. If one changes the truth even a little it is no longer the truth.
Same sex relations are against God’s creation purpose Gen 2, are excluded and condemned throughout the Torah, the Law and prophets, Gen 19, Lev 18 & 20, and throughout the New covenant of Grace, 1 Cor 5-7, Romans 1. It doesnt matter whether the culture was Egyptian, Midionite, Greek or Roman, same sex relations are condemned and God’s word says God’s people are not only not to do them, but those who do must be cut off and dissasociated from. Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 5-6, Romans 1.

Where in scripture does it say that the entire institution of slavery is EVIL and that humans OWNING other humans is wrong at all times and in all places?

Where in scripture does it say for example paedophiles shouldnt fiddle with kids, so I wouldn’t use that argument if I were you. The Bible condemns same sex relationships, it doesn’t need you to point out what the Bible doesnt say on any other particular topic, otherwise what is the point of what it does say?

Okay, You've just Got to make this clearer. What in the world are you trying to say? It makes no sense.

The Bible condemns same sex relations, are you saying the modern concept of homosexuality doesn’t include same sex relations?

Actually,... as I pointed out, "there one" DOESN'T find the "word sodomy or sodomites to describe the condemned same sex relationships, or abusers of themselves with mankind." -- THERE, one finds Exactly "the abusers of themselves with mankind." Not some other word to describe this concept.

So what is your problem, you see abusers of themselves with mankind, pretty obvious in holistic context together with a man shall not lie with another man and men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with men.

I see, also, that you think if you can throw your personal "dogma" into the middle of a sentence that I'll either let it slip by unnoticed, or that I can't extract it and show it for what it is. You write

"the condemned same sex relationships"
​

. .. as though you are clarifying me. But the very point I made, and most clearly, was that this has NOTHING to do with "same sex relationships," AT ALL. Sodomy, if we're true to the scripture IS male-on-male RAPE. But we'll get to that in a moment.

No we wont, it is not my personal dogma, don’t make it personal, Lambeth 1.10 and the majority of the Anglican church hold these scriptures as correct that same sex relationships are error even regardless of Genesis 19.Dont try and dispute each scritural condemnation of same sex relations in turn ignoring the holistic reality and without any scriptural support for the disbelief.

Right, unwanted sex to be Forced on another?

I asked you a question, dont reply with a question. Rape isnt mentioned the word is ‘yada’ to know, in this case carnally. If you want to assume rape then you will have to convince me why men on men is wicked and men on women isnt. Dont just add your own words to scripture and expect me to accept them.

WHAT?!! COULD YOU, IN YOUR OWN WILDEST IMAGININGS, POSSIBLY BE MORE

OFFENSIVE

??!!

A man who abandons natural relations with women and commits indencent acts with men, which is a wicked suppression of God’s truth. Romans 1

 

[lucaspa]

GodisLove,
Firstly if one says God’s word is affected by culture then how would it be God’s word, it would really be human word.

Not entirely. What is meant is that God is limited in the concepts that He can get across to humans. Limited by human culture/understanding. In a time where humans only perceived deity as being partisan and applying to particular nations, humans are only going to accept God if He presents like that. Later, as humans accumulated more knowledge, they could think outside the box that God was deity for everyone, not just ancient Israel.

As another example, Deut 24:1 gives men the ability to divorce their wives. But not wives to divorce their husbands. This has roots in patriarchal culture and the arrogance of men. Jesus recognizes that this is extremely unfair and he wants to change it. But in a culture where women have no means of earning a livelihood, if he advocated women being able to divorce, the divorcee would starve. So he did the best he could at the time: he forbade men from getting divorced.

Secondly there is no concept of homosexuality in the Bible because the modern concept of homosexuality give creedance to things other than same-sex sexual relations. There was no concept of sexual orientation we have now. Just because the same sex acts condemned are in some translations referred to as homosexual doesn’t address the modern concept of sexual orientation.

