How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[artybloke]

Is there a Scripture that promotes monogamous homosexuality?

Why does there have to be one, if there isn't one that is against it? As far as I know, there isn't a scripture promoting football either; should we stop playing it?

 

[Rocinante]

Exactly correct, Arty. The idea that our every action must be specifically approved by a Bible verse is ludicrous.

And consider this: There are mandates to require women to sleep in the garage when they are menstruating.

I haven't heard of anybody doing that lately.

 

[Fideist]

Your claim that Paul was using the Holy Spirit was what, speculation? If all the claims that conservatives make about the Holy Spirit were true, don't you think there'd be unanimity in Biblical exegesis? Wouldn't you have been led instantly to a passage that suited your need to bolster your argument?


The Holy Spirit can't lead the unwilling.

You were unwilling to find an OT proscription for lesbianism?

That is just it, Perceivence. It is anything but straightforward. Paul exegeted the Tanach and other Jewish scripture as a Pharisee would exegete it. Are you schooled in Pharisaic Jewish exegesis? If not, is it possible you are missing a point or two when Paul refers to the OT? How many times does Paul refer the OT or other scripture in Romans? Almost 50 times, most of those being in chapters 9 through 11.

No...I'm not schooled in that. I'm sixteen.

You're an amazing writer for a sixteen year old person! Keep at it and I'll be reading your books someday!

And it is possible I'm missing a point or two...but the other explanations for these passages simply don't make sense. (And I've never seen anyone claim that they're poorly translated; the semantical interpretation seems to be the challenge.)

They do if you understand that the passages have been translated by people who generally have a presupposed idea as to what they mean. A lot of language in English translations only reflects the view of the translator. For instance there is no word for "homosexual" in Hebrew, nor is there in Greek. Why? Because the term homosexual is recent, it was first used in the 1800s.

And it's not as if there aren't people who are experts at these things who think otherwise, ya know.

I think you have to ask yourself if the experts you are using (in any situation) might have some conflict of interests.

Believe me; I understand where (and why) you think that the "homosexuality is a sin" issue is clearly covered in Romans. Christians make the same claim about Leviticus, yet if you ask a Conservative Jewish rabbi for an exegesis of the passages in question, you'll not get what you're expecting.

I see.

You may, but I don’t think you do.

It is important to understand that in Paul's theology, most of the Jews have not held up their end of the bargain with God (been righteous). Too many were unfaithful and only a very few (remnant) would be saved. That would happen along with faithful Christians when Jesus returned. Moreover, Paul expected Jesus to return within his (Paul's) lifetime. Most importantly, those gentiles who had once been disobedient would now get a chance to be saved because of the disobedience of the Jews. Former gentiles would take the place of the Jews, at least temporarily.

So, pretty much, the major thrust of the epistle in on the once faithless, disobedient gentiles trading places with the once chosen Jews. The imagery that you are so concerned about, in the beginning of Romans, is all about the faithless, disobedient, idolatrous gentiles who now stand to inherit.



The upshot of this, whether you look at it from the bottom up using word study, etc. or you look at it from the top down using the overall idea of Paul’s theology, the imagery has to do with idolatry. That in spite of the clarity of Evangelical Christians using English translations of the Bible and employing an excruciating sort of projection of their own beliefs onto those of first century Palestinians.



Once again, Evangelical Christians aren't the only onese who see this as condemning homosexuality...and not all Evangelical Christians are the unschooled fools you seem to be painting them as.

Does the number of people believing that something is so, make it so? A lot of other people see it as condemning same gender sex in the context of idolatrous practice. I don't think Evangelicals are fools. I do think that a great many are anachronistic. I think a great many project 20th and 21st century concepts back onto a time when these ideas didn't even exist.

Also, I'll repeat that your argument seems to be in the societal context of Paul's letter, not so much the translation.

No? Look up the etymology of the word "homosexual" and ask yourself why the translator (NIV 1 Cor 6:9) chose a late 20th century term to express Paul’s concept. There was no such word as "homosexuality" at the time of Paul's writing. Even the English translations that render the term "sodomites" are doing so from the original Greek (malakoi) meaning "soft" or "pliable." If Paul were attempting to use the closest possible Greek word that most closely resembles the current concept, he could have used paiderasste which means (unequivocally) a person in a male/male relationship.

