How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: sweetkitty

ALL heterosexual acts outside of marriage are sin
All homosexuals acts are sin...period.

Where specifically does the bible call all homosexual acts a sin regardless of context?

And where exactly does the Bible differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable homosexual acts?

I agree with kitty. I have seen absolutely NO evidence whatsover that sex outside of marriage is acceptable to God. Perhaps, I have just overlooked it. Could you please point out the Scriptural justification for such action?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: Imjustanant

Part of the argument for homosexuality is the (debated) lack of condemnation by Jesus or anyone else in the NT. Using that SAME argument, I find beastiality to be a valid human response, not condemned in the NT. Why am I wrong on that point?

You have misunderstood the argument. The argument is that, in the absence of a specific condemnation, you must reason the things we do know. You can't just say "there's nothing wrong here, nyaaah". You have to find an argument that supports or refutes a position. I think this issue is a tricky one, because there are many very different approaches we can take to understanding it.

My position is there is general condemnation for all sex outside of marriage (study the word "fornication," or "porneia" in the Greek), and there is specific condemnation for homosexuality (Jude 7, 1 Cor. 6:9, Rom. 1:26-27).

God established marriage in the beginning (Gen. 2:24). Jesus himself appeals to this passage when he teaches on marriage (Matt. 19:5). Paul tells us how to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2). Paul also taught that same-sex relations are "against nature" and "shameful" (Rom. 1:26-27). Why should I disregard what these passages teach for something else that is NOT there? Start at the beginning of your Bible. I would like to know that first place that you come to that suggests that homosexuality is acceptable to God? Where is it? I am going to be so bold as to suggest that there is NO such place. Rather than accept what God said, Jesus taught, and what the apostles taught about marriage, you would have us accept something else with no Sciptural evidence? Thanks . . . but NO thanks.

 

[PastorFreud]

I've been told it is a native type of wood to that area and I've been told that it can be any kind of wood that has a specific "treatment" (for lack of a better term) done to it. Either way, a command was given to either use a specific wood or use wood specifically treated a certain way.

The point of the matter is Noah was given this command. If he failed it, he would have failed the command. The same is being said for marriage. A command was given, "for this reason a husband shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife." If he's left his parents and is "cleaving" to something other than a "wife", he has failed the command. At this point, the pro-gay Christian says, but it is silent on that area, and I say, so is the NT on beastiality. I know, gross. But isn't it gross if a gay male has anal sex with another male? Isn't there something inherently wrong with that? What do you do when "love" has been reduced to such a fecal level.

I mean no disrespect.

If you are going to use gopherwood as an analogy, even though it is apples to oranges, you need to establish a little more regarding the command given Noah. First of all, the story of Noah is most likely a myth that was rewritten to communicate the nature and character of God. The instructions for building the ark are very detailed and communicate God's guidance and helpfulness in saving the animals and Noah. In competing flood myths, the humans survive DESPITE the gods. You suppose that if Noah had used a different wood then the world would not have been saved, but this is not verifiable. In fact, though God commands the perfect and spotless lamb be sacrificed, there were provisions made later for redeeming this animal under certain circumstances. If Noah did not have enough wood, could he have used a different material? Wouldn't God have directed him to an equally suitable substitute?

But there is no such thing as gopherwood. There may be a play on words happening there, or a literary error. In the Genesis story, there is a definite play on words with "Adam" being formed from the "Adamah." It just doesn't make sense to create "principles" from the details of myths. To see the absurdity in this approach, try making other applications from flood story. Should we get drunk in response to our salvation? Noah is never condemned for this.

I looked on christian answers.net for more information about gopher wood. Apparently, it is mentioned in the Bible only once and KJV translators had no idea what it was. So they left the word untranslated and just put "gopher." The bottom line in this conservative Christian analysis is that we just don't know if was a type of wood now extinct, a process, or what. So following the analogy given here, God gave Noah a specific command and it was essential that he do precisely what was told, yet there is no way to know what it was. We could not hope to apply this to today at all. So regarding marriage, we are told to "leave and cleave", yet there is no way to know exactly what is meant as God's ideal plan. Hebrew marriage was arranged and women were property. Is this the ideal for marriage? Polygamy was acceptable. Is this the ideal? Levirite marriage was practiced and even Jesus does not condemn the practice. We most certainly would condemn this today as immoral. Is American marriage the ideal?

