Homosexuality

intricatic · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
The thing that baffles me is to say that there is a cure for homosexuals. One person argued "man just wants what is contrary to what God intended". Well, if that were true, ALL would be homosexual and lesbians. It is a MINORITY of the population. The only so-called "cure" is reparative therapy, which causes more harm than good. It is the only thing available, and as I have said a million times, it is condemned by every credible mental health foundation. If something falls under a purity code, we can ignore it, and the only reason they fail to see that fall under the purity code is Romans 1 (clearly pagan worship), and the biased translation in 1 Corinthians (unknown definition for "arsenkoitas", translated out to mean masturbation by early church fathers and now homosexual).

You have not proved how homosexuality=idolatry in the least way in and of itself.

Did I not explain the antitypal co-relationship between homosexuality, idolatry and manifest design in creation? Shall I do so again?

When I brought up Genesis 2, I thought it would be clearly implied how those two things co-relate to one another. If you want to discuss the philosophical or ethical way we, as Christians should address the issue, this would be another topic entirely. I'm not sure what I'm not making clear here, or if we simply have a disconnect in communication.

davedjy · Feb 22, 2007

intricatic said:
Did I not explain the antitypal co-relationship between homosexuality, idolatry and manifest design in creation? Shall I do so again?

When I brought up Genesis 2, I thought it would be clearly implied how those two things co-relate to one another. If you want to discuss the philosophical or ethical way we, as Christians should address the issue, this would be another topic entirely. I'm not sure what I'm not making clear here, or if we simply have a disconnect in communication.

Someone who is gay is co-involved in another form of idolatry? what the heck are you saying?

intricatic · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
Someone who is gay is co-involved in another form of idolatry? what the heck are you saying?

Heh..

Okay, I have studying to do.

angelmom01 · Feb 22, 2007

StTherese said:
How about this...
I am a married woman, yet at times I feel attracted to other men. This in and of itself is not a sin. But, if I choose to act on this attraction, THEN it would be a sin!

So only the ACT of adultery is sin?

Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Does that apply only to men?

angelmom

chris777 · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
Your passage does not dive into anything but the idolatry aspects. What makes your interpretations more qualified, really I want to know.

Why does the passage not say woman should not sleep w/woman, such as: "thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind, it is abomination".

Again, if it was talking in the context of which YOU speak, it would condemn ALL homosexual acts, including those w/lesbians. You fail!

If you would take the time to read a little further in Leviticus 19
you might notice that every single sin in the chapter is an abomination, and to follow after them is to be come one with the world and its ways. we are called to be Holy, not to profane the name of God by trying to justify Sin any sin, they are all damnable.
sin= sin not sin could potentially equall something else if my brothers uncles cousin internet buddy has found a loophole.

[26] Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
[27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

It doesnt matter if intricatic "wins" if you win or even if I win.
EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess, and we shall ALL give account.

tell us why homosexuality is made holy and the rest of those sins are not.

intricatic · Feb 22, 2007

intricatic said:
davedjy said:

There isn't any clobber passage in Genesis 2 that I am aware of.

Click to expand...

See, that's the thing about antitype. It's really hard for people in the West to figure out. Heck, it took a while for it to click into place for me.

It's actually spanned over the first three chapters, but the most pertinent portion is right towards the end of Chapter 2;

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
(Genesis 2)

Click to expand...

From Genesis one, we see the same pattern repeated (in what should be fairly obvious manner);

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
(Genesis 1)

Click to expand...

And thus was born the antitype. God creates man in His image. God creates woman from man. Both deal with images and creation.

God's manifest design for man and woman is clearly spelled out there, and this reverberates through the rest of the Bible.

God's manifest design for His own position in relation to man is clearly spelled out here, as well, and this reverberates throughout the rest of the Bible.

The two things are fundamentally linked, and yet consecutively ordered.

Thus you have the mutual and yet consecutive link to Genesis 2.

I have to wonder if postmodern theologians have any conception of how mangled they make these things with ridiculous translations, interpretations and horribly insensitive excision of details.

One more time around the bend. Hopefully this will be quick and concise.

The above quoted post explains the manifest design that the rest of the Bible is a product of in one way shape or form, depending on topic or subject.

Antitype refers to a mirror image in relationship between two things, one being the type and the other the antitype. Type is the true image, the complete image. For instance, Christ is the Type of Adam. Christ is also the Type to the paschal lamb. The type and antitype depend absolutely on one another to receive and predict their form and function.

God's relationship to man, as detailed in Genesis 1, 2 and 3 is mirrored to man's relationship to woman. Type and antitype.

Idolatry is a reversal of the type and antitype which places man above the divine.

Homosexuality is a reversal of the type and antitype of man's relationship to woman.

