How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[Rocinante]

DRA said:

accept what Gen. 19:5 plainly says the men of Sodom desired - - men.

Roz sez:

Again, let's get this clear once and for all......the men of Sodom desired rape.

Violent domination of others.

They were evil and willing to rape whoever showed up, male or female.

There is no indication that they were having sex with each other.

So......DRA, they did not want men, but rape.

You are allowing your prejudice to cloud your understanding of a clear and unambiguous Bible story.

Read it again and see. Also read the "other version" of the legend, the Gibeah story from Judges 19:18-22.

It is clearly another version of the Sodom legend, but less supernaturalized. Here the men raped and killed a woman in place of the man.

What are we to learn from these legends invented by a primitive and violent people?

To hate all homosexuals?

If that is all you can grasp from it .... you have failed in your reading.

 

[leecappella]

DRA said:

Roz sez:

Again, let's get this clear once and for all......the men of Sodom desired rape.

Violent domination of others.

They were evil and willing to rape whoever showed up, male or female.

There is no indication that they were having sex with each other.

So......DRA, they did not want men, but rape.

You are allowing your prejudice to cloud your understanding of a clear and unambiguous Bible story.

Read it again and see. Also read the "other version" of the legend) the Gibeah story from Judges 19:18-22.

It is clearly another version of the Sodom legend, but less supernaturalized. Here the men raped and killed a woman in place of the man.

What are we to learn from these legends invented by a primitive and violent people?

To hate all homosexuals?

If that is all you can grasp from it .... you have failed in your reading.

Excellent post! If I'm not mistaken, in the Gibeah story, it was the 'sons of Belial' who sought to do the harm. This term refers to those who basically have nothing better to do and choose to cause harm and injury on others. I don't believe it refers to literal sons of a particular father. I do believe that the man who lost his concubine testified to the fact that he felt his life was in danger. At any rate, great post, Rocinante!

 

[Outspoken]

Outspoken: No, its not my thought at all. YOu said you use something like common sense, your heart, your feelings, etc...proverbs clearly shows that is wrong.

me: Using these thing with the Holy Spirit's guidance goes without saying.

outspoken: I am not interpreting them at all, simply using the words as shown.

me: So, you believe women are to be silent in the church and ask questions of their husbands at home? Who do single women ask questions of?

"So, you believe women are to be silent in the church and ask questions of their husbands at home?"

*sigh* careful study of the passage in question shows that it does NOT mean for women to shut up and let the men talk. just as with romans 1 I looked to the greek and found that reading a verse by itself is dangerious, as you have done with this passage (1st Cor.) and the passage in romans.

Homosexuality is sin, that's what the bible says. You, or any other poster has yet to offer any scripture that approves homosexuality at all.

 

[leecappella]

"So, you believe women are to be silent in the church and ask questions of their husbands at home?"

*sigh* careful study of the passage in question shows that it does NOT mean for women to shut up and let the men talk. just as with romans 1 I looked to the greek and found that reading a verse by itself is dangerious, as you have done with this passage (1st Cor.) and the passage in romans.

Homosexuality is sin, that's what the bible says. You, or any other poster has yet to offer any scripture that approves homosexuality at all.

I merely asked you a quesiton. I never said that is what I believed about women in a church. Since you stated that you take something for what it says, it led me to ask that question about the women. I too have looked into the greek in regards to Romans one and our conclusions differ.

 

[Fideist]

Prove that you said what you just said.

IOW, about all literalists can do is make bald assertions and avoid any and all challenges to their unsupported statements. There has been a large quantity of evidence produced and placed in the record, showing that the literalist reading is anything but rock-solid. If you have evidence to introduce into the record, do so. But merely chanting “homosexuality is a sin” is hardly any reason for anyone to think so, in light of the evidence.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA - :

Homosexuality is comdemned

Prove it.

Romans 1:18-31 proclaims how God's anger is revealed (through His word) against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (vs. 18). Included in that text is this condemnation: "For this reason [because of the reasons given in vs. 25] God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful . . ." (vs. 26-27) God also condemns numerous other things: "unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who knowing the righteousness judgement of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (vs. 29-31).

Now let's go back and make a few comments on verses 26-27. The action first described applies to women. The women "exchanged the natural use for what is against nature." The men were doing "likewise." They were "exchanging the natural use of the woman" and "burned in their lust for one another." Their actions are further described as "men with men committing what is shameful."

Strong's defines the word "likewise" in this way: "Homoios" means likewise, equally, in the same way. This Greek word appears 30x in the N.T. Its meaning is not hard to discern i.e. Mt 22:26; 26:35; 27:41. The word "likewise" tells us that the men were doing like the women. It is readily apparent that homosexual activity is being discussed (the description does everything except provide pictures) - - women were with women and men were with men.

