How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[rnmomof7]

According to Ezekiel, a Sodomite would be someone who lived well while neglecting and oppressing the poor.

So do most conservative Americans qualify?

How Christian of you ???


Eze 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.


Eze 16:50
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].

We might ask if like America the people were so bound up in their own carnal lust that they thought of noting but self gratification .

So the failure to care for the poor was the natural extension of a hedonist lifestyle

From Jude

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

From Peter.

2Pe 2:6
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;



2Pe 2:7
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:



2Pe 2:8
(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds



2Pe 2:9
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:



2Pe 2:10
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

 

[Rocinante]

I don't know what YOUR point is, Mom7.....but mine was that the general interpretation of the word "Sodomite" is clearly in error.

And.....it would probably be equally or MORE accurate to call Conservatives Sodomites, since they actively seek to enrich the rich at the expense of the poor.......living full of bread (and the idolatry of air-conditioned SUVs) while oppressing the poor for their own gain.

Are you trying to dispute that? Maybe if you used a modern instead of an archaic Bible translation you'd be able to understand better, but the Bible clearly shows that Sodom's primary sin was oppression of the poor......and their secondary sin was violence and rape.

(Rape and violence that could be comparable to invading a defenseless third-world country like Iraq ..... to engage in murder for profit.)

When Conservatives end their support for such war--and solidly support providing equal health care to all children and solidly support essential Affirmative Action programs to help the marginalized poor, and stop supporting special financial helps and tax breaks for the rich........THEN nobody will be able to see them as Sodomites.

Until then, in my view, they are indisputably Sodomites.

 

[leecappella]

How Christian of you ???


Eze 16:50
And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].

From Peter.

2Pe 2:6
And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Sodom and Gomorrah were 'without worship'. They did not worship God, but other gods. They were without God (ie ungodly) and practiced those things associated with idolatry. These are the 'abominations' or idolatries they committed. Read 1Kings 14:24. My KJV says sodomites did abominations according to the nations. My concordance defines sodomites as quasi-sacred temple prostitutes that prostituted themselves for idolatrous purposes. No doubt, abominations can also refer to those things that are not associated with idolatry, like neglecting the poor and needy, being inhospitable to strangers, etc.

 

[leecappella]

Lee, DRA has just shown you some scripture that condemns homosexuality. Can you please refute it? After all, isn't what these forums are all about?

DRA and I have been posting one another for awhile now. Search and you will find.

 

[leecappella]

then you haven't studied the greek at all in the passage or you would understand quite clearly it is not the case. Kings should not shut up and be silent about their kingdom. that is also made clear in scripture.

As for romans, then you're not looking at the passage. There are no other opitions the text presents either

1. Homosexuality, murder, malice and all types of evil are okay outside of cult rituals

or
2. Homosexuality, murder, malice and all types of evil are sin at all times.

Pick one.

Answer me this: Aren't women suppose to be silent in the church if that is what the bible clearly says? (Not saying I believe this.)

 

[leecappella]

Look closely at Gen. 19:5 and Judges 19:22. What do these passages say the men of Sodom and Gibeah desired?

Men desiring other men . . . hmmm . . . this reminds me of another passage. Yes, it does. A passage in the N.T. - - Romans 1:27. You know, from these passages I conclude that God wasn't pleased with such things in earlier times, and He is not pleased by such things today. Yes, I do believe that we should learn something from those O.T. examples (Rom. 15:4 & 2 Peter 2:6).

Men desired other men not out of an orientation they had or out of love, but for a man to humiliate another man sexually was degrading to the man. It lowered him to the status of a woman. To reject sex with a woman, in the case of Sodom, the sex act and intention behind it, which was to lower, humiliate, and degrade, would have been pointless. For women were already at the level that the men of Sodom had wanted to lower Lot's guests to.

