How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[- DRA -]

Originally posted by - DRA - :

I find no N.T. Scriptures that specifically say that beastiality is wrong, do you? Therefore, if there is no context that deals with this subject, then it is not comdemned, correct? Isn't that your reasoning? That sure puts a new perspective on the old saying, "Dog is man's best friend."

Roz sez:

Your continued comparison of homosexuals to animals is offensive and insulting. I think you know that and if you continue it I will report it.

Trusting that you will improve, I will answer your question. The NT prohibition of bestiality is in the Law of Love that Jesus gave us. To rape a dumb animal that cannot give consent is not an act of love or compassion. It is cruel. It is inhuman. It is sin.

Now please desist your insults.

Thanks.

Look closely at what I wrote. I did not write what you are charging me with. All I did was point out how invalid the reasoning was.

I will continue to point out invalid reasoning. I do not need your permission or approval to do that. Evidently, you have mistaken me for someone else.
If you find your reasoning to be insulting, then you should change your reasoning.

What you are suggesting is that there is a principle that governs beastiality, not a specific command. I agree that there is no specific prohibition against beastiality, but there is a command that does indeed address the issue of any form of sex outside of marriage - - fornication or sexual immorality (porneia) is prohibited. The only means of avoiding "porneia" is given in 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5. Look closely at this text. Do you find your reasoning there? What specific action does this passage say to take to avoid "porneia?" What I have asked for repeatedly from you, and have yet failed to receive, is the Scriptural reasoning that supports what you are promoting.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

.....Now, why don't you get back on topic and show us where the passage of Scripture is that authorizes a homosexual relationship?

. . . Denny

Have you not done your natural eunuch study yet? I'm not sure you're gonna pass if keep this up

I guess your effort to avoid answering the question means that you have NO answer. Actually, I don't have to guess, because it is rather obvious that you have no answer.

You refer to this thing about natural eunuch's in Matt. 19:12 as if it were an ace up your sleeve in a card game. What good is that ace if you never use it? If you have a valid point to make, then by all means, make it.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -
Lee,

Once again, you are ASSUMING that God blesses committed, loving homosexual relationships.

Okay. I'm looking at Romans chapter 1. Please set the context of verses 26-27. Then draw the conclusion that you would like the rest of us to consider. Also, don't forget to apply the other sins listed in verses to 28-31 to the context and reasoning that you promote.

Jesus condemned "porneia" (fornication) in Matt. 15:19. How do you define that word? What do you see as the context?

I find no N.T. Scriptures that specifically say that beastiality is wrong, do you? Therefore, if there is no context that deals with this subject, then it is not comdemned, correct? Isn't that your reasoning? That sure puts a new perspective on the old saying, "Dog is man's best friend."

Why do you feel inclined to assume that God accepts loving, committed relationships outside of marriage - - either hetero or homosexual? Did 1 Cor. 7:2-5 say that enjoying sex outside of marriage is a way to avoid fornication (see 6:18)? And doesn't that text tell us who a man and a woman are to "have?" Do you not see what you are doing? God has specifically spoken about avoiding "porneia," and rather than doing what God said, you suggest other options. Have you ever studied the story of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:1-3? There may be something you can learn from their demise (Rom. 15:4). When God specifically speaks, substitution is not an option!

. . . Denny

And you are assuming God does not bless them...

That is true. I have NO reason to assume that God blesses the loving, commited homosexual relationship. To assume what you promote would be to DENY what both Jesus and Paul taught in Matt. 19:3-9 & 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5, respectively.

I think you and I have already been through the Romans 1 discussion, haven't we? I've explained my viewpoint in the past to you....

You seem to still be unwilling to go where your reasoning from Romans 1 takes you. That says a lot about your reasoning process.

I don't have my bible tools here, so I cannot define 'fornication' for you...Sodom and Gomorrah were idolatrous places. I do believe that 'fornication' is used in scripture to reference the harlotry that took place in idolatrous rituals.

Why is it you cannot define the word, but you still try to tell us what it means. While I agree that fornication includes harlotry associated with idolatry, I have NO reason to conclude that it solely focuses on that action. Consider:
1.) Matt. 19:9 - - "Fornication" is the sole reason for divorce, while the spouse still is living. This context has nothing to do with idolatry.
2.) John 8:41 - - The context is clearly not discussing idolatry. The Jews denied being born of fornication.
3.) 1 Cor. 5:1 - - Obviously, "porneia" is not associated with idolatry in this verse (or context).
When will you have access to your Bible tools again?

