Lev 20:13 and Homosexuality

[seebs]

Shane, "abomination" is used to refer to things that you personally do. Why do you treat this one differently?

As to legitimate references, obviously, you're welcome to disagree about David and Jonathan, but I think the evidence is pretty strong.

Hey, how about this: Stop posting here until you find a single approved reference to computers in the Bible. Oh, wait, you're saying some things aren't mentioned, and we have to use our own judgement? Well, then, I'm using my own judgement, and saying that what I see in gay people is nothing like what the Bible condemns.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Leviathan
sorry guys. I don't know why I am having problems cutting and pasting scripture onto these boards. It won't let me edit it either. Sorry. If someone wants to tell me what I have done wrong wet me know...

 

Paste text into notepad before pasting it here.  Notepad removes all formatting, so only the text will remain.

 

[Outspoken]

"I think the evidence is pretty strong."

nope, its not. Its just another tatic used by people that can't refute scripture. It was old and wrong when I heard it 5 or 6 years ago and it still is old and wrong.

"I'm using my own judgement, and saying that what I see in gay people is nothing like what the Bible condemns."

No you're just ignoring the text seebs..see my sig

 

[PastorFreud]

Wow, Outspoken, that is a great sig for you. Describes you quite well. Good job finding that one.

 

[seebs]

Y'know, I wish, just for once, you'd assume that maybe I'm just not as perceptive as you are, rather than constantly asserting that I'm lying. I really *have* read the text, and tons of exegesis on it, and come to these conclusions honestly. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not *lying*.

 

[PastorFreud]

Shane,

Why should I have to find a verse that PROMOTES homosexuality? The claim from anti-gay Christians is that it is a sin. Find a series of support, the same as we would expect for any doctrine, especially one that divides people into an ingroup and outgroup, and post it. Find scriptural support that homosexuality as experienced in the world today, is the same as the homosexualty being condemned. Don't use any texts out of context. I especially would be interested in the words of Jesus condemning homosexuality.

[chirpingcrickets] Please. Share with us. What did Jesus say? [/chirpingcrickets]

Badfish promised a dozen. He delivered fewer than six unique accounts. Can you do better?

 

[PastorFreud]

Originally posted by seebs
Y'know, I wish, just for once, you'd assume that maybe I'm just not as perceptive as you are, rather than constantly asserting that I'm lying. I really *have* read the text, and tons of exegesis on it, and come to these conclusions honestly. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not *lying*.

Does the use of the word "tactic" imply that you know the truth but are trying to distort it?

I've read the text and done tons of exegesis on it as well.  My problem was, I guess, that I assumed all truth was God's truth and that I had nothing to fear from honest study. 

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs
Shane, "abomination" is used to refer to things that you personally do. Why do you treat this one differently?

As to legitimate references, obviously, you're welcome to disagree about David and Jonathan, but I think the evidence is pretty strong.

Hey, how about this: Stop posting here until you find a single approved reference to computers in the Bible. Oh, wait, you're saying some things aren't mentioned, and we have to use our own judgement? Well, then, I'm using my own judgement, and saying that what I see in gay people is nothing like what the Bible condemns.

 

He's giving David his armour, bow and weapons.  For someone who likes to sift through the actual Hebrew I find it telling that you prefer to stand by your alternative lifestyle interpretation of this verse, where the only indication that you might possibly be right is the word "garment", which, if the writer had wanted to be clear, could have chosen beged, which has no connotation of armour at all.  Heck it's even wrong for a man to dress or act effeminate much less engage in homosexual encounters.

 

Armour bow and weapons couldn't be more macho unless they chugged a beer afterwards.  The real problem with the entire idea of insisting that homosexuality MUST not be a choice or a sin seems to come from people who have a real problem with male intimacy that is not sexually oriented. 

 

A "girdle" in the sense you speak of is a piece of women's clothing of the late what, 19th century?  He is handing David his weapons and armour and probably "belt", not some undergarment.