This is why the two are often linked together, because the two are fundamentally linked together in scripture as a whole.

chris777 · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
I don't argue original intent by what God "originally planned". It is clear that our bodies are designed for the opposite sex, but that doesn't change sin defects (not just sin temptation).

As I always say, does God WILL for anyone to be born w/both sex organs, or born w/one eye, born w/handicaps, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, etc.? What about hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.? all as a result of defect coming from the sin in the Garden of Eden.

uhh are you inplying that homosexuality is a birth defect?

davedjy · Feb 22, 2007

intricatic said:
One more time around the bend. Hopefully this will be quick and concise.

The above quoted post explains the manifest design that the rest of the Bible is a product of in one way shape or form, depending on topic or subject.

Antitype refers to a mirror image in relationship between two things, one being the type and the other the antitype. Type is the true image, the complete image. For instance, Christ is the Type of Adam. Christ is also the Type to the paschal lamb. The type and antitype depend absolutely on one another to receive and predict their form and function.

God's relationship to man, as detailed in Genesis 1, 2 and 3 is mirrored to man's relationship to woman. Type and antitype.

Idolatry is a reversal of the type and antitype which places man above the divine.

Homosexuality is a reversal of the type and antitype of man's relationship to woman.

This is why the two are often linked together, because the two are fundamentally linked together in scripture as a whole.

I saw what you meant, but you are using non-specific means to arrive at your conclusion.

(e.g. Lust is bad, therefore masturbation is wrong). Although we don't have a specific example for masturbation being wrong nor lust, we will arrive at that conclusion.

That is what you are doing w/this. It would also imply that by going contrary to original design you would be "idolizing that object", which means worshiping the person= it's an erroneous statement.

chris777 said:
uhh are you inplying that homosexuality is a birth defect?

Yes, although I'm not comfortable w/the word "defect", but that it has a result in swaying and changing because of birth. I am talking about homosexual attraction, which I do believe is that.
The Bible does not talk about same-sex attraction, not even once.

davedjy · Feb 22, 2007

chris777 said:
If you would take the time to read a little further in Leviticus 19
you might notice that every single sin in the chapter is an abomination, and to follow after them is to be come one with the world and its ways. we are called to be Holy, not to profane the name of God by trying to justify Sin any sin, they are all damnable.
sin= sin not sin could potentially equall something else if my brothers uncles cousin internet buddy has found a loophole.

[26] Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
[27] (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

It doesnt matter if intricatic "wins" if you win or even if I win.
EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess, and we shall ALL give account.

tell us why homosexuality is made holy and the rest of those sins are not.

You aren't even worth debating. Look at OTHER things called abominations and show me which ones you practice in Leviticus 19, and don't lie about the mixed fabrics one. wow...

chris777 · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
davedjy said:

Yes, although I'm not comfortable w/the word "defect", but that it has a result in swaying and changing because of birth. I am talking about homosexual attraction, which I do believe is that.

Click to expand...

this is odd considering you are against the so called reparative therapy.
at least in the sence that psychology removes homosexuality as a mental illness.
Would you consider it a mental illness, at least defined by the buzz phrase "chemical imbalance"

The Bible does not talk about same-sex attraction, not even once.

Click to expand...

Uhh it is ok to love you brother, but if you are implying sexual attraction, it would fall under where Jesus said that if you looked upon a woman with lust, you have commited adultry in your heart.

intricatic · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
I saw what you meant, but you are using non-specific means to arrive at your conclusion.

(e.g. Lust is bad, therefore masturbation is wrong). Although we don't have a specific example for masturbation being wrong nor lust, we will arrive at that conclusion.

It's hardly non-specific. It's extremely specific.

If that's difficult to see, re-read the language the author chose to put the two ideas together.

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Which in turn relates to;

23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

Which is the intrinsically related in the same way to;

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

All of this arriving at the summation of the image of how man was meant to relate to woman, and how both were to relate to God. The architectural symmetry is the key component, how the ideas are structured. It's not overtly stated, but it's implied in literally every book in the Bible in various ways.

That is what you are doing w/this. It would also imply that by going contrary to original design you would be "idolizing that object", which means worshiping the person= it's an erroneous statement.

You misunderstand. Reversing the same logic, I would have to be saying sex itself equates to idolatry. I'm saying the two things are representations of the same concept, but in type and antitype. The marital covenant is what I'm talking about, as it relates to the covenant between God and His chosen people. Namely, in this context, Adam and Eve. That represents the paradigm of how man approaches God, and how man and woman were meant to approach one another. It has explicit impact on how sexuality was originally designed.