 

[leecappella]

I accept what the book of Philemon says about slavery. Paul tells Philemon how to accept Onesimus when he returns (vs. 16-17). Paul then takes the reasoning to a higher level in vs. 18-19. Verse 19 is the key to understanding what Paul (an apostle of the Lord) really wants Philemon to consider. Paul says that he will repay any debt that Onesimus owes Philemon. But Paul also says more. Paul says, "Not to mention to you that you owe me even your own self besides." Think about this for awhile. Paul did mention it. He said, "Not to mention to you," but he did mention it!

1 Cor. 7:21-24, Eph. 6:5-9, & Col. 4:1 also addresses slaves, servants, and masters.

There is a sense that all Christians are slaves (Rom. 6:16-18).

All Christians must abide by principles such as Matt. 6:15 & 7:12.

Now, having said these things, what does this issue have to do with the topic of discussion? I dealt with your question simply because it is a Bible topic and the Bible does address it. Lee, I am not unaware of your tactics to bring other topics into the discussion. I don't know if you are doing this as a ploy to draw sympathy from blacks (with the slavery issue) or women (with the women speaking issue), but I do know that these other issues are totally different discussions. Now, I ask something from you. When are you going to show the Bible reasoning for what you promote? I don't know how many times I've referred to Jesus' teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3-9 and his appeal to Gen. 2:24 in this thread. You may have trouble accepting what is stated in those passages, but those passages are not going away. You have to deal with them. If marriages are between someone other than a man and a woman, then you need to give some Scriptural evidence. Your common-sense reasoning, think-so's, and wishes just simply won't work.

Marriage in discussed in Eph. 5:22-33. The teaching is based on the ONLY marriage you find in the Scripture - - between a man and a woman. Once again, Gen. 2:24 is used in this text (verse 31). The marriage of a man and woman is compared to the relationship of Christ to his church (vs. 32). The relationship of Christ to the church is compared to the marriage between a husband and wife because that is the only marriage that God authorized.

You say that marriage is not exclusive to the context of a man and a woman. Okay, it is one thing to say something, it is quite another to show Scriptural support for it. Where is this Scriptural support? Without it, you are a "cloud without water" and a "late autumn tree without fruit" (Jude 12 . . . and continue reading through verse 13).

I just need to know do you believe Paul condoned slavery. He seem to have according to scripture. If this is the case, do you condone it? Also, do you believe women should be silent in the church and ask of their husbands at home, since that is what the scriptures say as well? I ask these to determine how you read scripture. If something is clearly there in scripture, such as these two examples, then I would suspsect you do support slavery and you do beleive that women should be silent in churches. If you do not, then you are considering something else about the text other than what is plainly written on the pages. Something like context maybe?!

 

[- DRA -]

Roz sez:

Once again, I am not promoting anything.......you are.

I am promoting Jesus' teaching on marriage and the way fornication is to be avoided (Matt. 19:3-9 & 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5). You have been promoting that there is a difference between promiscuous and monogamous homosexual relationships throughout this thread - - with absolutely NO Scriptural basis for it.

QUOTE=Rocinante]And, in............39 pages and counting......you haven't been able to come up with a single scripture to back up your accusation that ALL homosexuality is sin.

[/QUOTE]

Well, it's 41 pages now. You haven't addressed the passages that that I just mentioned and have posted numerous times before. Jesus taught about marriage as he appealed to Gen. 2:24 as the basis for it (Matt. 19:3-9). Paul taught about how sexual desires are to be satisfied in 1 Cor. 7:2-5. Paul also taught about marriage in Eph. 5:22-33. Those passages show us not only what constitutes a marriage - - the coming together of a man and a woman for a lifetime committment - - but also show that sexual relations are confined to a man and a woman who are married to each other. Why have you not addressed the word "porniea" that occurs numerous times in the N.T. as fornication or sexual immorality that God comdemns. It includes ANY sexual activity outside of marriage - - including homosexuality.

