Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

[WagginDog]

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".

I wouldn't mind a thread on the purpose of marriage, but marriage isn't really the root of all the arguments about homosexuality which is the topic. I wanted to respond to brightmorningstar with a decent explanation as to what is the real cause of all the ruckus. The real reason for all of the modern Bible arguments -some honest and some dishonest- is that homos are frequently outcasts, but on top of that they are falsely accused of bringing God's wrath down. That unscriptural idea causes a lot of suffering and is the main source of all of the various arguments and the extremely zealous pro-homosexual legal groups. The root of the argument is rumors among Christians, and if we can kill the rumors then that will take care of most of the other issues. Personally I've a difficult time with homos, because they tend to act in a way that feels creepy to me, such as asking me out, standing too close, being touchy and other things. I don't want guys asking me out, and I can't help if it feels creepy to me; but I also don't think its going to cause earthquakes. What I can help is to remove this popular but very incorrect idea that homos are the cause of plagues, corruption and natural disasters. I've no doubt that brightmorningstar has encountered dishonest arguments in favor of some political agenda; but I'm sure its largely self defense.

 

[GodIsLove1]

bms,

GodIsLove,

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?

Well, what I've "got" is that you are, at the very least, consistent (not to quote Emerson and put too fine a point on it). Still, we MUST take into account how Our Culture differs from the Culture of those who wrote the Hebrew Scriptures.

In an earlier answer to your question about Lot's Daughters, I wrote:

Still, we know that that's [i.e. "Rape"] what it would have been (from OUR culture's standards -- though, not from theirs).

In Their day, women were considered "property," to be done with as one wished. Lot offered his daughters as was his right. Their "will" was not even considered -- so having "sex against their will" would Not be a consideration.

Today, we would rightly consider a man craven and wicked for offering-up his young virgin daughters for "sex" to a crowd who were bent on raping guests in his house. Notice, neither sets of "rape" were consummated, and that by the very intervention of the angels.

Thus, "the logical implication" is... Times and Culture have changed, as we better understand the will of God.

This was also shown, as you rightly point out in Judges 19. Again, we can see how their cultural mores did not Judge as "Wicked" the action of the man who sent out his concubine to the Benjamites to be raped in his place. Sadly, no angels intervened for the poor concubine.

Today, of course, we would judge the man's actions Evil. We would not say the poor concubine "made so much love" that night that she died. Nor would we say she fornicated (an act which, by definition, would imply her assent) so much she died. I think we would ALL agree that she was pitiably Raped so hard, so often that she died from the abuse. And, were it NOT the right of that man (in their Culture) to send her out, his act would have been considered "sinful."

Now, just because it was "okay" then, and would not be "okay" now, is that because God has changed His mind about "SIN" or because we have been brought, by the Holy Spirit, into a new appreciation of the person-hood of women, with rights equal to a man -- and thus a better understanding of what actions are condemnable?

Have you, sir, got that?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Mark1,
I think we basically agree. Two people of the same sex can love each other, as I said Christian men love other men, but its not sex.

 

[Polycarp1]

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.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodisLove,

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

No I dont think so.
Now one could interpret the men wanting sex with men as rape, the problem with that is that it isnt what the text actually says and it misses the problem that the sex with the virgin daughters would also have been rape. This would mean the same sex rape would have been wicked and the opposite sex rape not.

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

Exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text.

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

Its not my warning, I didnt write Revelation 22.

Well, what I've "got" is that you are, at the very least, consistent (not to quote Emerson and put too fine a point on it). Still, we MUST take into account how Our Culture differs from the Culture of those who wrote the Hebrew Scriptures.

Not interested in your judgement of me, I asked you about the logic of what you have said tested against what Biblical texts says.

　
​

Still, we know that that's [i.e. "Rape"] what it would have been (from OUR culture's standards -- though, not from theirs).

Lot, who was righteous, and whom God saved pronounced the desire of the men to have sex with the men, wicked, but not his virgin daughters. You are still talking about rape, rape isnt mentioned but you still seem to be building an argument on what isnt mentioned. Remember was already going to be destroyed by God.
​

In Their day, women were considered "property," to be done with as one wished.

Ok but men wanting sex with men was pronounced by Lot as wicked. Are you able to accept what the scripture says yet?

Today, of course, we would judge the man's actions Evil.

God’s word judges men having sex with men wicked. Gen 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6-7 Romans 1, as do Christians and the Anglican Communion.

 

[GodIsLove1]

bms,

You write so much, yet your thoughts are more clearly seen in what you choose to ignore. Am I to assume you have no answers to my pressing points.

P.S. Proving you know the contrary word for "exegesis" does not, in itself, prove you understand the meaning of either word. You misuse the term, "eisegesis", IF (as you seem to) you are applying it to me. Still, your sentence lacks a "referential index," so who knows.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodisLove,

You write so much, yet your thoughts are more clearly seen in what you choose to ignore. Am I to assume you have no answers to my pressing points.

I refer you to the Biblical texts and what they say; you also write so much but of your own ideas.

The Biblical testimony of God excludes and condemns same-sex sexual relationships. So does the Anglican Communion as demonstrated, that isnt up for debate, what is up for debate is why people try and deny this sin.