I agree. The Biblical authors could only look at sex acts because they had no knowledge of sexual orientation. This is one of the limits of culture I was talking about above.

Now, as we know, homosexual acts can be committed is a wide variety of situations other than 2 homosexually oriented people who love each other. In those days, many of the pagan religions had ritualistic homosexuality as part of worship. The Biblical authors are going to condemn this not because of the homosexuality, but because of the pagan religion. Romans 1 is a prime example of this.

 

[GodIsLove1]

Thank you, lucaspa.

You've spun my "straw-thoughts" into gold.

Blessings.

 

[Phred]

sorry, didn't notice which forum this was.

 

[Polycarp1]

Brightmorningstar:

You seem hung up on the fact that the word "rape" nowhere occurs in Genesis 19. So let's analyze this:

In the English language, 'rape' means the forcing of sexual intromission on an unwilling party. So when the men of Sodom told Lot, "Send the men out so that we may know the"m, one of the following three options is true:

1. "Know" (YD) is not euphemistic, as it usually is in the Torah, for "have sexual contact with", and the men of Sodom merely wished to throw a "Welcome to Sodom" party and become better acquainted with Lot's guests. The reactions of the characters in the Biblical account suggest this was not the case. OR

2. God's holy angels wished to take the submissive role in male-on-male sex with all the men of Sodom. Given Lot's reaction and the strictures against doing so elsewhere in Torah, plus the comment in Jude on the subject; I think this can be ruled out. OR

3. The men of Sodom wished to rape the angels.

Whatever may be the case regarding God's opinions of non-rape male-male sex, it's more than abundantly clear that what is described in Genesis 19 is an attempt at gang rape of two angels appearing in the persona of two young men.

Now, a few other points. You seem also to be hung up on the idea that the Bible does not mention sexual orientation, and appear to draw the conclusion that it therefore does not 'really' exist. But if we look at Leviticus 18, we find God commanding:

• Do not have sex with your mother or stepmother. Well, most men would not desire to do so; this command is obviously to prohibit those who do so desire.
• Do not have sex with your sister or half-sister. Likewise, most men have no such desire, and the command is to warn off those who do have such desires.
• Do not have sex with your granddaughter. Same thing; most men don't want to, and the command is against those who do.
• Do not have sex with your aunt, whether she is your father or mother's sister or your uncle's wife. Again most men don't want to, and the command is directed at those who do.
• Do not have sex with your daughter-in-law or sister-in-law. While some men might feel desire for a woman in those roles, most men would respect their brother or son enough not to attempt sex with his wife.

After a few more commandments in the same vein, including not sacrificting any of your children to Molech (!), we get good old 18:22, do not lie with a man as with a woman. How difficult is it to conclude that this commandment aligns with the others before it, in being directed at that subgroup of people who might have such desires?

And finally, after a prohibition of bestiality, we get a repeat of what this chapter began with: These are things the Egyptians and the Canaanites do, which the Children of Israel are commanded not to do. And the list concludes that those who do are to be cut off from the people.

Now, what did Jesus say about the Law? Did He, like the Pharisees, insist that every one of the 613 commandments be followed to the letter? Or was His message something different, something that cuts to the quick of how we should behave toward others?

And what did Paul say about the Law? Was he enamored of the idea of compelling all converts to observe every jot and tittle of it? Or did Jesus's Atonement mean something greater to him?

Jesus did not condemn sin. Nor did He condone sin. He forgave sin. And He said to forgive as He had forgiven, for by the measure by which we forgive will we be forgiven.

Think that through. Then before you go nailing Lambeth 1.10 to the door and slamming it in people's faces, consder Whose Face it is that you're really slamming it in.

And as a note to staff, I have carefully tried to phrase this as in no way a "promotion of homosexuality" but instead as a statement that there is welcome and forgiveness for all us sinners -- homosexuals included. There's a difference between a person and his or her sin.