And, even considering the societal context, the condemnation of homosexuality is still there...

.



Yes, as an undesirable part of idol worship. The offense is idolatry.

 

[- DRA -]

Quote: - DRA -

I have a question about how you determine that some homosexuality falls within the realm of the word "fornication," but some does not. How do you determine which does, and which doesn't?

Roz sez:

Now Denny......I have answered that in the initial post and at least five or six times in the course of this thread.

I'll assume you are joking.

Roz,

Please don't assume I'm joking, because I'm not. In your original post, you told us how you view the monogamous homosexual couple - - whether married or waiting for marriage - - as being acceptable to God. I am looking for evidence that God accepts sexual activity BEFORE marriage - - either from the hetero or homosexual couple. This Scriptural evidence wasn't in the original post - - your views were there - - but not the Scriptural support.

I haven't looked through all the posts . . . but I will! If you have given the evidence that I'm looking for, fine - - I will consider it and comment if necessary. But, if not, I will be back looking for what you must have (1 Pet. 4:11a, Col. 3:17).

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

What I'm trying to say is that in those verses, Jesus didn't destroy the O.T. Laws, but is the complete fulfillment of them in the flesh. He is the end of their rule on humans, because they don't bring salvation. Only His blood can do that. So He 'ended' them, but didn't 'destroy' them. They are still in effect, but they are complete in his blood. Do you see what I mean? Or am I just crazy? lol
[/size][/color][/font]

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I do understand what you mean much better now. Here is another angle I would like for you to consider about the Old law. It was given exclusively to the Israelites, or Jews (Rom. 2:14). Jesus nailed it to the cross (Col. 2:14). The law changed when the priesthood changed (Heb. 7:12). The Old law is now "obsolete" (NKJV-Heb. 8:13). The Old law is for our "learning" today, not our law (Rom. 15:4). There is indeed much we can learn from it - - it provides the background for many things in the New law. It also gives us some background to consider as we endeavor to define the Greek word "fornication" that appears in the KJV of the N.T. The word "fornication" encompasses a broad range of sexual activity that does not please God. I am persuaded that it includes homosexual activity. Would you agree?

 

[- DRA -]

So all it takes is state approval and sex is ok. God determines sinfulness on the basis of a marriage covenant being confirmed by the State. Hmm.......

I know some Christian couples who don't know each other well enough to have sex, even though they are legally married.

Freud,

1 Cor. 7:1-5 does NOT say that a couple needs state approval to have sex. It says that they need to be husband and wife to have sex and be pleasing in God's view. Jesus also taught about God's law on marriage in Matt. 19:3-12.

Marriage rules differ among societies. Today, in the U.S., there are certain legal requirements that accompany marriage. Romans 13:1-7 says that we should obey the government . . . as long as their regulations do not violate God's i.e. Dan. 3 & Dan. 6.

Married couples have a responsibility to each other sexually (1 Cor. 7:1-5). I don't know the circumstances of the couples you are alluding to. But I do know what God said about the matter. If they decide to abstain, it needs to be by mutual agreement.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

Why does there have to be one, if there isn't one that is against it? As far as I know, there isn't a scripture promoting football either; should we stop playing it?

There MUST BE Scriptural authority for a monogamous homosexual relationship.

From my previous comments on the silence of the Scriptures (post #144, page 15):

I'm not sure how you conclude that the silence of Scriptures authorizes things in the N.T. If one obeys 1 Peter 4:11a, one CANNOT speak where God didn't speak. In fact, we are commanded to have authority for all we say and do (Col. 3:17). Case in point: preaching or teaching the gospel. All Christians should be teachers in some way (Heb. 5:12a, 2 Tim. 4:2). No specific way to preach or teach is given. Therefore, as long as the means does not violate other Scriptures, we are free to choose the method of preaching i.e. TV, radio, lecturing, questioning and answering, PowerPoint, overhead transparencies, computers (online on the Christian Forum), etc. This authority is general, or generic.

See also Heb. 7:14 & 8:4. The silence of the Scripture does NOT authorize - - rather, it prohibits. This example in Hebrews relates to the Levitical priesthood and which tribes could serve as priests. God specified who could serve under the O.T. law (the Levites), but did not list the other tribes that could NOT serve. Therefore, were these other tribes authorized to serve? The writer of Hebrews answers the question for us - - the answer is NO!

