How Homophobic Are You?

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

Not really. The story of Jonathan and David, for instance, is used by some as a Biblical instance of same-sex marriage (and the condonation thereof).

And the majority know that claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Moreover, if is simply bad theology to condemn something merely because it's not explicitly condoned: do you condemn the use of automobiles because the Bible does not explicitly condone them?

No and as said before that’s not the reason the majority know the David and Jonathan friendships isn’t a same sex one.

Likewise, it is daft to condemn homosexuality, same-sex sex, and/or same-sex marriage simply because the Bible does not explicitly condone it:

But the majority don’t do that, they can see the Bible specifically excludes and condemns same-sex sex and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

the onus, one would think, would be on your to cite explicit condemnation.

Have done and so have others cited the same passages, whether you accept it or not is neither here nor there, the onus is now on you to cite where its countenanced.

As it happens, the only verses I've seen have been warped and mistranslated to give an anti-gay bias, despite this not being the author(s)' intent.

I only verses I have seen that countenance homosexual practice are none at all. Evidently the Bible is anti-gay if people prefer gay to what the Bible says.
No the emphasis is on those who propose homosexual practice to cite some countenance, its disgraceful that a Christian based forum can merely entertain endless criticism of all the passages that the majority know excludes and condmens homosexual practice without anything except wild assumption to mount a challenge.

 

[Andreusz]

Let's see if I can clear up the confusion. Andre you said:

I find your equating of gay people with murderers, adulterers, thieves and the greedy highly offensive.

To which BMS responded:

Firstly I don’t, you do. I equate homosexual offenders with adulterers, thieves, the greedy and murderers, and having committed adultery, sex before I was married, I include me in the comparison.

See the difference? You think BMS equates gay people with murderers adulterers and thieves, when in actuality he equates homosexual offenders, that would be those people who engage in homosexual sex, with murderers, adulterers and thieves. Also, as to his last sentence, he is correct when he said that "he doesn't make it", which I took to mean that he does not make the comparison between homosexual offenders and murderers, adulterers, thieves, etc. That comparison is made in the Bible, which BMS did not write. He is just reiterating what is written there. His post makes perfect sense as it is written.

Thanks, Zecryphon. I see that BMS accepts your exegesis of his post. And I do understand now. The reason I didn't follow it at first is that for me, being gay means having gay sex. I know the two are not equivalent, really ...!

 

[Andreusz]

Er... hang on. This is what BMS said:

To EnemyPartyII
gay is having a same sex attraction, greed is having a selfsih desire, theft is wanting to take someone elses property, adultery is sexual attraction for a woman ourtside marriage, murder is killing life. The Bible says these things came about because of human disobedience at the fall in the garden of eden by knowing good and evil. God did not created murderers, adulterers, gays, theives and the greedy.

In his first sentence, he is definitely equating all gay people (those who experience same-sex attraction, not just those who act on it) with thieves, adulterers and murderers. He repeats this in the last sentence.

Is lying a sin?

 

[Andreusz]

I repeat my earlier post:

I find your equating of gay people with murderers, adulterers, thieves and the greedy highly offensive. Can you give me one reason, NOT based on the Bible, for making this equation? Murderers, adulterers, and even greedy people harm others. Gay adults who have consensual sex harm no-one.

And expand on it: Can you give me one reason, NOT based on the Bible, for equating gay adult consensual sex with murder, theft or adultery?

 

[Zecryphon]

Thanks, Zecryphon. I see that BMS accepts your exegesis of his post. And I do understand now. The reason I didn't follow it at first is that for me, being gay means having gay sex. I know the two are not equivalent, really ...!

Glad I could help.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

To Chalice_Thunder,
Actually that is not true, God has not created anyone gay. As Jesus NT teaching affirmed God’s creation purpose of woman for man for this reason a man shall be united with his wife. (Matthew 19, Ephesians 5 etc) The alternative is celibacy (Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 7) So gay, having a same sex attraction doesn’t fit in anywhere and same sex acts are condemned as error..If you have something to support what you are saying please give it but don’t keep peddling unsubstantiated contradictions to the word of God.

Obviously from the passages I have cited above ,amongst others, God did not join people into unions opposite to what He created them to be in., and you are deceived. Your testimony is just your own idea.

You are most welcome to your own opinions.