You have offered NO Scriptural evidence to suggest that Jesus was mistaken on God's law of marriage, and you have offered NO Scriptural evidence to suggest that any sex outside of marriage is acceptable to God - - whether is be hetero or homosexual. Why do you not speak "as the oracles of God" on this subject (1 Pet. 4:11a)? This passage has been pointed out repeatedly, but rather than address it, you persist with the gospel according to Roz - - no book, chapter, and verse from God's word to support your reasoning . . . just YOUR reasoning.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA - :

Romans 1:18-31 proclaims how God's anger is revealed (through His word) against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (vs. 18). Included in that text is this condemnation: "For this reason [because of the reasons given in vs. 25] God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful . . ." (vs. 26-27)

I don’t read it that way at all. I think the beginning of Romans describes the way the gentile converts were before Jesus came. Paul, later states that the Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah, constituted disobedience or unfaithfulness. Therefore God turned his face away from (or abandoned) the Jews. This was an opportunity for the gentiles to be adopted by the Jewish God if they had faith in Jesus. So, what is being described in the early section of Romans is a portrait of pagans who engaged in idolatrous practices of all sorts. It is the idolatry and not the constituent behavior that is being pointed out. Paul’s imagery is quite vivid and probably exaggerated in order to strengthen his point. Moreover the verb (paredoken) in verses 24 and 28 means basically to actively give or hand over. So it looks to me as if the behavior indicated, is not behavior that will be punished, rather, it was the punishment for rejecting God.

Why don't you read it that way? I merely summarized what verse 18 says, and then quoted verses 26-27. I don't think I inaccurately summarized verse 18, nor did I misquote verses 26-27. Let me just point out the obvious - - what you are NOT reading is what the text of Scripture says.

Your following quote deserves a few comments, "Paul, later states that the Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah, constituted disobedience or unfaithfulness. Therefore God turned his face away from (or abandoned) the Jews. This was an opportunity for the gentiles to be adopted by the Jewish God if they had faith in Jesus." Are you suggesting that if the Jews had accepted Jesus, the opportunity for Gentiles to be adopted by God would not have been there? If so, such reasoning is made without considering God's promise to Abraham in Gen. 12:3 - - one of his descendants would bless ALL families of the earth. I am fully confident that God intended from the beginning for salvation to be extended to both Jews AND Gentiles through Jesus . . . a Son of Abraham and declared to be the one that would bless all families (Matt. 1:1 & Acts 3:25-26).

Let's examine the context of Romans 1:18-32. Those who "suppress the truth" (vs. 18) "are without excuse" (vs. 20). "Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful" (vs. 21). "Their foolish hearts were darkened" (vs. 21). They "changed the glory of . . . God into an image" (vs. 23). "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, lusts . . . "to dishonor their bodies" (vs. 24). "They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (vs. 25). "For this reason [because of the reasons given in vs. 25] God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful . . ." (vs. 26-27) "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God have them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting." (vs. 28) Additional sins of all sorts are mentioned in verses 29-31 (including sexual immorality or fornication), and the consequences are defined for those who do these things - - and for those who APPROVE of these things (vs. 32). Now, let's go back and focus on verse 25. The mindset is clearly described - - a lie and worship to the creature is preferred over truth and worship to God. How does God view this mindset? He tells us in verse 26a, "For this reason (given in verse 25) God gave them up to vile passions." In the remainder of this verse and in the next, God explains just how vile their passions were - - homosexuality is described. From these verses, we understand both the mindset and the behavior that results from it.

I also wish to comment on this quote, "Moreover the verb (paredoken) in verses 24 and 28 means basically to actively give or hand over. So it looks to me as if the behavior indicated, is not behavior that will be punished, rather, it was the punishment for rejecting God." Look at verse 32 - - the behavior will be punished - - "those who practice such things are worthy of death." The mindset tells us where the behavior originated. This is exactly what Jesus was teaching in Matt. 15:18-20. I have frequently mentioned Jesus' teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3-9 and Paul's instructions to avoid fornication in 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5. Now, think about the mindset that departs from God's plan for marriage and sexual relations and turns elsewhere for sexual gratification. Is such a departure from Scripture in accordance to truth, or based on a lie (think about Romans 1:25)? And, would such an action be serving God, or serving Satan (also consider Romans 1:25)?