 

[GodIsLove1]

GodisLove,

I refer you to the Biblical texts and what they say; you also write so much but of your own ideas.

The Biblical testimony of God excludes and condemns same-sex sexual relationships. So does the Anglican Communion as demonstrated, that isnt up for debate, what is up for debate is why people try and deny this sin.

You ask me Why the "rape" of Lot's little girls shouldn't be called "rape" and I explained, at a little length, at least. And though I answer your question, you reply as if you'd missed the entire explanation.

You answer me:

Today, of course, we would judge the man's actions Evil.

with...

​

God’s word judges men having sex with men wicked. Gen 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6-7 Romans 1, as do Christians and the Anglican Communion.

Because I was explaining the "sin" potential of the "rape/non-rape" of women within the context of Cultures (the Biblical and Ours), your response is wholly Non Sequitur. What's Not getting through?

 

[WagginDog]

The Biblical testimony of God excludes and condemns same-sex sexual relationships. So does the Anglican Communion as demonstrated, that isnt up for debate, what is up for debate is why people try and deny this sin.

Hum, I didn't know that about Anglicans; but you set the topic to be the Root of the Arguments. Thought it was in general theology. Sorry, I didn't realize which forum I was in!

 

[kiwimac]

Because it is not, IMO, sinful and because the scriptures simply do not deal with homosexuality as it is understood today. You see, we have learned that homosexuality is most likely founded in the womb thus homosexuals are created that way by a Loving God. Who are we to call sinful what God has created?

 

[MKJ]

Because it is not, IMO, sinful and because the scriptures simply do not deal with homosexuality as it is understood today. You see, we have learned that homosexuality is most likely founded in the womb thus homosexuals are created that way by a Loving God. Who are we to call sinful what God has created?

I have never understood this argument. All kinds of tendencies to sinful behavior are based in biology - that is what it means to be a biological being. And it is not like the ancients had no experience of inappropriate desire and didn't realize that it came from within. They just didn't think that was the point.

 

[mark46]

Sexual intercourse between two of the same sex is sex outside of marriage. To me, the nature of marriage and when sexual intercourse is appropriate is at the heart of the issue at hand.

I wouldn't mind a thread on the purpose of marriage, but marriage isn't really the root of all the arguments about homosexuality which is the topic.

 

[brightmorningstar]

GodisLove,

Because I was explaining the "sin" potential of the "rape/non-rape" of women within the context of Cultures (the Biblical and Ours), your response is wholly Non Sequitur. What's Not getting through?

The culture of the time didn’t think it wicked for men to want sex with men, but it was pronounced wicked. Why are you more interested in the wicked culture when I am referring you to the righteousness of God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Kiwimac,
​

Because it is not, IMO, sinful

But you arent God.

and because the scriptures simply do not deal with homosexuality as it is understood today.

The scriptures exclude and condemn same-sex sexual relations, of course that is part of the modern concept by definition..
Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1: the quality or state of being homosexual
2: erotic activity with another of the same sex
Homosexuality - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
　

You see, we have learned that homosexuality is most likely founded in the womb

This is the deception that the homosexual lie has been built on.

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
Yet now we know...
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. - APA
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

What you have learned is not only in worldly error but contrary to God’s purposes.
Remember Anglican Baptismal liturgy reflects our spiritual fight against sin the world and the devil. The world thinks the sin of same sex relations is ok, and the devil is the deceiver.

thus homosexuals are created that way by a Loving God. - kiwimac

In the beginning He made them male and female; it was for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife. – Jesus (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10. Eph 5)

 

[brightmorningstar]

What is Christianity if it is whatever people think that has no scriptural support and is contrary to what scripture says?

Is Christianity about worshipping the devil and blessing same sex relations? Well the Biblical testimony says both are wrong, and there is no scriptural support for either.


The homosexual argument is an invented way to sin. It supresses the truth with wickedness.

 

[WagginDog]

Sexual intercourse between two of the same sex is sex outside of marriage. To me, the nature of marriage and when sexual intercourse is appropriate is at the heart of the issue at hand.

That sounds reasonable to me. It could be an interesting thread. If you start a thread I'll visit.

 

[Polycarp1]

That sounds reasonable to me. It could be an interesting thread. If you start a thread I'll visit.

I completely agree and would happily participate in such a thread.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Sexual intercourse between two of the same sex is sex outside of marriage. To me, the nature of marriage and when sexual intercourse is appropriate is at the heart of the issue at hand.

Yes, but there is no scriptural basis to contest that.. so there is no basis for a discussion on it except disbelief in it.

 

[MKJ]

I agree that to understand how Christians should treat homosexuality depends on the understanding of marriage. In fact I would say that our issues today may well have roots in changes to how we understand marriage.

 

[seeking_perfection]

Because it is not, IMO, sinful and because the scriptures simply do not deal with homosexuality as it is understood today. You see, we have learned that homosexuality is most likely founded in the womb thus homosexuals are created that way by a Loving God. Who are we to call sinful what God has created?

Kiwimac, as MKJ has already said, this argument is useless.

If I had a biological tendency towards eating human flesh, would that be ok? Obviously not.

This also ties in with the argument that homosexuality is found in nature. So is eating the flesh of your partner. Again, still not ok for us.

Other arguments are required.