Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

[GodIsLove1]

Hi 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?

I agree that your comment is based on scripture (both OT &NT). I also agree with it's truth. By extension we could apply it to His aligning Himself with the entire Nation of Israel, and to Believers in Christ before Constantine, and Believers, even now, in atheistic states.

Blessings.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodIsLove,

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.

You have added the word rape to the text where it does not exist. If this men wanting to know the men is rape and was called wicked, how come virgin daughters were offered instead and not called wicked? The logical implication is the rape of men by men is wicked and the rape of women by men isn’t. Thus your added word rape is not what is being called wicked. Have you got that?

 

[brightmorningstar]

God does align Himself with despised people, Christ said to His disciples that many would despise them because of Him.
From the links I have provided it shows believers holding to God's word about same sex sin are increasingly getting despised by the world.

 

[Lizabth]

God does align Himself with despised people, Christ said to His disciples that many would despise them because of Him.
From the links I have provided it shows believers holding to God's word about same sex sin are increasingly getting despised by the world.

Really blessed by your posts here, BMS. Thank you for charitably and clearly holding to Scripture.

 

[Polycarp1]

GodIsLove,
You have added the word rape to the text where it does not exist. If this men wanting to know the men is rape and was called wicked, how come virgin daughters were offered instead and not called wicked? The logical implication is the rape of men by men is wicked and the rape of women by men isn’t. Thus your added word rape is not what is being called wicked. Have you got that?

No, she and I have used the word 'rape' to (accurately) describe the intended behavior attributed to the men of Sodom according to the text -- just as you and the translations you favor use the term 'homosexual' and think it, in one of its definitions, to be an accurate translaztion of arsenokoites. Are you saying that sex forced upon an unwilling person is Biblically acceptable? Or sinful only because it happens to transgress a particular anti-sex commandment, like the one prohibiting sex with your sister-in-law or the one against adultery?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Polycarp1,
No. As I demonstrated the wickedness described is men wanting to carnally know the men, as opposed to the virgin daughters being offered instead as not wicked.

the translations you favor use the term 'homosexual'

Which translations use the word homosexual? I am not aware of any.

and think it, in one of its definitions, to be an accurate translaztion of arsenokoites.

Arsenokoites is the Greek compound word in 1 Cor 6 derived from the Septuagint Lev 18, it is not the Hebrew word in question in Genesis 19 which is ‘yada’

 

[brightmorningstar]

The root of the deception in changingattitudes argument in the OP is claiming the acts people do cant be separated from their feelings.

The deception in the thread is the systematic disputing of the meaning of each and all of the scriptures that exclude or condemn same sex relationships without any scripture to support the relationship.

Firstly denying what is described as sin in scripture puts into question the very nature of salvation, a core of the gospel; indeed 1 Cor 6 and other passages on sexual immorality such as Revelation 22 state that this sin as with others is a barrier to the Kingdom.

Secondly, if one can dispute a dozen such scriptures without any saying to the contrary, we could soon do that with anything in the Bible to suit a cultural human agenda.

 

[Polycarp1]

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16

 

[brightmorningstar]

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Exodus 20:16

I agree fully, also Matthew 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander."
What has this got to do with the issue, and what are you proposing is false tesimony?

 

[mark46]

We continue to discuss interpretations of the few verses that seem to prohibit any sexual intercourse between couples of the same sex. We like especially to find OT verses that meet our needs, as if we really take all OT rules and regulations as applicable to us today, in all things.
======================================
For me, it seems more to the point to explore what Scripture (and Tradition and Reason) has to say with regard to sex and marriage. The question before the house is whether the models of Scripture matter at all. Where is modeling of sexual activity the loving same-sexed couples? Where are the marriages between same-sexed couples? Surely, we agree that sexual intercourse must be bounded by the vows of marriage.

Some will say that homosexual love is new thing and those ignorant folks at the time of Jesus just didn't understand. Even a casual review of the Greek and Roman literature of the time will make it clear that the biblical writers were well aware of loving relationships between adult couples of the same sex.
==================================

CONCLUSION
We are left with the fact that NT biblical writers CHOSE not to show any models of marriages or loving sexual relationships between those of the same sex.

1) For the NT biblical writers, the Christian model of marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

2) For NT biblical writers, sexual intercourse was to be between married people.

Are there ANY NT verses that show a different view?
==============================
Can we take a position that seems contrary to Scripture (e.g. prohibiting slavery)? Surely we can, but we must be very, very careful. In the current situation, are we to be stand against the teaching of the OT, the NT, and all of Tradition and rely on Reason and Experience alone to support our view? This seems very, very dangerous.

I am NOT saying that the Church should never evaluate such issues. What I am saying that we must use extreme humility when the Church as a whole support Scripture and Tradition, and we want to take different view based only on Reason and Experience.