Remove the image of one, and the second loses it's meaning and becomes this pantheistic nonsense that has no historical resemblance of what Judaism and Christianity have always been. To some people I'm sure that would be a good thing, but it's not a correct understanding of the terms involved.

chris777 · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
You aren't even worth debating. Look at OTHER things called abominations and show me which ones you practice in Leviticus 19, and don't lie about the mixed fabrics one. wow...

I know why it warns against mixing fabrics do you?

but you are still avoiding the question the verse calls them ALL abomination, not just homosexuality, in fact it technically calls homosexuality doubly abomination (or at least detestable)by stating abomination in the verse itself before reiterating it in verse 26

davedjy · Feb 22, 2007

intricatic said:
It's hardly non-specific. It's extremely specific.

If that's difficult to see, re-read the language the author chose to put the two ideas together.

Which in turn relates to;

Which is the intrinsically related in the same way to;

All of this arriving at the summation of the image of how man was meant to relate to woman, and how both were to relate to God. The architectural symmetry is the key component, how the ideas are structured. It's not overtly stated, but it's implied in literally every book in the Bible in various ways.

You misunderstand. Reversing the same logic, I would have to be saying sex itself equates to idolatry. I'm saying the two things are representations of the same concept, but in type and antitype. The marital covenant is what I'm talking about, as it relates to the covenant between God and His chosen people. Namely, in this context, Adam and Eve. That represents the paradigm of how man approaches God, and how man and woman were meant to approach one another. It has explicit impact on how sexuality was originally designed.

God does not "intend" for us to eat french fries or load our bodies up with fat, and in a way it is sinful, we are polluting our bodies. That does not mean that it becomes idolatry. I'm sorry, but you have really twisted scripture to make that point fit.

davedjy · Feb 22, 2007

chris777 said:
I know why it warns against mixing fabrics do you?

but you are still avoiding the question the verse calls them ALL abomination, not just homosexuality, in fact it technically calls homosexuality doubly abomination (or at least detestable)by stating abomination in the verse itself before reiterating it in verse 26

It calls it "ritual impurity" be the clear definition of abomination in the passage. Why do I have to keep repeating my statements to you, and going in circles?

"Abomination" (TO'EBAH) is a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean, such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It's not about a moral or ethical issue. This Holiness Code (chapters 17-26) proscribes men "lying the lyings of women." Such mixing of sex roles was thought to be polluting. But both Jesus and Paul rejected all such ritual distinctions (cf. Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20). The Fundamentalist Journal admits that this Code condemns "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleaness" and concludes: "We are not bound by these commands today."

intricatic · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
God does not "intend" for us to eat french fries or load our bodies up with fat, and in a way it is sinful, we are polluting our bodies. That does not mean that it becomes idolatry. I'm sorry, but you have really twisted scripture to make that point fit.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

chris777 · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
God does not "intend" for us to eat french fries or load our bodies up with fat, and in a way it is sinful, we are polluting our bodies. That does not mean that it becomes idolatry. I'm sorry, but you have really twisted scripture to make that point fit.

If it were not such a tragedy I would find this hilarious

intricatic · Feb 22, 2007

davedjy said:
It calls it "ritual impurity" be the clear definition of abomination in the passage. Why do I have to keep repeating my statements to you, and going in circles?

"Abomination" (TO'EBAH) is a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean, such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It's not about a moral or ethical issue. This Holiness Code (chapters 17-26) proscribes men "lying the lyings of women." Such mixing of sex roles was thought to be polluting. But both Jesus and Paul rejected all such ritual distinctions (cf. Mark 7:17-23; Romans 14:14,20). The Fundamentalist Journal admits that this Code condemns "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleaness" and concludes: "We are not bound by these commands today."

Who are the scholars and theologians who by majority promote this view again? I'd still like to read their materials to find out exactly where they miss the point.

Markec · Feb 22, 2007

Well. I came across some proofs that 1st century christians strictly forbid homosexuality. And those passages leave NO place for debate or interpretation. They are really really clear.

Check this topic about it (read the quote):
http://www.christianforums.com/t4864902-canon-new-testament-apocrypha.html

davedjy · Feb 22, 2007

chris777 said:
If it were not such a tragedy I would find this hilarious

You pick and choose what you begin to follow. Jesus condoned slavery, so should you, because you only take historical things into count when you want to.

intricatic said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

It has EVERYTHING to do with what you are talking about. Sin is contrary to God, so even if it was a sin, it doesn't become idolatry. Point taken, end of =\

chris777 · Feb 22, 2007

intricatic said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Isa 6:
9] And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
[10] Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Homosexuality

...a dinosaur... or something...

Well-Known Member

...a dinosaur... or something...

Veteran

Senior Veteran

...a dinosaur... or something...

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

...a dinosaur... or something...

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

...a dinosaur... or something...

Senior Veteran

...a dinosaur... or something...

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency