Homosexuality

[IamAdopted]

I've never understood why supposedly "Bible-believing" Christians insist on perpetuating this anti-Scriptural bit of teaching. The "sin of Sodom" for which it was destroyed is identified clearly in the Bible (Ezekiel 16:49, among other places) and it is not homosexuality.

Further, the Family Research Council stands convicted of bearing false witness against its fellow man in any number of issues -- see about half the "gay threads" on CF for examples. I would take their word on something to about the extent I'd believe something Osama bin Laden said.

Lets look a little further at the scripture you pointed out.. Okay..

[

49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
/QUOTE] Lets look at this with this...

22'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I would assume with the same authority as the apostles spoke with after the resurrection.

But tell me, where does it say the time of the prophets ended? Was Christ the final arbiter of God's authority on Earth?

Are any of the other Apostles quoted as making up new sins after the resurection? Is Paul an apostle?

Why are Paul's writings considered SO weighty? Isn't it just an accident of history that Paul's works are reproduced where they are, more because they were in line with the political machinations of the Early Christian Bible editors, rather than any inherent, fundamental "Deep Truth"? I mean, why are Paul's letters accorded more weight than anything in the apocrypha?

 

[intricatic]

really? well, despite asking about a zillion times, I am yet to have anyone explain to me how anyone knows which laws can be considered cultural and which ones can be considered moral. It really does rather sound like an exercise in excusing the practice of picking and choosing the bits of Leviticus one wishes to obey. For me, I'll take the "all or none" approach... we either enforce Levitical law without exception
(laws written to pertain to a bronze age, semi-nomadic desert culture) OR accept that Levitical law is not relevant across the board in an urbanised Western society, and discard the lot.

Actually, as Christ demonstrates in shining example time and time again in the Gospels, the Law wasn't meant to be a legal code in the sense that American civil Law is; it's a set of documents that have thousands of minute implications on the entire body of scripture, besides that, the Law is meant to teach us something more important than "How to be a good person", or "How to avoid being punished". It was given to teach us how to relate to one another, and how to relate to God. Or, to put it another way, it was to teach us what love is.

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22)

That doesn't mean love as we think we know it is the meaning of the Law, so the Law can be thrown out. It means the Law was to correct and embody the ideal of what love was meant to be, both in a social context, and in a religious context. Or, as this Paul dude sums up;

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
(Galatians 3)

You seem really hung up on the "marital" aspect of this... look at Adam and Eve... were THEY married in any clearly defined sense of the word, other thgan being partners to each other? So what is different between the relationship between Adam and Eve and any monogomous homosexual couple?

Clearly defined? I presume you mean in the sense of social law. No, they weren't, but marriage isn't about social law. It's a model of something far larger than two people, but two people in a loving marriage embody the entirety of what marriage is supposed to be.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Lets look a little further at the scripture you pointed out.. Okay..

[

49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. 50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
/QUOTE] Lets look at this with this...
Quote:
22'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

4 footed birds are abominations too... how do you know, from the verses you quote, that Soddom wasn't destroyed because it wasd the nesting ground of the rare and ellusive 4 footed whooping duck?

 

[intricatic]

Are any of the other Apostles quoted as making up new sins after the resurection? Is Paul an apostle?

Why are Paul's writings considered SO weighty? Isn't it just an accident of history that Paul's works are reproduced where they are, more because they were in line with the political machinations of the Early Christian Bible editors, rather than any inherent, fundamental "Deep Truth"? I mean, why are Paul's letters accorded more weight than anything in the apocrypha?

What laws did Paul make up?

Was Paul not chosen by Christ and accepted by the early Church?

Political machinations? What political machinations are you referring to?

Deep Truth?

The Apocrypha is an entirely different story. I could go on for hours on that topic, but I think it'd be a bit of a divergence from the topic at hand.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

but two people in a loving marriage embody the entirety of what marriage is supposed to be.

and its crux time again... why do you think that two people of the same gender cannot embody the entirety of what marriage is supposed to be?

 

[intricatic]

Lets look a little further at the scripture you pointed out.. Okay..4 footed birds are abominations too... how do you know, from the verses you quote, that Soddom wasn't destroyed because it wasd the nesting ground of the rare and ellusive 4 footed whooping duck?

It was. The 4-footed whooping duck was an abomination that Satan himself spawned. Evil duck.

 

[Myriah]

Not really. I'm not saying Paul doesn't have value in his writings, I just think they are over emphasised in theology, usually by people looking for loopholes.Sorry you consider it slander, that is NOT my intent. However, I see nothing anywhere that leads us to believe that Paul considered his writings inerent or "God Breathed". Yes, I KNOW that he says "all scriptre is good for teaching" in Timothy, I just qyestion the idea that Paul ever considered his own works as part of scripture?

Well you should consider learning about Paul's writings to expand your understanding.

Is not learning important to you?

And of course Paul considered his writings scripture, why else would there be a few sentences where Paul says this comes from me, not the Lord. The logical conclusion is then all the rest of the scripture comes from the Lord.