It seems your analogy fits better than I thought.

 

[seebs]

I do not understand how you differentiate between Lev. 18:22 and verse 23. Nor do I understand how you differentiate between Lev. 20:13 and verses 15-16. Weren't both activities forbidden and worthy of death?

You know, if you're going to start with straw men, I don't see any point in this. Do you want to ask me what I think, or do you want to tell me what you think I think?

Look at 1 Cor. 6:18a & 7:2. The Corinthians were commanded to flee "fornication." To avoid it, they were to "have" their own spouse. That is a command. It is not a suggestion or wishful thinking - - it is a command! Why do you feel that you and others do not need to obey this command?

It sounded to me like advice; keep in mind that Paul recommends it as a fallback position for people who will otherwise burn with lust, but prefers celibacy.

 

[moogirl]

The sad thing I see in this thread are the posts from both sides of the fence (not naming any names) dripping with hostility and a "know-it-all" attitude, and in the same breath saying, LOVE!!!

love can do without the veiled insults and derogatory labels just because you don't agree with someone's understanding of the scriptures.

 

[Rocinante]

It appears that a few may not be totally satisfied, but everyone has had their say and some readers may have learned some new things.

DRA is still asking how we tell the difference between good and bad homosexual relationships even though many examples have been given.

I suggest that he simply judge by the Law of Love that Jesus gave. If you have specific examples that confuse you, DRA.....just ask.

Though DRA cannot seem to effectively counter the fact that Ezekiel 16 identifies the sin of Sodom as fat living and neglect and exploitation of the poor (a mirror of contemporary America) he does make a rather hopeless appeal to Jude 1:7......but that verse only repeats what has already been said about Sodom.....homosexual rape was attempted.

So here is what we have thus far:

We have covered all Biblical references to Homosexuality.

Undoubtedly, some people will be surprised that there are so few.

More surprising is that they only clearly and consistently condemn promiscuous offending homosexuals......fornicators, as it were.

The list reads thus:

1. Gen. 19:45 (Found to be a legend about homosexual rape and retold in another version of the legend in Judges 19--with the setting changed to the city of Gibeah.)

2. Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (Found to be unclear, but quite probably about Male Temple Prostitutes and tempered somewhat by the fact that we ignore similar archaic commandments about making menstuating women sleep outside.) Obviously Leviticus is not taken seriously by anyone of this age (except wishful homophobes).

3. Deut. 23:17-18 (Male Temple Prostitutes again. Note use of "Dog" which has caused misunderstanding of Rev 22:15 to mean homosexuals excluded from Kingdom.)

4. Judges 19:22 (Variation of the Sodom folklore--setting changed to Gibeah--again, homosexual rape.)

5. I Kings 14:24 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

6. I Kings 15:12 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

7. I Kings 22:46 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

8. II Kings 23:7 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

This concludes the OT evidence.

The New Testament has very little to say.....(absolutely nothing from Jesus).

9. Rom. 1:18-32 (Found to be about idolatry that ended in sexual promiscuity, orgy and sin of every imaginable kind, including homosexual promiscuity.)

10. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 (Found to be a reference to "offending homosexuals," as correctly rendered by the NIV Bible......again....promiscuity, prostitution and, in particular, the Greek practice of pederasty are indicated.)

11. 1 Tim. 1:10 (Similar to 1 Cor. 6:9-11, and also condemning the promiscuous and again, pederasts.)

12. Rev. 22:15 (Found to be speaking generally of people who rejected God........NOT a reference to homosexuals at all.)

So ends the list.......

One dozen total. None of which issue a blanket condemnation of homosexuals.

One would, of course, be remiss if one failed to make note of the highly significant Ezekiel 16 reference to Sodom.....

Ezekiel 16:49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

And as noted before, the Jude 1:7 reference to Sodom does nothing but repeat the charge of fornication and homosexual rape......which has nothing to do with faithful and monogamous homosexual couples waiting for the blessing of marriage and raising happy, healthy children.

A study very well done and with a minimum of rancor.