Rather than accept God's comdemnation of such activity, some choose to try to undermine the teaching. Some reason that the passage is only discussing activities involved with idolatry. They reason that there is some homosexual activity that is wrong, but some that is acceptable to God. To those who use such reasoning, we have only one question - - would you use the same reasoning for all the other ungodly and unrighteous acts listed from verses 18-32? Think about it. Applying this reasoning to the other passages would be to suggest that there are some murders (vs. 29) that are wrong - -the ones associated with idolatry, but others that are acceptable to God. The same could be said of haters of God (vs. 30) and those who invent evil (vs. 30). Others say that the homosexual activity described in verses 26-27 is describing an orgy. Those who use such reasoning should prepare themselves to answer the question that was asked to those who promoted the previous reasoning - - would you use the same reasoning for all the ungodly and unrighteous acts listed in verses 18-32? For instance, would you say that murders (vs. 29) committed in connection with an orgy are wrong, but other murders are acceptable to God? Actually, both lines of reasoning that have been described that attempt to undermine what Romans 1:26-27 teach make a common assumption. Those who use such reasoning ASSUME that there is a difference between promiscuous and monogamous homosexual relationships. I, for one, am waiting to see some Scriptural evidence for such thinking.

Originally Posted by: - DRA - :

What about avoiding fornication? God specifically tells us how to avoid it (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5).

Prove it. Prove God said what you say is being said.

1 Cor. 6:18a is a command. Christians are to flee "porneia." The next two verses discuss how a Christian should be using their body - - to serve God and not to sin. Chapter 7:1 returns to the discussion of a man touching a woman - - in this context, sexual contact is the focus. Verses 2-5 clearly point out that what "each man" is to do because of "porneia" (sexual immorality) - - have his own wife, and vice-versa for "each woman" - - she is to have her own husband. Paul offers his judgment on the two available choices in verses 6-9. His judgment is that Christians remain single. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they can marry. Jesus taught on marriage in Matt. 19:3-9 - - one man and one woman for life, with only one reason for divorce - - "porniea" or sexual immorality.

Now, what makes you think that God approves of men having sex with other men, or women with other women? Where is this Scriptural reasoning?

 

[- DRA -]

DRA, I reported your bestilality posts.

Married or Common Law married homosexuals who are monogamous have nothing to fear from Corinthians or any other part of the Bible.

Prostitutes, rapists and those who are promiscuous definately do have something to fear.......but one has nothing to do with the other.

It is quite clear from your attitude that talking to you on this issue is pointless, so God Bless you and farewell.

I am fully aware that God is watching over my actions . . . and my ability to handle His holy word (Heb. 4:13). I have asked repeatedly for your Scriptural support for what you ASSUMED, starting with your first post on this thread - - but have received NONE.

In a sense you are correct. I refuse to be persuaded by those who cannot "speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11a). I simply will not trade what God has said for what God has not said.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA - :

On what basis should I accept it? If the Lord wanted it included in Scripture, he would have said so, right? Did He?

Did the Lord say what other texts he wanted? Did he approve Matthew and not Thomas? Did he approve Mark and not Mary?

My original post was in response to your inquiry about the book of Enoch. Jesus frequently quoted and alluded to the O.T. Scriptures. I firmly believe that He would have addressed any inspired writings that were not included in the O.T. Scriptures.

No, the Lord did not tell us in advance which of the later writings would be included with Scripture.

Originally Posted by: - DRA - :

Are you homosexual?

This is an inappropriate question and irrelevant. My own sexuality has no bearing on arguments. But seeing as how there is no harm in answering, I am a heterosexual, married 15 years, 6 kids.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I see what you mean. I apologize. It must not have offended you too much, because you did answer the question. Your answer was not much different than what I already estimated. We have interacted before on a few other threads. I have noticed that you are quick to defend the liberal way of thinking. But this time I did not sense the passion for this topic that some of the others have displayed. I sensed that you were not directly involved in this lifestyle, but wanted to discredit the conservative approach to Scripture. Anyway, this was the basis for the question. I meant no harm.

Whew . . . 6 kids. My wife and I quit with just 2. She wanted to try for a girl, but after her previous medical problems, I was not willing to take the chance. Instead, her "daughter" is now a minature dachshund.

 

[- DRA -]

It would appear that you don't read my responses to you very thouroughly. I have declined in sharing with you not because I don't have something I say I do, but because you have come across as not being receptive and you also come across all knowing. The first time I brought up natural eunuchs to you, you told me, paraphrasing, that you know all you need to know about eunuchs and that you see not connection. If you've looked into eunuchs and you've been there done that, I have nothing to say to you in regards to what you have already looked into. To assume that I have nothing just because I am not sharing is something I guess you have to tell yourself. Besides, I've shared my eunuch views on this forum as have many others. Search! I'm not fond of repetitious typing to no avail.

