Homosexuality

[StTherese]

I assume you are straight. Prove what you are saying... heres a fun experiment... go out and CHOOSE to romanticly love a women, see how far you get.

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!

 

[MercuryAndy]

I assume you are straight. Prove what you are saying... heres a fun experiment... go out and CHOOSE to romanticly love a women, see how far you get.

it doesnt work =(

 

[EnemyPartyII]

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!

No, you said "love is a choice", as though we have some sort of control over who we fall in love with. I'm homosexual. I'm telkling you that, as fare as I know, I am ONLY capable of falling in love with women. Now, I want you to try to understand where am coming from. So, the nearest way I can think to show you exactly what I mean, is to ask you if you can go and choose to romanticly love a woman.

Can you?

 

[MercuryAndy]

People cant choose who they love. If people could then they would all choose not to love me. But they cant

 

[IamAdopted]

nonesense.

No not nonesense but truth.. You can either accept it or you can reject it. God has been rejected many times before. God created Adam and Eve in His image.. They were sinless.. Then along came the evil one and told them the lie.. They believed him. They ate and sin was born.. So Since God did not create Adam and Eve in sin He said it is good.. Sin came because of one mans disobedience and from that day on it has gotten worse..

 

[MercuryAndy]

No not nonesense but truth.. You can either accept it or you can reject it. God has been rejected many times before. God created Adam and Eve in His image.. They were sinless.. Then along came the evil one and told them the lie.. They believed him. They ate and sin was born.. So Since God did not create Adam and Eve in sin He said it is good.. Sin came because of one mans disobedience and from that day on it has gotten worse..

Can i ask if you perchance eat pigs?

 

[Mling]

The attraction we feel for someone is just that...an attraction...it does not equal love.

Of course attraction does not equal love. Why in the world would this even need to be stated?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Of course attraction does not equal love. Why in the world would this even need to be stated?

Because StTherese is trying to believe that homosexual love is just misplaced attraction, which could be stopped if we just TRIED to be attracted to the "right" gender

 

[Mling]

Would that imply that a homosexual person is simply incapable of love? If no homosexual feeling can be anything more than "attraction?"

 

[savedandhappy1]

Can i ask if you perchance eat pigs?

Romans 14:13-20
13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

Col 2:16
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

1 Tim 4:3-4
3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

I don't understand why people want to keep bringing up the eating of pork, when trying to discredit Leviticus?

There are plainly scriptures that tell that meats are no longer an issue, where I haven't seen any scriptures that state that about homosexuality.

 

[Nadiine]

I don't understand why people want to keep bringing up the eating of pork, when trying to discredit Leviticus?

There are plainly scriptures that tell that meats are no longer an issue, where I haven't seen any scriptures that state that about homosexuality.

Here's why they bring up pork & other ceremonial laws of the Torah when you use Leviticus - THEY WANT THEIR CAKE & EAT IT TOO.

They EASILY admit that the sexual verses in Leviticus that spell out the different sexual sins: beastility, adultery & incest are SIN, but when you include homosexuality, WE BRING UP PORK & other ceremonial laws as if those cancel that out.
It's cherry picking sexual laws.

The sad thing is, it's in ignorance that they even say this stuff; if theyde take any time to study the law, they'de notice all MORAL LAWS are reiterated into our New Testament, not the ceremonial/sacrificial or civil laws from the Torah.

In fact, the NT doesn't even go into the same detail of unlawful sexual relations that the OT does- we rely on that OT moral law for which sexual sins are sinful in God's eyes.
JESUS never specified them. Only adultery. So I guess according to mercury's claim, all the sexual sins listed in the Torah are OK unless the NT says it's not.
the NT doesn't CANCEL OUT the OT. or the moral laws from it. (namely becuz Moral law came PRIOR to the Torah - Cain murdered & was judged, adam & eve sinned & were judged, same w/ the people in Noah's day at the flood).

 

[MercuryAndy]

I don't understand why people want to keep bringing up the eating of pork, when trying to discredit Leviticus?