Thanks to all.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Roz sez:

I have worked with Fundamentalists for many, many years......I have been one. You do not seem to understand them intimately.

I think you need to study up on Fundamentalism if you think they are not offended by the name. They are. But their defense is to say, "I am not a Fundamentalist, I am an Evangelical."

Accuracy demands that they be correctly identified. They ARE a specific sub-culture of Christianity, and a high-profile one.

In the interest of staying on topic, I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss this in depth.

Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are two distinct if related groups. There is overlap, but one can Evangelical without subscribing to the historical Fundamentalist movement. Such a person would be justified in taking offense if someone insisting on labeling them as a Fundamentalist because they are not one. Parts of the historical Fundamentalist movement may wish to distance themselves due to recent changes in common usage of the term, and we should respect whatever new label they choose for themselves (within reason; I don't respect the desire of any sect to claim Christian to refer exclusively for themselves).

 

[Rocinante]

Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are two distinct if related groups. There is overlap, but one can Evangelical without subscribing to the historical Fundamentalist movement.

Roz sez:

There's not just "overlap" there's A LOT of overlap. Which is why the term FundaGelical is needed to deal with some basically dishonest motives.

In the 1970s, Jerry Falwell (spinning off from Nixon's "Silent Majority" concept) founded what he called the "Moral Majority." This was the beginning of the pervasive religious bigotry that we see today. I lived through this era as an adult and remember it well......some of you did not and have no real understanding of the evil of Nixon and Falwell.

These early religious bigots were soon joined by others trying to make a few bucks off hate. Charles Colson (another Nixon associate) James Dobson, James Kennedy, Gary Bauer, and others like Pat Robertson soon joined in to vy for the dollars to be made by pandering to extremists who had a need to force their hateful and extreme Religio-Political views on others.

By the mid-1980s, the term Fundamentalist had become so sullied and stained by the Radical Religious Right that most of them were moving away from it and calling themselves Evangelicals. Falwell gave up on the Moral Majority effort in 1989 after ten years of ugly cultural and class warfare against the poor. Today it is only the hard core radical right who (sometimes proudly) call themselves Fundamentalists.

So the word "Evangelical" became a safe haven.......allowing Religious Right radicals to label themselves with a respectable term without the negative connotations that THEY THEMSELVES had brought to the perfectly good (at least, originally) term, Fundamentalist.

Let's face it, an Evangelical has GOOD NEWS--for religious bigots to pre-empt the term is both inaccurate and dishonest.

Now, the word "FundaGelical" can be used to identify the Religous Right Fundamentalists who have fled the movement in name only, while also including new Radical Right "Pseudo-Evangelicals" who subscribe to the Religio-Political oppression and bigotry of the old 1970s movement.

They are a large group with an aggressive and easily identifiable political agenda and they have a powerful influence for evil in our culture.

They work against traditional Biblical principles of justice, mercy and compassion, instead favoring exploitation, persecution and discrimination against marginalized groups for personal gain.

Ironically, they work AGAINST "Fundamental" Christian principles.

They overwhelmingly support and vote for political parties that stop equal health insurance for all children, stop Affirmative Action programs to help alliens and other people of color, and exploit the poor on a global scale (including wars of aggression for profit as is now being done in the war against Iraq).

As I said before, while this discussion has a relationship with the primary discussion on this thread, it really should be discussed on a separate thread and I'm willing to do so if that is what you want.

This thread really should stay closer to original topic.

 

[leecappella]

Lee,

It's good to see that you also moved over from the creation thread.

God, through Paul, is implying that males are attracted to females. That is why when men who burn in their lust for other men are "leaving the natural use of the woman" (NKJV - Rom. 1:27). God has provided a way for sexual release for the man - - he should have his own wife (1 Cor. 7:2). The man that cannot control his passion needs to marry a wife (1 Cor. 7:9).

I am analyzing your reasoning about the sex acts that are being condemned - - whether or not they are only those involved with idolatry. That is your reasoning, correct? I think it is. If so, then does the complete list of sins from Rom. 1:26-31 also just apply when they are involved with idolatry. For instance, would regular ole "wickedness" (vs. 29) be okay, but wicked associated with idolatry not be okay? And, then there is "covetousness" (also in verse 29), with the same question attached? Now, jump down to verse 30. How about "haters of God?" Are regular ole everyday haters okay, but only those who hate God and are associated with idolatry condemned? As you might imagine, I see some flaws in your reasoning.