You have no Scriptural support for your reasoning.

You portray me as "all knowing."

Therefore, you are justified in your own mind.

Have you considered how the Pharisees responded to Jesus in Matt. 12:24-29? Your approach is not original.

 

[- DRA -]

How does God tell us to treat our slaves? How does God tell males to wear their hair? Does God tell women to be silent in the church? Do women at your church speak? Does God tell us it is better to marry than burn in lust, even if you don't love the person you may marry?

Yes, the book of Philemon. Yes, 1 Cor. chapter 11. Yes, 1 Cor. chapter 14. Yes, but in compliance with 1 Cor. 14. No, we should love the one we are married to (Eph. chapter 5).

Where does God tell us that a loving sexual relationship is acceptable outside of marriage?

 

[EltronRangamma]

I seem to have not said this clearly.

Jesus didn't say the most general thing He could; He said something you could get your mind around, assuming you'd fill in the details and adjust as necessary. When we're told that God sees the sparrow's fall, that doesn't mean that God is totally ignorant of the falling of other avians; it's just an example. In many cases, the example used is the most common one. For instance, materialism is a likely barrier to faith, so Jesus used it as an example, but it's not the only kind of desire that could be a barrier to faith.

For 95% of people, desirable relationships are male/female. Referring to them in those terms speaks to most people without getting into irrelevancies.



So far as I can tell, though, that's personal factor. The things people other than me do in bed are not generally appealing to me. Even when they do the same things I do, I don't really want to think about it.

However, it seems to me that by getting caught up in exact details of expression, we're rather missing the point. It's the love, not the physical details of expression, that's at issue. A backrub can be, in many cases, just as much a consummation of a marriage as wild sex is, and maybe even better.

I still do not buy it, in other passages, when a writer writes of two becoming one, it is usually described as one fulfilled through sexual consummation. Paul especially equates consummation with sex in 1 Corinthians 6:16. Furthermore, I don't think Paul was thinking about backrubs from a prostitute either. The gravity of 'becoming one flesh' is really strong in this passage.

 

[leecappella]

You have no Scriptural support for your reasoning.

You portray me as "all knowing."

Therefore, you are justified in your own mind.

Have you considered how the Pharisees responded to Jesus in Matt. 12:24-29? Your approach is not original.

On the contrary, I do not seek to undermind who Christ is nor do I fail to believe he is who he says he is. If you look closely, your approach resembles that of the Pharisee as well. Respectfully, maybe you cannot see it for the log in your eye.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally posted by - DRA - :

accept what Gen. 19:5 plainly says the men of Sodom desired - - men.

Roz sez:

Again, let's get this clear once and for all......the men of Sodom desired rape.

Violent domination of others.

They were evil and willing to rape whoever showed up, male or female.

There is no indication that they were having sex with each other.

So......DRA, they did not want men, but rape.

You are allowing your prejudice to cloud your understanding of a clear and unambiguous Bible story. Read it again and see.

Gen. 19:5 says, "And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.'" (NKJV)

The NASV says, "And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'"

The NRSV says, "And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."

This passage plainly, clearly, and undeniably reveals that the men of Sodom desired the two men they saw enter Lot's house.

Let's see if your statement is true, "They were evil and willing to rape whoever showed up, male or female." Look at verse 8. It says, "Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." The text plainly shows that Lot was willing to send his two virgin daughters out. Did the men of Sodom take him up on his offer? No, they did NOT (verse 9)! Why not? Go back to verse 5 and you'll find your answer. They wanted the two men - - not Lot's daughters.

Once again, you have been shown what the Scriptures say. Rather than accept simple truths, you respond with accusations of prejudice and clouded thinking. Such reasoning is what happens when you enter a study with ASSUMPTIONS in place, but do not have Scripture to support your thinking.

Jude's commentary on the men of Sodom and Gomorrah says they "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (NRSV-verse 7). You were the one chiding me previously about using that old, archaic KJV, weren't you? So, how do you like the translation of your favorite version, the NRS.

Also read the "other version" of the legend, the Gibeah story from Judges 19:18-22.

It is clearly another version of the Sodom legend, but less supernaturalized. Here the men raped and killed a woman in place of the man.

What are we to learn from these legends invented by a primitive and violent people?

To hate all homosexuals?

If that is all you can grasp from it .... you have failed in your reading.

Do you describe all events in the Bible that do NOT fit into your way of thinking as merely "legends?"