 

Aside from that, it does not say, "and he went in and knew his friend David", which would be the type of indication required to legitimze this so called clear example.

 

Seriously, there is not one reference to homosexual relationship at all anywhere in the Bible, and as I have repeated over and over, the kicker is that the new Testament specifically witholds sexual sin from the long list of things that are no longer required for believers to abstain from.

 

Your sympathies are misplaced.  You should be strengthening and exhorting your Christian brother to stand fast in his faith, and lay up treasures in heaven, not shame himself and grieve the Spirit within him here on earth.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
Shane,

Why should I have to find a verse that PROMOTES homosexuality? The claim from anti-gay Christians is that it is a sin. Find a series of support, the same as we would expect for any doctrine, especially one that divides people into an ingroup and outgroup, and post it. Find scriptural support that homosexuality as experienced in the world today, is the same as the homosexualty being condemned. Don't use any texts out of context. I especially would be interested in the words of Jesus condemning homosexuality.

[chirpingcrickets] Please. Share with us. What did Jesus say? [/chirpingcrickets]

Badfish promised a dozen. He delivered fewer than six unique accounts. Can you do better?

 

You mention context, and I am using it.  All the references that you find so dubious lose their doubt when one realizes that there is not one suggestion that homosexuality is ok, nor of any provision for homosexual marriage.  Your assumption that homosexuality "today" is different from homosexuality in the past is ungrounded as far as I can tell. 

 

Badfish promised a dozen, but only gave you six, which you have yet to refute.  I don't promise a dozen.  You have already seen all that I have seen.  I am not arguing the text, I am wondering where your alternative interpretation comes from.  So far, apparently it comes from nowhere.  This I find deeply disturbing.

 

[seebs]

Wait, what are you talking about? I'm talking about when David and Jonathan first meet. In about one chapter, Jonathan undresses in front of David, they make a covenant, and Jonathan no longer goes home.

BTW, the "macho" line seems to imply that you think a guy who sleeps with other guys, but is macho, isn't *really* gay.

Ah, well. Not much point arguing; if you don't think two guys kissing until one of them "exceeds" is suspicious, I can't convince you.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud

[chirpingcrickets] Please. Share with us. What did Jesus say? [/chirpingcrickets] 

 

"Ye have heard it said, 'thou shalt not commit adultery': but I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart."

 

How much more so engaging in homozeual sex when the law preached that even acting effeminate was wrong?

 

Jesus notably made no comment on inappropriate behavior with animals either.  Rather lazy rhetoric really, for a pastor. 

 

[seebs]

They looked refuted to me, but then, we knew we disagreed about the interpretation.

I guess, Shane, the main thing is this:

I do not expect the Bible to list every good thing. You couldn't make a book big enough. I have no particular expectation that every moral choice I could ever make will be specifically named in the Bible. I simply *assume* that God's creation is good; doesn't the Bible say that?

So, unless I'm quite sure that something *isn't* good, I assume it is. And, to conclude that it's bad, I have to be pretty sure that I'm not misinterpreting a text that may or may not say that.

 

[seebs]

I think this connection between effeminacy and homosexuality is being overstated just a little bit.

 

[PastorFreud]

Yes, and if you use logic only to dispute what you don't understand, I can't do much either.

As far as the Spirit being grieved, it is grievous that any person would exclude from fellowship any other person who is also seeking God. Certainly the Spirit is grieved when people justify their fear and prejudice with God's holy word. It is grievous when the Spirit tries to lead someone into truth, and is told not to bother, because they like the truth they have just fine.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs
Wait, what are you talking about? I'm talking about when David and Jonathan first meet. In about one chapter, Jonathan undresses in front of David, they make a covenant, and Jonathan no longer goes home.

BTW, the "macho" line seems to imply that you think a guy who sleeps with other guys, but is macho, isn't *really* gay.