However, I am talking about the facts as they are. God created me, and God brought me and my partner together. And it is God who continues to bless and sustain us, thank God!

 

[catlover]

You are most welcome to your own opinions.

However, I am talking about the facts as they are. God created me, and God brought me and my partner together. And it is God who continues to bless and sustain us, thank God!

I think people believe heterosexual sex is somehow superior because the union produces children. If this were true there would not be a need for Child protective services...how many children are taken out of these so called "superior" heterosexual unions?

Clearly heterosexual does not mean something elite...otherwise there would be no children in foster care...

 

[No Swansong]

First the poll is very poorly written, amateurish and would not stand up to logical or scientific scrutiny. But I don't think it is meant to be all that academic anyway.

I have read more than a few of the threads on this subforum and I am moved to ask those on both sides of the issue if their words and actions on these many threads reflect the love that we are to have for one another? I have witnessed vitriolic posts from each side of the issue. I simply ask you my brothers and sisters to remember that whether we agree with each other or not we are brothers and sisters. Let's be kind to one another.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And the majority know that claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

That is disputable, but irrelevant. I daresay you are one of those who disagree with the 'lovers' interpretation of Jonathan and David's relationship, whereas I believe they were lovers.

No and as said before that’s not the reason the majority know the David and Jonathan friendships isn’t a same sex one.

Correction: they believe it, they don't know it.

But the majority don’t do that, they can see the Bible specifically excludes and condemns same-sex sex

Their interpretation of their chosen translation of their chosen compilation of the Bible, perhaps. But as I've said elsewhere, there are a myriad of compilations, each with its own set of translations, and each still with its own set of interpretations. The final outcome is that one can justify pretty much anything, given enough wiggle room and wordplay. Fortunately for pro-gay Christians, the most plausible of these yield a decidedly non-anti-gay view, and even one that supports homosexuality.

and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

Again, Jonathan and David would beg to differ. The text alludes to their marriage.

Have done and so have others cited the same passages, whether you accept it or not is neither here nor there, the onus is now on you to cite where its countenanced.

No, since I (and, I'd wager, the pro-gay Christians on this board) disagree that the verses you have cited say what you claim they say.

I only verses I have seen that countenance homosexual practice are none at all. Evidently the Bible is anti-gay if people prefer gay to what the Bible says.

Only if your claims are true. Thus far, I've only seen mistranslations and cherry-picked verses.

No the emphasis is on those who propose homosexual practice to cite some countenance, its disgraceful that a Christian based forum can merely entertain endless criticism of all the passages that the majority know excludes and condmens homosexual practice without anything except wild assumption to mount a challenge.

It's hardly wild assumption. You yourself have merely cited archaic and mistranslated passages without doing any work yourself.

 

[KCKID]

First the poll is very poorly written, amateurish and would not stand up to logical or scientific scrutiny. But I don't think it is meant to be all that academic anyway.

I have read more than a few of the threads on this subforum and I am moved to ask those on both sides of the issue if their words and actions on these many threads reflect the love that we are to have for one another? I have witnessed vitriolic posts from each side of the issue. I simply ask you my brothers and sisters to remember that whether we agree with each other or not we are brothers and sisters. Let's be kind to one another.

They are very nice idealistic sentiments that you express, NS. Would that we could all get along together and accept one another's 'warts an' all'. However, when the Bible is used to condemn fellow human beings for something that is beyond their control - i.e. a sexual orientation that was not of their choosing - then that can do little else but encourage animosity toward those who make the charge. It is NOT the Bible that is doing the condemning - the usual catch-cry - but the PERSON holding the Bible. The very fact that someone would seek out scriptures that condemn another shows an intent that is NOT of Jesus.

I love your 'ideal' approach, NS, I really do. However, it's quite human to 'bristle' when someone makes untoward remarks about you. The condemnation of others by Christians is particularly malicious since they use the perceived loathing of a higher power to do the condemning. I'm psychologically 'clued in' enough to understand that hatred toward something or someone comes from the heart of the individual. The Bible is then used to allegedly support the heart of that individual.

The answer to attain what you would suggest is quite simple. That is, for Christians to put down their Bibles which too many of them use as a weapon and start to BEHAVE like Christians. Quoting and requoting ad infinitum biblical verses to condemn someone else does not a Christian make.

 

[OllieFranz]

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar

• and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

Again, Jonathan and David would beg to differ. The text alludes to their marriage.