There are plainly scriptures that tell that meats are no longer an issue, where I haven't seen any scriptures that state that about homosexuality.

beacuse my little friend. Jesus said that you will not be evil by eating pork. but he did not say that you should. If you are not willing to accept what the old testiment says then why should you rely upon it to convey your ideals.

 

[Nadiine]

beacuse my little friend. Jesus said that you will not be evil by eating pork. but he did not say that you should. If you are not willing to accept what the old testiment says then why should you rely upon it to convey your ideals.

I take "my little friend" as patronizing expression to Savednhappy... aside from that,
DOING evil is sin. Sin separates us from God. & some of those laws carried DEATH penalties with it (ie. adultery & Sabbath & blasphemy & some others) -

The issue is obedience to God. You picked a law that DURING THE TIME OF LAW in the OT, WAS evil for any Jew to eat pork. It was law.
Now pick the law of MURDER & apply it. Becuz the OT law included Murder too. Why do you just pick a ceremonial law that only applied prior to Christ's crucifixion??

Again, you cherry pick laws to try to suit your position - cherry picking doesn't stand up to any legitimate scrutiny, and certainly not to fairminded, rational people who don't have an agenda.

 

[intricatic]

The same word used to describe "abomination" was used for the dietary laws and even the best scholars will admit that it falls under the purity code in that chapter, which we do not follow.

I couldn't help but respond to this. Apologies for the delay, it's been a busy day.

So first off the bat, I'll assume you're still referring to the Leviticus 18 reference of homosexuality as an abomination. The first question I'd ask is whether this (ritual purity) is consistent with all applications of toevah. The answer is unanimously; no.

This leads to the question of how toevah was used throughout the overall works of the Bible, given that linguistic utility of any given word changes over time, we'll stick to the post-exilic prophets, considering that they would be closest in date to when this was written and that will give us a more clear view of how the word was used during this period. See, the issue with toevah is that it is a very powerful word that equated to disgust, or loathsome imagery. In a lot of cases, it refers to idolatry, and one must wonder why that is if all it's pointing towards is ritual purity. Does that mean it's okay now to worship idols so long as you clean yourself off afterwards? Do you think that's what it meant in the OT?

One might even argue that it doesn't have an English equivalent that even remotely does it justice, so before we get into the nitty-gritty, let's see what Strong's has to say (hooray for the chase!)...

08441 8441 tow`ebah to-ay-baw'
or tonebah (to-ay-baw') ; feminine active participle of 8581;
properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an
abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:--
abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
see HEBREW for 08581

Now, we have the definition of the specific word (note the reference - especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol), let's see what word Strong's is referencing here...

08581 8581 ta`ab taw-ab'
a primitive root; to loathe, i.e. (morally) detest:--(make
to be) abhor(-red), (be, commit more, do) abominable(-y), X
utterly.

Hmm... interesting note. Okay! Moving on.

Now, where was I? Ah, yes... post-exilic prophets. I'm sticking to Ezekiel as it's only used once in any of the other prophetic books.

Ezekiel; 43 different occurrences. Hmm... Ezekiel's most notable theme was adultery in regards to Israel; harlotry, idolatry, etc... against the covenant of God. You find the language of marital unfaithfulness and unchastity are generally interchangeable with the concepts of idolatry or lusting after false god(s)(ess)(es). Let's see some examples... (I won't post them all, don't worry! If I recall correctly, I already did a brief outline, so I'll just reiterate some of the key points)

19 ‘ They will throw their silver into the streets,
And their gold will be like refuse;
Their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them
In the day of the wrath of the LORD;
They will not satisfy their souls,
Nor fill their stomachs,
Because it became their stumbling block of iniquity.
20 ‘ As for the beauty of his ornaments,
He set it in majesty;
But they made from it
The images of their abominations—
Their detestable things;
Therefore I have made it
Like refuse to them.
(Ezekiel 7)

No question what this one is referring to...

