How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[- DRA -]

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:

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

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 ***?

Artybloke,

The Bible addresses the mindset that you describe. There are indeed those who are determined to have things their way. They do not have a love for truth. God will even send them "strong delusion" (NKJV). Ultimately, they will be condemned. The passage is 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12.

There are two sources of authority in spiritual matters. Authority comes from either heaven . . . or men (Matt. 21:23-27). Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). God confirmed His approval of both Jesus' teaching and works (John 3:2), as well as the apostles teachings and works (Heb. 2:3-4). There is a reason that folks today appeal to secular thinking to justify themselves and their lines of reasoning - - they do that because the Bible doesn't.

I would rather not follow the steps of Balaam . . . I hate to think that a donkey would get the best of me in a conversation, as it did Balaam.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

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

I imagine there are questions of interpretation on just about every passage of Scripture. I don't allow that to be a deterrent to determining truth (Jn. 8:32).

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?

I am compelled to conclude that the only examples or inferences that I find of marriages that God approved of were between a man and a woman. Marriage is an option. Man does not have to marry. See 1 Cor. chapter 7 & Matt. 19:12. But if marriage is desired, God's laws must be considered and obeyed.

Faith and confession are requirements of salvation (Rom. 10:9-10). The eunuch made what is sometimes called the "good confession" in Acts 8:37. Jesus taught that confessing Him is necessary if we want Him to confess us (Matt. 10:32-33). What about the one that cannot speak? Are they lost because they cannot confess with the mouth (Rom. 10:9-10)? Or, will God accept their acknowledgement and recognition of the Lord by other means of confessing Him - - nodding their head yes when asked if Jesus is Lord, or writing their statement on paper for all present to see? I like to think that that God expects us to do our best to obey Him . . . He doesn't expect more than we can give . . . and He doesn't expect less than we can give. I like to think that the one who cannot confess Jesus with the mouth, but can confess Him by other means can still be saved. I do not see how this example justifies homosexuality. Perhaps, you can elaborate more on your reasoning.

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

If the passage you are alluding to is Rom. 7:6, the law being referred to is the law of Moses. True, we do not live by that law today.

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?

Consider Ephesians 5:22-33. This is the way God expects a marriage to be. Be sure to notice the terms used to describe the two components of a marriage - - a wife and a husband.

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

2 Cor. 3:6 is contrasting the law of Moses with the gospel of Christ. Moses' law identified and convicted of sin, but did not take it away. The new covenant takes away sin (Heb. 10:1-17).

Did you notice the sins that the Corinthians previously engaged in (1 Cor. 6:9-11)? Homosexuality was among them. Jesus empowered them to put those things behind them - - "And such were some of you" (vs. 11a).

 

[Rocinante]

David said:

I must admit I'm absolutely baffled that you could see a problem with this terminology (caring for homosexuals)...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.

Then David said:

I never stated that homosexuals were beggars or cripples....

Roz sez:

You said exactly that. You said that caring for homosexuals is "just the same as caring for the beggar, the crippled person....."

Now let's take this slow, David.

If a person is perfectly ok.......

and you say they should be treated just like a cripple or a beggar......

what have you just done?

 

[- DRA -]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

 

[- DRA -]

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.

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.

Yes. I read what you wrote. I thought I captured your views accurately. I thought . . . and still think . . . you were pointing out that the O.T. law taught against homosexuality, but Jesus did not. Please clarify, if this was not your point.

The phrase you mention in Matt. 19:11 refers to what Jesus says in verse 12. Becoming a eunuch "for the kingdom's sake" will not be accepted by all.
The fact remains that Jesus taught that marriage is based on the coming together of a man and a woman (vs. 4-6).

It makes me tired to just think about 4 hours of testing. I hope you did well. Get some rest.

 

[- DRA -]

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.)

I don't think we should have any more problem understanding the word "fornication" than we do with any other N.T. Greek word. We have definitions by credible scholars to look at, as well as numerous other places to examine how this word is used in the N.T. It is a term that suggests a broad range of sexual activity - - activity that God is NOT pleased with. Jesus taught against it. We should be able to determine what he was teaching against, right? We should even be able to determine if homosexuality falls within the scope of things included within the meaning of this word.

 

[seebs]

I don't think we should have any more problem understanding the word "fornication" than we do with any other N.T. Greek word. We have definitions by credible scholars to look at, as well as numerous other places to examine how this word is used in the N.T. It is a term that suggests a broad range of sexual activity - - activity that God is NOT pleased with. Jesus taught against it. We should be able to determine what he was teaching against, right?

I don't know that we should be able to be sure. I know that people who claim certainty have disagreed, and thus, that certainty is sometimes misplaced.

We have a great deal of study by credible scholars, leading to the conclusion that there is ambiguity.

We should even be able to determine if homosexuality falls within the scope of things included within the meaning of this word.

I doubt that we could determine this reliably without talking to people of the time at length. We would need to spend an hour or more explaining the concepts of human sexuality we're using before we could even ask the question.

 

[Rocinante]

We should even be able to determine if homosexuality falls within the scope of things included within the meaning of this word.

Roz sez: And the clear answer from scripture is that some homosexuality DOES fall within the scope of things included within the meaning of the word.......and some homosexuality DOES NOT fall within the scope of things included within the meaning of the word.

EXACTLY as some heterosexuality falls within and some does not.

 

[- DRA -]

Roz sez: And the clear answer from scripture is that some homosexuality DOES fall within the scope of things included within the meaning of the word.......and some homosexuality DOES NOT fall within the scope of things included within the meaning of the word.

EXACTLY as some heterosexuality falls within and some does not.

Rocinante,

Thanks for your response.

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?

