Homosexuality

[Mling]

Paul was writing about what God destests as shown all throughout the Bible. I see how you glossed over that in the scripture I gave you,

You've posted a few scriptural quotes. Which one are you refering to?

(I can tell you now, that I haven't "glossed over" anything, in the sense that I tried to hide an inconvenient truth. There are, however, several things which have been said which I felt were not worthy of a response.)

 

[IisJustMe]

I had been waiting on a friend to send me further definitions of forniation in the Greek. Here they are.

Next time, you could just go here:

Any word you want, used in the NAS or the KJV, is defined in that lexicon on StudyLight.org.

Also, I was told because of all the above defintions, this is where our word "pornography" comes from. It is the acts of all of the above.

And that's absolutely correct. It is also spiritual adultery -- i.e., the rejection of God in favor of some worldly thing which becomes more important than God. It is on that basis that divorce is allowable for the abused spouse, because the abuse is tantamount to putting anger, jealousy, and low self-esteem ahead of God Almighty.

 

[lilymarie]

You've posted a few scriptural quotes. Which one are you refering to?

(I can tell you now, that I haven't "glossed over" anything, in the sense that I tried to hide an inconvenient truth. There are, however, several things which have been said which I felt were not worthy of a response.)

An inconvenient truth? There is a tiny small portion of the Bible where Paul says this is I Paul writing this. That is altogether a direct topic of discussing that small fragment. If you'd like to start a topic on that, I don't think this is the category to discuss that in. However, if you'd like to post the scripture, feel free.

As far as what you glossed over and or reject is the truth from Jesus himself, who declared what a marriage IS period, one man, one woman.

If you feel you can rewrite Jesus' marriage law. How am I to stop you?

I can pray for you, but that is all I have to offer at this point.

 

[lilymarie]

Next time, you could just go here:

Any word you want, used in the NAS or the KJV, is defined in that lexicon on StudyLight.org.
[/font][/size][/color]And that's absolutely correct. It is also spiritual adultery -- i.e., the rejection of God in favor of some worldly thing which becomes more important than God. It is on that basis that divorce is allowable for the abused spouse, because the abuse is tantamount to putting anger, jealousy, and low self-esteem ahead of God Almighty.

I'll look into that and put it in my favorites.

 

[ThyNeighbor]

There are marriages where a woman marries a man simply for him money. There are marriages where a man abuses his wife. There are many marriages between a man and a woman, performed by a Christian minister, in a church, and before God and following all the legalistic laws of the bible. That doesn’t mean that God blesses or approves of them. Likewise, could it not be possible that there are relationships that you interpret as being against the legalist laws of the bible that God might approve and bless? What test can we use to measure? How about the fruits of the Spirit? If a person(s) exhibit them does that not suggest the Spirit of God is in them?

Gal 5:22 But when the Holy Spirit controls our lives, he will produce this kind of fruit in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, and self-control. Here there is no conflict with the law.

Is homosexuality a sin? Is it the way God made us? Is it biological? It is environmental? Honestly, I just don’t know. 320+ posts have been made in this one thread alone. There have been compelling arguments for and just as compelling arguments against. Greater biblical scholars and theologians that you or I continue to debate the issue. So what is a Christian gay man who loves the Lord to do? What is he to believe? I have been celibate for over 10 years: 7 years of which were in an ex-gay ministry. I’ve been sexually pure but it hasn’t made me any less homosexual. Your speaking of all homosexuals as out of control lusting perverts has no meaning to me. I can’t relate. Sorry to disappoint you.

My life belongs to God and my sexuality along with it. I do not debate the rightness or the wrongness of it. I don’t worry over it (or at least I try not to). I have placed it into God’s hands. He knows my heart, He knows that I long for someone to share my life with and I pray that He will bless me with that person. You may not believe that He will do so, but that doesn’t matter. I have faith and hope in Jesus and that is sufficient.

I just wish some of you would stop turning homosexuality into some unpardonable sin. I wish you would stop driving men and women who are gay away from the church and away from God. I am not asking that you change your belief that homosexuality is a sin. Just stop making it into something that it isn’t. You compare it to things like murder and rape. This is an insult. God has instilled in every human being a basic need for love and acceptance. He said, “it is not good that the man should be alone.” While you might say that is in reference to marriage, I would say that it is true in any sense. Alone is not good, it’s not healthy, and it’s not how God designed us. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin, going against our human desires and need for love is going against God’s design for mankind.

 

[Mling]

An inconvenient truth? There is a tiny small portion of the Bible where Paul says this is I Paul writing this. That is altogether a direct topic of discussing that small fragment. If you'd like to start a topic on that, I don't think this is the category to discuss that in. However, if you'd like to post the scripture, feel free.

