How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[Outspoken]

You have offered NO Scriptural evidence whatsoever to support your reasoning that some homosexuality is NOT a sin. You ignore Jesus' teaching on marriage (Matt. 19:3-9) and Paul's teaching on fleeing and avoiding fornication (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5. But, claim that it is ridiculous to view all homosexuality as sin. Is it ridiculous to acknowledge what "nature" teaches (Rom. 1:26-27)? Is it right to call something good that God called "shameful" (verse 27)?

I do not understand why you keep wasting your time. Why don't you just produce the passage that teaches what you are promoting?

BINGO. Great post.

 

[- DRA -]

If anyone is interested in a scholarly (by scholarly, I mean someone with a PhD in the correct field who uses the orginal Greek text rather than the KJV and the TNDT rather than Strong's) answer to this question, goto this URL:

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01079.html

And scroll down to professor Gowler's message.

What I read on the link you provided was a man that is willing to forsake "sound" reasoning by credible scholars and redefine a word because he doesn't want to accept what the Lord taught about marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Matt. 19:3-9. The writer struggles with Matt. 19:3-9 because parallel accounts in Mark and Luke do not list the exception clause that Matthew records. Rather than accept all three accounts and put all the facts together to get the complete picture (which, by the way, is what we have to do with the different accounts of the same events in the gospels) , he attempts to undermine the account in Matt. 19 and redefine the word "porneia.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA said:
It is clear in the account in Gen. 19 what the men of Sodom desired - - other men.


Really? Those were just men that visited Lot and not Angels? I thought Jude made clear that the men of Sodom were seeking "hetero sarx" and not "homo sarx."

Jude 7 makes two things very clear about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah:
1.) They gave themselves over to "porneia" (fornication or sexual immorality)
and
2.) they went after strange flesh
Look at Gen. 19:5. Who do the men of Sodom inquire about? Was it not the "men" who they saw go into Lot's house? Look up the Hebrew word for men. See how it is defined.

 

[PastorFreud]

Jude 7 makes two things very clear about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah:
1.) They gave themselves over to "porneia" (fornication or sexual immorality)
and
2.) they went after strange flesh
Look at Gen. 19:5. Who do the men of Sodom inquire about? Was it not the "men" who they saw go into Lot's house? Look up the Hebrew word for men. See how it is defined.

I would agree that going after the angels qualifies as porneia. But this happened after God had already judged them. The destruction was already delared before this event.

But why the does the writer of Jude, writing in Greek, use "hetero sarx" for "strange flesh." If they were going after the flesh of men, wouldn't "homo sarx" be a more appropriate wording? Since you are using Jude to interpret Genesis, there should be some agreement.

Do you also accept the book of Enoch as Scripture based on Jude quoting from it? If not, why not?

 

[seebs]

Jude 7 makes two things very clear about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah:
1.) They gave themselves over to "porneia" (fornication or sexual immorality)
and
2.) they went after strange flesh
Look at Gen. 19:5. Who do the men of Sodom inquire about? Was it not the "men" who they saw go into Lot's house? Look up the Hebrew word for men. See how it is defined.

Indeed, you could easily make the claim that the real problem was them going after angels.

As noted, if they were going after men, they didn't need Lot's guests.

 

[Rocinante]

While Jesus sometimes taught with parables (illustrations to make lessons have a deeper or clearer meaning), he also taught with real stories. What the Bible presents as a real story is not a parable.

Roz sez: I'm sure the Bible teaches with both real stories, myth, legend and allegory.

Can you give an example of Jesus teaching with a real story?

You ignore Jesus' teaching on marriage (Matt. 19:3-9) and Paul's teaching on fleeing and avoiding fornication (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5.

Roz sez:

Wrong again. I believe we should avoid fornication.....both homosexual and heterosexual fornication.

And Jesus had some wise words about marriage. As I have said before, many good homosexual couples are waiting for the blessing of marriage, which has long been denied them by FundaGelical bigots.

As has been clearly shown repeatedly in this thread, the Bible condemns only homosexual promiscuity, homosexual rape and homosexual prostitution.

That's a Bible fact.

 

[dnich163]

It is a sexualized act of violence. And in the ancient world, it was quite popular as a demonstration of dominance. There can be other forms of violence too, but violence is the driving motivation regardless of how it is expressed.

