How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[puriteen18]

It does?

"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural..."

Where does it say this? I think you are influenced by the next verse. I think you are reading a personal conclusion into the text. "natural" is the usual problem here. What is meant by "unnatural"? It does not mean, as some assume, unnatural as might be used in terms of procreation. It means what this person would ordinarily not do. So, the unnatural intercourse could be any form of intercourse that these women did not ordinarily take part in. If the missionary position, for instance, were normal; then any other position would be “unnatural.” Reading lesbianism into this is allowing the next verse to influence your reading.

Do you wish that I should take the verse out of the context in which it is given?

If so, would you say that homosexuality is acceptable for women, but not for the men?

I think not that I am the one reading a personal conclusion into the text.

You should stop trying to do what you think is good according to you own opinions, and read the text.

No matter what men give allowance for, God will judge. Have you not even enough concern for them to doubt yourself one moment?

 

[Perceivence]

It does?

"For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural..."

Where does it say this? I think you are influenced by the next verse.

Of course one must be influenced by the next verse. Aren't liberals the one who love to say conservatives ignore context?

The verses read "26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "

Because of the conjunctional phrase "In the same way," all readers must compare the two situations to be closely similar if they want to interpret the verse accurately. Thus, since it's plainly saying men abandoned relations with women and went with each other, then it's saying women abandoned relations with men and went with each other.

What is meant by "unnatural"? It does not mean, as some assume, unnatural as might be used in terms of procreation. It means what this person would ordinarily not do.

You make it sound as if this is the only valid interpretation and all others are obviously wrong. Surely you're aware that many people take the 'natural relations' to mean the natural relations of a man with a woman, ie heterosexual sex.

So, the unnatural intercourse could be any form of intercourse that these women did not ordinarily take part in. If the missionary position, for instance, were normal; then any other position would be “unnatural.” Reading lesbianism into this is allowing the next verse to influence your reading.

And the next verse must affect one's interpretation to get the full context and understand what is being said.

 

[puriteen18]

Verse 27 does star out, "And likewise also the men left the natural use of the woman..."

 

[Rocinante]

Puriteen said:

The verse says women have left men for women, and that men have left women for men.

Roz sez: Wrong. It simply does not say women have left men for women. You are adding to the text something that is not there.

Puri said:

And again the verse says "man with man". It is singular. It seems if it were talking of orgies it would say "man with men", or "men with men".

Roz says: Wrong again. It speaks in a plural sense or this whole long passage would be about two men. Obviously, it's not. As I said before, it speaks of ALL kind of sin.....both homosexual and heterosexual.

Orgy and idolatry. Male Temple prostitutes. Women doing unnatural things. Sin of every imaginable kind.

All of which has NOTHING to do with a committed and monogamous homosexual relationship awaiting the blessing of marriage.

Just giving you the facts, ma'm. No need for you to launch into a FundaGelical sermon.

 

[Rocinante]

Puriteen said:

Now do they not know Christ because they are homosexuals? NO, they are slaves unto sin because they do not know Christ. They practice a lifestyle of sin.

Roz sez:

Sin? Not according to the Bible.

And "not know Christ?"

Remember what I said about them? Solid citizens going to church and raising happy healthy children?

Come now. Many Christian homosexuals live lives that are exemplary Christian lives.......while many FundaGelicals spend far too much time slandering homosexuals by accusing them of sin ...... and without any Biblical backup.

 

[keithylishus]

Of course one must be influenced by the next verse. Aren't liberals the one who love to say conservatives ignore context?

Context should also include extra-biblical study. Look at the society of the Roman Empire when Paul was writing this. Look at who Paul was writing this to (Romans 1:7). Look at what Paul was talking about (Romans 1 is clearly a condemnation of idolatrous Pagans).

I've posted this before, but I feel this sums up the historical context very well:

Paul wrote Romans in the city of Corinth where the prevailing religion was the worship of Aphrodite, a hermaphrodite with both male and female sexual organs. In the worship of Aphrodite, people played the role of the opposite gender, engaging in sexual orgies with same-sex prostitutes who were available in the temple. It was against these orgies that Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans. Romans 1 cannot be applied to relationships created by loving homosexual partners who are making a lifetime monogamous commitment to each other.