. . . Denny

This may be something you are applying to me that I have not applied to myself. Use common sense. Jesus did when it came down to the law and what the law said could and could not be done (ie. the disciples picking corn from the field due to hunger). Have you looked into natural eunuchs yet?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Lee,

It's good to see that you also moved over from the creation thread.

God, through Paul, is implying that males are attracted to females. That is why when men who burn in their lust for other men are "leaving the natural use of the woman" (NKJV - Rom. 1:27). God has provided a way for sexual release for the man - - he should have his own wife (1 Cor. 7:2). The man that cannot control his passion needs to marry a wife (1 Cor. 7:9).

I am analyzing your reasoning about the sex acts that are being condemned - - whether or not they are only those involved with idolatry. That is your reasoning, correct? I think it is. If so, then does the complete list of sins from Rom. 1:26-31 also just apply when they are involved with idolatry. For instance, would regular ole "wickedness" (vs. 29) be okay, but wicked associated with idolatry not be okay? And, then there is "covetousness" (also in verse 29), with the same question attached? Now, jump down to verse 30. How about "haters of God?" Are regular ole everyday haters okay, but only those who hate God and are associated with idolatry condemned? As you might imagine, I see some flaws in your reasoning.

. . . Denny

This may be something you are applying to me that I have not applied to myself. Use common sense. Jesus did when it came down to the law and what the law said could and could not be done (ie. the disciples picking corn from the field due to hunger). Have you looked into natural eunuchs yet?

I am using common sense. I am following your reasoning through and I have questions about it. You did NOT address those questions. That is okay. But it seems you still cling to your reasoning even though it is obviously flawed (Matt. 22:29).

The incident that you allude to about Jesus' disciples plucking the grain is found in Matt. 12. The Pharisees charged them with violating the Sabbath day. They did NOT do that (Jesus calls them the "guiltless" in vs. 7). Jesus uses the examples of David and the priests serving on the Sabbath to show the Pharisees their hyposcrisy and misunderstanding of what could be done on the Sabbath. I fail to see the connection between this discussion in Matt. 12 and homosexuality.

If there is something that you would like for me to consider about the "natural eunuchs" Matt. 19:12 that you think I don't understand - - that will help me understand homosexuality better - - then share it with me. Frankly, I don't see any connections between eunuchs and what they could NOT do, and what homosexuals do.

 

[- DRA -]

If you are going to use gopherwood as an analogy, even though it is apples to oranges, you need to establish a little more regarding the command given Noah. First of all, the story of Noah is most likely a myth that was rewritten to communicate the nature and character of God. The instructions for building the ark are very detailed and communicate God's guidance and helpfulness in saving the animals and Noah. In competing flood myths, the humans survive DESPITE the gods. You suppose that if Noah had used a different wood then the world would not have been saved, but this is not verifiable. In fact, though God commands the perfect and spotless lamb be sacrificed, there were provisions made later for redeeming this animal under certain circumstances. If Noah did not have enough wood, could he have used a different material? Wouldn't God have directed him to an equally suitable substitute?

But there is no such thing as gopherwood. There may be a play on words happening there, or a literary error. In the Genesis story, there is a definite play on words with "Adam" being formed from the "Adamah." It just doesn't make sense to create "principles" from the details of myths. To see the absurdity in this approach, try making other applications from flood story. Should we get drunk in response to our salvation? Noah is never condemned for this.

I looked on christian answers.net for more information about gopher wood. Apparently, it is mentioned in the Bible only once and KJV translators had no idea what it was. So they left the word untranslated and just put "gopher." The bottom line in this conservative Christian analysis is that we just don't know if was a type of wood now extinct, a process, or what. So following the analogy given here, God gave Noah a specific command and it was essential that he do precisely what was told, yet there is no way to know what it was. We could not hope to apply this to today at all. So regarding marriage, we are told to "leave and cleave", yet there is no way to know exactly what is meant as God's ideal plan. Hebrew marriage was arranged and women were property. Is this the ideal for marriage? Polygamy was acceptable. Is this the ideal? Levirite marriage was practiced and even Jesus does not condemn the practice. We most certainly would condemn this today as immoral. Is American marriage the ideal?