Jesus taught on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Matt. 19:3-12. He bases his teaching on the coming together of the first man and first woman in Gen. 1:27 & 2:24. That is what makes a marriage - - the coming together of a man and woman who are committed to each other - - for life (Rom. 7:1-3). Paul taught on the marriage relationship in Eph. 5:22-33 & 1 Cor. chapter 7. The only marriages I find that are authorized in the Scriptures are between a man and a woman.

I find no authority for sexual activity outside of marriage. You are suggesting that such is acceptable. You need to show your Scriptural authority for such reasoning. Have you studied the Greek word "fornication" that appears in the N.T.? It is a word that condemns the lifestyle you are promoting.

As for football, it is not mentioned in the Scriptures. However, sports activites are mentioned several times - - Paul alludes to a foot race and fighting in 1 Cor. 9:24-26 & 2 Tim. 4:7. The Hebrews' writer alludes to the race in 12:1-2. Paul even contrasts bodily exercise with godliness in 1 Tim. 4:8. Notice . . . Paul does not condemn bodily exercise. Therefore, bodily exercise in its various forms has a place in the life of a Christian, as long as exercise or sports do not hinder godliness.

 

[- DRA -]

Exactly correct, Arty. The idea that our every action must be specifically approved by a Bible verse is ludicrous.

And consider this: There are mandates to require women to sleep in the garage when they are menstruating.

I haven't heard of anybody doing that lately.

Have you really thought about the difference between generic and specific authority? Consider what God told Noah in the building of the ark (Gen. 6:14). Noah was to use "gopherwood" (NKJV). God did not say, "Noah, you shall NOT use oak, pine, yew, hickory, spruce, elm, ash, or any other wood. So, what wood was authorized? Gen. 6:22 tells us what Noah did - - he obeyed God; therefore, he used gopherwood as opposed to others, since God specified that type of wood. That is an example of specific authority. Now, let's consider generic authority. Let's suppose that goperwood came in two varieties - - dark gopherwood and light gopherwood. Would it make a difference which type of gopherwood Noah used? No, because God did not specify light or dark gopherwood - - only gopherwood. Noah could have used either type. That is an example of how generic authority works.

Col. 3:17 requires authority today for what we say and do under the law of Christ. It doesn't require specific authority, but it does require authority from Christ. That is what I'm looking for in the midst of this talk about homosexual monogamous relationships being acceptable unto God. Have you found any yet?

Share we use this mandate your are referring to and we will discuss it.

 

[seebs]

I have a question about how you determine that some homosexuality falls within the realm of the word "fornication," but some does not. How do you determine which does, and which doesn't?

Probably the same way you do it for any other kind of sex. Is rape fornication? How about rape within a marriage? Assume we disregard the people who claim there's no such thing, which was mainstream Christian belief for 1500 years or so. Is it fornication? It isn't fornication by the definition in modern English dictionaries, but it may well be the kind of sexual immorality that Jesus referred to.

 

[seebs]

I'm more than a bit fuzzy with my history, but I certainly don't recall the Quakers leading the anti-slavery drive here.

Quakers had pretty much become unanimously opposed to slavery by about 1772. Thanks, largely, to a single man, John Woolman, who became convicted deeply on the issue, and began preaching to all and sundry.

Anyway, you seem to be only agreeing with me. The Quakers were a Christian sect.

I like to think we still are.

 

[seebs]

I'm not sure how you conclude that the silence of Scriptures authorizes things in the N.T.

I'm not sure how we do it, but given that we're both using computers, we'd better find a way, no?

If one obeys 1 Peter 4:11a, one CANNOT speak where God didn't speak.

Hmm. So, in cases such as "international computer networks", what should we do?

One option would be attempt to reason as best we can from what we do know.

No specific way to preach or teach is given. Therefore, as long as the means does not violate other Scriptures, we are free to choose the method of preaching i.e. TV, radio, lecturing, questioning and answering, PowerPoint, overhead transparencies, computers (online on the Christian Forum), etc. This authority is general, or generic.

You miss the point. You're assuming that we are allowed to create and use these media at all. The Bible never discusses the moral implications of an electrical grid. We simply assume it doesn't have any.

