If we are made in the image of God, where does homosexuality fit?

[LightHorseman]

Doesn't that turn that commandment into "have sex with your neighbor as you do yourself" ?
And couldn't we then use that same logic then justify any consensual sex?

Can see some aspect of loving oneself as "being one" with self. And can see that same aspect of love in two "being one" in the ultimate expression of love between two of opposite gender. Difficult to see that level of love in a same sex couple. That expression ends at getting each other off, preventing them from sharing completely with the other all they have to give.

"love each other as yourself" has nothing to do with sex.

It means treat people as you would want to be treated... and the practical application of this is, that anything is OK so long as it occurs with the mutual consent of anyone significantly involved in the matter.

 

[JediMobius]

I don't think any relevant, post new covenant scripture condemns consentual homosexuality. Sorry.

It really seems that your idea of 'relevant' is based on your position that it's okay for two guys to have whatever sex they feel like having. Shouldn't you be more concerned with scripture than with worldly views?

 

[JediMobius]

"love each other as yourself" has nothing to do with sex.

It means treat people as you would want to be treated... and the practical application of this is, that anything is OK so long as it occurs with the mutual consent of anyone significantly involved in the matter.

So, euthanasia? Narcotics? Bestiality? Prostitution? Assisted Suicide? These are all OK under mutual consent?

 

[Nadiine]

So, euthanasia? Narcotics? Bestiality? Prostitution? Assisted Suicide? These are all OK under mutual consent?

ya, remove God and enjoy yerselves!

that's the Christian way TLT

 

[Nadiine]

"love each other as yourself" has nothing to do with sex.

It means treat people as you would want to be treated... and the practical application of this is, that anything is OK so long as it occurs with the mutual consent of anyone significantly involved in the matter.

This sounds great for the unsaved; just live how you already do folks!
What's to change?

This is a Christian forum tho.
Christians obey God and believe His standards instead.

If we're going to live like we did BEFORE salvation, then
we're showing we dont' know God at all or think what He
has to say is true.

The "old man" dies and we're a NEW CREATION in Christ;
Ephesians 4:16-18 (Amplified Bible)
17So this I say and solemnly testify in [the name of] the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the heathen (the Gentiles) do in their perverseness [in the folly, vanity, and emptiness of their souls and the futility] of their minds.
18 Their moral understanding is darkened and their reasoning is beclouded. [They are] alienated (estranged, self-banished) from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the ignorance (the want of knowledge and perception, the willful blindness) that is deep-seated in them, due to their hardness of heart [to the insensitiveness of their moral nature].


1 Peter 4:3
For the time that is past already suffices for doing what the Gentiles like to do--living [as you have done] in shameless, insolent wantonness, in lustful desires, drunkenness, reveling, drinking bouts and abominable, lawless idolatries.

Sorry but I don't recognize the sin nature as Christian.
We're called OUT of this dead lifestyle into a lifestyle that is
HOLY before God thru His Living Spirit that dwells within us.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

"love each other as yourself" has nothing to do with sex.

It means treat people as you would want to be treated... and the practical application of this is, that anything is OK so long as it occurs with the mutual consent of anyone significantly involved in the matter.

As far as this thread goes and as this response clearly suggests, the command is being interpreted to suggest that any sex is ok as long as it is consensual, and more specifically that homosexual acts are covered by it. So yes, according to this logic, it has everything to do about sex – at least in this thread. I happen to disagree, but then I was not the one suggesting Jesus endorsed all consensual act by that command.

I doubt we would all agree that all consensual sex is ok, and since this is probably the case for most of us am interested to know why we should give homosexual acts a special exception or are we seriously prepared to say all consensual sex is ok?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I don't think any relevant, post new covenant scripture condemns consentual homosexuality. Sorry.

Okay, well seeing as you don't seem to take scripture at its word, I am going to bow out of this conversation. Because if you can twist the commandment to "Love God and Love thy neighbor" into meaning that it's okay to have homosexual sex I don't want to stick around and see what else you will twist.

 

[ke1985]

lighthorseman,

Nothing in the Bible condones homosexuality but in context it does condemn it.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I would like to thank LightHorseman for posting with honesty and integrity during this thread

 

[BigBadWlf]

Homosexuality is not a trait in the genes.

Any actual evidence to back this claim up?

It is a human choice came about by the environment the person was brought up around.

Again...any actual evidence to back this claim up?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Seriously? Lot offered his daughters as opposed to his sons in law and if he considered that homosexuality was okay, wouldn't you think he would ofter the sons in law? And maybe you misinterpreted that verse, at no time did the men of Sodom call them angels, for they thought they were men.

Problem 1: Lot has no son in laws. his daughters were virgins

Problem 2: if we are to believe the nonsense that all the men of Sodom were gay then what was Lot doing offering up his young daughters for a gang rape?