Bestiality is having sexual relations with flesh that is something other than human flesh. Homosexual relationships do not constitute 'strange flesh', which implies 'differen' flesh. The flesh of a male and female are the same flesh, not different...As stated before, I've done my studying!

Romans 1:26-27 describes homosexuality as being "against nature," "leaving the natural use," and "shameful."

Why is it that you accept the meaning of the word "hetero" (strange) in Jude 7, but not accept what Gen. 19:5 plainly says the men of Sodom desired - - men. Whether you admit it or not, such lusting is for different flesh. It is not the natural desire that God placed within man for women, but is something different, or hetero.

I'm not too keen on sex outside of marriage, but a gay relationship between two committed individuals for life is not sex outside of marriage. You see same sex relationships as a substitute, but that is likely only because you see things as you do. Obviously, I see more. No doubt, you may want me to share, but as I've also said to you before, telling you something I know seems futile. You seem to know what it is you know and no doubt about it, so I will let the Holy Spirit guide you hopefully one day to know what I know.

How does Jesus explain God's marriage law in Matt. 19:3-9 - - is it between a man and a woman, or is it between between a man and another man? A relationship with ANYONE outside of God's (the Father) and Jesus' law for marriage is sin. Jesus tells us the basis for marriage in Matt. 19:3-9. Your attempts to promote a different basis for marriage is a DENIAL of Jesus' teaching. I know what I know based on Scripture (Rom. 10:17). That is THE DIFFERENCE in our two approaches to this subject. The Bible describes God's law of marriage, and you would have us accept other rationale - - which has NO Scriptural reasoning to support it.

 

[- DRA -]

The bible deals with what was happening during the times recorded in the bible. If the bible speaks of the marriage between a man and a woman, that is because that is what was. It does not talk about computers or other such things that were not present in its time and culture. It speaks of what was known. The Holy Spirit is not limited to the confines of pages in a book. Some believer's views may be, but the Spirit is not. It is like the wind and it goes and does what it wills even if it is 'outside the box', or in this case, outside the pages. Peter was led to do what he knew not to do within scripture, which was to 'kill and eat' that which scripture taught him not to. Who told him to contradict scripture? So, do not imply, if that is what you were doing, that I am using the Holy Spirit's name wrongfully just because you don't agree with what I believe.

I question whether or not the spirit that prompts one to speak "NOT as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11a) and "Whatever you do in word or deed, do NOTHING in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17), and "Faith does NOT come by hearing the word of God" (Rom. 10:17) really comes from God.

I also question whether or not the same spirit will also lead some to "think outside the box," or "outside the pages."

Homosexuality is comdemned (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). God has not specified a certain way (or ways) that we have to use to communicate with each other. But we do have authority to communicate with each other, right? What about avoiding fornication? God specifically tells us how to avoid it (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5). Should we go against what God specifically tells us, and consent to that which is expressly condemned?

God is revealing to Peter His acceptance of the Gentiles to in Acts chapter 10. Peter is reminded that God promised to bless, not only the Israelites, but ALL families of the earth (Gen. 12:3). God is not encouraging Peter to think OUTSIDE the pages, but to accept what is IN the pages.

 

[- DRA -]

Sorry to break it to you, but you too are following your own thoughts when your eyes look on the pages of scripture, interpret them, and come to a conclusion based on how you comprehend what the scriptures are saying and not saying. We all do that!

Isaiah 5:20 - - "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Everything is not just a matter of our own personal interpretation. The way the God views things is what counts. Now, how does God view marriage (Matt. 19:3-9)? And, how does he tell us to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5)?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

How do you determine that Jude is fascinated with angels? That is merely and assumption on your part.

In Greek, Jude uses the word "heterosarx" which translates as "other flesh" or "strange flesh." Now, this wouldn't be a term used to describe homosexuality itself since that would be the "same flesh." Whatever the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were persuing, it has to be different from themselves.

There are two ways that Lot's visitors could be considered different from the men of Sodom. They are angels, and they are foreigners.

 

[Fideist]

Homosexuality is comdemned

Prove it.

What about avoiding fornication? God specifically tells us how to avoid it (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5).

Prove God said what you say is being said.

 

[Outspoken]

Sorry to break it to you, but you too are following your own thoughts when your eyes look on the pages of scripture, interpret them, and come to a conclusion based on how you comprehend what the scriptures are saying and not saying. We all do that!

