• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Robert the Pilegrim said:
I just want to make a few meta-comments:
I understand how one comes to the traditional view by reading the Bible, I disagree, but I understand.

I appreciate the fairly civil tone of this discussion.

The following isn't aimed at you per se but needs to be injected periodically into these discussions:
I think it is incumbant upon those who cite Biblical verses against homosexuality to make clear that they do not justify violence and to make clear what if any discrimination they feel is justified, and why.
I agree completely. I actually have friends at school who are avowed homosexuals and I hold no malice or ill-will towards them, I may disagree with what they do in their free time, but I'm not going to condemn them for it - that would be absolutely hypocritical of me. If they're Christians, I feel that it's universal that all sinful desires be crucified, so I don't condemn homosexual Christians, either, as I know it's just as hard to deal with as any other vice. I'm more for support in these regards than anything else - I think that's a more Biblical position to take.
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Robert the Pilegrim said:
I couldn't find anything clear...

Why don't we look at all the verses in the O.T. that reference homosexual acts...

Gen 19 and Judges 19 describe homosexual acts in the context of gang rape by men, most of whom are not homosexual by nature (though in Judges arguably they might be bisexual).

Deut 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7, Job 36:14
all make reference to homosexual acts in the context of cult prostitution.

Male cult prostitutes played the part of women, generally dressing the part, so when a farmer wanted to ensure the fertility of his animals and land he would give a donation to the fertility god/goddess and lie with a man, as with a woman.

Leviticus 18 and 20 condemn laying with a male as with a woman.

A recap of the arguement over the meanings of the words Paul used in 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim will have to wait.

For the Hebrew/Greek of the verses in question see:
http://www.studylight.org/isb/
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/

http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html
and
The Construction of Homosexuality
by David F. Greenberg
I've already poured through many of the NT exegesis available, for both sides of the debate - I've just come to a conclusion that the position I'm taking is the most rational when contrasted with the rest of scripture. But the OT exegesis I'm not entirely familiar with yet, admittedly, and am open to any suggestions as to evidence pointing towards acceptance of consensual homosexual relationships.
 
Upvote 0

Robert the Pilegrim

Senior Veteran
Nov 21, 2004
2,151
75
65
✟25,187.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
intricatic said:
I've already poured through many of the NT exegesis available, for both sides of the debate - I've just come to a conclusion that the position I'm taking is the most rational when contrasted with the rest of scripture. But the OT exegesis I'm not entirely familiar with yet, admittedly, and am open to any suggestions as to evidence pointing towards acceptance of consensual homosexual relationships.
I don't think the NT can be analyzed without understanding the OT.

While the conclusion I draw about Leviticus 18 and 20 is not a slam dunk, the rest pretty much is.

Maybe next week I'll have more time to discuss some ancilary evidence linking Lev. to Deut..

I don't think either the O.T. or the N.T. have anything to say about loving, committed, homosexual relationships, nor would I expect them to.

<sigh>

I really don't have time right now.

Peace be with you,
Robert
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Robert the Pilegrim said:
I don't think the NT can be analyzed without understanding the OT.

While the conclusion I draw about Leviticus 18 and 20 is not a slam dunk, the rest pretty much is.

Maybe next week I'll have more time to discuss some ancilary evidence linking Lev. to Deut..

I don't think either the O.T. or the N.T. have anything to say about loving, committed, homosexual relationships, nor would I expect them to.

<sigh>

I really don't have time right now.

Peace be with you,
Robert
I think it's anachronistic to think they would have anything to say about the archetype of a loving and commited homosexual relationship, it's difficult to sort through the various other topics in order to draw conclusions - I won't condemn people involved in that type of relationship, but I don't encourage it, either, and don't approve of it. I just have a structure of reference for how a Christian should live which it doesn't seem to fit into, and I can only really apply it to myself, unless there are obvious signs of rebellion against a more firmly established framework within the body of believers [the Church], in which case I think some intervention is necessary, although not in the form that some of the more politicized Christians like to take it. Heh. The same would be the case for anyone else, though.

But I'm definitely with you on the topic of the OT. All the doctrinal precedents in the NT can only be understood through an understanding of the OT, which is the foundation of all doctrine. That's why I'm open to suggestions when it comes to further understanding it.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
intricatic said:
That's an anachronism, though. Sexual nature, defined throughout the Bible, is in terms of the archetype of Adam and Eve. Afterall, para phusin is used in other contexts to mean the same thing - inherent nature of the object. Romans 11, for instance, or Romans 2. The fact that he associates it with creation, is enough for me to see the parallel.


I don't see that there is any view of nature being inherent in either passage; a wild olive is no more inherently "wild" than a cultivated olive is inherently "cultivated." Indeed, he seems to be saying that your nature can be changed by this grafting process; inherent natures can't be changed, that's the whole point. As for Romans 2, it can be translated as "by convention" and not radically alter its meaning.

The Adam & Eve stuff is spurious, as is the "well - Johathan & David's relationship wasn't really sexual." They certainly kissed and the language used in Samuel is very passionate. As to penetrative sex - the Bible is pretty coy elsewhere about that; even the Song of Songs is very euphemistic, so why would I expect them to mention it? I suspect we don't see it as sexual because it would blow our minds if we thought it was.
 
Upvote 0

GrimWolf

Active Member
Jun 23, 2006
150
25
Pretoria
✟15,395.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Genesis 2
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

God did not give Adam another Adam when he said "it is not good for the man to be alone." He gave Adam an Eve. He also says that "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." United with his WIFE, not husband or another man.

It saddens me to see people trying to justify their own lust by twisting what the bible says.