Problem 3 it’s terribly sad you don’t see anything wrong with a parent offering up their own children to be raped

Problem 4: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Ezekiel 16:48-49 I guess God didn’t know why he destroyed Sodom

Romans 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 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, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Is this speaking of consentual homosexuality or is this rape?

The various letters of Paul have historically been used to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals

In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” used in Romans translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not in reference to passion or the street drug but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by anthropologists (Ref: Mircea Eliade). These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but like so many other non-Christian traditions, ecstasy found their way into Christianity.

As for the reference to “natural.” The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. Such relationships are referred to as being unnatural by many writers of the era.

Paul specifically used the Greek word paraphysi here, and contrary to popular belief paraphysi does not mean "to go against the law(s) of nature", as those promoting discrimination against homosexuals often claim, but rather it means to engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic or against the nature of that person or more simply an individual denying his/her true nature. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. To claim that paraphysi means unnatural would indicate that God was acting in an unnatural way. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. And what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse you cite God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual orientation. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.


BUT READ FURTHER - To read Romans 1 without Romans 2 is a great error, for Paul goes on to say that we are not to judge each other. He points out the self-righteousness of those who have judged the pagans just described in Romans 1. Then he reiterates the commandment of Jesus in his own words: "God will give to each person according to what he has done." Romans 2:6

So what's happened between Romans 1 and 2? Paul is obviously using an "attention grabbing" technique like any good writer or speaker. In this letter, he is concerned with trying to bridge the gaps between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians who were busy judging each other and putting each other down.

Paul starts by talking about those "awful pagans" a group which both Jew and Greek Christians felt superior to. He gives a laundry list of "sins" to which his Christian audience was undoubtedly approving of and enjoying how bad those people were compared to how good they were. Then, after having caught them in their judgmentalism, he says "by judging, you pass judgment on yourself." By using a pagan example of sins, he could then go on to say, I caught you judging others…Do not judge " For God does not show favoritism." Romans 2:11

Lev 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

I am not speaking of the action of putting them to death, I am speaking of if that particular verse is talking about rape or consentual sex?

Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex – specifically carnal knowledge. However carnal knowledge is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) with but there is a problem with that translation. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.


Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

And scripture tells us in Chapter 18, that these angels were going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah anyways, it says "And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." (Genesis 18:20-21). So, what exactly is this sin, you ask? "as Sodom and Gomorah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 7). What is the sexual immorality you ask? Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." So Lot went out to them thought the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof. (Genesis 19:4-8).


The men in Sodom did not get destroyed simply because of this event, Genesis 18 tells us that they were going to get destroyed if the outcry against them was true.

The text says that the city was destroyed for "excessive lust" and that this lust was specifically for "different flesh" (sarkas heteras). Sarkas means "flesh" and heteras is the word for "different." Remember that homosexual refers to someone attracted to the same gender and heterosexual refers to those attracted to the different gender. According to Jude the people of Sodom were "heterosexuals" --an odd way to describe gay men. Clearly, homosexuality is not the lust for "different flesh"

And you don't understand, there is not a single verse where God considers homosexuality okay whether you choose to say one is consentual and the other is rape. Every time it is mention, it is always mentioned in a negative light, always considered wrong. I'm sorry if you don't agree, if you know of a verse that consider it in a positive light, by all means show me the scripture I am more than willing to hear.

Look up what the bible says about racial equality sometime

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Thesaurus are available online for quick searches, the Hebrew word “SHAKAB” is actually used 213 times in the OT; 106 to mean lie (including sex) , 48 to mean sleep (including sex), 43 lie down(including sex), 3 rest, 2 lien, and 10 misc.

Looked at every occurrence and would have to say most refer to sleeping or resting (even in death), not sex.

Where it was referring to sex, found only 7 times were the sexual connotation was rape. In each and every case either context or other words clearly indicating force are included in the same verse, removing any doubt that the reference is to rape.

We might count 7 more occurrences found in 3 verses, if one counts what Lot’s daughters did to him as rape. We could say it was not consensual in that they got him drunk and then seduced him. Am not sure most of us would agree that carries the same connotation as rape, especially when the victim is male though perhaps it is a technicality. IOW they got him drunk and had sex with him as opposed to raping him. But ok, a technicality and an offense against their father and clearly non-consent.

But even at 14 out of 213, and clearly with context and other words indicating force present when it is meant to be understood as rape, we are hard pressed to say this word always means rape when used to indicate sexual relations.

Furthermore in the commandments referenced were Mr. Wolf wishes to see the command as forbidding rape, there is even a distinction made in other verses indicating when force is used with SHAKAB the woman is not always punished. If SHAKAB was meant to be understood as rape or non-consensual sex, it is difficult to explain why they would need another verse to forbid forced non-consensual sex.

