How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[- DRA -]

Puriteen said:

Roz sez:

Yes, and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.

And as this thread has amply and repeatedly shown......the Bible does not condemn a committed and monogamous homosexual relationship waiting for the blessing of marriage.

Rocinante,

I hope you don't mind if I chime in and join the discussion.

What have you determined about the word "fornication" (KJV) that Jesus used in the Matt. 15:19 & 19:9? I understand it includes a broad range of sexual activities that God does not approve of. What has your understanding of this word determined?

I am not aware of God's approval of any sexual relationship other than between a husband and wife. I don't see God approval anywhere for a sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. I do not find God's approval for the sexual activity of a monogamous couple before marriage - - either heterosexual or homosexual.

. . . Denny

 

[Rocinante]

The very phrase, "Care for the homosexual person in our community," is incredibly demeaning (also incredibly ignorant and arrogant).

More appropriate and useful would be, "Care for the FundaGelical bigots in our community."

But they are so good at denial that they won't "get it."

But we keep trying because their actions must be illuminated with the spotlight of truth.......at least others can understand before being propagandized.

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante,

I hope you don't mind if I chime in and join the discussion.

What have you determined about the word "fornication" (KJV) that Jesus used in the Matt. 15:19 & 19:9? I understand it includes a broad range of sexual activities that God does not approve of. What has your understanding of this word determined?

I am not aware of God's approval of any sexual relationship other than between a husband and wife. I don't see God approval anywhere for a sexual relationship outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. I do not find God's approval for the sexual activity of a monogamous couple before marriage - - either heterosexual or homosexual.

. . . Denny

Roz sez: We'll never know exactly what fornication means, but God has always approved relationships based on love. That is the sole criteria of the New Covenant.

The question of what constitutes a marriage is open, but sterile liturgical ceremonies and legal documents would be the least of it, judging from the words and actions of Jesus.......think about it.

Today's churches do not have the moral authority to claim the right to place a seal of approval upon a relationship.......look at the confusion and sin running rampant in all churches of this day before you blow off that statement.

What authority does a Pharisee hold, exactly?

 

[Rocinante]

The debate has gotten stuck on Romans 1 (which is obviously about an orgy) and STILL......STILL is focused on whether ALL homosexuality is sinful.

How anyone could lump all homosexuals together in sin based on a Biblical condemnation of an idolatrous orgy......is beyond me.

Anyway, time to move on, but this thread is far too long already.

Time to start again from the beginning (Genesis) and see if we can do better.

I'll start a new thread to deal with the very first Biblical condemnation of a homosexual activity.......and we will see that it is simply a condemnation of rape (and that it has a twin in another part of the Bible--supposedly happening in a totally different city).

 

[dnich163]

The very phrase, "Care for the homosexual person in our community," is incredibly demeaning (also incredibly ignorant and arrogant).
............................................More appropriate and useful would be, "Care for the FundaGelical bigots in our community."

Strangely enough Roc, there were homosexuals involved in drawing up the document and it's title.......there was consultation with and for.

I must admit I'm absolutely baffled that you could see a problem with this terminology...it is about care, just the same for the beggar, the crippled person, the old and infirm etc, and as we know, real care is based on Love.

I like your take on Descartes by the way...nice twist,

David

 

[Matt Never Existed]

Well, how about instead of dwelling on what Paul says, we shift over to what the Son of God says. Which, about this topic, is nothing. Absolutely nothing specifically, though he does mention the old Laws, which include leviticus. Here we go..

So Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 that he came not to abolish (to destroy completely) the Law, but to fulfill (to bring to an end; complete) them. I mean, in that sentence alone he says that they aren't gone, just finished and complete in Him. (I'll go into it more in a sec). BUT, alot of people throw this idea away when they read the next few verses. He says, in Matthew 5:18-19, that "Until Heaven and Earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven." After saying that, he then go on and tells the people these commandments, which go on to Matthew 7:29.