Colossians 2
6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
 
Upvote 0

Colabomb

I seek sin like a moth towards flame, save me God.
Nov 27, 2003
9,310
411
38
Visit site
✟34,125.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Maccie said:
They are back to quoting Leviticus, Sam. Nothing changes!

You'd think they get bored with talking sex all the time, wouldn't you??
If liberals would stop shoving inproper and sinful sexuality down our throat, it would not be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roadmap
Upvote 0

Sam Gamgee

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2005
1,652
103
54
New Hampshire, United States
Visit site
✟24,850.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Colabomb said:
If liberals would stop shoving inproper and sinful sexuality down our throat, it would not be an issue.
so, it's a liberal/conservative thing?
are you implying that all conservatives disapprove of homosexuality and all liberals approve of homosexuality?
 
Upvote 0

Colabomb

I seek sin like a moth towards flame, save me God.
Nov 27, 2003
9,310
411
38
Visit site
✟34,125.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sam Gamgee said:
so, it's a liberal/conservative thing?
are you implying that all conservatives disapprove of homosexuality and all liberals approve of homosexuality?
Yes. One of those very few things that actually can be split down the middle.
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Um....I know several openly gay conservatives. Not to mention...the Massachusetts supreme court--2/3 were appointed by conservative, republican governors. Look what came from them. Using convservative, republican values, no less.

And, right now in WWMC, we are briefly discussing liberals who do not approve of homosexuality.

Really, why in the world would love for another person follow political boundries?
 
Upvote 0

Colabomb

I seek sin like a moth towards flame, save me God.
Nov 27, 2003
9,310
411
38
Visit site
✟34,125.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Mling said:
Um....I know several openly gay conservatives. Not to mention...the Massachusetts supreme court--2/3 were appointed by conservative, republican governors. Look what came from them. Using convservative, republican values, no less.

And, right now in WWMC, we are briefly discussing liberals who do not approve of homosexuality.

Really, why in the world would love for another person follow political boundries?
Conservative Theology has very little to do with Conservative Politics.
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
artybloke said:
I don't see that there is any view of nature being inherent in either passage; a wild olive is no more inherently "wild" than a cultivated olive is inherently "cultivated." Indeed, he seems to be saying that your nature can be changed by this grafting process; inherent natures can't be changed, that's the whole point. As for Romans 2, it can be translated as "by convention" and not radically alter its meaning.

The Adam & Eve stuff is spurious, as is the "well - Johathan & David's relationship wasn't really sexual." They certainly kissed and the language used in Samuel is very passionate. As to penetrative sex - the Bible is pretty coy elsewhere about that; even the Song of Songs is very euphemistic, so why would I expect them to mention it? I suspect we don't see it as sexual because it would blow our minds if we thought it was.
No, we don't see it as sexual because it would make more sense, culturally and contextually, for it not to be sexual; it would be irrational and illogical for it to be sexual.

However, if you look at it through the lense of modern society, it would make more sense for it to be sexual, but only if that's what we want to see.

Inherent natures can't be changed; but they can have branches grafted onto them artificially. That was the entire point of the passage; Christianity is antagonistic to human nature, but the nature God gave the branch is something different.

19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

To who's nature are they contrary?
 
Upvote 0

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Inherent natures can't be changed; but they can have branches grafted onto them artificially.

I assume you mean that a person can be made to think he is gay, and start acting that way? That I do agree with. A man can, for example, turn to other men for love he never got from his father. He isn't actually gay, though, he's wounded.
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Mling said:
I assume you mean that a person can be made to think he is gay, and start acting that way? That I do agree with. A man can, for example, turn to other men for love he never got from his father. He isn't actually gay, though, he's wounded.
Until I see anything other than speculative science clarifying that there is natural, inborn homosexual traits that exist [aside from hermaphroditism as I find that to be a totally different subject], I have no reason to believe that homosexuality isn't completely artificial in nature.

Also, this:
Romans 1:
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Can be interpreted in light of this idea of nature in many different ways, and can lead to many different theories; but all sin is effective as being painful and hurtful and the consequences shouldn't be treated as a good thing, or added to by believers. It makes me really irritated whenever I see Christians harping on people already suffering, and only adding to their misery. There is a difference between understanding a thing, and justifying negative actions with that same thing, and I can't stress that enough. Heh. Nobody seems to understand it these days.
 
Upvote 0

DaveS

Veteran
Jul 23, 2005
1,411
54
35
Swansea, Wales
✟24,486.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Until I see anything other than speculative science clarifying that there is natural, inborn homosexual traits that exist [aside from hermaphroditism as I find that to be a totally different subject], I have no reason to believe that homosexuality isn't completely artificial in nature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm

This is a study on the increased likeliness of homosexuality in people who have older brothers.

Also, this:
Romans 1:
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Can be interpreted in light of this idea of nature in many different ways, and can lead to many different theories; but all sin is effective as being painful and hurtful and the consequences shouldn't be treated as a good thing, or added to by believers. It makes me really irritated whenever I see Christians harping on people already suffering, and only adding to their misery. There is a difference between understanding a thing, and justifying negative actions with that same thing, and I can't stress that enough. Heh. Nobody seems to understand it these days.

Have you read that article yet besides mentioning that I like it?
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
DaveS said:
Have you read that article yet besides mentioning that I like it?
Yes, I read it quite thoroughly. I had been presented it by a friend of mine a few weeks ago, also.

As for the BBC article, this is still speculative evidence. You'd have been better off using the genetic aberrations - flaws in the genetic structure - that has inconclusively been mentioned as a possible reason for homosexuality.

From the article:
The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.
In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."
"But the question of mechanism remains."
[emphasis mine]

Or in other words, "We don't know if this even has anything to do with sexuality, but we'll present it as such because it can be woven together to seem tied to it."


Perhaps you should have found a more thorough article on the study?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.