 

[OllieFranz]

Thesaurus are available online for quick searches, the Hebrew word “SHAKAB” is actually used 213 times in the OT; 106 to mean lie (including sex) , 48 to mean sleep (including sex), 43 lie down(including sex), 3 rest, 2 lien, and 10 misc. Looked at every occurrence and would have to say most refer to sleeping or resting (even in death), not sex.

Where it was referring to sex, found only 7 times were the sexual connotation was rape. In each and every case either context or other words clearly indicating force are included in the same verse, removing any doubt that the reference is to rape.

We might count 7 more occurrences found in 3 verses, if one counts what Lot’s daughters did to him as rape. We could say it was not consensual in that they got him drunk and then seduced him. Am not sure most of us would agree that carries the same connotation as rape, especially when the victim is male though perhaps it is a technicality. IOW they got him drunk and had sex with him as opposed to raping him. But ok, a technicality and an offense against their father and clearly non-consent.

But even at 14 out of 213, and clearly with context and other words indicating force present when it is meant to be understood as rape, we are hard pressed to say this word always means rape when used to indicate sexual relations.

But of those 213 times, only 16 of them actually refer to sex. It is not common to use "shakav" to refer to sex. "Mishkav," which also mainly means "to lie down" or (as a noun) "bed," is the more common word to use when sex is meant. While 14 out of 213 looks to be inconclusive, when you look at 14 out of 16, where the two that are not clearly non-consentual are the very verses we are wondering about, suddenly the picture changes.

The only two verses where "shakav" means sex, and it is not clearly a case of non-consensual sex, are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. In both of these verses, both "shakav" and "mishkav" are used. The forbidden sex is called "shakav" while the acceptable sex it deviates from is called "mishkav."

When the rabbis whose discussions make up the commentaries known as the Talmud and the Midrash were working out their understandings of the Scriptures, the familiar division of the books into numbered chapters and verses had not yet been invented. One rabbi would write out the whole verse to begin his argument. Another rabbi, commenting on the first one's points would abreviate the verse, quoting just enough to remind his readers of the passage in question. A discussion of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 would be referred to as "man-lying" or "Mishkav zakur." Except that that is not a correct abbreviation of the verse. But it was only by pretending that the verse used "mishkav" instead of "shakav" that the rabbis were able to extend the prohibition to all man-on-man sex.

Even so, they could not extend it to woman-on-woman sex. A couple of rabbis questioned whether it should be, but the overwhelming response was that there was nothing wrong with a woman "rubbing" another woman.

Furthermore in the commandments referenced were Mr. Wolf wishes to see the command as forbidding rape, there is even a distinction made in other verses indicating when force is used with SHAKAB the woman is not always punished. If SHAKAB was meant to be understood as rape or non-consensual sex, it is difficult to explain why they would need another verse to forbid forced non-consensual sex.

The rabbis also wondered why, if only the taking of the "active" position is forbidden, the "passive" man is also to be killed. They could not find a satisfying answer. They were left with competing theories, none of them conclusive. The one with the most adherents was that that if the "passive" man were not killed, he would be a constant reminder of the shame that one of their own had been a "man-lyer."

This is supported by two other Biblical facts. The rape laws mandated that the woman be killed if the act occurred in the village (presumably with a neighbor), but not if it occurred in the field (presumably by a stranger) [Deuteronomy 22:23-27] and the fact that David's ambassadors to Ammon were not killed after their rape by Hanun's men, but just secluded until the evidences of their violation faded and their beards grew back in. [2 Samuel 10; 1 Chronicles 19]

 

[HuntingMan]

Pretty straight forward question that has always bugged me. I personally don't feel that homosexuality is any more a choice than my own heterosexuality is. I am simply not aroused by a naked man, on the other hand naked woman DO arouse me, I am not making a choice. So if God created us in his image, why are some of us gay?

It doesnt 'fit'....that is why it is 'sin'.

 

[HuntingMan]

Problem 2: if we are to believe the nonsense that all the men of Sodom were gay then what was Lot doing offering up his young daughters for a gang rape?

This 'problem' as you call it is evidence that it ISNT 'rape' that is the issue with the men of Sodom. If it were 'rape' or 'inhospitality' as some fallacies assert, then Lots offering his daughters makes no logical sense at all as that would NOT be any remedy to the situation as Lot believed it would be.
Lot was very clearly looking at some other issue than 'rape' or 'inhospitality' as his offer would have changed nothing in regards to either of those. Only if the men wanting to have sex with what they believed to be men is the real 'problem' does Lots offer fit logically AS a remedy.
Though we expect every possible excuse imaginable to try to circumvent that logic.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

BigBadWlf,

I don't really feel like responding to half your post because all you are trying to do is justify something God clearly is against.

