How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[- DRA -]

Originally posted by - DRA - :

Now, what makes you think that God approves of men having sex with other men, or women with other women? Where is this Scriptural reasoning?

There are two problems with the above. One, you appear to be assuming that it is all about sex. Two, it also sounds as if you’re assuming that some sort of direct statement needs to be made in the Bible in support of same gender unions. I don’t share your assumptions. You would need to show me that your assumptions are correct before I would take your question seriously.

Yes, in the context of discussing homosexuality it is about sex. I don't have to assume anything . . . I can just look at the word itself.

What I see in the Bible is Jesus' teaching on marriage. I also see Paul's teaching on avoiding fornication. I don't see anywhere where same sex unions are an acceptable substitute to God's law for marriage between a man and a woman. Rather, I find the very actions you attempt to promote as being included within the word "porniea" or "fornication" - - which is clearly condemned.

It is irrelevant if you take me seriously or not. I asked for Scriptural support for what you teach and promote, but you give NONE.

What do you think Col. 3:17 and 1 Pet. 4:11a mean?

 

[- DRA -]

Originally posted by - DRA - :

You may have said that before, but Col. 3:17 says the burden of proof is on YOU!

Roz sez:

Ummmmm........it says no such thing......even in KJV.

Even if it did......such proof-texting would be idiotic.

Did you type the wrong verse?

Nope. That is the right verse. You just don't know what it means. Matt. 21:23-27 and Acts 4:7 should help you with the phase, "in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Originally posted by - DRA - :

If there are exceptions to God's law of marriage, then you need to show where they are found?

Roz sez:

If that's all you're worried about......you won't have to worry long. Many homosexual couples are already married and in the next couple of years, ALL the sincere ones will be married.

Then you can relax.

[/QUOTE]

Still NO Scriptural support, huh?

Are those homosexual couples really married according to Jesus' teaching in Matt. 19:3-9?

 

[- DRA -]

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.

Once again, you show how you reason. You accept Ezekial 16:49-50, but refuse to include what Jude 7 says. That clearly shows that you accept what you want to, but will not acknowledge the things that interfere with your lifestyle preferences.

It seems that you want to call everybody in the world sodomites, except those that should be called so.

The KJV is fairly accurate. I used it for many years. Many credible study aids are based on that translation. Why would it help other readers to use a different translation, when you have NO Scriptural support for what you promote?

You are welcome to your own personal view of things. But keep in mind . . . it is only YOUR view. Go ahead and blame conservatives for all the world's problems if if makes you feel more justified in your own eyes.

Frankly, I am surprised that you used the tone you have with a Forum moderator. You weren't appealing to any Scriptures for authority, just ranting and raving like someone out of control. That sort of behavior does not have to be tolerated.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: EltronRangamma

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.

I asked before, and I am still asking, where is your Scriptural basis to differientiate between promiscuous and monogamous homosexual relationships?

It becomes rather obvious after awhile why there are NO Scriptures given!

 

[- DRA -]

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.)

This is a red herring. You need to stay on topic.

 

[mpshiel]

Matt 15:3-9

Hmmm, well first is this a chapter about marriage? No it isn't. Jesus is not giving instructions on how to get married, or who to get married to. He is addressing a specific problem - the way people would use any excuse to get rid of the old wife and marry a new one. And he addresses that problem by Quoting a scripture that they all know, and they they openly professed to be living by. He was reminding them that they were hypocrites. Then reminded them that unions were to be for life.

If there is any thing to be extracted from this, it would be that a) people who join together should try to stay for the long haul and b) that the decision to seperate is one which should between three parties - the two joined and God.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

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.

Jude 7 tells us something about the men of Sodom and Gomorrah - - they gave themselves over to fornication. Have you found a definition for the word "fornication" yet? As I last recall, you didn't have your study aids when I asked before. Do you need some website addresses for credible study aids?

Your speculation about the men of Sodom completely misses a point - - heterosexual men don't rape other men. Those that do are either bisexual or completely homosexual. Did the thought ever occur to you that the men of Sodom didn't want Lot's daughters because they wanted the men? Look at Gen. 19:5. Right there it is in front of you. Why do you feel compelled to read things into the story that are NOT there?

 

[- DRA -]

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?!

These are red herrings. You and I both know it. I am all for studying a passage in its context, but not to adding in details that are not there so I can reach a predetermined ASSUMPTION about a behavior that I wish to pursue.

 

[Fideist]

"Why? Because you say so?"

No, because it is obvious.

Noooo that's the only 2 choices the text gives you. You simply can't read it any other way or your changing scripture.

I CAN do anything I like, Outspoken, whether you agree with it or not.

If I say the sky is blue, you can't say that my words say the sky is orange.

No, but I can point out that "blue" doesn't give the correct force of it. I might say its cobalt. When asked what color a tree trunk is, most people will answer brown. But squirrels use tree bark as camouflage. There are red squirrels and black squirrels and gray squirrels, etc. But are any of these really “red” or “black” or gray”?

You have those 2 choices, so pick one otherwise disqualify yourself as a biblical interpreter.

Two false dichotomies in a single sentence. Assertion is easy, anyone can do it.

 

[Fideist]

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)





Quote:

Originally Posted by: Fideist



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?