As far as what you glossed over and or reject is the truth from Jesus himself, who declared what a marriage IS period, one man, one woman.

If you feel you can rewrite Jesus' marriage law. How am I to stop you?

I can pray for you, but that is all I have to offer at this point.

???? Where is the indignation coming from? Or annoyance, or whatever you are expressing--internet doesn't convey emotion well.

You said that you posted scripture, and that I glossed over it. I interpret "glossed over" to mean that I tried to cover up an issue because, while true, it was damaging to my point. I said that I have not done that, at all. I do not, however, know which scriptural reference you are refering to, as you have posted a couple.

Basically, I asked "could you repeat the question?" Specify which post you were refering to when you said this:

I see how you glossed over that in the scripture I gave you,

and I will tell you why I didn't respond.

as for Jesus describing marriage as one man/one woman, could you cite that? I have a few thoughts on the idea, but context would be useful.

 

[lilymarie]

???? Where is the indignation coming from? Or annoyance, or whatever you are expressing--internet doesn't convey emotion well.

You said that you posted scripture, and that I glossed over it. I interpret "glossed over" to mean that I tried to cover up an issue because, while true, it was damaging to my point. I said that I have not done that, at all. I do not, however, know which scriptural reference you are refering to, as you have posted a couple.

Basically, I asked "could you repeat the question?" Specify which post you were refering to when you said this:

and I will tell you why I didn't respond.

as for Jesus describing marriage as one man/one woman, could you cite that? I have a few thoughts on the idea, but context would be useful.

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Here is the main point... from the beginning. The above person is Jesus speaking in Matthew. Sorry I didn't get the correct reference number. You'll need to do an internet search.

I would like to enjoy moving on to some other topics now. So best of luck to you in your sojourns. God loves you. I'd just like to say, I understand how all suffer from lack of physical closness. I had to go through my celibacy period also. It has made me grow so much in the spirit, as my faith has stregthened through repentance. I do not believe that faith can exist without repentance, and as I'm currently studying in the Bible, the word of God says the same thing. Either we deceive ourselves or we don't. However, God loves you all very much!!!!!!!!! We all have major crosses to bear... life with The Lord is certainly not a guarentee we will be free from suffering. God loves ALL of us so much!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's never forget that, and I look forward to discussing some other theological topics with all of you at a later time!

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

There are marriages where a woman marries a man simply for him money. There are marriages where a man abuses his wife. There are many marriages between a man and a woman, performed by a Christian minister, in a church, and before God and following all the legalistic laws of the bible. That doesn’t mean that God blesses or approves of them. Likewise, could it not be possible that there are relationships that you interpret as being against the legalist laws of the bible that God might approve and bless? What test can we use to measure? How about the fruits of the Spirit? If a person(s) exhibit them does that not suggest the Spirit of God is in them?

Gal 5:22 But when the Holy Spirit controls our lives, he will produce this kind of fruit in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, and self-control. Here there is no conflict with the law.

Is homosexuality a sin? Is it the way God made us? Is it biological? It is environmental? Honestly, I just don’t know. 320+ posts have been made in this one thread alone. There have been compelling arguments for and just as compelling arguments against. Greater biblical scholars and theologians that you or I continue to debate the issue. So what is a Christian gay man who loves the Lord to do? What is he to believe? I have been celibate for over 10 years: 7 years of which were in an ex-gay ministry. I’ve been sexually pure but it hasn’t made me any less homosexual. Your speaking of all homosexuals as out of control lusting perverts has no meaning to me. I can’t relate. Sorry to disappoint you.

My life belongs to God and my sexuality along with it. I do not debate the rightness or the wrongness of it. I don’t worry over it (or at least I try not to). I have placed it into God’s hands. He knows my heart, He knows that I long for someone to share my life with and I pray that He will bless me with that person. You may not believe that He will do so, but that doesn’t matter. I have faith and hope in Jesus and that is sufficient.

I just wish some of you would stop turning homosexuality into some unpardonable sin. I wish you would stop driving men and women who are gay away from the church and away from God. I am not asking that you change your belief that homosexuality is a sin. Just stop making it into something that it isn’t. You compare it to things like murder and rape. This is an insult. God has instilled in every human being a basic need for love and acceptance. He said, “it is not good that the man should be alone.” While you might say that is in reference to marriage, I would say that it is true in any sense. Alone is not good, it’s not healthy, and it’s not how God designed us. Regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin, going against our human desires and need for love is going against God’s design for mankind.