No, its not my thought at all. YOu said you use something like common sense, your heart, your feelings, etc...proverbs clearly shows that is wrong. I am not interpreting them at all, simply using the words as shown. As for proverbs, there is no context for most verses thus each is a stand alone proverb..ie the name of the book. The verses I used clearly show you are inserting your own philosophy onto the romans 1 passage. Now, as that is concluded to you care to prove that homosexuality is no longer a sin using scripture, or do you just want to lean on your own thoughts and understanding of the world dispite you not being God?

 

[Outspoken]

Prove it.


Prove God said what you say is being said.

Prove that you said what you just said.

 

[Rocinante]

DRA, I reported your bestilality posts.

Married or Common Law married homosexuals who are monogamous have nothing to fear from Corinthians or any other part of the Bible.

Prostitutes, rapists and those who are promiscuous definately do have something to fear.......but one has nothing to do with the other.

It is quite clear from your attitude that talking to you on this issue is pointless, so God Bless you and farewell.

 

[PastorFreud]

On what basis should I accept it? If the Lord wanted it included in Scripture, he would have said so, right? Did He?

Did the Lord say what other texts he wanted? Did he approve Matthew and not Thomas? Did he approve Mark and not Mary?

Are you homosexual?

This is an inappropriate question and irrelevant. My own sexuality has no bearing on arguments. But seeing as how there is no harm in answering, I am a heterosexual, married 15 years, 6 kids.

 

[EltronRangamma]

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.

Freud, Jesus also made this radical statement: "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them 'male and female'" (Matthew 19:4).

How do you accomodate this with your non-reprimanding view on homosexuality?

 

[seebs]

Freud, Jesus also made this radical statement: "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them 'male and female'" (Matthew 19:4).

How do you accomodate this with your non-reprimanding view on homosexuality?

Careful study reveals that Jesus often speaks in broad generalities, leaving room for exceptions. In fact, only a few verses later, Jesus describes as exceptions those born "eunuchs" from their mother's womb. The word used was used, at the time, to refer not only to people lacking certain bits, but also to occasional people who were capable of procreation, but had no interest in it.

Sound familiar?

 

[EltronRangamma]

Careful study reveals that Jesus often speaks in broad generalities, leaving room for exceptions. In fact, only a few verses later, Jesus describes as exceptions those born "eunuchs" from their mother's womb. The word used was used, at the time, to refer not only to people lacking certain bits, but also to occasional people who were capable of procreation, but had no interest in it.

Sound familiar?

If Jesus wanted it to make it as broad as possible, why hadn't he referred to this holy matrimony as 'two people'? Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would consider the idea that sexual consummation -- as implicated in Matthew 19 verse 5 -- would encompass sodomy .

 

[seebs]

If Jesus wanted it to make it as broad as possible, why hadn't he referred to this holy matrimony as 'two people'?

I seem to have not said this clearly.

Jesus didn't say the most general thing He could; He said something you could get your mind around, assuming you'd fill in the details and adjust as necessary. When we're told that God sees the sparrow's fall, that doesn't mean that God is totally ignorant of the falling of other avians; it's just an example. In many cases, the example used is the most common one. For instance, materialism is a likely barrier to faith, so Jesus used it as an example, but it's not the only kind of desire that could be a barrier to faith.

For 95% of people, desirable relationships are male/female. Referring to them in those terms speaks to most people without getting into irrelevancies.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would consider the idea that sexual consummation -- as implicated in Matthew 19 verse 5 -- would encompass sodomy .

So far as I can tell, though, that's personal factor. The things people other than me do in bed are not generally appealing to me. Even when they do the same things I do, I don't really want to think about it.

However, it seems to me that by getting caught up in exact details of expression, we're rather missing the point. It's the love, not the physical details of expression, that's at issue. A backrub can be, in many cases, just as much a consummation of a marriage as wild sex is, and maybe even better.

 

[leecappella]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

.....Now, why don't you get back on topic and show us where the passage of Scripture is that authorizes a homosexual relationship?

. . . Denny



I guess your effort to avoid answering the question means that you have NO answer. Actually, I don't have to guess, because it is rather obvious that you have no answer.

You refer to this thing about natural eunuch's in Matt. 19:12 as if it were an ace up your sleeve in a card game. What good is that ace if you never use it? If you have a valid point to make, then by all means, make it.

It would appear that you don't read my responses to you very thouroughly. I have declined in sharing with you not because I don't have something I say I do, but because you have come across as not being receptive and you also come across all knowing. The first time I brought up natural eunuchs to you, you told me, paraphrasing, that you know all you need to know about eunuchs and that you see not connection. If you've looked into eunuchs and you've been there done that, I have nothing to say to you in regards to what you have already looked into. To assume that I have nothing just because I am not sharing is something I guess you have to tell yourself. Besides, I've shared my eunuch views on this forum as have many others. Search! I'm not fond of repetitious typing to no avail.