The striking similarity between the story of Sodom and the story of Gibeah in Judges 19 seems to be in the mindset of the men of those cities - - compare Gen. 19:5 (quoted above) with Judges 19:22, "While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house, and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, "Bring out the man who came into your house, so that we may have intercourse with him" (NRSV). The striking difference in the two stories is that the men of Sodom refused Lot's daughters as substitutes, but the men of Gibeah accepted the Levite's concubine as a substitute - - they abused her all night.

I don't think that there are any lessons to be learned from "legends invented by a primitive and violent people." But there are indeed lessons to be learned from "whatever things that were written before" - - the O.T.Scriptures (Rom. 15:4). These stories reveal the mindset of those involved, the actions they took, and the consequences of those actions.

 

[leecappella]

Yes, the book of Philemon. Yes, 1 Cor. chapter 11. Yes, 1 Cor. chapter 14. Yes, but in compliance with 1 Cor. 14. No, we should love the one we are married to (Eph. chapter 5).

Where does God tell us that a loving sexual relationship is acceptable outside of marriage?

So, God approves of slavery in your view and all those who married in antiquity were in love prior to marriage, even when their marriages were arranged?...Any two adult persons who have pledged their love for one another for life is a marriage covenant. If a marriage is only between a man and a woman, then why is it that you are married to Christ? Marriage means more than that between a male and a female. It is not exclusive to that one context. If it were, it could not be used to describe other contexts.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

You have no Scriptural support for your reasoning.

You portray me as "all knowing."

Therefore, you are justified in your own mind.

Have you considered how the Pharisees responded to Jesus in Matt. 12:24-29? Your approach is not original.

On the contrary, I do not seek to undermind who Christ is nor do I fail to believe he is who he says he is. If you look closely, your approach resembles that of the Pharisee as well. Respectfully, maybe you cannot see it for the log in your eye.

What did the Lord say about marriage in Matt. 19:3-9? Didn't he appeal to Gen. 2:24? Do you accept what the Lord said - - marriage is between a man and a woman - - or do you attempt to add to it?

If my approach to Scripture is that of the Pharisees, and I am blinded by a log in my own eye (Matt. 7:4-5), then where are the Scriptures that will help me see the truth?

 

[leecappella]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

You have no Scriptural support for your reasoning.

You portray me as "all knowing."

Therefore, you are justified in your own mind.

Have you considered how the Pharisees responded to Jesus in Matt. 12:24-29? Your approach is not original.



What did the Lord say about marriage in Matt. 19:3-9? Didn't he appeal to Gen. 2:24? Do you accept what the Lord said - - marriage is between a man and a woman - - or do you attempt to add to it?

If my approach to Scripture is that of the Pharisees, and I am blinded by a log in my own eye (Matt. 7:4-5), then where are the Scriptures that will help me see the truth?

No scripture can help you see the truth. For even the Pharisees had scripture and did not see the truth right in front of them.

 

[seebs]

This passage plainly, clearly, and undeniably reveals that the men of Sodom desired the two men they saw enter Lot's house.

Exactly. The men of Sodom desired someone else.

If they had just wanted "men", they would have been done.

Compare with Judges 19. The practice has to do with foreigners, not with men or women.

 

[Rocinante]

You, or any other poster has yet to offer any scripture that approves homosexuality at all.

Roz sez:

I can't believe you keep parroting this ridiculous statement. Scripture does not, never has been expected to APPROVE every action that is ok.

Since you are the accuser, the burden of proof is on you.

Thus far you have not come up with a single scripture that condemns anything but promiscuity, prostitution and rape.

Since this is exactly the conclusion I came to (explained in my initial post that started this thread) I'd say that you've had 38 pages of posts to prove your point and have come up with zero. Zip. Nada.

If you have anything new, please let us know.

 

[EltronRangamma]

On the contrary, I do not seek to undermind who Christ is nor do I fail to believe he is who he says he is. If you look closely, your approach resembles that of the Pharisee as well. Respectfully, maybe you cannot see it for the log in your eye.

Lee, DRA has just shown you some scripture that condemns homosexuality. Can you please refute it? After all, isn't what these forums are all about?

 

[Rocinante]

The striking difference in the two stories is that the men of Sodom refused Lot's daughters as substitutes, but the men of Gibeah accepted the Levite's concubine as a substitute - - they abused her all night.

Roz sez: How can any rational human believe these are two different stories? They are clearly different versions of the SAME story--one that was told in many versions around a thousand million campfires before getting written down in two places in slightly different versions.

Yes, these and many others ARE legends--about giants and floods and talking snakes and epic battles.........campfire stories to scare the children......but they are also legends God gave us so that we might learn.

Learn to learn, rather than simply attempt to use the legends to condemn innocent people. A fanciful tale of gang rape in ancient pre-literate times has nothing to do with monogamous homosexuals of the 21st Century.