Thanks for your post. I know I have written against those that often compare Homosexuals and child molestors in the same sentence, or those who are on some personal crusade against Homosexuals. Only "We" meaning you and I and countless others know of the diffuculties and daily struggle of the Gay person. It is different than the oft anaology of the liar or thief. Our sexuality , be it Homo or Hetero excompasses a great part of our lives. Wouldn't it be nice to go on a date , on a hot summer night and share ones life with another Human in an intimate way, without worrying whether, because of this, you will suffer in Hell for all eternity? Would not it be nice to have a significant other to come home to and share your day and life with? I know the turmoil it has caused me. Most who cendemn us, could not walk the walk. It is daily and all encompassing. I know just last night, In a dream I had the debate in my head that I could not be who some say I should be, I screamed out three times, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, knowing that if he did not do something to change me, that I could not live this life of animated suspension any longer. I know this younger guy has been asking me out for a beer after work for sometime now, and I want to go. (please don't dwell on the beer) Yes I drink. It would be nice to talk to another Human and make my self vulnerable again. Maybe to make a connection on a emotional level. I miss the thrill of touching another Humans hand in an intimate way. I feel that I am dying and atrophying as a person of emotion. I know that chances of changing, are slim to none, and slim just left the room. Yes some will throw the faith card, But I know of many with faith better than mine, who are just as Gay now, as they were when they became Christian. Some will play semantics with all of this, but that is to be expected of those that crusade against Homosexuals but fail to include their secret sins. I often get a kick out of people who compare it to quitting smoking or always lump us in with the worst degenerates of society ie: child molestors and serial killers. Then others will say , if only you had enough faith or refer me to some web site with slick marketing touting freedom from homosexuality, but the reality below the surface of the "exgay" thing , is that it fails to deliver. I see these poor slobs, buying book after book, spending a small fortune on counseling, making statements "maybe if I dated a woman, I will change" But as i said to one guy who was a Psychologist. "when you go to the gym to work out, what catches your eye, the Men or the Woman, ohhhhhh he became enraged, I was not supposed to notice anyone in that way. rightttt I will buy some Horse blinders for my next workout. But the real reason was, that he knew who he was still attracted to. Oh well I will synchronize my watch now for the next heathen bashing.

 

[Proselyte]

Thanks for your post. I know I have written against those that often compare Homosexuals and child molestors in the same sentence, or those who are on some personal crusade against Homosexuals. Only "We" meaning you and I and countless others know of the diffuculties and daily struggle of the Gay person. It is different than the oft anaology of the liar or thief. Our sexuality , be it Homo or Hetero excompasses a great part of our lives. Wouldn't it be nice to go on a date , on a hot summer night and share ones life with another Human in an intimate way, without worrying whether, because of this, you will suffer in Hell for all eternity? Would not it be nice to have a significant other to come home to and share your day and life with? I know the turmoil it has caused me. Most who cendemn us, could not walk the walk. It is daily and all encompassing. I know just last night, In a dream I had the debate in my head that I could not be who some say I should be, I screamed out three times, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, knowing that if he did not do something to change me, that I could not live this life of animated suspension any longer. I know this younger guy has been asking me out for a beer after work for sometime now, and I want to go. (please don't dwell on the beer) Yes I drink. It would be nice to talk to another Human and make my self vulnerable again. Maybe to make a connection on a emotional level. I miss the thrill of touching another Humans hand in an intimate way. I feel that I am dying and atrophying as a person of emotion. I know that chances of changing, are slim to none, and slim just left the room. Yes some will throw the faith card, But I know of many with faith better than mine, who are just as Gay now, as they were when they became Christian. Some will play semantics with all of this, but that is to be expected of those that crusade against Homosexuals but fail to include their secret sins. I often get a kick out of people who compare it to quitting smoking or always lump us in with the worst degenerates of society ie: child molestors and serial killers. Then others will say , if only you had enough faith or refer me to some web site with slick marketing touting freedom from homosexuality, but the reality below the surface of the "exgay" thing , is that it fails to deliver. I see these poor slobs, buying book after book, spending a small fortune on counseling, making statements "maybe if I dated a woman, I will change" But as i said to one guy who was a Psychologist. "when you go to the gym to work out, what catches your eye, the Men or the Woman, ohhhhhh he became enraged, I was not supposed to notice anyone in that way. rightttt I will buy some Horse blinders for my next workout. But the real reason was, that he knew who he was still attracted to. Oh well I will synchronize my watch now for the next heathen bashing.

I'm sorry I don't know what you're going through, but I know it must be terribly difficult. It must be one of the hardest things you have to face. I can only say keep praying about it. There are those of us here to listen though I know it's of small comfort. Especially when we hold the position we do of the lifestyle. I do wish you well.

