How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[Outspoken]

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

Go back and edit your post then.

 

[leecappella]

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

That doesn't matter. What matters is what the act was repersentatiave of and the intention behind the act upon another.

 

[mpshiel]

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.

Thank you. Most people would actually converse, but your way is much more succinct. I appreciate your candor. Too bad, due to bevity, I will never know your point of view.

 

[- DRA -]

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.

In Matt. 19:4-6, Jesus directs our attention to Gen. 2:24 to establish the basis for marriage - - a man is to be joined to his wife, and the two become one flesh. God has joined them together - - man (or woman) should not separate them.

Verses 7-9 focus on divorce . . . and the one reason Jesus gives for divorce.

Do you think this passage allows or makes provisions for homosexual marriage?

 

[- DRA -]

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.

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?

I think I'm a person that has put up with enough of your antics . . . both on this thread and the creation thread.

Acts 13:41 - "But they [Paul and Barnabas] shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium."

Don't forget to dust yourself off.

 

[Rocinante]

This has gotten too long and we're deep into reruns.

Time for everybody to dust off, I think. I hope some readers have seen some new ideas and will benefit.

Mpshiel made some excellent posts late in the discussion and the opposition responded in a way that didn't do them justice at all.

The world is changing, slowly, but changing.

 

[PastorFreud]

I think I'm a person that has put up with enough of your antics . . . both on this thread and the creation thread.

Acts 13:41 - "But they [Paul and Barnabas] shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium."

Don't forget to dust yourself off.

 

[Rocinante]

 

[dnich163]

Really? We are heading into failure to provide offspring for a dead relative's wife? How is that connected?

Pastor,
You said....."man can relieve his own sexual tension"...I said.."so can a woman"

I didn't mention anything about surrogacy or artificial insemination of any kind...only the sin of onan.

Your reply doesn't seem to connect with what I was responding to

David

 

[dnich163]

I am not sure I follow you. Sure there was love and feeling and affection. No doubt these existed. But people did not fall in love and mate as we do now. Marriages were arranged. Do you deny that the social structure was different than now? Do you think they had dates and went to the movies and out to dinner? Feelings, yes. Marriage based on feeling, no.

Love may find a way in areas now where women are property. And many people in arranged marriage come to love each other over time. But the decision to marry is not based on love in those areas.

I disagree with this.

It would seem against human nature for people not to fall in love and for a parent to want their children to find love.

It is undoubtedly true that there are arranged marriages; they are still prevalent today in certain societies......but so are ones where love is the underlying reason.

The Classics are full of stories and myths of people dying for their true love, and I don't accept that there are a lot of social differences between modern day man and his ancestors.

David

 

[artybloke]

The Classics are full of stories and myths of people dying for their true love

Yes there are; but many times, people die for their true loves because the love isn't approved by their parents. Even in the Song of Songs, there is a suggestion that the relationship is not approved of, and a suggestion of subterfuge. The troubadour tradition in Medieval Europe is full of these basically illicit love relationships: queens and princesses falling in love with poor knights etc... But for most people, it was largely fantasy, an idealistic dream: not something that happened in real life.

It's not that people didn't fall in love; you're partly right that it's part of human nature. However, in the societal norms of the time, marriage was a business contract. You could, of course, fall in love with your business partner, and if the parents were wise they would allow this to happen. Kings and queens married to forge alliances; hence, there were many unhappy ones, or they both had affairs on the side. The history of Princess Diana should give anyone pause to wonder if the practice has entirely gone away.

Poor people, people without status, might have married for love. But if they fell in love with a prince or princess, they'd never have a chance of marrying them. In fact, they'd probably never meet. Middle-class people married into money if they could.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Pastor,
You said....."man can relieve his own sexual tension"...I said.."so can a woman"

I didn't mention anything about surrogacy or artificial insemination of any kind...only the sin of onan.

Your reply doesn't seem to connect with what I was responding to

David

The sin of Onan was accepting the responsibility to father a child to carry on his dead brother's line and then acting to thwart this. He sinned against his brother by preventing him from having a line of descendents and he sinned against Tamar, his brother's wife, by preventing her from having a child to support her in old age. His spilling his seed upon the ground was the means of his sin, not the sin itself.

 

[PastorFreud]

The sin of Onan was accepting the responsibility to father a child to carry on his dead brother's line and then acting to thwart this. He sinned against his brother by preventing him from having a line of descendents and he sinned against Tamar, his brother's wife, by preventing her from having a child to support her in old age. His spilling his seed upon the ground was the means of his sin, not the sin itself.

Amen!

 

[PastorFreud]

I disagree with this.

It would seem against human nature for people not to fall in love and for a parent to want their children to find love.