Ah, well. Not much point arguing; if you don't think two guys kissing until one of them "exceeds" is suspicious, I can't convince you.

 

Yes, 1 Samuel 17 and 18.  kissing until one of them exceeds?  This is a new one....  Iam talking of the supposed stripping, 18:1-4.

 

[PastorFreud]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
 

"Ye have heard it said, 'thou shalt not commit adultery': but I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart."

 

How much more so engaging in homozeual sex when the law preached that even acting effeminate was wrong?

 

Jesus notably made no comment on inappropriate behavior with animals either.  Rather lazy rhetoric really, for a pastor. 

 

Rather dishonest approach in my opinion.  You claim that this doctrine is clear and undeniable, blah blah blah.  Jesus' silence on the issue means nothing to you, but you take the ABSENCE of support as a clear indicator it is wrong.  But I'm the lazy one.

And you misuse Matthew 5:28.  Now who is it that reminds me of someone that misuses the scripture, is filled with hatred and pride, lives on fear, mistreats others, and claims to do it all in the name of God?  Jesus had a few words for people like this.  He said they stink, because they are tombs filled with dead flesh and bones.

 

[Shane Roach]

Both of you denounce me as judgemental and yet take no thought that in doing so you judge me. In the meantime, the type of judgement we are exhorted to acoid is the judgement of the inner man. No one says not to judge that murder is wrong. You make this big show of your supposed care for others, but you attack those who simply point out that your doubts about avoiding homosexuality appear entirely unwaranted and groundless, and also lead to one of the few remaining prohibitions in the New Testament, to keep the temple, you own body, pure, by abstaining from sexual sin. It's like the only sin left that holds true danger for the Christian, because "you make the members of Christ the members of a harlot" (1Cor 6:15).

You accuse anyone who refutes you of doing it out of spite and judgement, but you are wrong. I do it, and will continue to counter you, out of love for those who, like me, have been told that abominable things are ok, and who will, like me, learn too late the pain and dissapointment of the falsehood. Seebs accuses me of commiting abominations as well. So true! But I repent of them, and also would counsel anyone who loves Christ that they too can repent, and be "more than conquorers" (ROm 8:37) rather than those who simply cry helplessly that they have no control over their sin.

 

[PastorFreud]

1 Samuel 18
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Sounds like a covenant ceremony to me.

Later in the chapter you get the biblical pattern for courtship.

1 Samuel 20
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies to account." 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.

1 Samuel 20
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

That just means he cried the most. Right?

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
 

Rather dishonest approach in my opinion.  You claim that this doctrine is clear and undeniable, blah blah blah.  Jesus' silence on the issue means nothing to you, but you take the ABSENCE of support as a clear indicator it is wrong.  But I'm the lazy one.

And you misuse Matthew 5:28.  Now who is it that reminds me of someone that misuses the scripture, is filled with hatred and pride, lives on fear, mistreats others, and claims to do it all in the name of God?  Jesus had a few words for people like this.  He said they stink, because they are tombs filled with dead flesh and bones.

 

And there is the expected name calling, and this thread will be closed soon if this keeps up.

 

Hate me if you wish.  I'm done with this for now.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
1 Samuel 18
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

Sounds like a covenant ceremony to me.

Later in the chapter you get the biblical pattern for courtship.

1 Samuel 20
16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies to account." 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.

1 Samuel 20
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

That just means he cried the most. Right?

 

Considering that at the moment David was about to run for his very life, yes, I doubt they hung around long enough for anyone to "exceed" in the sense you seem to be implying.

 

As I said, I need to go before this degenerates.  That interpretation of two men who care deeply for one another crying adn being emotional in the midst of danger is not a homoerotic moment.  I can think of a similar writing by Tolkien where Frodo is naked and Sam holds him and kisses him.  You have no understanding of non sexual male intimacy, as I stated earlier.

 

How escaping Saul's murderous intentions and denouncing David's enemies becomes a courtship ritual, I will never understand I am sure.