 

[Outspoken]

Answer me this: Aren't women suppose to be silent in the church if that is what the bible clearly says? (Not saying I believe this.)

I'm guessing you haven't studied the greek of this passage then. My prior statements would have cleared up the issue if you had. The bible clearly says that women are to be humble in church, not jumping out of their seat at every oppertunity. It does not say that they should never talk in church.

 

[Outspoken]

Why? Because you say so?


I disagree.


If you want to read it the way you read it, that’s your business. I promise I won’t come and find you and tell you that I’m right and you’re wrong. Okay?

"Why? Because you say so?"

Noooo that's the only 2 choices the text gives you. You simply can't read it any other way or your changing scripture. If I say the sky is blue, you can't say that my words say the sky is orange. You have those 2 choices, so pick one otherwise disqualify yourself as a biblical interpreter.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally poste by - DRA - :

Now let's go back and make a few comments on verses 26-27. The action first described applies to women. The women "exchanged the natural use for what is against nature." The men were doing "likewise." They were "exchanging the natural use of the woman" and "burned in their lust for one another." Their actions are further described as "men with men committing what is shameful."

Strong's defines the word "likewise" in this way: "Homoios" means likewise, equally, in the same way. This Greek word appears 30x in the N.T. Its meaning is not hard to discern i.e. Mt 22:26; 26:35; 27:41. The word "likewise" tells us that the men were doing like the women. It is readily apparent that homosexual activity is being discussed (the description does everything except provide pictures) - - women were with women and men were with men.

I don’t think so. I think the antecedent is “exchanged activities not usual.” I think the parallel is not “the men with the men”, but rather “exchanged the expected for the unexpected.”

Romans 1:26 . . .
NRSV - "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural."
NKJV - "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
NASV - "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural."
NIV - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."

I'm not sure where you derived the phrase, "exchanged the expected for the unexpected," from. The translations that I listed above show what the word "likewise is comparing the men's actions to - - what the women were doing with each other, the men were doing with each other.

 

[rnmomof7]

Sodom and Gomorrah were 'without worship'. They did not worship God, but other gods. They were without God (ie ungodly) and practiced those things associated with idolatry. These are the 'abominations' or idolatries they committed. Read 1Kings 14:24. My KJV says sodomites did abominations according to the nations. My concordance defines sodomites as quasi-sacred temple prostitutes that prostituted themselves for idolatrous purposes. No doubt, abominations can also refer to those things that are not associated with idolatry, like neglecting the poor and needy, being inhospitable to strangers, etc.

So did all the nations around Israel..but anal sex is not called by their name.


sod’-om-it (qadhesh, feminine qedheshah): Qadhesh denotes properly a male temple prostitute, one of the class attached to certain sanctuaries of heathen deities, and "consecrated" to the impure rites of their worship. Such gross and degrading practices in Yahweh’s land could only be construed as a flagrant outrage; and any association of these with His pure worship was abhorrent (De 23:17 f): The presence of Sodomites is noted as a mark of degeneracy in Rehoboam’s time (1Ki 14:24). Asa endeavored to get rid of them (1Ki 15:12), and Jehoshaphat routed them out (1Ki 22:46). Subsequent corruptions opened the way for their return, and Josiah had to break down their houses which were actually "in the house of the Lord" (2Ki 23:7). The feminine qedheshah is translated "prostitute" in Ge 38:21,22; Ho 4:14; in De 23:17 "prostitute" (the King James Version margin "sodomitess," the Revised Version margin transliterates). The English word is, of course, derived from Sodom, the inhabitants of which were in evil repute for unnatural vice
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia

 

[- DRA -]

Originally posted by - DRA - :

Rather than accept God's comdemnation of such activity, some choose to try to undermine the teaching. Some reason that the passage is only discussing activities involved with idolatry. They reason that there is some homosexual activity that is wrong, but some that is acceptable to God. To those who use such reasoning, we have only one question - - would you use the same reasoning for all the other ungodly and unrighteous acts listed from verses 18-32?