It seems your analogy fits better than I thought.

Obviously, there is quite a bit of difference in the way we view and treat Scipture. You seem perfectly happy and content to cast doubt on whether or not the flood was real. I, on the other hand, am perfectly happy to accept the recording of the story as an event that really happened. Jesus refers to the flood as a real event - - as real as His return (Matt. 24:37-38).
Peter refers to the flood as a real event (2 Pet. 3:6). He wants us to believe that it is as real as Jesus return in judgement (see context of 2 Pet. 3). The writer of the book of Hebrews even thought the story of Noah and the flood was real. We should be encouraged by Noah's faith in God that prompted him to obey God and led to the salvation of his family (Heb. 11:7). And, Peter also taught about the flood as it relates to our salvation under the gospel of Christ today (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Therefore, if the flood was really a myth, then why didn't Jesus and the apostles know it? And, if the flood was a myth, then our salvation today is likened unto a myth (2 Pet. 3:20-21). Is salvation also a myth in your mind?

Whether or not be have a clue what gopherwood was over 4,000 years ago is irrelevant. The facts are simple: God told Noah to use it, and he did (Gen. 6:22). Noah knew what it was.

When Jesus taught on marriage (Matt. 19:3-12), he took us all the way back to the beginning of man's history - - to the coming together of the first man and the first woman. Every single reference I find to marriage since the creation story is always referring to the union of a man and woman. Can you find any Scriptural evidence that suggests that this is not true?

I have seen no evidence that anyone is promoting American marriages as being what God has in mind. The Scriptures tell us what God has in mind. We find from the Scriptures that we should take marriage seriously (Matt. 19:3-12). We find from the Scriptures how a wife and husband should treat each other in marriage (Eph. 5:22-33). And, we also find from the Scriptures how sexual desires are to be controlled (1 Cor. 7:2). Where is the passage that says God accepts homosexual relations?

 

[- DRA -]

It appears that a few may not be totally satisfied, but everyone has had their say and some readers may have learned some new things.

DRA is still asking how we tell the difference between good and bad homosexual relationships even though many examples have been given.

You observation is only partially correct. I am indeed still asking for your Scriptural reasoning how you determine the difference between good and bad homosexual relationships. I reviewed all your posts and the posts of others up to the present time, and have found only the criteria you use to suggest that there is a difference, but have found no Scriptural evidence to support it. Without authority for it (Col. 3:17), your reasoning is just simply . . . YOUR reasoning!

I suggest that he simply judge by the Law of Love that Jesus gave. If you have specific examples that confuse you, DRA.....just ask.

Okay, that is a good idea. Let's judge sexual activity outside of marriage. How about the example in 1 Cor. 5? Apply the love that Jesus gave to this incident. What would your advice be to the man that "had" his father's wife? I know what God view of this situation is (it is expained in that chapter), but I would like to hear your side of the story. How would you apply Jesus' love to this incident?

Let's continue a few chapters further into the same book. In Cor. 6:9, various types of illicit sexual activity are mentioned. I read that those activities are characteristic of the "unrighteous." I also read that something prompted the Corinthians to put those things behind them and make them a thing of the past - - "such WERE some of you" (verse 11). I find what caused the Corinthians to turn their lives around in verse 11, but would like to hear your side of the story. I believe your version is that "you can have your cake, and eat it too." What makes you think sex outside of marriage is permissible - - whether it be hetero or homosexual? Does the love of Jesus, as you understand it, allow sin to continue?

Though DRA cannot seem to effectively counter the fact that Ezekiel 16 identifies the sin of Sodom as fat living and neglect and exploitation of the poor (a mirror of contemporary America) he does make a rather hopeless appeal to Jude 1:7......but that verse only repeats what has already been said about Sodom.....homosexual rape was attempted.