 

[MKJ]

Brightmorningstar:

You seem hung up on the fact that the word "rape" nowhere occurs in Genesis 19. So let's analyze this:

In the English language, 'rape' means the forcing of sexual intromission on an unwilling party. So when the men of Sodom told Lot, "Send the men out so that we may know the"m, one of the following three options is true:

1. "Know" (YD) is not euphemistic, as it usually is in the Torah, for "have sexual contact with", and the men of Sodom merely wished to throw a "Welcome to Sodom" party and become better acquainted with Lot's guests. The reactions of the characters in the Biblical account suggest this was not the case. OR

2. God's holy angels wished to take the submissive role in male-on-male sex with all the men of Sodom. Given Lot's reaction and the strictures against doing so elsewhere in Torah, plus the comment in Jude on the subject; I think this can be ruled out. OR

3. The men of Sodom wished to rape the angels.

Whatever may be the case regarding God's opinions of non-rape male-male sex, it's more than abundantly clear that what is described in Genesis 19 is an attempt at gang rape of two angels appearing in the persona of two young men.

Now, a few other points. You seem also to be hung up on the idea that the Bible does not mention sexual orientation, and appear to draw the conclusion that it therefore does not 'really' exist. But if we look at Leviticus 18, we find God commanding:

• Do not have sex with your mother or stepmother. Well, most men would not desire to do so; this command is obviously to prohibit those who do so desire.
• Do not have sex with your sister or half-sister. Likewise, most men have no such desire, and the command is to warn off those who do have such desires.
• Do not have sex with your granddaughter. Same thing; most men don't want to, and the command is against those who do.
• Do not have sex with your aunt, whether she is your father or mother's sister or your uncle's wife. Again most men don't want to, and the command is directed at those who do.
• Do not have sex with your daughter-in-law or sister-in-law. While some men might feel desire for a woman in those roles, most men would respect their brother or son enough not to attempt sex with his wife.

After a few more commandments in the same vein, including not sacrificting any of your children to Molech (!), we get good old 18:22, do not lie with a man as with a woman. How difficult is it to conclude that this commandment aligns with the others before it, in being directed at that subgroup of people who might have such desires?

And finally, after a prohibition of bestiality, we get a repeat of what this chapter began with: These are things the Egyptians and the Canaanites do, which the Children of Israel are commanded not to do. And the list concludes that those who do are to be cut off from the people.

Now, what did Jesus say about the Law? Did He, like the Pharisees, insist that every one of the 613 commandments be followed to the letter? Or was His message something different, something that cuts to the quick of how we should behave toward others?

And what did Paul say about the Law? Was he enamored of the idea of compelling all converts to observe every jot and tittle of it? Or did Jesus's Atonement mean something greater to him?

Jesus did not condemn sin. Nor did He condone sin. He forgave sin. And He said to forgive as He had forgiven, for by the measure by which we forgive will we be forgiven.

Think that through. Then before you go nailing Lambeth 1.10 to the door and slamming it in people's faces, consder Whose Face it is that you're really slamming it in.

And as a note to staff, I have carefully tried to phrase this as in no way a "promotion of homosexuality" but instead as a statement that there is welcome and forgiveness for all us sinners -- homosexuals included. There's a difference between a person and his or her sin.

Are you saying that homosexuality isn't a sin according to Scripture, or that we should understand that all are sinners? These seem like mutually exclusive propositions.

And what does it mean to welcome sinners? I haven't really heard of gay people being ejected from Anglican churches, though I wouldn't say it couldn't happen. But does how does welcoming sinners equal giving same-sex blessings, or even not mentioning Christian principles regarding how we live?

I have always found this to be weird argument, because we don't treat any other form of sin that way. No one says "carry on staling panty-hose, because Christ came to forgive sinners", which seems to be how some think homosexual relationships should be treated.