 

[holo]

Is that when the evil, uninspired Paul appeared?

Who says evil? But human? Yeah, probably.

Homosexuality is talked about in many Bible passages. Homosexuality is a sin, and is not to be practiced by Christians.

Yes, it is mentioned in the mosaic law as well, like wearing garments of mixed fabrics.

The question is, why/how do you decide that Paul was talking for himself regarding women's hair, and for God regarding homosexuality?

BTW, I'm not saying either/or, just asking how people reach conclusions on these matters.

 

[Mling]

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

Here is the main point... from the beginning. The above person is Jesus speaking in Matthew. Sorry I didn't get the correct reference number. You'll need to do an internet search.

Ok, I know what you're refering to now. Basically, here is my take on it. He was asked about divorce. This statement is talking about divorce. It is impossible to make every conceivable point on a given topic, without obscuring the main point you want to make. For example, this verse plays an important role in the theological view of Progressive Revelation. Somebody could poke through here and see that we've discussed this scripture, but have not discussed Progressive Revelation (in the same sense that Jesus discussed marriage without discussing same-sex love). They might then draw all sorts of conclusions regarding our theological beliefs, given that we clearly don't believe in Progressive Revelation, or we would have said so, given this opprtunity.

Or, maybe, Progressive Revelation is completely irrelavent to this discussion, and that is why we haven't been discussing it, even though we had the opportunity.

Returning to Jesus, he was talking about divorce. His followers asked if they were allowed to, because Moses said they could, and he answered them. His description of marriage was just that, a description. That part of the statement was not a command. He was saying, when you marry, you become one. As God has made you one, you cannot split yourselves again. He had no reason to mention the idea of same-sex love or marriage, because none of his followers would have that conception of marriage. He described it as they knew it. I would be insterested in what Jesus said about the idea of same-sex marriage, had he been asked, and had he been speaking about it. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

 

[intricatic]

Who says evil? But human? Yeah, probably.

So he could turn off his inspiration like a light?

 

[Gukkor]

So he could turn off his inspiration like a light?

The inspired aren't immune to error or personal bias.

 

[intricatic]

The inspired aren't immune to error or personal bias.

Which takes precedence; the error of man, or God's influence on mankind in general? Man will make mistakes and have personal bias, but if it's reflected through scripture and relatable, which would take precedence?

 

[intricatic]

Ok, I know what you're refering to now. Basically, here is my take on it. He was asked about divorce. This statement is talking about divorce. It is impossible to make every conceivable point on a given topic, without obscuring the main point you want to make. For example, this verse plays an important role in the theological view of Progressive Revelation. Somebody could poke through here and see that we've discussed this scripture, but have not discussed Progressive Revelation (in the same sense that Jesus discussed marriage without discussing same-sex love). They might then draw all sorts of conclusions regarding our theological beliefs, given that we clearly don't believe in Progressive Revelation, or we would have said so, given this opprtunity.

Or, maybe, Progressive Revelation is completely irrelavent to this discussion, and that is why we haven't been discussing it, even though we had the opportunity.

Returning to Jesus, he was talking about divorce. His followers asked if they were allowed to, because Moses said they could, and he answered them. His description of marriage was just that, a description. That part of the statement was not a command. He was saying, when you marry, you become one. As God has made you one, you cannot split yourselves again. He had no reason to mention the idea of same-sex love or marriage, because none of his followers would have that conception of marriage. He described it as they knew it. I would be insterested in what Jesus said about the idea of same-sex marriage, had he been asked, and had he been speaking about it. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

The fact that he was answering a question about divorce by explaining the importance and profundity of the union of marriage doesn't negate the fact that he was elaborating what marriage is to deflate their argument. He was speaking about eunuchs, as well. Of course, it's anachronistic because Jewish culture was very rigid to the subject of sexual immorality in any form; it was considered extremely shameful. Given the social context, it was implied that marriage was considered a man and a woman for a variety of reasons that aren't anachronistic. So to say that this message had no pertinence to the idea of same-sex marriage is basically to ignore a nearly universal and unchanged trend that went beyond even the time of Jesus, that being the condition of what marriage is as it had always been defined in the cultural setting Jesus was speaking. But I'd like to hear how you define progressive revelation as it seems to change from person to person.

 

[Proselyte]

Who says evil? But human? Yeah, probably.

Yes, it is mentioned in the mosaic law as well, like wearing garments of mixed fabrics.

The question is, why/how do you decide that Paul was talking for himself regarding women's hair, and for God regarding homosexuality?