And Paul was a great peacemaker, by the way, if you have indeed read all the epistles penned by Paul? So, I'd say you had an intention to slander the writings penned by Paul.

And to CelticFlower, I didn't find what EnemyPartyII said funny at all, as it is not truth. Paul was a wonderful peacemaker, as is the Holy Spirit. Yet the flesh wages war with the Spirit, doesn't it?

 

[intricatic]

and its crux time again... why do you think that two people of the same gender cannot embody the entirety of what marriage is supposed to be?

Back to Genesis.

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.”
(Genesis 2)

Doesn't work with the antitype of creation. That's what all of this "fornication" and "adultery" hubbub is about in the Bible - those things God uses symbolically to refer to Israel's abandonment of God's covenant, as well as the things which are equally prohibited under the OT Law. They all refer right back to that passage in Genesis 2.

 

[IamAdopted]

Um, wrong. But hey, feel free to try to prove me mistaken.

Well his own, obviously. How could he possibly be writing with God's authority AFTER the time of prophets and AFTER the time of Christ's incarnation?

Especially since he actually states that the opinions are expressed are his own.

Only once did he say that and it had nothing to do with what you are speaking of now.. It had to do with celebacy.. Lets look more into scripture. Leviticus

22'(You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

A side note.. God is not a man that He should change so if it was an abomination then it still is today.. For His word is eternal...

49"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.
50"Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me Therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Lets see what more scripture has to say.

7For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit. 9Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What laws did Paul make up?

The injunction against homosexuality, for one...

Was Paul not chosen by Christ and accepted by the early Church?

why is Paul's acceptance by Christ grant him any greater standing than yours or mine? I was accepted by the church when I was baptised, werent you? does this give us reason to expect our writings should be given the weight of Holy Scripture?

Political machinations? What political machinations are you referring to?

All the early Church stuff about who was in, who was out, which books to include, all that stuff, I KNOW you know what I mean...

Deep Truth?

When Jesus says it, its Deep Truth. When a human says it, it is, at best, an interpretation of their understanding of Christ's truth.

The Apocrypha is an entirely different story. I could go on for hours on that topic, but I think it'd be a bit of a divergence from the topic at hand.

Yes, lets try to keep it on topic... hiowever suffice to say... the only difference between the apocrypha and the New Testament is where they are published. Jesus certainly never said which Gospels were to be considered the "correct" ones...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A side note.. God is not a man that He should change so if it was an abomination then it still is today.. For His word is eternal...

Do you shave? mind women wearing pants? Eat shellfish?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And of course Paul considered his writings scripture, why else would there be a few sentences where Paul says this comes from me, not the Lord. The logical conclusion is then all the rest of the scripture comes from the Lord.

Well my logical understanding was that Paul was saying NONE of it carries the weight of Scripture...

And Paul was a great peacemaker, by the way, if you have indeed read all the epistles penned by Paul? So, I'd say you had an intention to slander the writings penned by Paul.

any intention to slander on my behalf is only diorected against those who wish to use the writings of Paul as a liscence to practuice their own biases and phobias, dressed up as piety

 

[IamAdopted]

Lets look a little further at the scripture you pointed out.. Okay..4 footed birds are abominations too... how do you know, from the verses you quote, that Soddom wasn't destroyed because it wasd the nesting ground of the rare and ellusive 4 footed whooping duck?

Because of the account of them in Genesis.. This shows the abomination God is speaking of..It doesn't say anywhere about four footed ducks.. or what ever you called them..

 

[IamAdopted]

The injunction against homosexuality, for one...
why is Paul's acceptance by Christ grant him any greater standing than yours or mine? I was accepted by the church when I was baptised, werent you? does this give us reason to expect our writings should be given the weight of Holy Scripture?All the early Church stuff about who was in, who was out, which books to include, all that stuff, I KNOW you know what I mean...When Jesus says it, its Deep Truth. When a human says it, it is, at best, an interpretation of their understanding of Christ's truth.Yes, lets try to keep it on topic... hiowever suffice to say... the only difference between the apocrypha and the New Testament is where they are published. Jesus certainly never said which Gospels were to be considered the "correct" ones...

Accpeted by what church? When I believed and accepted Christ God added me to the Church the bride. Then I was water baptized to show what had already happened inward for this was an outward expression of what Christ did when I was baptized into His Spirit..

 

[intricatic]

The injunction against homosexuality, for one...

I've seen some passages in the OT that explicitly referred to homosexuality, as well. I think this argument is on the verge of becoming circular.

why is Paul's acceptance by Christ grant him any greater standing than yours or mine? I was accepted by the church when I was baptised, werent you? does this give us reason to expect our writings should be given the weight of Holy Scripture?

It's not just Christ's acceptance, it's that Paul was chosen to bring the gospel to the Gentile nations. I know you're aware of what I'm talking about here, so I'm not sure why we have to discuss this, or how it's relevant. If I'm missing something, please clue me in here.