Nobody is trying to undermine any teaching. Such a charge is plainly an attempt to depict others in as bad a light as possible. Some people are just trying to understand what was actually intended, because the passages, by themselves, do not make much sense. And as for the biblical reference I read verse 28 to say that God, because of the arrogance of pagans in not recognizing him, caused them to engage in all sorts of idolatrous behavior.

I beg to differ with you. Jesus taught on marriage in Matt. 19:3-9. God, through the apostle Paul, commanded us to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 6:18) and even told us how to do that in 1 Cor. 7:2-5. Anyone that teaches that a marriage is anything other than what the Lord said it was is attempting to undermine His teaching. In like manner, anyone who attempts to suggest that sex outside of marriage - - whether hetero or homosexual - - attempts to undermine what God taught through Paul.

I desire only to help people see the light. The only way I can help those in darkness is by pointing them to the light. Truth, not error, leads to the light. (John 3:19-21).

People who ask questions and desire to learn more of the truth are to be commended. Those who dogmatically teach and promote their ASSUMPTIONS as Bible facts are to opposed (Jude 3).

Your understanding of verse 28 presents problems. You fail to recognize the mindset in verse 25 that led to the behavior of verses 26-27. You also fail to recognize that idolatry is a behavior - - prompted by the mindset of vs. 21-22. You then fail to see the consequences of your position - - only sins associated with idolatry are really sins. There is something very wrong with that reasoning. I have pointed it out before.

 

[Mustaphile]

My thoughts on many of the terms that relate to harlotry is the intrinsic nature of harlotry. It is sex based on lust, sex without commitment and sex without thought of future consequences. Your in, slam bam, thank you mam, you've sated your lust and it's over. The reason it's immoral and spiritually degrading are pretty plain to see. Chastity and the keeping of your lusts in check should be the goal. This is firstly a discipline that should be admired. In developing a relationship this discipline will allow people to come to a greater understanding of who there partner is in a non-sexual way well before they make a vow of fidelity. Both partners should first test the other partners ability to maintian a vow of fidelity by observing a period of chastity, an engagement period. Each partner can then judge properly whether the other has the discipline necessary to take on that vow of fidelity. To my way of thinking this is the spirit of the law, whereas many would seek to hold people to the letter of the law. That's the perfect rule really. Then you just have to deal with people who are rash, foolish and lacking discipline. This is where we as a society need to take on the problems of lack of fidelity. We give people freedom to make choices, but we don't back that up with lessons in obligation, responsibility and discipline. I could probably dig up a verse from proverbs on fools, but I think you can understand what I am talking about. Some people will never learn, but we need to still show compassion and attempt to guide them in the right way to approach life. The Bible is full of good lessons and guiding principles.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally posted by - DRA - :

Others say that the homosexual activity described in verses 26-27 is describing an orgy. Those who use such reasoning should prepare themselves to answer the question that was asked to those who promoted the previous reasoning - - would you use the same reasoning for all the ungodly and unrighteous acts listed in verses 18-32? For instance, would you say that murders (vs. 29) committed in connection with an orgy are wrong, but other murders are acceptable to God?

I would say that Paul is attempting to depict a state that was, but is not now. He is describing a time when some recent converts got drunk and engaged in behavior that was not usual for them. I think at least some of the language is exaggerated for the purpose of driving home Paul’s point. But, I think a good portion of the behavior depicted really is the kind of behavior associated with pagan deities and the festivals associated with them. The behavior described is very similar to the licentiousness of a festival honoring Dionysus.

Where in the text do you find a basis for what you are describing?

 

[mpshiel]

DRA, I beg to differ with you as well.

I think it would be interesting first to look at Timothy 1:9-10 to demonstrate how much Paul was talking in Roman terms to a Roman audience with an understanding of what was acceptable in Roman times.