 

[GodIsLove1]

Alright bms,

I wrote:
Where in scripture does it say that the entire institution of slavery is EVIL and that humans OWNING other humans is wrong at all times and in all places?

Whereupon you wrote:
Where in scripture does it say for example paedophiles shouldnt fiddle with kids, so I wouldn’t use that argument if I were you. The Bible condemns same sex relationships, it doesn’t need you to point out what the Bible doesn't say on any other particular topic, otherwise what is the point of what it does say?

Actually, YOUR example is what makes MY point! (More's the "humour.") And as you've chosen not to answer my question, I'll elucidate for the both of us.

As a Society and Culture, We've decided and accepted that Slavery and Pedophilia, BOTH, are flat-out WRONG.

The Bible is silent on child-molesting. But I would never claim it is anything other than Wicked. I find it reprehensible. So do you. How did we arrive at the same conclusion about this moral question without a specific scriptural prohibition?

How do you and I agree that Slavery is Evil, when God's Word speaks the exact opposite (and, indeed by contraindication, gives scriptural laws for being a "good" slave-owner and slave, respectively)?

We arrive at these conclusions via "Reason" (the 3rd distinction in this Forum's Banner, under which we write); and I would add that, as Christians, Our "reason" is enhanced by the Spirit's "renewing of our minds" -- still even Non-Christians have arrived at the same enlightenment. Next, what we determine by Spirit-guided "reason" makes adjustment to our "Tradition" (the 2nd distinction, above). "Tradition" is malleable and must be accepted over-and-over again by the community as we AND the "tradition" evolve.

So in one way, you're right: The Bible doesn't "need" me "to point out what [it] "doesn't say on any other particular topic." But our Society, and our Christian Community, "needs" ALL of us to look deeply into the heart of injustices like Pedophilia, Slavery (now "human-trafficking"), Governmental Oppression, Imperialism, Terrorism, and State-Sponsored-Terrorism, and show them for the mis-guided Evils that they certainly are. They are not prohibited by Scripture, on face, but we live our lives and our Love by Spirit-led seeing and interpreting of Scripture to arrive at that conclusion -- for ourselves and for the cultures as a whole.

In the end (and to make it easier for you to lift this as a quote, and respond to it), I will add to my above list of the "Evils" which must be eradicated (based on "a Holy Spirit-led, renewed mind's reason" and regeneration of "tradition"):

• the Active Hate and Suppression, of any people in Loving (Agape and Phileo), Monogamous, Same-Sex Relationships, until they reach the same position of acceptance and respect as those in Loving (Agape and Phileo), Monogamous, Other-Sex Relationships.
  

As it was in the Anti-Slavery Movement, WE, the Church, ought to be the vanguard.

Peace in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

 

[GodIsLove1]

bms,

You wrote:
So the obvious question is why do YOU think homosexual rape is ok but not heterosexual?

emphasis, mine​

​

This a despicable insinuation, and I "obviously" require an apology.

Still, in a later post you reverse your insinuation (no less corrupt), as though either would match my thinking, or could be gleaned/ [mis]interpreted from Anything I've ever written.

You wrote:
If you want to assume rape then you will have to convince me why men on men is wicked and men on women isnt.

emphasis, mine​

So just to clearly state my thinking, All Rape is Evil (including "spousal rape"). Always has been, Always wiil be, from before the first line of scripture was ever written, until the final trumpet.


​

​

 

[Polycarp1]

Are you saying that homosexuality isn't a sin according to Scripture, or that we should understand that all are sinners? These seem like mutually exclusive propositions.

And what does it mean to welcome sinners? I haven't really heard of gay people being ejected from Anglican churches, though I wouldn't say it couldn't happen. But does how does welcoming sinners equal giving same-sex blessings, or even not mentioning Christian principles regarding how we live?

I have always found this to be weird argument, because we don't treat any other form of sin that way. No one says "carry on staling panty-hose, because Christ came to forgive sinners", which seems to be how some think homosexual relationships should be treated.