BTW, I'm not saying either/or, just asking how people reach conclusions on these matters.

Do you have some reason to think Paul was speaking of his own opinion on the matter? This sin hasn't been absolved in the New Testament. It is spoken of in the OT and NT, and thus still stands.

 

[Mling]

I just think that interpreting the passage in that way is misplacing the emphasis. He was describing what marriage was like, and why it was like that, and why that shouldn't be undone. As I mentioned earlier, or in a different thread, the concept of same-sex marriage was completely unheard of until very recently (with the exception of some aboriginal tribes, such as Native Americans). To have introduced that idea, or suggested it in any way would have been wildly out of place, and would have overshadowed the point he was trying to make. It's a sort of Aukum's Razor--to take a description of what marriage is, and conclude from that that marriage cannot be anything else, is a leap of logic*. Why do that when the situation is explained perfectly well by Jesus simply answering the question he was asked in a way that would be understandable?

*Imagine I say "Crows are black." That is a general, descriptive statement. It is not an assertion that there are no albino crows.

 

[Gukkor]

Which takes precedence; the error of man, or God's influence on mankind in general? Man will make mistakes and have personal bias, but if it's reflected through scripture and relatable, which would take precedence?

I'm not entirely sure if I understand what you're asking, but if you mean something to the effect of "would God let human error/bias get into scripture," I see no reason why He wouldn't. These aren't decrees literally written by God Himself; they're letters from one mere Christian (a very important and wise one, perhaps, but just a man nonetheless) to churches made up of mere Christians. Why would God magically remove all errors from said letters anymore than He edits the letters Christians send each other today?

 

[intricatic]

I'm not entirely sure if I understand what you're asking, but if you mean something to the effect of "would God let human error/bias get into scripture," I see no reason why He wouldn't. These aren't decrees literally written by God Himself; they're letters from one mere Christian (a very important and wise one, perhaps, but just a man nonetheless) to churches made up of mere Christians. Why would God magically remove all errors from said letters anymore than He edits the letters Christians send each other today?

No, what I'm saying is that if the message presented is relatable to the rest of scripture - it's mirrored throughout the rest of the body of scripture - does this reflect a bias in the author?

I just think that interpreting the passage in that way is misplacing the emphasis. He was describing what marriage was like, and why it was like that, and why that shouldn't be undone. As I mentioned earlier, or in a different thread, the concept of same-sex marriage was completely unheard of until very recently (with the exception of some aboriginal tribes, such as Native Americans). To have introduced that idea, or suggested it in any way would have been wildly out of place, and would have overshadowed the point he was trying to make. It's a sort of Aukum's Razor--to take a description of what marriage is, and conclude from that that marriage cannot be anything else, is a leap of logic*. Why do that when the situation is explained perfectly well by Jesus simply answering the question he was asked in a way that would be understandable?

*Imagine I say "Crows are black." That is a general, descriptive statement. It is not an assertion that there are no albino crows.

And that's exactly what I mean - it was the way it was because humanity existed closer to God's commandments and the understanding of His provisions. To our society now, thanks to existentialism and the idea that we're isolated in the universe and the central meaning of man's existence is to seek pleasure, our cultural understanding of concepts such as love, marriage, relationships, wisdom, knowledge, etc..etc... has been shaped by secular philosophies and it's incredibly easy to ignore or dismiss. I can hardly see it as a positive evolution to begin with, considering that God's love has, universally, been reconciliatory to mankind's fallen state throughout the Bible, even through Christ.

 

[Gukkor]

No, what I'm saying is that if the message presented is relatable to the rest of scripture - it's mirrored throughout the rest of the body of scripture - does this reflect a bias in the author?


And that's exactly what I mean - it was the way it was because humanity existed closer to God's commandments and the understanding of His provisions. To our society now, thanks to existentialism and the idea that we're isolated in the universe and the central meaning of man's existence is to seek pleasure, our cultural understanding of concepts such as love, marriage, relationships, wisdom, knowledge, etc..etc... has been shaped by secular philosophies and it's incredibly easy to ignore or dismiss. I can hardly see it as a positive evolution to begin with, considering that God's love has, universally, been reconciliatory to mankind's fallen state throughout the Bible, even through Christ.

I disagree. I believe that those who seek God nowadays are far, far closer to Him than those of Old Testament times. The apostles themselves couldn't even understand parables, so buried were they in the spiritual darkness of the time! Do you really think that the hedonism you see around you is a modern development? Such a worldview was even more prevalent back then! Are there still many who choose materialism and momentary pleasures at the expense of true happiness and doing what is right? Of course, but contrary to popular belief, they are a dying breed.