Once again I must point out that while the text does not state that Jonathan and David were lovers in the "marriage" sense, or that their relationship was a marriage, it is very suggestive of the likelihood.


Examples:

1. Many Christians try to use Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.") to define marriage. Well, Jonathan 's soul was knit with David's and they became one and David left his father's house to live with Jonathan (1 Sam 18: 1-2)
2. A marriage is a covenant contracted between two people. 1 Sam 18:3 reads: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."
3. A marriage includes the concern of raising the next generation. As part of their covenant, Jonathan and David pledged to help raise one another's children. (1 Samuel 20:42 -- "And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.") David honored thatt commitment as far as he was able with Jonathan's son Mephibosheth.
4. Although the Bible does not require love to contract a marriage, it expects love within the marriage. Both the first verses about their relationship in 1 Samuel 18 and the last verses in 2 Samuel 1, as well as the passage where David adopts Mephibosheth into his household, focus on the love between Jonathan and David.
5. Saul seems to have considered their relationship a marriage. He is the one who insisted that David make his home in the king's house with Jonathan. When he arranged the marriage with his daughter Michal, he thought of how this marriage would make David his son-in-law twice over. (1 Samuel 18:21)
6. He also seems to believe that Jonathan and David have consummated that marriage. In a drunken and perhaps mad rage he accuses Jonathan of "confusing his mother's nakedness" with David (1 Samuel 20:30). The construction is similar to that used in the "incest" verses of Leviticus 18 and 20 to indicate adultery within the family. Saul seems to be accusing Jonathan and David of cheating on their wives with one another. If he originally felt that Jonathan's and David's relationship was a marriage, perhaps he assumed that the later marriage to Michal annulled it. Who knows? By that time Saul was far gone in his madness.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar

• and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

Once again I must point out that while the text does not state that Jonathan and David were lovers in the "marriage" sense, or that their relationship was a marriage, it is very suggestive of the likelihood.

Men can love each other intensely without any carnal aspect to it at all. Many soldiers have a lifetime commitment to their fellow soldiers. Athletes also love their teammates even through marriages (to woman) that fail.

David and Jonathan is nothing more than this type of friendship.

Examples:

1. Many Christians try to use Genesis 2:24 ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.") to define marriage. Well, Jonathan 's soul was knit with David's and they became one and David left his father's house to live with Jonathan (1 Sam 18: 1-2)

Actually, "Christians" use Jesus on marriage. He includes "What God has joined, let no man seperate." It is Jesus using Genesis reality. John and Dave entered into a private pact. In fact, as two Israelites, "marriage" and gay sex, was inappropriate and an abomination to them both. It is also inappropriate to homosexualize the love these two men had for each other. Gay theologians do even worse things to Ruth and Naomi, and a boy slave owned by a Roman soldier.

1. A marriage is a covenant contracted between two people. 1 Sam 18:3 reads: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

Reading gay culture and its obvious gay erotica into the text is a stretch into the perverse for no good reason. Both David and Jonathan married women.

1. A marriage includes the concern of raising the next generation. As part of their covenant, Jonathan and David pledged to help raise one another's children. (1 Samuel 20:42 -- "And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.") David honored that commitment as far as he was able with Jonathan's son Mephibosheth.

As a soldier once myself, this is a common pact between two men that could be killed at any time. It is a very common pact.

1. Although the Bible does not require love to contract a marriage, it expects love within the marriage. Both the first verses about their relationship in 1 Samuel 18 and the last verses in 2 Samuel 1, as well as the passage where David adopts Mephibosheth into his household, focus on the love between Jonathan and David.

Nothing less and nothing more. Sodomizing this relationship is absolutely inappropriate.

1. Saul seems to have considered their relationship a marriage. He is the one who insisted that David make his home in the king's house with Jonathan.

Saul wanted to kill David. Close proximity makes that an easy task. Saul was soldier too.

When he arranged the marriage with his daughter Michal, he thought of how this marriage would make David his son-in-law twice over. (1 Samuel 18:21)

Why the outright deception? Here's reality:

17 Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD." For Saul said to himself, "I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!"

18 But David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my family or my father's clan in Israel, that I should become the king's son-in-law?"

19 So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.
20 Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."

There is no such things as same-gender "marriage."