What we end up with is the view of interpreting Scripture with our own personal interpretation. This is a 2-edged sword. If we accept such a hermeneutic, we will end up fighting every political and societal issue, with each side using its own personal interpretation of Scripture as a sword. In the US, we have indeed reached this very strange position.

 

[WagginDog]

Feed the hungry, comfort the lost. Transform lives.

[quote="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?[/quote]

Exactly and exactly. The Homosexual Agenda appeared in response to the way homos are treated as scapegoats. That is the real root of all of the arguments. If you have one gay person rumor has it their gayness will spread and then God will reign destruction, and this is rumor is due to ignorant mishandling of the Bible. We need to stop assuming homosexuals have an evil conspiracy. The way we've treated homosexuals has alarmed the consciences of unbelievers, to our shame.

Additionally, after having looked at the scriptures on the subject myself, I agree that the Bible's strongest prohibition is rape, male or female. I think homosexuality is not necessary for reproduction but not something that brings God's wrath down on countries. As a Biblical example David and Jonathan are arguably homosexual in their relationship, but there is no record of a prophet rebuking David about it. The Bible clearly compares their love to the love between men and women. That doesn't mean everything David does is good, but it helps clarify that there is no need to panic! If David had raped someone it would not have gone well for him. Rape should cause panic, because rape does bring down God's wrath. The real root of the problem is that some Christians need to lighten up a bit. I mean stop thinking that we're all so very good. Its ridiculous.

 

[RefCath]

David and Jonathan are arguably homosexual in their relationship

There is no evidence that the relationship between David and Jonathan was of a sexual nature, to argue otherwise to to commit eisegesis.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Mark1
I think that is a great post all in all, but I think some of what you wrote falls into the overall trap of what you were outlining.
One could equally say that we continue to discuss interpretations of the few verses that seem to say love ones neighbour as oneself, about the same dozen as offered for same sex exclusion and prohibition. Like same sex prohibitions these are mostly NT, not OT as you suggested. Nowhere are there commands to hate ones neighbour anymore than to same sex relations.
Furthermore why mention loving same-sexed couples? Loving is for all relationships in Christ’s teaching, I don’t see where loving should suddenly apply to same sex couples when the scripture affirms only the man/woman and then requires love within in; its giving same sex coupling credibility that it doesn’t deserve. Christian men have male friends who they love.
For the NT Biblical writers what they mostly try and convey is what Christ taught them and not what they think they understood.

 

[brightmorningstar]

David and Jonathan are arguably homosexual in their relationship

The evidence suggests they most definitely were not, both were married so even using modern gay evaluations they would have been bisexual or ex-gay.
But David lay (shakab) with Bethsheba 2 Sam 11, he didnt lay with Jonathan.

It takes some imagination to dream up such as thought.

And this is really the other problem apart from the one described in the OP, some just keep trying every deception they can think of.

 

[mark46]

You make a logical leap which I do not make.

We agree that sex between two men should not be acceptable to Christians. That is our common view of the teaching of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.
===========
You state that "loving is for all relationships in Christ's teaching" and conclude that we should not even discuss loving relationships outside of ones that are acceptable within the Church.

I will not jump to the judgment that two people of the same sex cannot love one another. I will not jump to the judgment that a married person cannot love someone to whom he or she is not married. I will not jump to the judgment that there is no love between those who have a sexual relationship when the two are not married.

All of these are sin. All these actions will be judged by Jesus when the time comes. However, it not for me to judge those who do not accept Jesus and Scripture. It is not for me to judge whether they are in a loving relationship. Even with regard to fellow Christians, am I really to judge that there is no love between two people because they sin sexually? If I (and our Church) had this attitude toward all sinners, there would be few left who were acceptable to the Church.
=======================

BOTTOM LINE
When two folks have examined their relationship and tell me that they love one another, I believe them. Should I really ask them for their marriage certificate? They may be in a relationship where they sin every day. Their presbyter should be clear with them that their sexual activity is sinful. But it not for me to say that they are not in a loving relationship, because that is not possible. Of course, I am certainly willing to give my opinion of what Scripture teaches and to share what the Church teaches to such a person (if there is reasonable opportunity and I believe that me stating my view will help this person come closer to Jesus).

Should I really tell such folks that they do not love one another because Scripture says that such love is impossible? IMHO, that approach does not represent good pastoral care, good fellowship or good discipleship.

In the end, for me, we should about bring folks to Christ and helping the less fortunate among us. We are not appointed to be Christ's policemen.

To put it another way, if I firmly proclaim God's truth and the person to whom I am speaking runs away, I do not expect a pat on the back from Jesus, and congratulations to his good and faithful servant. Rather, I expect that the Holy Spirit will prod me with regard to how I might have shown more love to the less fortunate among us.

Furthermore why mention loving same-sexed couples? Loving is for all relationships in Christ’s teaching, I don’t see where loving should suddenly apply to same sex couples when the scripture affirms only the man/woman and then requires love within in; its giving same sex coupling credibility that it doesn’t deserve. Christian men have male friends who they love.
For the NT Biblical writers what they mostly try and convey is what Christ taught them and not what they think they understood.