I don't assume that Jesus stopped with John 14:26. The point I was making is that He promised to send the Holy Spirit to teach ALL things. I believe the Lord fulfilled what He said He was going to do. I believe that we have "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (2 Pet. 1:3).

I believe we do, but I think they are not all written down.

The apostles taught what the Holy Spirit guided them to teach. The N.T. teaches about slavery i.e. Rom. 6:16-23, 1 Cor. 7:20-24, & the book of Philemon.

True. God does speak to us today. He speaks to us through His Son (Heb. 1:1-2).

Yup.

And it is through that leading that I have come to my current positions on these issues.

I find that there are occasional people whom the Bible didn't mention. The Bible talks about people possessed by demons, but it never mentions mental disorders. What authority can I have from the Bible for any position I form on how to deal charitably with a friend who suffers from clinical depression? This is not "sadness". I cannot console my friend and make the problem go away. I must learn how to deal with these people using the principles the Bible teaches, and trusting the Holy Spirit to guide me into dealing with them correctly.

With that in mind, I have studied and prayed and read material on the subject for years, and sought out gay Christians to seek understanding of their views, and their experience of God. From this I have reached the following conclusions:

1. The Bible is silent on the question of what we mean today when we talk about "homosexuality".
2. There are gay people who are in sexual relationships who show every fruit of the Spirit named in Scripture.
3. These people are trod upon and outcast, and as a result, if we don't succeed in driving them off quickly, we shall never be rid of them at all, because they understand the need for a God whose love is unconditional more deeply than most straight people ever will.
4. As a corollary to 3, the greatest temptation to sin these people offer me is a temptation to envy the depth of their faith.
5. Whatever I do must be based on the general principles I can find in the Bible, and the leading of the Spirit.

Many people argue that homosexuality is "a disorder". This may be. If it is, how then shall I deal with people afflicted by it? What is the most compassionate way to deal with these people? One way would be to try to help them find the best life available to them. If they cannot happily marry someone with whom they could have children, perhaps they can find a happy life with someone with whom they can't have children. I see this as not especially different from a female friend who's had a hysterectomy. She can still seek emotional support and fulfillment, even though she can never have a procreative union.

I see no basis for trying to prevent people from doing something unless I can show how it is harmful to others. If I believe it to be sinful, then I shouldn't do it. Romans 14 teaches me that I may find that there are things which are not sinful for me, but are sinful for other people. Perhaps my leading against a given action is a personal scruple, to protect me against something that would harm me; people who lack this scruple may be stronger than me, not weaker.

For me to find a basis for general prohibition, I would need to become convinced that this issue was actually addressed by the Bible, and I have found the case for this to be too weak for me to base a judgment upon it. I know gay people who have strong convictions against homosexual activity, and gay people who have no such convictions. I will support both to the best of my ability, trying to help them find the best path to walk.

I believe that God will lead them where He needs them; my job, here, is to not close the door on them, or try to drive them away from Him.

I do feel a leading to try to encourage people who have no convictions against homosexual sex to nonetheless practice it with the same care and consideration I believe heterosexual people should exercise; monogamy and commitment are fundamentally good ideas. I do not believe that the reasons for committed relationships go away the moment you take childbearing out of the picture. On the other hand, I see no productive results coming from condemnation and hostility. The main thing promiscuous people end up needing seems to be compassion and emotional support as they try to get their lives in order.

It seems to me that too much focus is placed on trying to do the Holy Spirit's work, and convict people of their sins, and too little focus is placed on trying to help people get into a place in their lives where they will be ready to listen.

 

[BobKat]

Hey there, all;
I am new to this forum, and have a question...What specifically did JESUS say about Homosexuality? I have seen all of the arguments against it in the Old Testament, but no references attributed to Jesus.
Thanks much.
BobKat

 

[seebs]

Hey there, all;
I am new to this forum, and have a question...What specifically did JESUS say about Homosexuality? I have seen all of the arguments against it in the Old Testament, but no references attributed to Jesus.
Thanks much.
BobKat

Nothing at all. That's why we're all arguing about what Paul said, or about what's in Leviticus; those are all we have to go on.