I Tim 1:9-10 : Notice first that this list of crimes comes straight from the Roman world - if one looks at the trials of Cicero for example, this list is the the list of absolute worst crime on down starting with #1 -patricide - which I believed was punished by being sewn up in a bag with a ferret, a rat, a badger and a snake and thrown into the river – after being put on display and whipped, matricide, liars (This was particularly bad because roman court system used only testimony and reason…no evidence - which is also why slaves were tortured to death for their testimony) pimps, slave stealers (probably young boys) – Arsenokoatai which means male bed – used twice in the bible– seems at first to mean – Homosexuality – but there are several problems here

1) Until the last 80 years, there was no term, homosexuality in the bible – the ambiguous nature of the word – For instance Martin Luther and the others of that time taught that it represented Masturbation. This is a word which historically changes meaning to reflect what the society considers a bad thing.
2) If Paul had meant Homosexual he would have used the term paiderasste (from which comes pederast) due to the proclivity of liaisons between men and boys – notably, Arsenokoatai never appears in any Greek homoerotic literature or discussions of homosexuality (of which there are many, most famous, Plato’s essay on love).
3) Roman world was extant with homosexuality: soldiers liaisons (possibly alluded to in Mt 8:5 – pais – use of term for boy servant, an hier or a slave kept for sexual purpose), the Mentor system which both Cicero and Julius Cesear participated in where a younger man has political sexual alliance with an older stateman, consorts and temple rituals. In the Roman world, marriage was for duty, elsewhere was for pleasure (which is why Paul later has to tell the men to a) stop sleeping with prostitutes and b) love thier wives). In the Roman-Greco world, like the Babylonian before it, beauty was seen not so much in women but in youthful boys - as Daniel is evidence.
4) The earliest preaching against homosexuality (4th century) by John Chrysostom (345-407) didn’t use this word, also did not, when commenting on these scriptures, mention homosexuality.
5) Remember that there is a difference between a classification of attraction or practice and all acts under that attraction (thus fornication is not an attack on heterosexuals)

The one other source that uses this refers to temple prostitution (male) or specifically – using sex for economic gain. Ironically, the Septuagint, used this word, Arsenokoatai, to translate Quadish, which was used to describe the male prostitutes in I Kings (which by the time KJV had come around, became Sodomites).

Probably the term goes in two parts, referring to those who acquire (kidnap), sell and buy the sex of young male children – this was considered a very big crime in Rome. To have sex with your own slave was acceptable, to have sex with another’s was not, to have sex with a female or male prostitute of the temple of Aphrodite was okay, but the going exploitation industry using certain minor temples as cover (there were 8500 temples or shines in Corinth alone) was seen a moral decay to the Romans, excessive putting of pleasure over duty (a thing they were constantly complaining about due to the corruption of Greek influences).

That idea is very important, as for the Romans, the natural world is Duty and Honor over pleasure. The only openly negative word the Romans had for homosexuality is for citizens who became so lustful that instead of just buying a greek slave boy they would openly advertise in the baths. This was seen as very wrong because not only was the first male leaving his duty to the state and future by not procreating but he was enticing other good citizens to do so as well. And for a woman to give up motherhood for personal pleasure was a pretty horrific thought to the Romans. They didn't have any problem with pleasure, but please...remember your duty first.

On to Rom 1

 

[- DRA -]

Originally posted by - DRA - :

Actually, both lines of reasoning that have been described that attempt to undermine what Romans 1:26-27 teach make a common assumption. Those who use such reasoning ASSUME that there is a difference between promiscuous and monogamous homosexual relationships. I, for one, am waiting to see some Scriptural evidence for such thinking.

Per Jesus, the basis for all Christian thought is (or should be) reflected in Mt. 22:37 ff You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the greatest and first commandment.
39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This text of Scripture in Matthew does NOT suggest that there is a difference between promiscuous and monogamous homosexual relationship.
I am still waiting . . . and asking . . . for that passage.