All the early Church stuff about who was in, who was out, which books to include, all that stuff, I KNOW you know what I mean...

Of course. Are you saying, though, that those people weren't A) inspired (to some degree, because I know some of the Church after 300AD or so were ridiculous in a lot of ways), and B) under guidance from the Holy Spirit to protect God's Word so we could effectively understand the message therein? When I ask this, I ask only that you read Matthew 23 and consider that these people still held and taught God's word, even if they didn't follow it themselves.

When Jesus says it, its Deep Truth. When a human says it, it is, at best, an interpretation of their understanding of Christ's truth.

Not entirely true. When a person speaks out of influence of the Holy Spirit (although I can sense some animosity towards Paul here, I'll proceed anyhow), it's essentially Christ speaking through them. Take the prophets, for instance. Christ often quotes from them. Does that mean they had "Deep Truth" as well, or was Christ playing some "Really Deep" game when he did that?

Yes, lets try to keep it on topic... hiowever suffice to say... the only difference between the apocrypha and the New Testament is where they are published. Jesus certainly never said which Gospels were to be considered the "correct" ones...

I disagree after reading much of the Apocrypha myself. Much of it is wholly incoherent theologically when weighed against the Old Testament, Gospels, and Epistles. Not to mention the other plethora of issues with the texts.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Because of the account of them in Genesis.. This shows the abomination God is speaking of..

Uh, no it doesn't. Someone may have told you it did, but it doesn't. It DOES say in Ezekiel why Soddom and Gommorah were destroyed... because of "abominations" and because they were poor hosts to visitors. But like I keep trying to tell you, there are LOTS of things called "abomination" in Leviticus, so how do you know which one Soddom bought it for?

 

[Myriah]

Lets look a little further at the scripture you pointed out.. Okay..4 footed birds are abominations too... how do you know, from the verses you quote, that Soddom wasn't destroyed because it wasd the nesting ground of the rare and ellusive 4 footed whooping duck?

The 4-footed "birds" were really insects. If you read that in the context it was written, you will understand that. God said we may eat grasshoppers and locusts. The 4-footed "birds" meant OTHER flying insects we cannot eat (although the ancient writing says birds). You can look this stuff up on the net, ya know.

Simply because the ancients didn't have a word for winged insects that we may not eat, does not mean that one shall not lie with a man as one does with a woman is not understood. Do some research before you speak things from these anti-Christian websites I see propagandized on the internet.

Excuse, I have better things to do than to debate nonsense, especially when one has a computer to do the research themselves.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I've seen some passages in the OT that explicitly referred to homosexuality, as well. I think this argument is on the verge of becoming circular.

I hate circular arguments. However, I STILL don't understand why the Levitical injunction against homosexuaklity still holds, while we seem happy to discard so many other Levitical Laws.

If I'm missing something, please clue me in here.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, i just think Paul is over rated, thats all.

A)inspired B)under guidance

yes, inspired and guided... BUT still human, and therefore, still fallible... I continue to support the argument that God, being perfect, would not dictate an imperfect work. If the Bible were perfect, it would not be possible to misread, misrepresent, misunderstand, or misenterpret it. Yet here we are...

When a person speaks out of influence of the Holy Spirit

See above... I think there is a reason we talk about "inspired" and "guided" by the Holy spirit... rather than "possessed by" or "avatar of"... yes, I believe that ALL writings in the Bible are INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit, but I still maintain that they were subject to influence by the mere weak human vessel element of the conduit between God and us.

I disagree after reading much of the Apocrypha myself. Much of it is wholly incoherent theologically when weighed against the Old Testament, Gospels, and Epistles.

With the best will in the world, there are elements withIN the Bible that many people consider to be theologically incoherent when compared one to another... but thats a different discussion for a different time

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The 4-footed "birds" were really insects. If you read that in the context it was written, you will understand that. God said we may eat grasshoppers and locusts. The 4-footed "birds" meant OTHER flying insects we cannot eat (although the ancient writing says birds). You can look this stuff up on the net, ya know.

4 footed insect makes as much sense as 4 footed duck... either beastie is 2 legs outside the norm...

but yes, I AM aware of all the Confabulatory convulsions people put themselves through to explain away Biblical inacuracies such as the 4 legged birds... it doesn't change my point that ezekial says "Soddom bit the big one for (unspecified)abominations", and that therefore, the abomination in question could have been 4 footed birds, women wearing pants, or an infestation of shellfish just as easily as any homosexuality.

Excuse, I am better things to do than to debate nonsense, especially when one has a computer to do the research themselves.

I love the way they drop off the discussion with crys of "I have better things to do with my time" whenever difficult questions get asked.

Is there any merit in witnessing to people who already agree with you 100%

I mean look at Intricatic, I disagree with virtually every conclusion the guy reaches, but BOY you gotta respect him for trying, not to mention his familiarity with the Bible and the arguments surrounding it.