 

[- DRA -]

Hey there, all;
I am new to this forum, and have a question...What specifically did JESUS say about Homosexuality? I have seen all of the arguments against it in the Old Testament, but no references attributed to Jesus.
Thanks much.
BobKat

Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality. But He did mention "fornication" in Matt. 15:19 and 19:9. Have you studied this Greek word "porneia" and looked at other places that it is used in the N.T.?

 

[Imjustanant]

I'm not sure how we do it, but given that we're both using computers, we'd better find a way, no?



Hmm. So, in cases such as "international computer networks", what should we do?

One option would be attempt to reason as best we can from what we do know.



You miss the point. You're assuming that we are allowed to create and use these media at all. The Bible never discusses the moral implications of an electrical grid. We simply assume it doesn't have any.

Seebs,

DRA had a wonderful example using gopherwood below. It seems to me you've missed his point. Let me try to expand on the point itself: Do you deny that God set-up the marriage covenant between a man and a woman? Do you deny that God's command was to be fruitful and multiply? Homosexual marriages don't allow for a man and a woman to be married and they NEVER can multiply, right? Homosexuality SEEMS to undermine the very foundation for family that God commanded, does it not, and if not how not?? It is a choice that if made early on would have actually brought extinction to the human race. Is that a false statement?? Again, HOW do homosexuals multiply and how do they allow for a leaving of the parents and cleaving to the spouse?

Your electronic grid example falls into a deep ditch. By it, I can conceive loopholes in Scripture for immorality. I.e., the Scripture does not condemn VIDEO voyeurism. Where does the Scripture forbid child molestation? Couldn't a case be made that the adult sought only to help the child understand their sexuality? There's nothing that forbids a 40 year old man from marrying a 9 year old girl, is there???

The next progressive step to homosexual marriage, and you won't like it, but it is...WHERE in the NT does Jesus, Paul or any other apostle condemn beastiality??????? Since the old law was nailed to the cross and the New Testament IS silent on this area, it MUST be allowed. Where am I wrong on my case for beastiality? Where does the NT specifically condemn it??

Brother, may the Lord cleanse our minds and purify our hearts!

 

[Rocinante]

DRA said:

I am looking for evidence that God accepts sexual activity BEFORE marriage - - either from the hetero or homosexual couple.

Roz sez:

Why? Whose definition of marriage would you use? Yours? Why yours?

A "marriage" is clearly a thing of the heart.......not paper documents, not church ceremonies, not something that requires permission from FundaGelical Religionists--as though they had some special authority or knowledge.

Marriage is when two people forsake all others and commit to each other for life. If they want to formalize it in traditional ways......more power to them.

If they don't.......they sure don't need a Pharisee to try to tell them they're "sinful."

 

[seebs]

Do you deny that God set-up the marriage covenant between a man and a woman?

If I am to accept the Bible, I must admit that polygamy was clearly accepted by God's chosen people for a long time, and that there were even explicit rules for it.

I must, therefore, deny that "the marriage covenant" is that simple, or that rigidly defined.

Do you deny that God's command was to be fruitful and multiply?

No, but I deny that it has any relevance.

Homosexual marriages don't allow for a man and a woman to be married and they NEVER can multiply, right?

Unless you are ready to declare that all post-menopausal marriages, and people with hysterectomies, and other non-procreative marriages between men and women are invalid, you have to drop the "multiply" claim as a red herring. Either you use that rule or you don't. You can't use it part of the time.

As to the other part... This is question-begging.

Homosexuality SEEMS to undermine the very foundation for family that God commanded, does it not, and if not how not??

No, it does not.

The foundation of marriages is mutual love and respect. That two should leave their parents house and become one. That is the foundation of marriage. It seems that the vast majority of marriages are between men and women, and likewise, most marriages produce children - but that doesn't mean that a marriage which doesn't produce children is invalid!

We are not required to all be the same.

It is a choice that if made early on would have actually brought extinction to the human race. Is that a false statement??

It's actually two false statements. First, you're claiming that homosexuality is a choice, and this does not conform to anything we know about human sexuality. Secondly, you're forgetting that many homosexuals do, in fact, choose to reproduce; not out of sexual or romantic love, but out of a desire to produce children.

Again, HOW do homosexuals multiply and how do they allow for a leaving of the parents and cleaving to the spouse?