4 “Therefore speak to them, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Everyone of the house of Israel who sets up his idols in his heart, and puts before him what causes him to stumble into iniquity, and then comes to the prophet, I the LORD will answer him who comes, according to the multitude of his idols, 5 that I may seize the house of Israel by their heart, because they are all estranged from Me by their idols.”’
6 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Repent, turn away from your idols, and turn your faces away from all your abominations. 7 For anyone of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who separates himself from Me and sets up his idols in his heart and puts before him what causes him to stumble into iniquity, then comes to a prophet to inquire of him concerning Me, I the LORD will answer him by Myself. 8 I will set My face against that man and make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of My people. Then you shall know that I am the LORD.
(Ezekiel 14)

Again, no question...

But with this passage, there's another clue to the overall context of what this word is actually referencing...

4 “Therefore speak to them, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Everyone of the house of Israel who sets up his idols in his heart, and puts before him what causes him to stumble into iniquity, and then comes to the prophet, I the LORD will answer him who comes, according to the multitude of his idols,

Veddy interesting... Perhaps it's not the act of idolatry that's abhorrent to God in this passage, but something that idolatry is only an external indication of...

And now on to one of my favorite chapters in Ezekiel. This chapter has multiple occurrences of this word, too, so that's even better!

1 Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: “Your birth and your nativity are from the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. 4 As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. 5 No eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you; but you were thrown out into the open field, when you yourself were loathed on the day you were born.
6 “And when I passed by you and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare.
8 “When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” says the Lord GOD.
(Ezekiel 16)

(Expanded context to clarify the point)

Now, this use is a bit more tricky to pin down from just this passage, so let's look at some other occurrences in this chapter.

20 “Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, 21 that you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire? 22 And in all your abominations and acts of harlotry you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, struggling in your blood.
23 “Then it was so, after all your wickedness—‘Woe, woe to you!’ says the Lord GOD— 24 that you also built for yourself a shrine, and made a high place for yourself in every street. 25 You built your high places at the head of every road, and made your beauty to be abhorred. You offered yourself to everyone who passed by, and multiplied your acts of harlotry. 26 You also committed harlotry with the Egyptians, your very fleshly neighbors, and increased your acts of harlotry to provoke Me to anger.
(Ezekiel 16)

I'm getting confused here. Is he talking about idolatry, or infidelity, prostitution, and lust? I bet the two things are mutually exclusive, just like the use of this word in reference to homosexuality, right? The same as the use of this word to describe child-sacrifices to Molech? I bet if they were just sacrificing children to nobody and nothing it'd be fine. I bet if they were engaging in secular prostitution and infidelity that'd be fine, too.

The context of each passage is what determines the meaning. For this word, you can see there are going to be even more possible applications than what's in this post, but we'll explore a couple more just for fun. Let's look at the books of the Law.

I want to start with Lev. 18.

A huge majority of the occurrences in even the books of the Law of this word, toevah, refer to idolatry or sexual sins. Don't believe me? Check it out. But when it occurs in Lev. 18, specifically regarding homosexuality, we see it smack dab in the center of the sexual ethics that God ordained for Israel. The passage in question in Lev 18;

19 ‘Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity. 20 Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her. 21 And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an
abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
(Leviticus 18)

But let's discuss the surrounding context here. The chapter ends with a proclamation that all of these things are abominations (everything in the chapter);

24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
(Leviticus 18)

What picture is this painting for us? Is it okay to sleep with animals because it's only an abomination in Leviticus, and obviously had nothing to do with a secularized act (not done in worship of an idol)? Is this just ritual purity being discussed in Leviticus 18? Or is this homosexual pronouncement the only one that is exempt from the criteria by which we'd presuppose regarding the rest of this chapter?

I present to you my thesis; ritual purity and moral purity are not always mutually exclusive terms.

We don't practice ritual purity anymore, Christ is more than pure enough for all of us; God's demands for purity were more than met through His life. We don't practice animal sacrifice anymore because Christ took care of that for us, as well. We do still keep moral and sexual purity. We keep moral purity because that is the essence of the Law. Every single aspect of the Law had something to do with it, but ritual purity and the outward adornments of legalism didn't address motivations, or our hearts. We keep sexual purity for about the same reason, but also because it deals directly with type & antitype in relation to God's covenant with us through Christ. In other words, we were made to live a certain way by God in the beginning. There really isn't much else to it.