I think this is too limited a view here Pastor.
There are cases where the violence in rape is so minimal to be nearly non existent...with a married couple for example when the husband wants..the wife doesn't....and he forces it..she gives in because of the children/situation or whatever.

This is a real scenario...it is against the will of the woman..but the violence is muted.

The end result is the man getting his way (power or dominance) but not violence..in fact violence is exactly what he doesn't want in this case...it needs to be secret..at night..in bed..minimal resistance.

In this case then violence is clearly not the driving force.

David

 

[dnich163]

I believe we should avoid fornication.....both homosexual and heterosexual fornication......... the Bible condemns only homosexual promiscuity, homosexual rape and homosexual prostitution............That's a Bible fact.

I think we are back to interpretation here Roz.

There are some issues which are left to the reader/listener to decipher for themselves.

My understanding of Paul in Romans for example is that he didn't highlight the homosexual bit so much because it was prevalent anyway...therefore all he needed to concentrate on was promiscuity..and he was talking about promiscuity in the sense of being unfaithful.

I also think if you were to ask people in the forum what they understood by fornication...my guess is that homosexual acts would come in there somewhere.

David

 

[leecappella]

I think we are back to interpretation here Roz.

a) There are some issues which are left to the reader/listener to decipher for themselves.

b) I also think if you were to ask people in the forum what they understood by fornication...my guess is that homosexual acts would come in there somewhere.

David

a) This is usually always the case. Considering the sources a reader has (or doesn't have), conclusions will likely differ.

b) Ah, yes! However, what is the biblical definition of fornication? Once again, one's sources comes into play. Not every bible source/tool reads the exact same way or says the same thing or implies the same thing.

 

[Rocinante]

Dave said:

I think we are back to interpretation here Roz.

There are some issues which are left to the reader/listener to decipher for themselves.

My understanding of Paul in Romans for example is that he didn't highlight the homosexual bit so much because it was prevalent anyway...therefore all he needed to concentrate on was promiscuity..and he was talking about promiscuity in the sense of being unfaithful.

Roz sez:

Actually, the only ref that requires even a little study to "interpret" is Leviticus--and when that's done, it becomes a condemnation of consorting with male temple prostitutes (as do most of the other references to homosexuality in the Bible).

All the rest are transparently referring to promiscuity, even a pagan orgy in Romans One.

So "deciphering" is not a problem. UNLESS (as I mentioned in the thread-starter) you come to the reading with prejudice against homosexuals that blinds you.

Dave also said:

I also think if you were to ask people in the forum what they understood by fornication...my guess is that homosexual acts would come in there somewhere.

Roz sez:

Fortunately, right and wrong are not determined by what the majority thinks. If God worked that way, Israel would be worshipping a Golden Calf as the majority decided long ago.

There is heterosexual fornication and homosexual fornication, but there are also good and loving homosexual relationships as well as good and loving heterosexual relationships.

Love and truth, justice and mercy.....these will win out because good people have the courage to stand up and support them--even a few good people.

God is great.

 

[leecappella]

The issue seems quite simple: Can two people of the same gender live in a committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God? Look up every text that deals with the issue of same sex acts and once you've discovered what the context of the text is, then answer the question I've just asked. Remember, a text without a context or a text taken out of context is a pretext. But, there is always a context. You just have to discern what that context is. Simply put, if a text does not address the issue asked in the question above, then the text cannot be used to condemn what the text itself does not deal with.

 

[breezynosacek]

My goal was to read every Biblical scripture that seemed to relate to homosexuality........

The one thing I would do differently was that I would read it strictly and steadfastly from the point of view of......

1. A gay man in a committed and monogamous lifetime union with another gay man.

and

2. A lesbian in the same type of relationship with another lesbian.

The revelation that came from this was startling in its power.

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

All references are to promiscuous behavior, including prostitution and rape.

Now, of course, there is the single Leviticus reference that may or may not refer to sex with the young boys who were used as temple prostitutes.

That ref (which comes in two places in Leviticus, listing offense and penalty) if it were to be used as a condemnation of ALL homosexuality......would have two problems....

1. It stands alone.

and

2. It does not mention lesbians.

So I do not find it compelling as a blanket condemnation.

Now, there is one remaining argument. One could (and many do) also argue that there is a grand pattern of only male/female sexual relationships that is present throughout the Bible and from this alone we should come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong.