Concerning this passage in Matthew. Have you also considered John 14:21,23-24? Think about what the passage says and God's teaching about marriage in Matt. 19:3-9, and avoiding fornication in 1 Cor. 6:18; 7:2-5. Tell me about your respect for those teachings, and then come back and tell me about your love for God.

 

[- DRA -]

How does this prove God said it? Your statement was: “God specifically tells us”. Even if your biblical reasoning were correct, which I dispute, it is your reasoning based on your interpretation of what Paul wrote. But that is beside the point at this stage. You stated that “God specifically tells us”. I see no evidence that God said anything. I see the writing (or dictation to a secretary) of a MAN who claims inspiration and apostleship, not infallibility or other God-like qualities.

Your post was in response to 1 Cor. 6:18 & 7:2-5. Read:
Gal. 1:11-12
Heb. 2:3-4
Acts 13:6-12; 19:11-17
Do you also wish to challenge the apostle Paul?

 

[mpshiel]

Okay,

Rom 1:19-24 - I think we are agreed here that Paul is talking about those whihch have been shown the glory of God; for it can be seen all around, yet people continue to ignore God and persue thier own desires. And because they seek idolity and the self, God gave them over thier the desires of their unclean heart. To dishonor thier bodies between themselves.

Now what is interesting is that while these is part of a growing theme, it is different to the "vile affections" Paul speaks of later. Here he is just building the idea of lust in action. The reader would have assumed Paul is speaking of heterosexuals here as only later does Paul specificly mention homosexual acts.

Rom 1:25-27 - Paul contrasts the purity of God with the uselessness of revering the creation more than the creator and continues into the non "natural" acts.

Now as I am sure you know, natural is Physis /unnatural is Para physian which means something that goes beyond ordinary experience - it is not a word of morality, neither good nor bad. It is used again in Romans to describe how God brings the Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. (Rom 11:21-24) - so unusual.

unseemly, or indecent acts is askemosunen which means to a negative inner appearance and this verse is the contrast to I cor 13:5 – “Love does not act unseemly.” - as in true love does not act like this. It is also referred to in I cor 12:23 to talk about those parts which are hidden (on the body).

The other thing is that the word for "passion" here is a religious one, in fact used in Acts 1:3 to refer to the suffering and death of Christ.

So yes, Paul is telling the Romans, God allowed people to become slave to thier lusts, to enact in public what should be in secret, to turn the religious passion toward the passion of lust; turning from what is accepted to the unaccepted. And thus they recieve the penalty for thier error in worshipping the creation over the creator.

Is it referring to homosexual sex? Yes. Does it also refer to heterosexual sex? Yes. It is an injunction, not against sex itself but against a mindset which makes sex, lust, worshipping things other than God and pursueing only pleasure (particularly for those who already know of God) a sin.

Then it moves from the physcial example (Paul was probably referring to some famous religious ats which went on in the 8500 temples of the area) to speak about what constitutes a mind which is not focused on God. Which is, if we look forward to Chapter 2, a sort of reminder for the Romans to evaluate themselves and see if thier hearts and minds had turned toward God or not. Then he makes a list which is half Jewish and half Roman to illustrate the type of acts of a mind not turned to God.

What comes over in this list, is the darkness of thought, that these are not happy people, they are mean, and full of spite. The list is a list of mental attributes: of which we can problem say we know a few people like that, those who delight in others suffering, would rather lie than tell the truth, care only for themselves, without remorse or mercy to others.

Romans 1:24-27 is a amplification of one of the mindsets - pursuit of pleasure and a slave to lust, which appears first on the list starting in Romans 1:28. It is again, not a condemnation of sexual acts, nor of unions but of a TYPE of attracton. Of the mindset behind an attraction not of attraction itself.

These are of course how I see things at the present. I like all Christians do change and God reveals and convicts me. But, I have searched the scripture and this is what I believe. For me, this is the light.