Actually, I find my views to be difficult to get across, because I'm saying that the entire criminal-law paradigm where some are to be shunned as "unrepentant sinners" (=criminals who have not paid their debt to society) is wrong. We are ALL sinners; no one is entitled by his own merits to Heaven. God forgives our sins because He is a loving father, out of grace, mercy, and compassion, and tells us we are to do likewise. Not pick and choose who is deserving of forgiveness -- it's HIS job to convict of sin, and foster repentance and sanctification. Our job, as forgiven sinners ourselves, is to welcome other forgiven sinners to His church (not ours, it's His) and lead them to a deeper understanding of the Gospel and His will -- insofar as we ourselves understand it!

To give you a very practical, if hypothetical, example, suppose Joe, estranged fromn his family and in a committed relationship with Phil, starts attending church. From what I gather is BMS's understanding, his first and foremost obligation is to give up his relationship, which is S*I*N in bold capital letters -- and if the software permitted it, I'd add neon strobe lights for emphasis. But the Holy Spirit, who loves Joe and knows his heart, sees that the first thing Joe needs to do is forgive his father for throwing him out of the house when he came out as gay -- whether or not the father has ever asked for forgiveness; the resentment and bitterness eating at Joe is what is interfering with his spiritual growth. I'm prohibited by board rules from saying what else I think, but that example would show the difference in man's view and God's quite adequately.

And Joe is not going to get there if he's made to feel unwelcome, or like he must give up what to him is a marriage, to find welcome in the church.

Anyone who's ever looked at +Jack Spong's autobiography-- which I don't swallow uncritically -- will know that Lord Carey, then still Archbihop of Canterbury, was less than even-handed in ramming through BMS's favorite Lambeth resolution. If you have not read it and have access to that book, it's worth reading.

 

[MKJ]

Actually, I find my views to be difficult to get across, because I'm saying that the entire criminal-law paradigm where some are to be shunned as "unrepentant sinners" (=criminals who have not paid their debt to society) is wrong. We are ALL sinners; no one is entitled by his own merits to Heaven. God forgives our sins because He is a loving father, out of grace, mercy, and compassion, and tells us we are to do likewise. Not pick and choose who is deserving of forgiveness -- it's HIS job to convict of sin, and foster repentance and sanctification. Our job, as forgiven sinners ourselves, is to welcome other forgiven sinners to His church (not ours, it's His) and lead them to a deeper understanding of the Gospel and His will -- insofar as we ourselves understand it!

To give you a very practical, if hypothetical, example, suppose Joe, estranged fromn his family and in a committed relationship with Phil, starts attending church. From what I gather is BMS's understanding, his first and foremost obligation is to give up his relationship, which is S*I*N in bold capital letters -- and if the software permitted it, I'd add neon strobe lights for emphasis. But the Holy Spirit, who loves Joe and knows his heart, sees that the first thing Joe needs to do is forgive his father for throwing him out of the house when he came out as gay -- whether or not the father has ever asked for forgiveness; the resentment and bitterness eating at Joe is what is interfering with his spiritual growth. I'm prohibited by board rules from saying what else I think, but that example would show the difference in man's view and God's quite adequately.

And Joe is not going to get there if he's made to feel unwelcome, or like he must give up what to him is a marriage, to find welcome in the church.

Anyone who's ever looked at +Jack Spong's autobiography-- which I don't swallow uncritically -- will know that Lord Carey, then still Archbihop of Canterbury, was less than even-handed in ramming through BMS's favorite Lambeth resolution. If you have not read it and have access to that book, it's worth reading.

I agree with your hypothetical example. Partly perhaps because I think that the priest is the one who normally has that kind of authority in a congregation. We don't tell anyone who comes that they are unwlcome, adwe have lots of different people living in different situations. However, they are brought into he Christian tradition. No through blasting them with signs or even sermons on the topic, but through engaging them in the life of the parish, study groups, personal interaction with the priest... And very often, ten years down the line, they are in a very different place with their faith.