I am not trying to counter Ezekial 16. I am trying to help you understand that Ezekial 16 is not the only Scripture that describes the men of Sodom. You are only accepting what you want to hear about the men of Sodom. Jude 7 offers a different perspective. It does not negate what Ezekial 16 says, and Ezekial 16 does not negate what Jude 7 says. Both Scriptures are true and must be accepted as being true to allow a complete and thorough understanding of what the nature of the sins were in Sodom.

The passage in Jude says two things about those of Sodom:
1.) they gave themselves over to fornication or sexual immorality (porneia)
and
2.) went after "strange flesh"
This passage tells us that they not only were guilty of fornication, but that they "gave themselves over to it." This mindset allowed them to desire it so much they were willing to rape to obtain it. The passage also points out that they went after strange flesh. It is clear in the account in Gen. 19 what the men of Sodom desired - - other men. Romans 1:26-27 refers to this type of desire or passion as "against nature" and "shameful."

Both Jude 7 and Ezekial 16 must be combined to give a complete picture of the nature of the men of Sodom. Consider a New Testament example of this same principle. Glean over Matthew chapter 2. It describes Jesus as being born in Bethlehem, called out of Egypt, and also called a Nazarene. Which is true? Obviously, all three aspects are true. Likewise, Ezekial 16 is NOT the only commentary on the men of Sodom. It may be the only one that you like or will accept, but it is NOT the only commentary describing the mindset of the men of Sodom.

So here is what we have thus far:

We have covered all Biblical references to Homosexuality.

Undoubtedly, some people will be surprised that there are so few.

More surprising is that they only clearly and consistently condemn promiscuous offending homosexuals......fornicators, as it were.

The list reads thus:

1. Gen. 19:45 (Found to be a legend about homosexual rape and retold in another version of the legend in Judges 19--with the setting changed to the city of Gibeah.)

2. Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 (Found to be unclear, but quite probably about Male Temple Prostitutes and tempered somewhat by the fact that we ignore similar archaic commandments about making menstuating women sleep outside.) Obviously Leviticus is not taken seriously by anyone of this age (except wishful homophobes).

3. Deut. 23:17-18 (Male Temple Prostitutes again. Note use of "Dog" which has caused misunderstanding of Rev 22:15 to mean homosexuals excluded from Kingdom.)

4. Judges 19:22 (Variation of the Sodom folklore--setting changed to Gibeah--again, homosexual rape.)

5. I Kings 14:24 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

6. I Kings 15:12 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

7. I Kings 22:46 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

8. II Kings 23:7 (Male Temple Prostitutes.)

This concludes the OT evidence.

The New Testament has very little to say.....(absolutely nothing from Jesus).

9. Rom. 1:18-32 (Found to be about idolatry that ended in sexual promiscuity, orgy and sin of every imaginable kind, including homosexual promiscuity.)

10. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 (Found to be a reference to "offending homosexuals," as correctly rendered by the NIV Bible......again....promiscuity, prostitution and, in particular, the Greek practice of pederasty are indicated.)

11. 1 Tim. 1:10 (Similar to 1 Cor. 6:9-11, and also condemning the promiscuous and again, pederasts.)

12. Rev. 22:15 (Found to be speaking generally of people who rejected God........NOT a reference to homosexuals at all.)

So ends the list.......

One dozen total. None of which issue a blanket condemnation of homosexuals.

One would, of course, be remiss if one failed to make note of the highly significant Ezekiel 16 reference to Sodom.....

Ezekiel 16:49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

And as noted before, the Jude 1:7 reference to Sodom does nothing but repeat the charge of fornication and homosexual rape......which has nothing to do with faithful and monogamous homosexual couples waiting for the blessing of marriage and raising happy, healthy children.

A study very well done and with a minimum of rancor.

Thanks to all.

Roz,

Perhaps, you can show where the following reasoning is amiss:

My position is there is general condemnation for all sex outside of marriage (study the word "fornication," or "porneia" in the Greek), and there is specific condemnation for homosexuality (Jude 7, 1 Cor. 6:9, Rom. 1:26-27).