Now, about that "the law is complete in Him" thing. Jesus came and died on the cross for each one of us, regardless of where we are at now, where we'll be at in 10 years, or where we were at 10 years ago (spiritually speaking, of course). He says that ALL who come to him will be accepted, and none shall be turned away, and that He is the only way to the Father. I take it everyone has heard the arguement of the 'many roads of religions', and how the all lead to the same God. Well, here's the truth in that arguement. There ARE many roads, but all of them are dead ends except for the road through Christ. He doesn't care if you follow the Leviticus laws or not, just as long as you accept him as your savior, live your life according to His words, and put God as number 1 in ALL areas in your life.

Make sense to anyone? Also, the reason I say to ignore what Paul says is because people will take what paul says as 'divine', but at the same time pick apart or just ignore Jesus on the matter entirely. Its almost as if, in christian's minds today, paul is on a higher level than Jesus. I try to ignore Paul as often as I can, as if you read into what Jesus is saying, you can pretty much find an answer for everything. Go Jesus!

 

[Rocinante]

Roz said:

The very phrase, "Care for the homosexual person in our community," is incredibly demeaning (also incredibly ignorant and arrogant).

David then said:

I must admit I'm absolutely baffled that you could see a problem with this terminology...it is about care, just the same for the beggar, the crippled person.....

Roz sez: When you call all homosexuals beggars and cripples, you insult them. Your attack is just more cryptic than the usual bigotry.......but it is still bigotry.

The irony is in the bigot calling others crippled.

Please note, I do not believe (I certainly HOPE) you do not do this intentionally. And I only mean to reveal to you the ugliness of such talk.

 

[Fideist]

Roz said:


David then said:

Roz sez: When you call all homosexuals beggars and cripples, you insult them. Your attack is just more cryptic than the usual bigotry.......but it is still bigotry.

The irony is in the bigot calling others crippled.

Please note, I do not believe (I certainly HOPE) you do not do this intentionally. And I only mean to reveal to you the ugliness of such talk.

I assume that you mean: "I do not believe that you do this intentionally"?

 

[dnich163]

Roz sez: When you call all homosexuals beggars and cripples, you insult them. Your attack is just more cryptic than the usual bigotry.......but it is still bigotry.

The irony is in the bigot calling others crippled.

Please note, I do not believe (I certainly HOPE) you do not do this intentionally. And I only mean to reveal to you the ugliness of such talk.

I hope you are not calling me a bigot here Roz?

I never stated that homosexuals were beggars or cripples.......and certainly not any more than we are all crippled in some way.

I have some very dear friends that are homosexuals...and they want to be called just that ...homosexual...... for they feel it identifies and defines them.

David

 

[- DRA -]

Roz sez: We'll never know exactly what fornication means, but God has always approved relationships based on love. That is the sole criteria of the New Covenant.

I'm not sure why we can't understand what the Greek word "porneia" (transliterated) means - - the word for "fornication" that appears in Matt. 15:19 in the KJV. Have you consulted credible Greek resources for a definition(s) of the word? Have you examined the other times it is used in the N.T. to get an overall picture of how the word is used?

Jesus uses the word "fornication" (Matt. 15:19) in the context of things that defile a person. Don't you imagine that He expects us to have some idea of what it is that he says we shouldn't have on our minds?

 

[Philo]

Denny,

Even though I don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable practice, it's important to note the etymology of "Porneia."

From everything I've read on the subject, the word derives from the word "Pornh," defined as a low-class prostitute. Porneia is almost always in reference to consorting with Pornai.

"Fornicatio", the word from whence we get our "Fornication," derives from the word "Fornix," a word meaning "arch" or "arched room" and generally refering to alleyways where one would go to consort with prostitutes.

I'm just paraphrasing, but you would be well-served to look it up yourself. I'm an etymology fiend, you understand. I love it.

 

[artybloke]

I

And yes, people do come to the Bible without a set of preconceived notions to inject into it. Some people actually don't go to the scripture with anything set in mind that they want to interpret from it.