However, what you wouldn't see are affirmations that same-sex blessings will be given, or becoming affirming congregations, or anything like that. My job as a layperson is not to delve into the spiritual or personal arrangements of the person in the next pew. But the priest does have a duty to some extent, and certainly a duty to teach what the Church teaches, and not anything else.

It's always something of a tension though, to be open, but clear and honest about what your church believes. There are people who will ask the question, and getting an honest answer then say that the church is not welcoming them, and I don't see that as a fair assessment.

And unfortunatly in some diocese the hierarchy has come out making statements that can't be lived with, and so what to do? Our synod just voted to bless same-sex unions, at the discretion of the parish. Which means that now parishes will be put in the position of having to say no to people, without really having an opportunity to meet them, and to give explanations outside of a relationship or common belief.

It's dammed if you do, dammed if you don't, to some extent.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Lucaspa,

Not entirely.

　Well yes entirely, that is the point. The scripture prohibits same sex relations for God’s people in Leviticus, where the surrounding nations indulged, prohibits same sex relations to God’s people at Corinth, where the ancient Greeks indulged and prohibits same sex relations to God’s people in Rome where the Romans indulged. There is no scriptural or logical basis for your claim. Now I would agree the Pharisees that Jesus addressed had not understood the spirit of the law but Jesus didnt abolish one iota. There is no basis for the OT law therefore having been written in any error.
Now the Holy Spirit guides believers in truth and reminds believers of Christ’s teaching. Your idea merely casts doubt on that. Take it from me, it is the Holy Spirit that unites all the Christians I know in the truth, The Holy Spirit of God.

As another example, Deut 24:1

Hang on you have just told me you think what God can get across is limited then you cite what you think is limited.

I agree. The Biblical authors could only look at sex acts because they had no knowledge of sexual orientation. This is one of the limits of culture I was talking about above.

Then again you have removed the possibility this was from God. Paul writes that what he preached he received not from man but from God. Galatians 1. There is no concept of homosexual orientation in the Bible because it is unGodly.

Now, as we know, homosexual acts can be committed is a wide variety of situations other than 2 homosexually oriented people who love each other. In those days, many of the pagan religions had ritualistic homosexuality as part of worship. The Biblical authors are going to condemn this not because of the homosexuality, but because of the pagan religion. Romans 1 is a prime example of this.

Incorrect. If you are foolish enough to try an deceive with the culture tactic then you should know about the cultures. Same sex acts were not just in worship at all, pederasty was common as an ‘education’ in ancient Greek society and the act was usually confined for Romans to be done on slaves.
NB Deut 24:1 is about man and woman in marriage, how does that support the opposite of homosexual perversion? Come on!

 

[brightmorningstar]

Polycarp1,

You seem hung up on the fact that the word "rape" nowhere occurs in Genesis 19. So let's analyze this:

Sorry I don’t do liberal, that rape doesn’t occur in the text was my point.
Furthermore ‘yada’ is a description occasionally used to know carnally, as in Genesis 4. 1 Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. The Bible translations aren’t wrong and the majority of the Anglican Communion and Christianity knows it and the deception you try and defend.

2. God's holy angels wished to take the submissive role in male-on-male sex with all the men of Sodom.

God’s Holy Angels blinded the men who wanted sex with the men. You will see throughout the Bible homosexual offenders and the sexually immoral will not inherit the Kingdom (1 Cor 6, Rev 22, Romans 1)

3. The men of Sodom wished to rape the angels.

No, you dont know the Hebrew, you are dreaming or deceiving. The word is ‘yada’ to know, not rape, and the word is 'iysh men, not angels. If it was to rape the angels the words mal'ak and alal . Read Judges 19, men wanting sex with men is described as wicked in Judges 19, and wicked in Genesis 19, and wicked suppression of the truth in Romans 1. The true church of Christ cannot have wickedness and wicked suppression of the truth in it by people changing scripture to suit their itching ears and indecent desires. 2 Tim 4:3

Whatever may be the case regarding God's opinions of non-rape male-male sex,

Which is your view and not what God’s word says.