 

[MKJ]

You make a logical leap which I do not make.

We agree that sex between two men should not be acceptable to Christians. That is our common view of the teaching of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.
===========
You state that "loving is for all relationships in Christ's teaching" and conclude that we should not even discuss loving relationships outside of ones that are acceptable within the Church.

I will not jump to the judgment that two people of the same sex cannot love one another. I will not jump to the judgment that a married person cannot love someone to whom he or she is not married. I will not jump to the judgment that there is no love between those who have a sexual relationship when the two are not married.

All of these are sin. All these actions will be judged by Jesus when the time comes. However, it not for me to judge those who do not accept Jesus and Scripture. It is not for me to judge whether they are in a loving relationship. Even with regard to fellow Christians, am I really to judge that there is no love between two people because they sin sexually? If I (and our Church) had this attitude toward all sinners, there would be few left who were acceptable to the Church.
=======================

BOTTOM LINE
When two folks have examined their relationship and tell me that they love one another, I believe them. Should I really ask them for their marriage certificate? They may be in a relationship where they sin every day. Their presbyter should be clear with them that their sexual activity is sinful. But it not for me to say that they are not in a loving relationship, because that is not possible. Of course, I am certainly willing to give my opinion of what Scripture teaches and to share what the Church teaches to such a person (if there is reasonable opportunity and I believe that me stating my view will help this person come closer to Jesus).

Should I really tell such folks that they do not love one another because Scripture says that such love is impossible? IMHO, that approach does not represent good pastoral care, good fellowship or good discipleship.

In the end, for me, we should about bring folks to Christ and helping the less fortunate among us. We are not appointed to be Christ's policemen.

To put it another way, if I firmly proclaim God's truth and the person to whom I am speaking runs away, I do not expect a pat on the back from Jesus, and congratulations to his good and faithful servant. Rather, I expect that the Holy Spirit will prod me with regard to how I might have shown more love to the less fortunate among us.

This is why fornicators and adulterers are placed in only the first circle of Hell by Dante - love is part of their sin, and love is a reflection of God.

 

[WagginDog]

The evidence suggests they most definitely were not, both were married so even using modern gay evaluations they would have been bisexual or ex-gay.

You're saying that humorously. Marriage is unity for the purpose have having righteous children, but men can't have children. Jonathan and David's souls were not knit for the purpose of having children. David and Jonathan's souls were knit together, whatever that means. Most people think that is the language of love like whats used in marriage. If you've ever talked to someone who's been widowed, they are likely to tell you that its as if half of themselves has been torn away. Its because they were knit together with someone that they called their other half.

There is no evidence that the relationship between David and Jonathan was of a sexual nature, to argue otherwise to to commit eisegesis.

That could be, so I don't mean to fog things. The Bible shows that Jonathan suddenly loved David, and it gives no reason for the affection except that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David. Elsewhere it says Jonathan's love for David surpassed the love of women. Jonathan betrayed his own father for David's sake, risking his own life for David.

 

[mark46]

Perhaps we should have a thread on the purpose of marriage and perhaps regarding the purpose of sex within marriage.

Should we not allow our seniors to marry since they cannot beget righteous children? Is the purpose of sex and marriage to beget children.

The view that you state was indeed held by many in the early and medieval church. Now, many of would call that view, well "medieval".

.

Marriage is unity for the purpose have having righteous children, but men can't have children.

 

[mark46]

I agree that there is no evidence that the relationship involved sexual intercourse, prohibited then as now. As you have posted in another post, there were many opportunities for the writers to use a word or phrase that connotes sexual relations. The writers did not. This is strong evidence that such behavior was not acceptable.

This argument is made much stronger if we understand that David and Jonathan were much more than war buddies. Physical attraction, physical closeness and strong emotional bonds were not prohibited. Clearly, this is the ONE opportunity in Scripture for the writer to show that homosexual sexual activity was acceptable. It is clear that the writers did not do so. And this decision was not made out of prudery. The heterosexual sexual escapades of David are indeed discussed.

David and Jonathan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no evidence that the relationship between David and Jonathan was of a sexual nature, to argue otherwise to to commit eisegesis.

 

[GodIsLove1]

GodIsLove,
You have added the word rape to the text where it does not exist.

Ah, I think I see where you're getting confused.

I NEVER added the word "rape" to the text. I merely interpreted the idea of "rape" from the text (exactly as Polycarp 1 has done). In plainer words, I NEVER wrote a quote from anywhere in Genesis 19 and inserted the word "rape" as though it existed in the text. This is, though, how your sentence reads, that I have "added," which again, I most certainly have not.

Using exegesis in writing "about" a passage is not the same thing as "adding" to the passage.

Thus I am happily without need of your warning from Revelation 22.