• 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.

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
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
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
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
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


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

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
 
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.
 
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
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
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

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.


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.