It is undoubtedly true that there are arranged marriages; they are still prevalent today in certain societies......but so are ones where love is the underlying reason.

The Classics are full of stories and myths of people dying for their true love, and I don't accept that there are a lot of social differences between modern day man and his ancestors.

David

I have no idea why you say you disagree, then post "it is undoubtedly true that there are arranged marriages." This is what I mean. Marriages had a political and social motivation. Love did not have to be a part of the equation, and often was not. See Jacob marrying Leah. See David's first wife. See Solomon's wives. Or do you think one man can simultaneously have true love for 500 wives and 300 concubines?

 

[noiralc]

Hi there all of you.

For me this is a very difficult post to make. I have stumbled on this thread a couple of days ago and have worked through it. Subsequently I have joined CF to bring a more "human side" to this theological discussion. I don't care if there are some of you who disagree with what I believe - God believes in me and that is more than enough for me.

I literally grew up in church. My dad was a Pentecostal minister and I spent at least 15 hours a week in church related activities. I gave my life to Christ at a very early age and have been a Christian for 17 years. After school I attended a Bible institute and eventually went to University. I was involved in various campus ministry projects including the organising of missions, worship groups, cell groups and a frequent speaker on Christian student camps. I passionately loved Christ. That was the part of me that everyone knew and that everyone liked.

BUT, I am gay. I do not feel that the nurture versus nature debate is applicable in this thread so I will refrain from it, but would like you all to know that I never made a conscious decision to become gay. For 17 years I have been a Christian and a gay Christian, although for the most part of that time I did not believe that these 2 beliefs where compatible.

Soon after my conversion I started struggling with my sexuality. Over the course of 14 years I went to councillors, ministers, sexologists and leading ex-gay ministries. The last of these (a worldwide ex-gay ministry) ended disastrous with the founder of this ministry making a pass on me. I did not yield to the temptation, but his next victim was not so lucky... Ironically the tracks were covered and he is still the international director of his ministry.

The years of frustration and struggling with God was taking its toll. I fell into depression and decided to join a Christian support group. Unfortunately the amount of "biblical authoritive guilt" placed on the members of this group was so strong, that one of my very good (platonic) friends in this group committed suicide in front of me.

This led me to drastically re-evaluate my life: For 14 years I had believed with all my heart that God would change me if I were willing. I did everything humanly possible to facilitate that process. I relied on God's grace to change me and he didn't. Why not? Does He like it when I suffer like this? How I would love to just wake up one morning and be attracted to women in the same way that they are attracted to me (I am a “man’s man” so to speak).

I had to take drastic action: I went to the pastor of my church and told him about my sexuality (also that I was not sexually active). Although he was very compassionate, I was removed from all leadership positions in church and marginalised to such an extent that I eventually left the church in shame. My parents reacted in a similar way and since I told them that I am gay (and that I need serious help) I have been told that I am not welcome in their home any longer.

In this state of abandonment it was Jesus who comforted me and reminded me of his words: You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Some of the very things discussed in this thread thus far were what set me free. For the past 18 months I have been in a stable monogamous gay relationship. Not only for the first time in my life have I found peace with my sexuality, but I have also experienced Christ in a new way. And in this relationship I have come to know Him better.

I urge all of you to consider these words and to ask God to make your use of words in this forum flavoured with salt, that it may bring life and not death. We are not just debating moral rights or wrongs but the very lives of people who reject a loving God because of what Christians say about Him.

Last, I would like you all to hear the heart of what I am saying and beg you not to tear these words into non-contextualised fragments. English is my third language and I ask you all to respect that.

Yours in Christ (even if you don't like it)
sb

 

[Rocinante]

Noiralc,

So glad you found the truth. So sorry you had the years of pain. I too, was part of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical subculture for many years and was guilty of giving them at least tacit approval for their treatment of homosexuals (at least for some of those years, as the truth came slowly).

I apologize for my own part in that.

I wish you the best life possible. I believe things are slowly getting better as more and more of us acknowledge the truth.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[obediah001]

There is NO such thing as a Homosexual christian! Hell will be the only place one will be found; read your Bible, this behavior is an abomanation in the sight of the God of the Bible. Ye decieve yourselves here!

 

[kimber1]

*MOD HAT ON

okay.. this thread is done. i have asked repeatedly for the attacks to stop and after 40 some odd pages it goes on and on and on.
NOONE knows anyone else's salvation!!! that is between them and God and we are NOT to judge that for ourselves.
my apologies to the ones who were actually TRYING to remain peaceable in this but this thread has long outlived it's purpose.
i think we all should take a moment to contemplate in prayer whether we ourselves are without sin in our OWN lives instead of pointing out everything we see wrong in others.

*MOD HAT OFF