I acknowledge that argument.......I just see it as FAR from conclusive, because chaste, monogamous homosexual relationships probably were simply NOT MENTIONED because they were rare and also........similar to today......people shy away from discussing them at all.......out of weakness and fear.

In addition, some argue that logic and common sense show us that men's and women's bodies were physically constructed to have sex with each other and make babies.....so a man with a man or a woman with a woman is wrong from a purely functional standpoint.

I've heard your types of reasonings before and I won't argue from a functional standpoint or any other standpoint except to just put it out there exactly as it is in the Word of God.

It is mentioned in the NT but unfortunately it doesn't initially have to do with sexual lust of the mind or body. It has to do with IDOLATRY. Idols.

Homosexuality is just a judgement from God because of it.

Look in Romans 1

v. 19"For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.
v 20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].
v 21 Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.
v 22 claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].
23 And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their [own] hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [abandoning them to the degrading power of sin],
25 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever!
26 For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
27 And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrongdoing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.
28 And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome."
Amplified Version

Notice that it starts in the mind first, then goes over into actions that cause them to suffer in their bodies and personalities.

If it is starting in the mind then there is something in the persons thought life that ain't right and it isn't the homosexual thought, it's something being put above God in the person's life.

 

[Fideist]

If anyone is interested in a scholarly (by scholarly, I mean someone with a PhD in the correct field who uses the orginal Greek text rather than the KJV and the TNDT rather than Strong's) answer to this question, goto this URL:


http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archi...3/msg01079.html



And scroll down to professor Gowler's message.





What I read on the link you provided was a man that is willing to forsake "sound" reasoning by credible scholars and redefine a word because he doesn't want to accept what the Lord taught about marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Matt.19:3-9.

DRA, saying that he has forsaken "sound" reasoning and then telling us what his intent was when you can't possibly know, is not sound reasoning. All it shows is that you are willing to invent somebody else's position and then argue with your own personal construct. If you have actual evidence for your allegations, go ahead and place the arguments into the record so that people can evaluate them.

The writer struggles with Matt. 19:3-9 because parallel accounts in Mark and Luke do not list the exception clause that Matthew records.

All biblical scholars, except some who are trained in seminaries that require students to sign a statement that the bible is inerrant and so on, have trouble with passages that are not multiply attested. This is not just some whim on their part.

Rather than accept all three accounts and put all the facts together to get the complete picture (which, by the way, is what we have to do with the different accounts of the same events in the gospels) ,

No, "we" don't. "We" accept the fact that there are glosses and imbedded commentary in the gospels that came from later editors, well meaning scribes and commentators. There is absolutely no question that this is the case. We also accept the fact that Matthew and Luke use Mark and other common sources. So, we don’t have three different accounts, we have one account and two refinements or variations of that account.

he attempts to undermine the account in Matt. 19 and redefine the word "porneia.

Once again anyone making such an allegation needs to provide evidence to support a given assertion if the person expects to be taken seriously. Merely offering speculative opinions on the intent of a person with clear credentials and a command of the material carries very little weight. I have an abridged copy of "The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," which gives a very thorough treatment to porneia, it’s root and it’s variations. The first definition is prostitution. And on Jesus’ use of the term, the first two sentences of the TNDT read:



“I. The Proclamation of Jesus. The NT presupposes the existence of harlots in Palestine and the sinfulness of their trade (Mt. 21:31-32; Lk. 15:30). It also depicts their responsiveness to the message of the Baptist and the invitation of Jesus (Lk. 7:50; Mt. 21:31-32).”



In the specific instance you mention, it reads:



“The problem in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9 is perhaps that Jewish Christians who keep the law are required to divorce adulterous wives and hence cannot be responsible if these contract a new relationship which is from a Christian standpoint itself adulterous.”



Now I don’t expect anyone who reads the Bible literally to accept the scholarship of the TNDT. In fact, I would expect a person who reads the Bible literally to dismiss the TNDT because it does not conform to their traditional means of interpreting the text. What I wanted to show was that there is more than sufficient reason, given by people with sterling credentials and as near to an objective stance on the material as can be found, to read the text in a significantly different way than Jesus condemning homosexuality among other forms of what is often an ambiguous and curious rendering of porneia.