He also seems to believe that Jonathan and David have consummated that marriage. In a drunken and perhaps mad rage he accuses Jonathan of "confusing his mother's nakedness" with David (1 Samuel 20:30).

If it were same "gender" sex, it would have been exposing Saul's nakedness. Remember Noah and his sons?

The construction is similar to that used in the "incest" verses of Leviticus 18 and 20 to indicate adultery within the family. Saul seems to be accusing Jonathan and David of cheating on their wives with one another. If he originally felt that Jonathan's and David's relationship was a marriage, perhaps he assumed that the later marriage to Michal annulled it. Who knows? By that time Saul was far gone in his madness.

Here's the text:

28 Jonathan answered, "David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. 29 He said, 'Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.' That is why he has not come to the king's table."
30 Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!" 32 "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?" Jonathan asked his father. 33 But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him. Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David.

This proves that David was a Torah observant Israelite, and that Saul was indeed desiring to kill David.

Here's the Tanakh version:

30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: 'Thou son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?
31 For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the earth, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he deserveth to die.'

Jonathan has recognized David as the rightful heir to the throne. This, Saul says, shames Jonathan's mother who, like Bathsheba to come later, would have desired ONLY her son as king.

There is no substance that supports the homosexualization of David and Jonathan.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The test of who is following Christ is what Christ’s teaching is. I think I have laid out the case with adequate and ample scriptural citations and references.

Quite so.

And Christ tells us to accept everyone, not judge one another, and to love our neighbour unconditionally.

Which to me, sounds like Jesus would accept committed homosexual relationships.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Reading gay culture and its obvious gay erotica into the text is a stretch into the perverse for no good reason. Both David and Jonathan married women.

"gay culture" is a neologism

Men can love each other intensely without any carnal aspect to it at all. Many soldiers have a lifetime commitment to their fellow soldiers. Athletes also love their teammates even through marriages (to woman) that fail.

Ditto "teammate"

 

[ChaliceThunder]

...there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.
.

That is like going to the grocery store, and standing in front of the seafood department declaring: "There is no such thing as salmon."

Sorry bud. There is salmon, and there is gay marriage. God created both of them, and they are both wonderful!

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz,
It should be quite obvious that because God made woman for man for this reason a man shall be united with his wife that God did not make man for man. If you think David and Jonathan’s friendship was like marriage how come they didn’t get married and David married a women? What you have proposed simply doesn’t make any sense, let alone you ignoring the rest of the Bible where Jesus NT teaching defines man and woman in faithful marriage or celibacy.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Originally Posted by brightmorningstar
The test of who is following Christ is what Christ’s teaching is. I think I have laid out the case with adequate and ample scriptural citations and references.

Quite so.

And Christ tells us to accept everyone, not judge one another, and to love our neighbour unconditionally.

Christ also tells us this, not instead.

Which to me, sounds like Jesus would accept committed homosexual relationships.

and thieving and murder and paedophilia? I don’t think so. Christ also taught repent from sin and there is a difference between loving people and accepting what they do. So no, we can see from scripture that Christ accepts people even if they have same sex attractions but doesn’t accept committed homosexual relationships.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Chalice_Thunder,

That is like going to the grocery store, and standing in front of the seafood department declaring: "There is no such thing as salmon."

Sorry bud. There is salmon, and there is gay marriage. God created both of them, and they are both wonderful!

Sorry bud, in your thinking maybe but not in God’s eyes, as the scriptures show. In fact when we go to God's counter we can declare there is no gay marriage because we can see there isnt from God's word. So infact its you doing what you accuse others of. We are going to the fish counter and declaring the salmon we see, you are saying it isnt salmon.

 

[brightmorningstar]

At the moment we seem to have a lot of personal opinion disputing the scriptures posted. If those who support homosexual practice can come up with some evidence to countenance it please, at present all we have is those offering scripture and those disputing it.

 

[KCKID]

...there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.

That is like going to the grocery store, and standing in front of the seafood department declaring: "There is no such thing as salmon.

Precisely. This persistent bleating of 'there is no such thing as same-sex marriage' is absolutely ridiculous. Just as there is such a thing as salmon there is also such a thing as same-sex marriage. I've read about it! Even Star Trek's 'Sulu' got hitched to his life-long 'gay' partner not too long ago. Live long and prosper, Sulu!

Salmon may not be to everyone's taste (too much lead content or something) but it doesn't make it not so.
​