What do you mean by “that way?” You mean that Romans proclaims God's anger? Because, DRA. I'm not a literalist. I don't expect God to be angry. Therefore I don’t read my expectation into the text.

I merely summarized what verse 18 says,

Yeah, but see, DRA you also read the passage (verse 18) to say that God was angry. See, the term "wrath" was used by both the post biblical Jews and the NT writers to mean the final judgement - what both groups presupposed would be a just and impartial judgement.

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.

Actually, I am. But that is because I understand a lot of the literary devices that were used at the time.

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?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just trying to use Paul's theology. You do know what his theology was, don't you?

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).

Um... Paul's overarching theme was that Jesus would be returning in Paul's lifetime. And a bit later yet in Romans, Paul makes it clear that the Christians are just honorary Jews and that God's abandonment of the Jews is temporary.

Let's examine the context of Romans 1:18-32. [snip to move text]

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.

Right, the "creature" here being a device that represents nature. You do know that the pagans worshipped an earth mother (it's not nice to fool Mother Nature), right?

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."

That's what I said: "Apply this reasoning: pagans did not recognize or worship God when anyone could plainly see that God alone should be worshipped, not nature, because God created nature, not the other way around. Therefore God punished those pagans by handing them over to the worship of the idols they preferred and all that went with such worship.

In the remainder of this verse and in the next, God explains just how vile their passions were - - homosexuality is described.

No. One homosexual (our term in this time) act is alluded to in just enough detail that it can't be mistaken for anything else. But it is also described as para physin - not usual for these people.

From these verses, we understand both the mindset and the behavior that results from it.

[snipped text pasted ]

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).

You can't rip it out of context DRA:



"Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” 3 Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [etc.]

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."

It took me some cogitating to figure out what you meant. You're appealing to chronology? Okay:



“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves”



“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.”



Both of those statements are past tense. They already happened. Otherwise it would read "will give" or something similar. Verse 32 is present tense and intends to re-explain the "without excuse" idea. But it is a summation, not a continuation. That is why the next verse starts with "Therefore."



What Paul is up to here is (paraphrase): "if God was willing to do these things to pagans - and he was justified in doing them - then you (Mister [imaginary] self-righteous Jewish Christian who thinks he is "pure" while the gentile Christians are "impure") have a serious problem! Because you are doing the same thing the pagans were (dissing God), but you know better!

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)?

I see absolutely no need to read Romans or any other biblical text the way you read them.

 

[Fideist]

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.

From the Greek text (NA 26). I'm not limited to English translations. I'm also not limited to Strongs.

 

[Fideist]

I beg to differ with you.

Beg to differ all you want fella. This is not your private playground. When you go around accusing other people of attemting to undermine the teaching, you're attacking that person.

 

[Fideist]

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?



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

Why are you breaking my post into pieces? Why don't you respond to what is written?

 

[Fideist]

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.



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.

You don't seem to have any trouble extracting information from verses when it suits you. Do you think that by this Jesus meant for you to go around pointing the finger at others based on your personal interpretation of scripture?

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.

I'm not your gopher, DRA. You want others to read a verse, paste it. And I'll think about what I want to think about.

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.

Hey! I don't know who you think you are. Do you understand the term
Harassment? Probably not. KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO WHAT I SAY. DO NOT ADDRESS ME IN THIS TONE, UNDERSTAND?

 

[kimber1]

*MOD HAT ON
ayiiyiiii, 44 pages and y'all haven't gotten tired of talking about this yet? i want everyone in here to watch their tone or i'll close the thread down. seems like it' srun it's course anyway...
*MOD HAT OFF

 

[Fideist]

Yes, in the context of discussing homosexuality it is about sex. I don't have to assume anything . . . I can just look at the word itself.

Did you know, DRA, that many homophobic people are repressed themselves? It's true. Here's one study:

"WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory."

http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

 

[Fideist]

*MOD HAT ON
ayiiyiiii, 44 pages and y'all haven't gotten tired of talking about this yet? i want everyone in here to watch their tone or i'll close the thread down. seems like it' srun it's course anyway...
*MOD HAT OFF

oops! I posted before I saw your Mod Hat On post Kimber. Sorry about that.

 

[kimber1]

it's okay, y'all jsut play nice

 

[Outspoken]

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)

reply to your points.

1. NO, there was no term, but the phrase, "a man that lays with another man as he would lay with a women." is very descriptive. You can deny this means homosexual all you want, but its pretty clear that it does.

2. Irrelevant. The term described is a clear indicator of homosexuality in any form.

3-5 are irrelevant.

 

[Outspoken]

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.

your "interpretion" here is wrought with personal thoughts and most of them in error.

"Here he is just building the idea of lust in action."
Noooo...Paul is taking about human nature. The natural inclination to sin. This is why he mentions homosexuality generically.

"It is used again in Romans to describe how God brings the Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. (Rom 11:21-24) - so unusual."

No, its not unusual at all. Its refering to the way God ment things to be before sin. God ment there to be no homosexuality because it is sin. He ment the Jews and gentiles to be one in him but again, sin changed it. Thus Paul is showing the natural way according to God. Conclusion: Homosexuality is sin and according to God's way it should have been, unnatural.