 

[davedjy]

I couldn't help but respond to this. Apologies for the delay, it's been a busy day.

So first off the bat, I'll assume you're still referring to the Leviticus 18 reference of homosexuality as an abomination. The first question I'd ask is whether this (ritual purity) is consistent with all applications of toevah. The answer is unanimously; no.

This leads to the question of how toevah was used throughout the overall works of the Bible, given that linguistic utility of any given word changes over time, we'll stick to the post-exilic prophets, considering that they would be closest in date to when this was written and that will give us a more clear view of how the word was used during this period. See, the issue with toevah is that it is a very powerful word that equated to disgust, or loathsome imagery. In a lot of cases, it refers to idolatry, and one must wonder why that is if all it's pointing towards is ritual purity. Does that mean it's okay now to worship idols so long as you clean yourself off afterwards? Do you think that's what it meant in the OT?

One might even argue that it doesn't have an English equivalent that even remotely does it justice, so before we get into the nitty-gritty, let's see what Strong's has to say (hooray for the chase!)...

Now, we have the definition of the specific word (note the reference - especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol), let's see what word Strong's is referencing here...

Hmm... interesting note. Okay! Moving on.

Now, where was I? Ah, yes... post-exilic prophets. I'm sticking to Ezekiel as it's only used once in any of the other prophetic books.

Ezekiel; 43 different occurrences. Hmm... Ezekiel's most notable theme was adultery in regards to Israel; harlotry, idolatry, etc... against the covenant of God. You find the language of marital unfaithfulness and unchastity are generally interchangeable with the concepts of idolatry or lusting after false god(s)(ess)(es). Let's see some examples... (I won't post them all, don't worry! If I recall correctly, I already did a brief outline, so I'll just reiterate some of the key points)

No question what this one is referring to...

Again, no question...

But with this passage, there's another clue to the overall context of what this word is actually referencing...

Veddy interesting... Perhaps it's not the act of idolatry that's abhorrent to God in this passage, but something that idolatry is only an external indication of...

And now on to one of my favorite chapters in Ezekiel. This chapter has multiple occurrences of this word, too, so that's even better!

(Expanded context to clarify the point)

Now, this use is a bit more tricky to pin down from just this passage, so let's look at some other occurrences in this chapter.

I'm getting confused here. Is he talking about idolatry, or infidelity, prostitution, and lust? I bet the two things are mutually exclusive, just like the use of this word in reference to homosexuality, right? The same as the use of this word to describe child-sacrifices to Molech? I bet if they were just sacrificing children to nobody and nothing it'd be fine. I bet if they were engaging in secular prostitution and infidelity that'd be fine, too.

The context of each passage is what determines the meaning. For this word, you can see there are going to be even more possible applications than what's in this post, but we'll explore a couple more just for fun. Let's look at the books of the Law.

I want to start with Lev. 18.

A huge majority of the occurrences in even the books of the Law of this word, toevah, refer to idolatry or sexual sins. Don't believe me? Check it out. But when it occurs in Lev. 18, specifically regarding homosexuality, we see it smack dab in the center of the sexual ethics that God ordained for Israel. The passage in question in Lev 18;

But let's discuss the surrounding context here. The chapter ends with a proclamation that all of these things are abominations (everything in the chapter);

What picture is this painting for us? Is it okay to sleep with animals because it's only an abomination in Leviticus, and obviously had nothing to do with a secularized act (not done in worship of an idol)? Is this just ritual purity being discussed in Leviticus 18? Or is this homosexual pronouncement the only one that is exempt from the criteria by which we'd presuppose regarding the rest of this chapter?

I present to you my thesis; ritual purity and moral purity are not always mutually exclusive terms.