I don't actually believe this, I'm afraid. I think people may and do approach scripture without knowing what their own cultural prejudices are, and then assume that the Bible simply reflects them. I think we all do this - conservative and liberal - it's part of being a particular human in a particular place at a particular time. It's easy - all you have to do is:

know next to nothing precise about the situation that Paul was writing about

and pretend that you do - as a lot of the conservative people do.

But, strangely, the situation is totally different. Where I come from, the secular anti-slavery drive was motivated by Christians. Today, the Christian homosexual drive is being motivated by the secular world.

That, I would contend, is your perception of it. In fact, it seems to me that in both cases, the drive comes from both the secular and the Christian world - it was way back in the 60's that the Quakers - often the first off the block in justice issues - began to draw attention to these things. And it was the Quaker awareness of that of God in everyone that led to the anti-slavery movement too.

In any case, it seems to me that God can speak to us through secular people just as much as religious people - anyone for Balaam and his Talking ***?

 

[- DRA -]

The question of what constitutes a marriage is open, but sterile liturgical ceremonies and legal documents would be the least of it, judging from the words and actions of Jesus.......think about it.

True . . . the ceremony may vary among cultures. But the only approval that I find for marriage within the pages of the Scriptures is between a man and a woman. Have you found any Scriptural evidence that suggests otherwise?

Today's churches do not have the moral authority to claim the right to place a seal of approval upon a relationship.......look at the confusion and sin running rampant in all churches of this day before you blow off that statement.

I agree. I am not one bit concerned with what today's churches approve or disapprove of. But I am concerned about what God approves of. That is the standard that everybody is measured against. I only find God's approval of sexual activity by a man and woman who are married to each other. I do NOT find God's approval or acceptance of sex outside of marriage for a monogamous couple, either heterosexual or homsexual.

What authority does a Pharisee hold, exactly?

A Pharisee holds NO authority. Jesus holds ALL authority (Matt. 28:18).
Jesus tells us where marriage originated (Matt. 19:3-6). What makes us think that marriage has somehow changed?

 

[kimber1]

*MOD HAT ON
once more i will plea for niceness within this thread. quit with the veiled sarcasm towards one another or this will be closed.
*MOD HAT OFF

 

[- DRA -]

Well, how about instead of dwelling on what Paul says, we shift over to what the Son of God says. Which, about this topic, is nothing. Absolutely nothing specifically, though he does mention the old Laws, which include leviticus. Here we go..

True. Jesus did not specifically discuss homosexuality. So, that settles the matter, right? It is approved by His silence, right? Wrong! The silence of the Scripture does NOT authorize, it prohibits. Consider the priesthood of Jesus in Heb. 7:12-14; 8:4. He could NOT be a Levitical priest, even though there was NO direct prohibition against those of the tribe of Judah serving in that capacity. God has authorized only the tribe of Levi to serve as priests; therefore, all other tribes were EXCLUDED.

Jesus established the basis for the marriage relationship in Matt. 19:3-6. That marriage is between a man and a woman. Where did he teach that any other relationship would be acceptable?

Make sense to anyone? Also, the reason I say to ignore what Paul says is because people will take what paul says as 'divine', but at the same time pick apart or just ignore Jesus on the matter entirely. Its almost as if, in christian's minds today, paul is on a higher level than Jesus. I try to ignore Paul as often as I can, as if you read into what Jesus is saying, you can pretty much find an answer for everything. Go Jesus!
[/size][/color][/font]

There may be a problem viewing Paul's teachings and writings as being separate or inferior to the Lord's. Consider what Jesus said in John 14:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, . . . He will teach you all things . . ."
That necessarily infers that Jesus did not give complete instructions on all spiritual matters. The apostles completed His message. He confirmed and gave witness to their teachings (Heb. 2:3-4). The apostle Paul told us the source of his teaching and writings (Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Cor. 11:23a). Do you desire to challenge Paul's teachings and writings?

 

[seebs]

True . . . the ceremony may vary among cultures. But the only approval that I find for marriage within the pages of the Scriptures is between a man and a woman. Have you found any Scriptural evidence that suggests otherwise?

There's some questions about the interpretation of Matthew 19:11-12.