 

[Rocinante]

Using a flawed word like "Sodomy" is not throwing any light on the discussion.

To tag people as doing what the residents of Sodom did is to tag them with ....

1. Homosexual rape.
2. Living a rich life while refusing to help the poor.

The second is proven by Ezekiel 16:48 where Sodom's sin (oppression of the poor) is clearly identified.

The first is proven by the Sodom story from Genesis where the only sin identified is rape.

No other sin is identified and it is obviously stupid to call all homosexuals Sodomites.

The term would only apply accurately to a rapist who oppressed the poor.

It's time we started talking about the right people as Sodomites.....the oppressors of the poor are Sodomites. Those who deny equal health care to all children are Sodomites.

That's a Bible fact.

 

[leecappella]

Isaiah 5:20 - - "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Everything is not just a matter of our own personal interpretation. The way the God views things is what counts. Now, how does God view marriage (Matt. 19:3-9)? And, how does he tell us to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5)?

How does God tell us to treat our slaves? How does God tell males to wear their hair? Does God tell women to be silent in the church? Do women at your church speak? Does God tell us it is better to marry than burn in lust, even if you don't love the person you may marry?

 

[leecappella]

DRA: Why do you feel inclined to assume that God accepts loving, committed relationships outside of marriage - - either hetero or homosexual?

me: I don't think I ever said that! I think you are taking how you see marriage and how it is defined and you are implying I am saying that based on your view of marriage as opposed to my view of marriage.

DRA: That is true. I have NO reason to assume that God blesses the loving, commited homosexual relationship. To assume what you promote would be to DENY what both Jesus and Paul taught in Matt. 19:3-9 & 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5, respectively.

me: Funny how we both are using Matthew 19. You use it to condemn homosexual relationships of love and I use it to affirm it. See Seeb's post on page 35 (#353 and #355). I think he deals with this well. Especially in regards to 1Cor. 7:2-5.

DRA: You seem to still be unwilling to go where your reasoning from Romans 1 takes you. That says a lot about your reasoning process.

me: You seem to want me to repeat myself, but I shall not. I have explained my views of Romans 1 to you in the past. I've also never said that outside of an idolatrous context that all things in Romans 1 are okay. You have implied that I've said that, but that is not my view of it. It is your assumption of what my view of it is.

DRA: Why is it you cannot define the word, but you still try to tell us what it means. While I agree that fornication includes harlotry associated with idolatry, I have NO reason to conclude that it solely focuses on that action. Consider:
1.) Matt. 19:9 - - "Fornication" is the sole reason for divorce, while the spouse still is living. This context has nothing to do with idolatry.
2.) John 8:41 - - The context is clearly not discussing idolatry. The Jews denied being born of fornication.
3.) 1 Cor. 5:1 - - Obviously, "porneia" is not associated with idolatry in this verse (or context).
When will you have access to your Bible tools again?

me: I have to make a note to myself to look this up when I get home. I don't think I ever said this term applies only to idolatry.


DRA: Romans 1:26-27 describes homosexuality as being "against nature," "leaving the natural use," and "shameful."

me: We're back to defining 'nature' again

DRA: Why is it that you accept the meaning of the word "hetero" (strange) in Jude 7, but not accept what Gen. 19:5 plainly says the men of Sodom desired - - men. Whether you admit it or not, such lusting is for different flesh. It is not the natural desire that God placed within man for women, but is something different, or hetero.

me: It means different flesh. The flesh is being described as different. Is the flesh of a male different than the flesh of a female? Especially considering that males and females are "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh". They are the same flesh. The people of Sodom may have seen with their naked eyes what they thought were mere males, but the fact is they were not bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. They were of a 'different' flesh that was not human flesh.

DRA: How does Jesus explain God's marriage law in Matt. 19:3-9 - - is it between a man and a woman, or is it between between a man and another man? A relationship with ANYONE outside of God's (the Father) and Jesus' law for marriage is sin. Jesus tells us the basis for marriage in Matt. 19:3-9.

me: Again, Seebs posting deals with this superbly!

 

[leecappella]

Outspoken: No, its not my thought at all. YOu said you use something like common sense, your heart, your feelings, etc...proverbs clearly shows that is wrong.

me: Using these thing with the Holy Spirit's guidance goes without saying.

outspoken: I am not interpreting them at all, simply using the words as shown.

me: So, you believe women are to be silent in the church and ask questions of their husbands at home? Who do single women ask questions of?