From http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9905&article=990521

This ties in with everything mentioned in Romans 1. First of all, idolatry is the main thing. Second of all, it was taking place when Paul wrote this, and in the very place he wrote it.

Paul would not spend a while talking about idolatry, drop in a few sentences about homosexuality, then go back to talking about idolatry. Unless anyone thinks Paul couldn't hold a particular train of thought very well.

Besides, anyone trying to apply the verses in Romans 1 to a loving, monogomous gay couple, needs their head examined. The verses are talking about lust-filled orgies.

 

[puriteen18]

No need for you to launch into a FundaGelical sermon.

The foolishness of preaching?

How could I not proclaim to you the truth, seeing that you are in need of it.

God did not give it me that I should keep it to myself.

Christianity is not a club you can just join. It is the divine act of God's saving mercy upon the unsavable, the wretches like myself. Without Christ we are nothing and God's hate is bent toward us.

 

[Rocinante]

Puriteen said:

How could I not proclaim to you the truth, seeing that you are in need of it.

Roz sez:

Actually, Puriteen--I'm proclaiming the truth to you.......seeing that you are in need of it.

Your slanderous statements against non-offending homosexual Christians are sin. Yes, you call yourself a wretch--and accurately--but God's grace can give you the wisdom and strength you need to do better.

Many others have--and you can, too.

 

[puriteen18]

Paul would not spend a while talking about idolatry, drop in a few sentences about homosexuality, then go back to talking about idolatry. Unless anyone thinks Paul couldn't hold a particular train of thought very well.

Why not? Seems to me sin, all sin, takes the place of God. Remeber, Jesus said if we break the Law even at one point we are guilty of all. And how did Jesus sum the Law? 1) Love the LORD your God. 2) Love your neighbour.

To sin is to not Love God, very similiar to idolatry if you say that all Paul is speaking of is idolatry.

History is very important. Do you not know that the homosexual life was very common amoung the Greeks and Romans.

Besides, anyone trying to apply the verses in Romans 1 to a loving, monogomous gay couple, needs their head examined. The verses are talking about lust-filled orgies.

Anyone who sees not what the Bible plainly teaches, but tries in every possible way to explain it to nothing needs to examine their own heart.

 

[puriteen18]

Many others have--and you can, too.

No one can, niether can I, excepting the LORD wills it to be.

May grace find you.

 

[puriteen18]

Come now. Many Christian homosexuals live lives that are exemplary Christian lives.......while many FundaGelicals spend far too much time slandering homosexuals by accusing them of sin ...... and without any Biblical backup.

Many 'good' people will reach headstrong into hell, because they trust in their own goodness.

I am not here to argue against homosexuals, I am here to speak what Scripture teaches: that men are going to hell, and the "Church" is just letting them go along with alot of her own.

 

[Rocinante]

Puriteen said:

Remeber the verse I quoted from I Corithians: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Those who practice homosexuality as a lifestyle, which includes monogamous "BIll and Jim", are going straight down into the pit and none of their goodness, or their own righteousness will save them.

Roz sez:

Unfortunately for your argument, your verse does not apply because First Corinthinans only talks about homosexual prostitution and homosexual rape (probably including pederasty, as this widespread Roman custom appeared to be a pet peeve of Paul's and he probably regarded it as a form of rape).

For you to say that homosexuals in chaste, committed, monogamous relationships waiting for the blessing of marriage are......."going straight down into the pit" is particularly ugly slander--and highly inappropriate.

 

[puriteen18]

dear keithylishus, consider this verse.

I Corithians 6.9
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,


Will you too claim that it is just a bad translation?

 

[Fideist]

Of course one must be influenced by the next verse. Aren't liberals the one who love to say conservatives ignore context?


The verses read "26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "



Because of the conjunctional phrase "In the same way," all readers must compare the two situations to be closely similar if they want to interpret the verse accurately. Thus, since it's plainly saying men abandoned relations with women and went with each other, then it's saying women abandoned relations with men and went with each other.

I think it is only "plainly" saying that to people who want or expect to read it that way. It makes perfect sense to read the context as both of these being examples of giving up what is usual or expected for something that is not usual or not expected. Verse 26, if it is referring to lesbianism, is the only instance of the idea in the Bible. That in itself is unusual. Moreover, the subject of lesbianism was not widespread at this time in history, not even in the Greek or Roman civilizations where same gender sex was anything but unusual.