Now, a few other points.

Not interested, the Biblical condemnations of same sex relations say what they say without me listening to all gay activist objections to them when the gay activism has no scripture to offer in support of same sex relations.

Now, what did Jesus say about the Law?

Jesus Christ’s NT teaching says men who have sex with men shall not inherit the Kingdom 1 Cor 6, and same sex relations are what people do when they turn from God and suppress the truth with wickedness. Romans 1

And what did Paul say about the Law?

Paul received what he preached not from man but from the risen Lord Jesus Christ, Galatians 1.

Think that through.

Absolutely not, the majority of the church has heard all the baseless and incorrect ideas and dismissed them.

Then before you go nailing Lambeth 1.10 to the door and slamming it in people's faces, consder Whose Face it is that you're really slamming it in.

Lambeth 1.10 is about loving the person who has same sex attraction. Read it. It can therefore only be felt like slamming in the face to those who love what it does slam, same sex relations. If it is slamming it is into the face of those who suppress the truth with wickedness. But fear not, repentance brings righteousness.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodIsLove,

​

This a despicable insinuation, and I "obviously" require an apology.

This is a typical
liberal tactic. Sorry GodIsLove but I already thought your views were despicable, but this is a debating forum and one cannot expect that one wont find others views despicable at times.
The text doesn’t say rape. It says to know, ‘yada’ but not rape. Others have introduced the word rape and then don’t like the obvious implications from the text. In the book of Revelation it warns not to add to scripture, and in 2 Peter 2 it warns against false teachers who introduce heresies.
If you don’t like to get burned, dont play with fire.
The question still stands, if you think the issue is rape explain how the men wanting to rape the men was called wicked and the men offered the virgin daughters wasnt.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Polycarp1,

From what I gather is BMS's understanding, his first and foremost obligation is to give up his relationship, which is S*I*N in bold capital letters -- and if the software permitted it, I'd add neon strobe lights for emphasis.

The issue here is not primarily to give up sin, its to recognise what sin is. My view is very much like MJK in that I am not so interested in where my fellow believer falls short, if they do so do I and as Galatians 6 says we can support each other. What I am interested in is that they are my fellow believer is in fact a believer and not trying to promote or defend their sin as not sin.
Lambeth 1.10 recognises that, but not for the likes of changingattitude whose very raison d'etre is to deny the relationships are sinful and to bless them.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The whole gospel of Jesus Christ is the truth that sets people free...
The Whole Gospel for Gays by Andy Comiskey : Thinking it through… or Just something to think about…

 

[GodIsLove1]

bms,

That's okay. I think I've shown adequately that the words YOU put in writing as MY "think[ing]" are YOUR defamation of me, and not based on anything I wrote. Anyone dropping into the discussion from that point on will Know who is being intellectually honest. That's all I cared about on that point. I'm finished with it.

Now just to clarify a different point from the (direct) quotes from you above:

homosexual rape is ok but not heterosexual?

assume rape then you will have to convince me why men on men is wicked and men on women isnt.

If we are Not to call this whole interchange potential "rape," why do YOU call what would have happened to Lot's daughters "rape"?

I never once mentioned them, so the situation of their potential "rape" in the context of this thread is entirely yours. Scripture doesn't "call" it that. Still, we know that that's what it would have been (from OUR culture's standards -- though, not from theirs).

Please, just answer the question.

 

[HisHomeMaker]

"God aligns Himself with despised people. For example, why did he choose Jacob?! God chooses the lowly so no one may boast." This was my comment. I do not think anyone can disagree that it is based on scripture. How many scriptures do you need?