God established marriage in the beginning (Gen. 2:24). Jesus himself appeals to this passage when he teaches on marriage (Matt. 19:5). Paul tells us how to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2) - - a man has his own wife and a woman her own husband. Paul also taught that same-sex relations are "against nature" and "shameful" (Rom. 1:26-27). Why should I disregard what these passages teach for something else that is NOT there? Start at the beginning of your Bible. I would like to know that first place that you come to that suggests that homosexuality is acceptable to God? Where is it? I am going to be so bold as to suggest that there is NO such place. Rather than accept what God said, Jesus taught, and what the apostles taught about marriage, you would have us accept something else with no Sciptural evidence? Thanks . . . but NO thanks.

Jesus taught about "fornication" and how it defiles a person (Matt. 15:19). How do you define this word? I have previously posted Strong's and Vine's definitions of this word. It is a broad term that encompasses all sexual activity outside of marriage. While it is true that Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality outright, neither did He specifically condemn beastiality. But He DID condemn them both; both are included within the scope of sexual activity outside of marriage - - fornication.

I have already suggested that your initial post was the wrong approach to use to study an issue. You went into the study with several assumptions already in place that you have shown NO Scriptural authority for throughout your numerous posts. You can kick, scream, or call people names or whatever you feel inclined to do you make yourself feel better, but that does not change any of the real facts. Your study ignores God's law for marriage. Your study ignores Jesus' appeal to that law. And your study assumes that sex outside of marriage is acceptable under some circumstances.

 

[leecappella]

DRA: I am analyzing your reasoning about the sex acts that are being condemned - - whether or not they are only those involved with idolatry. That is your reasoning, correct? I think it is. If so, then does the complete list of sins from Rom. 1:26-31 also just apply when they are involved with idolatry. For instance, would regular ole "wickedness" (vs. 29) be okay, but wicked associated with idolatry not be okay? And, then there is "covetousness" (also in verse 29), with the same question attached? Now, jump down to verse 30. How about "haters of God?" Are regular ole everyday haters okay, but only those who hate God and are associated with idolatry condemned? As you might imagine, I see some flaws in your reasoning.

me If this were my reasonings, I would see the flaws as well. I see them, but this is not my reasonings. These are characteristics of idolaters. The people Paul is describing are such persons. Yes, same sex acts were involved in their idolatries. Sames sex acts were known to be a part of idolatrous fertility cults. So was heterosexual acts. Paul seems to think that the people involved were acting contrary to their natural instincts. That may have been the case due to the terminology used, but as I can attest to, not every male or female is naturally inclined towards the opposite sex.

DRA: I am using common sense. I am following your reasoning through and I have questions about it. You did NOT address those questions. That is okay. But it seems you still cling to your reasoning even though it is obviously flawed (Matt. 22:29).

me: I'm sorry, what questions?...I am open to err, but I do know the scriptures and the power of God. It is you who doubts God's abiblity to create homosexually oriented persons. Is your view of His power in such a way that renders His desire to create such persons frivolous. Is it so hard to believe that He did create such persons because you see no evidence of their creation in scripture?

DRA: The incident that you allude to about Jesus' disciples plucking the grain is found in Matt. 12. The Pharisees charged them with violating the Sabbath day. They did NOT do that (Jesus calls them the "guiltless" in vs. 7). Jesus uses the examples of David and the priests serving on the Sabbath to show the Pharisees their hyposcrisy and misunderstanding of what could be done on the Sabbath. I fail to see the connection between this discussion in Matt. 12 and homosexuality.

me: Maybe you assume they did not break a law on the Sabbath because Jesus uses the term 'guiltless', but they are guiltless because of the purpose of the Sabbath and not because they did not break a law. I think they did. Picking grain is like working and no work was to be done on the Sabbath. Jesus' example states that what was done was unlawful, but the point is that adhering to rules over human need is not His way. Human need supersedes rules.


DRA: If there is something that you would like for me to consider about the "natural eunuchs" Matt. 19:12 that you think I don't understand - - that will help me understand homosexuality better - - then share it with me. Frankly, I don't see any connections between eunuchs and what they could NOT do, and what homosexuals do.

me: You had previously said something to the affect that you know about eunuchs, so there is really no telling you anything I know. You will find it in time, God willing.

 

[Outspoken]

leecappella--i would agree with your conclusions about the romans passage if the text was different. The fact is that it isn't. There are only 2 choices here.