 

[leecappella]

Homosexuality is just a judgement from God because of it (idolatry).

Not sure what you're saying. Homosexuality, in this text, is so because it was something God placed upon the people because of their idolatry? Like a punishment for their turning to idols? I disagree if this is your understanding. You have a right to it, but I disagree.

 

[PastorFreud]

I think this is too limited a view here Pastor.
There are cases where the violence in rape is so minimal to be nearly non existent...with a married couple for example when the husband wants..the wife doesn't....and he forces it..she gives in because of the children/situation or whatever.

This is a real scenario...it is against the will of the woman..but the violence is muted.

The end result is the man getting his way (power or dominance) but not violence..in fact violence is exactly what he doesn't want in this case...it needs to be secret..at night..in bed..minimal resistance.

In this case then violence is clearly not the driving force.

David

You are quite right. I was using the words power, dominance, and violence interchangeably. If you denote violence as actual physical force, then it doesn't work as I have described. Power and dominance are the driving force of rape. I would still call this violence, even if no physical force was used, but I probably should not.

In the case of a husband raping his wife, this clearly shows that there is something wrong in the relationship. A man who would use power to dominate like this is not showing the respect his wife deserves. The use of psychological manipulation is just as bad.

At any rate, the core issue is not about sex. A man can relieve his own sexual tension. It is interesting that men who rape are less able to fantasize about sex. I wonder if the same is true of date and marriage rape. These are much harder to study because so many go unreported. Also, I think some women send men the wrong signals and they are confused. Of 20 stories I have heard of date rape, 15 of them are clearly date rape, while the other five are not as cut and dry. One woman told me "it wasn't until we were finished that I realized I didn't want to have sex." We could certainly use clearer definitions and some more research in this field.

 

[PastorFreud]

I think we are back to interpretation here Roz.

There are some issues which are left to the reader/listener to decipher for themselves.

My understanding of Paul in Romans for example is that he didn't highlight the homosexual bit so much because it was prevalent anyway...therefore all he needed to concentrate on was promiscuity..and he was talking about promiscuity in the sense of being unfaithful.

I also think if you were to ask people in the forum what they understood by fornication...my guess is that homosexual acts would come in there somewhere.

David

But this flies in the face of sexuality in ancient times. Sex wasn't about intimacy and affection and mutual attraction. Remember that for Hebrews, marriages were arranged. Women were property. Children were property. Condemnations of sexuality almost always appear in relation to religious ritual.

The prohibition against adultery is not based on the harm it causes. It is based on the loss of respect and the bond of marriage being broken. The prohibition (pre-Jesus, anyway) is in the context of property rights. A non-virgin woman is damaged goods. That's why you had to marry her if you did it or else pay her father, not her, for damaging his property. Jesus does a radical thing here, however, and treats women as equals and deserving of rights. It's one of the things that gets him killed.

We go back to the text and read our current views of marriage and love onto the text. Marriage had nothing to do with love for Hebrews. Maybe lust for Jacob. But even then, he married both daughters. Is this a biblical picture prescribing how our relationships should be today? And as far as I can tell from my study of reputable sources, a man who visited a prostitute was not breaking the law. She was, but he wasnt'. That's why Paul has to make an argument from reason against prostitution. He can't argue from the law because it would not support his case. Temple prostitution is different, however. It is always condemned because it is an act of worship.

 

[- DRA -]

[/font][/size]



DRA, saying that he has forsaken "sound" reasoning and then telling us what his intent was when you can't possibly know, is not sound reasoning. All it shows is that you are willing to invent somebody else's position and then argue with your own personal construct. If you have actual evidence for your allegations, go ahead and place the arguments into the record so that people can evaluate them.







All biblical scholars, except some who are trained in seminaries that require students to sign a statement that the bible is inerrant and so on, have trouble with passages that are not multiply attested. This is not just some whim on their part.







No, "we" don't. "We" accept the fact that there are glosses and imbedded commentary in the gospels that came from later editors, well meaning scribes and commentators. There is absolutely no question that this is the case. We also accept the fact that Matthew and Luke use Mark and other common sources. So, we don’t have three different accounts, we have one account and two refinements or variations of that account.