I agree. Some heterosexuality falls within the realm of "fornication," but some does not. The heterosexual activity that is considered fornication occurs between those who are not married to each other, or who are married to each other, but are living in adultery (Matt. 19:9). A heterosexual couple that is married to each other has the right to enjoy sex as God intended (1 Cor. 7:1-5).

. . . Denny

 

[dnich163]

Now let's take this slow, David.

You misread it Roz...from your point of view the main part is the homosexual bit in the line.....
From my part the central theme is that of Caring...it is the same care for everybody...the same care..not the same person...get it now Roz !!

Just as Jesus loved the leper, the prostitute, the rich man who turned away...the love part is what is key.....it is the same for all,

Just as his command was to love the lord our God and love our neighbour as ourself...for me it is the same love,

Now you can go as slow or as fast as you like.

David

 

[Perceivence]

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.

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. 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.)

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

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.

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.

Also, I'll repeat that your argument seems to be in the societal context of Paul's letter, not so much the translation. And, even considering the societal context, the condemnation of homosexuality is still there....

 

[Perceivence]

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:

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

I see.

So I was right - people do go with the intention of interpretting scripture truthfully, but their lack of knowledge or other tools prevents proper understanding of it. They don't always project what they want into the scripture.

And, as you said, it happens to both Liberals and Conservatives alike. We're all human, of coures, so we're subject to mistakes. It's a good thing, then, that we have the Holy Spirit to help us in our interpretation...or to interpret scripture for us...to prevent dangerous misinterpretations.... It's a pity most people don't rely on Him for that.

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.

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

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

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 ***?

Yes, He can. But how often does He?

 

[Rocinante]

You misread it Roz...from your point of view the main part is the homosexual bit in the line.....
From my part the central theme is that of Caring...it is the same care for everybody...the same care..not the same person...get it now Roz !!

No, David. You miswrote it. Sadly enough, you miswrote it just as you intended.

When you call people who are perfectly ok......CRIPPLES--it is a grave insult.

 

[Rocinante]

Denny said:

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.

 

[Matt Never Existed]

Yes. I read what you wrote. I thought I captured your views accurately. I thought . . . and still think . . . you were pointing out that the O.T. law taught against homosexuality, but Jesus did not. Please clarify, if this was not your point.

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

 

[dnich163]

No, David. You miswrote it. Sadly enough, you miswrote it just as you intended.

When you call people who are perfectly ok......CRIPPLES--it is a grave insult.

This actually says more about you than me Roz.

I'm glad to hear that everyone in the world is okay now though......all humanity is perfect at last..... no hang ups on words....... they really know what is in people's hearts and minds........from thousands of miles away they know how people live their lives and the work they do........and can judge everything and everybody so perfectly!!!!

But wait a minute here..I forgot...there is a bigot running around in the forum somewhere...who can this last of the imperfect be?.....that's right......you think it's me....Phew, that was close..nearly met a fallen human being that used to inhabit this world!!

Well...we can look forward to a perfect world from now on...no more wars, no more 3rd world debt, no more 19,000 kids dying a day because the rich north turns a blind eye to the poor south, no more exploitation...Wow - bliss !

There you are then..........this voluntary work I've been doing for years has finally paid off..........no need to be worried anymore.........or care..ooops, sorry that is a word you don't seem to know about yet.

David

 

[PastorFreud]

A heterosexual couple that is married to each other has the right to enjoy sex as God intended (1 Cor. 7:1-5).

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.

 

[Imjustanant]

One can find NO condemnation in any of the Bible mentions of homosexuality.

Lev 20:13 (NIV)

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

If that does not condemn homosexuality, even among monogamous homosexuals, then would you conceed that it would be okay to have sex with animals as long as it was just with one animal??

In objectively trying to consider your argument, I'd be more apt to consider it if there was somewhere in the Bible that promoted homosexuality.

 

[Imjustanant]

For you to say that homosexuals in chaste, committed, monogamous relationships waiting for the blessing of marriage are.......

I don't understand. Where does the Bible promote marriage between a man and a man? IF Scripture condemns the practice of homosexuality, doesn't it make sense that it'd be silent on the marriage (blessing) on that which it condemns? (If it so condemns).

You keep bringing up being a monogamous homosexual. Is there a Scripture that promotes monogamous homosexuality?

What is the "waiting for the blessing of marriage" that you speak of come from?

 

[artybloke]

I see.

So I was right - people do go with the intention of interpretting scripture truthfully, but their lack of knowledge or other tools prevents proper understanding of it. They don't always project what they want into the scripture.

And, as you said, it happens to both Liberals and Conservatives alike. We're all human, of coures, so we're subject to mistakes. It's a good thing, then, that we have the Holy Spirit to help us in our interpretation...or to interpret scripture for us...to prevent dangerous misinterpretations.... It's a pity most people don't rely on Him for that.

Oh, absolutely - we ought to rely on the Holy Spirit; but sometimes our urge to be "right" all the time gets the better of us. We don't like to be wrong, and we like the familiar. Especially if, as many seem to think is the case here, the Holy Spirit is "doing a new thing."

I mean, when it's a question of interpretation and not a salvation matter, how do you decide which side is right in a dispute like this? How do you decide that you have the Holy Spirit's leading but the other side doesn't? Because it "feels" right? Maybe if it makes us un-comfortable rather than something that we can easily agree with? And maybe the Holy Spirit speaks through our reason and our feelings of compassion and love for others more than through our unconscious prejudices? (I'm sure we all have prejudices about something or other. Even if it's only broccoli.)

Yes, He can. But how often does He?

Maybe more often than we like to think. We all like to live in a comfort zone; God has a way of kicking us out of it.

(By the way, with regard to Quakers and slavery, I suggest you read up on the life of John Woolman.)