1. Homosexuality, murder, malice, etc are correct as long as they are not done in rituals

or

2. Homosexuality, murder, malice, etc are always sin.

 

[leecappella]

leecappella--i would agree with your conclusions about the romans passage if the text was different. The fact is that it isn't. There are only 2 choices here.

1. Homosexuality, murder, malice, etc are correct as long as they are not done in rituals

or

2. Homosexuality, murder, malice, etc are always sin.

I suppose the same could be said for those other things done in association with idolatry, eh? To me, it's not that simple. Heterosexual sex was done in idolatrous contexts, but outside of them, it is fine. Certain meats were offered to idols, but outside of that context, they are fine to eat. This is what I mean by using common sense.

 

[Outspoken]

I suppose the same could be said for those other things done in association with idolatry, eh? To me, it's not that simple. Heterosexual sex was done in idolatrous contexts, but outside of them, it is fine. Certain meats were offered to idols, but outside of that context, they are fine to eat. This is what I mean by using common sense.

Heterosexual sex in the confines of marriage was not mentioned in that passage, thus it cannot be used to justify or condemn it. Homosexuality WAS mentioned in the passage, thus it can be used to show that homosexuality is sin.

"Certain meats were offered to idols, but outside of that context, they are fine to eat."

ONLY because it was SPECIFICALLY addressed. It was not the common sence position, please stop trying to create strawmen.

 

[leecappella]

Heterosexual sex in the confines of marriage was not mentioned in that passage, thus it cannot be used to justify or condemn it. Homosexuality WAS mentioned in the passage, thus it can be used to show that homosexuality is sin.

"Certain meats were offered to idols, but outside of that context, they are fine to eat."

ONLY because it was SPECIFICALLY addressed. It was not the common sence position, please stop trying to create strawmen.

So something has to be SPECIFICALLY addressed in order not to be considered a sin or wrong? Besides, just like heterosexual sex in the confines of marriage was not mentioned in that passage, neither was homosexual sex in the confines of marriage.

 

[- DRA -]

leecappella--i would agree with your conclusions about the romans passage if the text was different. The fact is that it isn't. There are only 2 choices here.

1. Homosexuality, murder, malice, etc are correct as long as they are not done in rituals

or

2. Homosexuality, murder, malice, etc are always sin.

Amen. I agree. There are two choices. Choice #2 looks like the Scriptural one to me. I am still waiting for Scriptural evidence to support choice #1 from those that say that the homosexuality described in Rom. 1:26-27 only related to homosexual acts involving idolatry, and that other acts of homosexuality may be acceptable to God.

 

[- DRA -]

So something has to be SPECIFICALLY addressed in order not to be considered a sin or wrong? Besides, just like heterosexual sex in the confines of marriage was not mentioned in that passage, neither was homosexual sex in the confines of marriage.

Lee,

You seemed to have forgotten something. We can show Scriptural support for the only marriage there is - - between a man and a woman - - Matt. 19:3-9 (in which Jesus quotes Gen. 2:24). Paul also tells us how to avoid fornication - - by having sex with your spouse (1 Cor. 6:18a; 7:2). You, nor anyone else, has shown any Scriptural support - - neither generic or specific - - for a same-sex relationship - - whether in marriage or out of it - - that God approves of!

Have you studied the word "fornication" - - porneia in the Greek? I have posted definitions from Strong's and Vine's for this word. Jesus taught against fornication (Matt. 15:19). It includes ALL sex outside of marriage - - the kind of marriage that God recognizes. Think about it. If you can't trust Jesus the Lord when He speaks about a matter, then who can you trust?

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

I suppose the same could be said for those other things done in association with idolatry, eh? To me, it's not that simple. Heterosexual sex was done in idolatrous contexts, but outside of them, it is fine. Certain meats were offered to idols, but outside of that context, they are fine to eat. This is what I mean by using common sense.

Heterosexual sex is only acceptable to God outside of idolatrous contexts when it is within marriage (1 Cor. 7:2). The Lord tells us that eating of meats in of itself is not wrong. Do we have a similar teaching for homosexuality? If so, point it out? This is where you have to appeal to common sense, because you have NO Scriptural evidence.