Once again anyone making such an allegation needs to provide evidence to support a given assertion if the person expects to be taken seriously. Merely offering speculative opinions on the intent of a person with clear credentials and a command of the material carries very little weight. I have an abridged copy of "The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," which gives a very thorough treatment to porneia, it’s root and it’s variations. The first definition is prostitution. And on Jesus’ use of the term, the first two sentences of the TNDT read:



“I. The Proclamation of Jesus. The NT presupposes the existence of harlots in Palestine and the sinfulness of their trade (Mt. 21:31-32; Lk. 15:30). It also depicts their responsiveness to the message of the Baptist and the invitation of Jesus (Lk. 7:50; Mt. 21:31-32).”



In the specific instance you mention, it reads:



“The problem in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9 is perhaps that Jewish Christians who keep the law are required to divorce adulterous wives and hence cannot be responsible if these contract a new relationship which is from a Christian standpoint itself adulterous.”



Now I don’t expect anyone who reads the Bible literally to accept the scholarship of the TNDT. In fact, I would expect a person who reads the Bible literally to dismiss the TNDT because it does not conform to their traditional means of interpreting the text. What I wanted to show was that there is more than sufficient reason, given by people with sterling credentials and as near to an objective stance on the material as can be found, to read the text in a significantly different way than Jesus condemning homosexuality among other forms of what is often an ambiguous and curious rendering of porneia.

Fideist,

I want to make sure that we are looking at the same article. When I go to the link you provided, is the article you are referring to on the page that opens, or do I need to go to the index or other pages to find the article?

My previous comments were based on this article:
Subject: REorneia (in Matt 19:9). It is on the page that the link opens to. Are we looking at the same article? Is this post Professor Gowler's, or do I have the wrong article. It appeared to be written by William Brooks, but I thought that Professor Gowler posted it because he consented to it. Am I looking at the article that you directed us to? If not, please give me some additional info so that I can review and study the correct article.

. . . Denny

 

[Fideist]

Fideist,

I want to make sure that we are looking at the same article. When I go to the link you provided, is the article you are referring to on the page that opens, or do I need to go to the index or other pages to find the article?

My previous comments were based on this article:
Subject: REorneia (in Matt 19:9). It is on the page that the link opens to. Are we looking at the same article? Is this post Professor Gowler's, or do I have the wrong article. It appeared to be written by William Brooks, but I thought that Professor Gowler posted it because he consented to it. Am I looking at the article that you directed us to? If not, please give me some additional info so that I can review and study the correct article.

. . . Denny

I can't tell by what you posted. Click the link and then scroll down to the post that begins with this:

David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College

 

[Outspoken]

But this flies in the face of sexuality in ancient times. Sex wasn't about intimacy and affection and mutual attraction. Remember that for Hebrews, marriages were arranged. Women were property. Children were property. Condemnations of sexuality almost always appear in relation to religious ritual.

The prohibition against adultery is not based on the harm it causes. It is based on the loss of respect and the bond of marriage being broken. The prohibition (pre-Jesus, anyway) is in the context of property rights. A non-virgin woman is damaged goods. That's why you had to marry her if you did it or else pay her father, not her, for damaging his property. Jesus does a radical thing here, however, and treats women as equals and deserving of rights. It's one of the things that gets him killed.

We go back to the text and read our current views of marriage and love onto the text. Marriage had nothing to do with love for Hebrews. Maybe lust for Jacob. But even then, he married both daughters. Is this a biblical picture prescribing how our relationships should be today? And as far as I can tell from my study of reputable sources, a man who visited a prostitute was not breaking the law. She was, but he wasnt'. That's why Paul has to make an argument from reason against prostitution. He can't argue from the law because it would not support his case. Temple prostitution is different, however. It is always condemned because it is an act of worship.

"Marriage had nothing to do with love for Hebrews."

I totally disagree. You have biblical examples clearly showing love was part of marriage.

As for the temple prostitution arugment, it is illogical. If you take that route you have only 2 choices in relations to Romans 1.

1. Homosexuality, murder, malice, all types of evil are okay outside of cult practices
or
2. Homosexuality, murder, malice, all types of evil are sin regardless of the circumstances.

So its either 1 or 2. There is ample scriptural support for 2, none for 1. So I'm guessing its 2.

 

[dnich163]

You are quite right.....................At any rate, the core issue is not about sex. A man can relieve his own sexual tension.

QUOTE]

Hi Pastor,

The woman can do the same obviously.
We are heading into the sin of Onan now!

David