We don't practice ritual purity anymore, Christ is more than pure enough for all of us; God's demands for purity were more than met through His life. We don't practice animal sacrifice anymore because Christ took care of that for us, as well. We do still keep moral and sexual purity. We keep moral purity because that is the essence of the Law. Every single aspect of the Law had something to do with it, but ritual purity and the outward adornments of legalism didn't address motivations, or our hearts. We keep sexual purity for about the same reason, but also because it deals directly with type & antitype in relation to God's covenant with us through Christ. In other words, we were made to live a certain way by God in the beginning. There really isn't much else to it.

I'm not gonna respond piece by piece. I showed you that word for abomination has multiple meanings. In Leviticus it is referring to "ritual purity", and the word "Tow'ebah" was used as the dietary verses, too.

To Nadine, the sexual verses are all mixed up, even the sexual menstrual cycle one is thrown in there. They also didn't say "it is ritual impurity" to do incest, it was referred to as a moral violation in that verse, so there goes that theory. IF it was so clear cut, then it would be much easier to condemn by the liberal denominations.

 

[intricatic]

I'm not gonna respond piece by piece. I showed you that word for abomination has multiple meanings. In Leviticus it is referring to "ritual purity", and the word "Tow'ebah" was used as the dietary verses, too.

To Nadine, the sexual verses are all mixed up, even the sexual menstrual cycle one is thrown in there. They also didn't say "it is ritual impurity" to do incest, it was referred to as a moral violation in that verse, so there goes that theory. IF it was so clear cut, then it would be much easier to condemn by the liberal denominations.

It actually is incredibly clear cut. It's only rendered ambiguous by lumping the idea of idolatry into what we consider 'ritual purity' codes, which is dishonest at best.

Look. (Click me ) ----

A huge majority of the occurrences in even the books of the Law of this word, toevah, refer to idolatry or sexual sins. Don't believe me? Check it out. But when it occurs in Lev. 18, specifically regarding homosexuality, we see it smack dab in the center of the sexual ethics that God ordained for Israel. The passage in question in Lev 18;

Explore.

Get back to me when you're done.

 

[Nadiine]

It actually is incredibly clear cut. It's only rendered ambiguous by lumping the idea of idolatry into what we consider 'ritual purity' codes, which is dishonest at best.

Look. (Click me ) ----

Explore.

Get back to me when you're done.

hi there I clicked on your "look" link and the page isn't found.
Interested to read that info if you can find it?

Thanks

 

[angelmom01]

Well, here's the thing...God did not create sin! He created us with free-will to choose His will or not to choose His will. To go against His will is SIN. A result of the FALL of man is ORIGINAL SIN. You should read more about it. This is the reason we have inclinations to sin...as in the case of homosexual tendencies. This "only one for you" stuff is for the birds. The attraction we feel for someone is just that...an attraction...it does not equal love. Love is a choice!

Are you saying that Adam didn't have "an inclination TO SIN" BEFORE he sinned? That cause him TO sin?

Man was created "in the flesh", subject TO the flesh and the lusts of the flesh. But maybe that's for another topic, but since you brought it up in relation to man's "fall" and "original sn" and tied that to one's "choosing" homosexuality, I thought it was relevant to address.

If Adam was CAPABLE of sin, then he was CREATED THAT WAY (BY GOD).

angelmom

 

[ReformedChapin]

Are you saying that Adam didn't have "an inclination TO SIN" BEFORE he sinned? That cause him TO sin?

Man was created "in the flesh", subject TO the flesh and the lusts of the flesh. But maybe that's for another topic, but since you brought it up in relation to man's "fall" and "original sn" and tied that to one's "choosing" homosexuality, I thought it was relevant to address.

If Adam was CAPABLE of sin, then he was CREATED THAT WAY (BY GOD).

angelmom

Yeah...that's for another topic. But using that logic, that still imples that if God created us that way and wants us to stop...we should?

 

[intricatic]

hi there I clicked on your "look" link and the page isn't found.
Interested to read that info if you can find it?

Thanks

Noooooo

Hold on, it'll take me a minute.