What is meant by "unnatural"? It does not mean, as some assume, unnatural as might be used in terms of procreation. It means what this person would ordinarily not do.

You make it sound as if this is the only valid interpretation and all others are obviously wrong. Surely you're aware that many people take the 'natural relations' to mean the natural relations of a man with a woman, ie heterosexual sex.

Yes, I’m aware of that. But the underlying Greek for "unnatural" in this case is para physin. If para physin refers to "unnatural relations" in the immoral sense, then what is meant in Romans 11:24?



“For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature [para physin], into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.”



Surely the above refers to something that is unexpected, out of the ordinary or unusual?

So, the unnatural intercourse could be any form of intercourse that these women did not ordinarily take part in. If the missionary position, for instance, were normal; then any other position would be “unnatural.” Reading lesbianism into this is allowing the next verse to influence your reading.

And the next verse must affect one's interpretation to get the full context and understand what is being said.

The next verse could very well mean that the similarities that you point out must be considered, because of the conjunctional phrase, mean that both examples have replaced the usual with the unusual, rather than both are engaging in same gender sex. There is no reason that I can see that would cause a reader to have to connect the two parallels as same gender sex. In fact I would see that as a response based more on expectation.

 

[puriteen18]

Puriteen said:

Roz sez:

Unfortunately for your argument, your verse does not apply because First Corinthinans only talks about homosexual prostitution and homosexual rape (probably including pederasty, as this widespread Roman custom appeared to be a pet peeve of Paul's and he probably regarded it as a form of rape).

For you to say that homosexuals in chaste, committed, monogamous relationships waiting for the blessing of marriage are......."going straight down into the pit" is particularly ugly slander--and highly inappropriate.

Shall I not warn them? Shall I let them just pass me by, and not even this, but add my blessing?

What love is this, that I should keep the truth to myself and allow them to suffer wrath.

It is not about me looking down on them, for am I not guilty of sin and just as wicked as they? Indeed I am, if not more so, but I warn them that they might enjoy grace.

I do not declare this to the homosexual only, but to all men, that all might be saved.

Am I to say, just be morally good, and judgement will go well with you, knowing full well that those who are out of Christ have no hope. That they cannot save themselves; it is only by God. To Him be all Glory now and forever!

 

[Rocinante]

Roz said: You can do better.

Puriteen said:

No one can, niether can I, excepting the LORD wills it to be.

Roz sez:

But Puriteen--the Lord already HAS willed it. Grace is available to all.

 

[kdet]

Shall I not warn them? Shall I let them just pass me by, and not even this, but add my blessing?

What love is this, that I should keep the truth to myself and allow them to suffer wrath.

It is not about me looking down on them, for am I not guilty of sin and just as wicked as they? Indeed I am, if not more so, but I warn them that they might enjoy grace.

I do not declare this to the homosexual only, but to all men, that all might be saved.

Am I to say, just be morally good, and judgement will go well with you, knowing full well that those who are out of Christ have no hope. That they cannot save themselves; it is only by God. To Him be all Glory now and forever!

Amen
Good word!

 

[puriteen18]

But Puriteen--the Lord already HAS willed it. Grace is available to all.

Romans 9
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.



Romans 11
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.


The election will obtain it, and the rest shall be blinded. The election will submit to God, the rest will seek their own way and be dammned.

Even Jesus taught that some are His sheep and some are the children of Satan.

God help us all, that we might be counted amoung His own.

 

[Rocinante]

Speaking of homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships waiting for the blessing of marriage.......

Puriteen said:

Shall I not warn them? Shall I let them just pass me by, and not even this, but add my blessing?

Roz sez:

Warn them of what? This thread has some of the clearest statements I've ever seen.......that there is NOTHING to warn them about--that the Bible DOES NOT condemn them.

If they abide by the Law of Love that Jesus gave us--they are surely with him.

 

[Rocinante]

Puriteen said:

Even Jesus taught that some are His sheep and some are the children of Satan.

God help us all, that we might be counted amoung His own.

Roz sez:

One way to work toward that goal might be to stop slandering homosexuals in monogamous, committed relationships who await the blessing of marriage and live Godly lives by God's precious grace.