First, as for Lot not having any sons-in-law, the scripture says "So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters, and said, "Get up, get out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city!" But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be joking. Genesis 19:14

I don't know if his daughters were recently married that they did not have sex with their husbands yet or if there were different daughters that were married to the men, or that Lot lied to the men so they would take his daughters, regardless of the reason he had sons-in-laws.

Secondly, for you to assume that I don't have a problem with Lot offering up his children is ludicrous. You didn't even bother asking me if I did, you just assumed. And like I said in my first post when speaking to lighthorse, if you have a problem with what Lot did, take it to God because I don't have an answer for you. As for asking me, if I believe all of them were homosexuals, scripture says "Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally" Genesis 19:4-5. I believe the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young surrounded the house and asked for Lot to bring out the men so that they may know them carnally. That is what I believe about the men of Sodom.

Third, while you sit there and quote Ezekiel, continue and read Jude because it specifically says that they were destroyed for their sexual immorality. I don't think it is an either this or that, it could simply be because of both.

By the way, I really like how you quoted Ezekiel 16:49-50
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idelness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit."

Hmmmm.....God uses the word abomination a lot and to describe many different things, I don't know of a verse where He uses the word abomination about being inhospitable (though I don't doubt it is an abomination to Him), but I do know that in Lev. 18:22 He considers it an abomination for man being with man. And before you jump on me and say "well abomination could mean anything other than that" again look to Jude 7, when it says why else they were destroyed "having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh..." And as for saying that this "strange flesh" means heterosexuality, again read Genesis 19, these men wanted to have sex with men, that is not heterosexuality.

But see, the most amazing thing about the Son of God, is that He came so that we may have life. Yes, we all sin, and regardless if you don't think homosexuality is sin, can you just please read scripture and see what God said about it. Before you go onto websites and start reading books that tells you what scripture means, I implore you to just take time to be with God and read His words. The most important thing in our lives is for us to do as God have asked us to do because we love Him. I believe we Christians here want to go to heaven, and because of the sacrifice that Christ have done, He provided us a way for that to be possible. Salvation is found in Him, for it God whom will judge us and so therefore His word should be above all else, the most important thing to follow and not looking towards man to tell us what such and such say.

 

[Nadiine]

removing - already quoted before I read
entire post
And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit."

 

[Gravetye]

This 'problem' as you call it is evidence that it ISNT 'rape' that is the issue with the men of Sodom. If it were 'rape' or 'inhospitality' as some fallacies assert, then Lots offering his daughters makes no logical sense at all as that would NOT be any remedy to the situation as Lot believed it would be.
Lot was very clearly looking at some other issue than 'rape' or 'inhospitality' as his offer would have changed nothing in regards to either of those. Only if the men wanting to have sex with what they believed to be men is the real 'problem' does Lots offer fit logically AS a remedy.
Though we expect every possible excuse imaginable to try to circumvent that logic.

Except women were considered subhuman back then, so Lot offering up his daughters wouldn't have been seen as rape by him, because as their father, he would have believed himself to be their consent. So, no, the problem remains rape.

 

[Inviolable]

Except women were considered subhuman back then, so Lot offering up his daughters wouldn't have been seen as rape by him, because as their father, he would have believed himself to be their consent. So, no, the problem remains rape.

I apologize, I don't mean to intervene. It would seem as if you didn't read the entire post or maybe not understand it.

Lot was very clearly looking at some other issue than 'rape' or 'inhospitality' as his offer would have changed nothing in regards to either of those. Only if the men wanting to have sex with what they believed to be men is the real 'problem' does Lots offer fit logically AS a remedy.
Though we expect every possible excuse imaginable to try to circumvent that logic.

I believe the poster you quoted was saying that rape was considered to be sin even back then. As it is written in the OT to be a sin.
Lot was trying to avoid sin, so offering up his daughters for rape would've been just as sinful as acts of homosexuality.

But the obvious can be ignored and the posters other point can be proven.

 

[Stinker]

removing - already quoted before I read
entire post
And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit."

I was first taught that Sodom was destroyed for their homosexuality, or their practice of it. So I can definitely see that side of the issue. I tried to defend it to the best of my ability as well. I have since learned that what I tried to defend does not stand up to debate, especially formal debate. The above verse in bold print shows why. One should see what it was that Sodom did that ultimately drew the Lord's attention to them. The leading man or men of the town were sodomizing the male strangers (or ordering it done) that came into their town.....just like in the prison population. Instead of welcoming them and providing the tired, dirty, and hungry travelers (as was the culture back then) a washing, a bed, and food/drink, they were subjecting them to public humiliation. The result of this practice would have benefitted the leading man/men of the town in that they would not have been challenged by the newcomers. They could carry on business as usual, still the unquestioned top dog/dogs.