They do it the same way everyone else does, if perhaps with less enthusiasm.

The second point, however, is the important one, because it is exactly where your argument falls apart. That is the one thing that it is totally unambiguous that they do do. They may not procreate. They may not be one man and one wife. But they do, they most assuredly do, leave their parents and cleave together.

Your electronic grid example falls into a deep ditch. By it, I can conceive loopholes in Scripture for immorality. I.e., the Scripture does not condemn VIDEO voyeurism. Where does the Scripture forbid child molestation? Couldn't a case be made that the adult sought only to help the child understand their sexuality? There's nothing that forbids a 40 year old man from marrying a 9 year old girl, is there???

There is nothing that prohibits it, probably because it was a historical practice of most patriarchal societies. However, today, we are able to see the problems with it.

Here's an exercise to try: Start from the two commandments Jesus gave us. If you can show how something contradicts them, without referring to any other claims, you've proven something sinful. If you can't, you need to think long and hard before claiming that something is sinful.

The next progressive step to homosexual marriage, and you won't like it, but it is...WHERE in the NT does Jesus, Paul or any other apostle condemn beastiality???????

The slippery slope argument is, in fact, a fallacy. So is the overuse of punctuation.

Is your goal here to sincerely seek truth, or to "win"? If you want to seek truth, don't commit fallacies just to try to score points.

Since the old law was nailed to the cross and the New Testament IS silent on this area, it MUST be allowed. Where am I wrong on my case for beastiality? Where does the NT specifically condemn it??

You are indeed wrong. Not all condemnations are specific; however, you haven't even managed an unspecific condemnation of homosexuality yet. The case may be made, but you're not making it.

I would ask that you consider being less hostile and confrontational. That, my friend, is clearly and explicitly condemned, at great length, by Jesus. If we are to follow Him, let us do so in all things, not just in other peoples' bedrooms.

 

[seebs]

Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality. But He did mention "fornication" in Matt. 15:19 and 19:9. Have you studied this Greek word "porneia" and looked at other places that it is used in the N.T.?

I have, and I have found it to be wonderfully ambiguous. It is more informative, marginally, if you study other period sources as well... but you still don't get an unambiguous explanation.

 

[Rocinante]

Justanant said:

DRA had a wonderful example using gopherwood below. It seems to me you've missed his point.

Roz sez:

There was no discernable point. Maybe it fell down a gopher hole.

Justan said:

Homosexuality SEEMS to undermine the very foundation for family that God commanded, does it not?

Roz sez:

No, it doesn't. Raising adopted children is a wonderful way to form a family. There is no shortage of children that need parents and the population is such that "multiplying" is not an issue.

Justan said:

Where does scripture forbid child molestation?......WHERE in the NT does Jesus, Paul or any other apostle condemn beastiality?

Roz sez:

You fail to understand the Law of Love that Jesus gave. Both child molestation and bestiality harm others. A child or an animal cannot consent to sex ..... legally, they are being raped and abused.

Committed homosexual relationships are between adults of the age of consent and harm nobody.......indeed they bring love and happiness to many people.

It is quite ugly and insulting for you to compare loving and monogamous homosexual relationships to these things.......you should think about your failure to obey the Law of Love when you say such things.

Justin said:

Brother, may the Lord cleanse our minds and purify our hearts!

Roz sez:

Well.....your heart and mind needs it, that's for sure.

 

[seebs]

FundaGelical Religionists

Friend, I would ask that you consider whether this phrase is truly spoken in love. It seems to me that you are participating in the demonization of others, and the prejudicial judgments, that you elsewhere argue against.

I came here with a great aversion to fundamentalists, but I have grown to respect many of them as people with a deep love for Christ. While I may disagree with their positions on some issues, or even many issues, I do not believe it is my place to condemn them or accuse them. The same must be said of the evangelical members of this site, and other evangelical Christians I have known.

The word "religionists" strikes me as a sweeping, blanket condemnation of people. Are these people truly, without exception, as you describe them? Is it appropriate for you to be tying fundamentalists and evangelicals to this word, or indeed, to be treating them as a single amorphous set of people you cannot easily tell apart?

I think it would benefit all present if you were to take a few moments to consider whether this choice of words is appropriate and Christlike. Thank you.