However... There are many cases in which we have eventually concluded that Scripture speaks of the most common cases, not the rare cases. How many people will claim that people who are born unable to speak cannot be saved, because they cannot confess with their mouth?

We are supposed to live in the Spirit, not in the letter of the law.

Which is more in the spirit of Biblical marriage? An empty and loveless relationship, where neither party respects the other, between two people of coincidentally correct plumbing, or a loving and respectful, Christ-centered, relationship between two people one of whom happens to have the "wrong" plumbing?

It seems to me that, once again, the letter killeth, but the Spirit bringeth life.

 

[seebs]

True. Jesus did not specifically discuss homosexuality. So, that settles the matter, right? It is approved by His silence, right? Wrong! The silence of the Scripture does NOT authorize, it prohibits.

You seem to have forgotten the nature of the new covenant, here.

Silence may have been considered a prohibition in the Old Testament. It's not in the new. Come on; Jesus is also silent on the questions of computers, international communications, and space travel.

There may be a problem viewing Paul's teachings and writings as being separate or inferior to the Lord's. Consider what Jesus said in John 14:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, . . . He will teach you all things . . ."
That necessarily infers that Jesus did not give complete instructions on all spiritual matters. The apostles completed His message.

Why do you assume He stopped there?

Did the Apostles know that slavery was wrong, or did they accept it as part of their culture? Why didn't Paul ever write "by the way, slavery is fully immoral, but you can't overthrow that part of the economic system just yet, but you should keep this in mind"?

If God ever spoke to anyone, He speaks to us today.

 

[- DRA -]

Denny,

Even though I don't believe homosexuality is an acceptable practice, it's important to note the etymology of "Porneia."

From everything I've read on the subject, the word derives from the word "Pornh," defined as a low-class prostitute. Porneia is almost always in reference to consorting with Pornai.

"Fornicatio", the word from whence we get our "Fornication," derives from the word "Fornix," a word meaning "arch" or "arched room" and generally refering to alleyways where one would go to consort with prostitutes.

I'm just paraphrasing, but you would be well-served to look it up yourself. I'm an etymology fiend, you understand. I love it.

Philo,

I'm looking at the thoughts you are suggesting for the word "fornication" that appears in the KJV. Not only does this word appear in Matt. 15:19, but it also appears in Matt. 19:9. Apply the definitions you suggest for the word there and see if you find a problem. Is Jesus really teaching that the only permissible reason for divorce is if the other mate "enjoys the company" of an alleyway prostitute?

. . . Denny

 

[Matt Never Existed]

True. Jesus did not specifically discuss homosexuality. So, that settles the matter, right? It is approved by His silence, right? Wrong! The silence of the Scripture does NOT authorize, it prohibits.

Didn't you read what I wrote? While Jesus did not speak specifically about homosexuality, he did speak about the old laws. For my view on them, please check my earlier post.

Jesus established the basis for the marriage relationship in Matt. 19:3-6. That marriage is between a man and a woman. Where did he teach that any other relationship would be acceptable?

True, but he also said in Matt 19:11 "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. And while I believe that the verses following can be read into more than just the normal view, I'd rather not get into it right now. Just got back from 4 hours of Testing.

 

[seebs]

I'm looking at the thoughts you are suggesting for the word "fornication" that appears in the KJV. Not only does this word appear in Matt. 15:19, but it also appears in Matt. 19:9. Apply the definitions you suggest for the word there and see if you find a problem. Is Jesus really teaching that the only permissible reason for divorce is if the other mate "enjoys the company" of an alleyway prostitute?

That's probably not it, but... To be blunt, I really don't think we can claim much certainty in our interpretation of this word. Its usage varies widely during the time when it was in use. It may have been anything from a fairly specific thing to a fairly broad catch-all for "sexual immorality".

It does not appear to have the very specific and formalized meaning that we give the English translation today. There are many things which are not "fornication" in our current English usage, which are almost certainly covered by that word. (For instance, imagine that a married couple has ritual sex in front of an idol of a fertility god. That's probably porneia, by later usages at least, but it's not "fornication" in English.)