No need for so called "clobber passages" if:

[artybloke]

Nope, we aren't fooled at all.

That's true. Us Bible-believing Christians who don't use the Bible to justify our hatred of things we don't understand such as homosexuality are not fooled at all.

Because we read the Bible without the glasses of prejudice on.

 

[KCKID]

You're right the threads about lying, greed, murder, etc. don't go very far, but it isn't because it isn't nearly as much fun.

It is because the majority of people know that lying, greed, murder, etc. are sins.

So, you actually believe then - and please tell me if I'm wrong - that someone who calls themself a homosexual is REALLY a heterosexual (someone who finds those of the opposite gender attractive) that is lying ...?

I would be astonished if someone on this forum were to actually confess to actually believing that a homosexual is really a heterosexual who is feigning 'opposite' orientation.

Such a thing as "I'm not 'gay' but I'm going to pretend that I'm 'gay' just to bug God and Christians" would surely finish up in Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Do you hear liars referred to as depraved and not saved?

Frankly yes I have but not because the only thing they do is lie. Just like it says in Romans 1, or should I say that it points out how if we continue in sin it isn't just one sin.

Look at those that we classify as really bad people, they murder, they lie, they have many sinful traits. Drug addicts get to the point they steal, lie, etc. The Bible is very clear that if we live in darkness that that darkness will over take you.

Isn't there a scripture that points out that normally if a righteous person hangs with the not righteous that they will become like them. How many times have we done this? It seems the bad rubs off on us and we start compromising alittle bit and then alittle bit more.

Many years back I can say that I did this very thing. I went from never cussing to even using the f word. I started going out almost every weekend to dance which turned to drinking. I stop going to church, and yet the whole time when I would look at others doing the same things I would cringe, and prayerfully worry about them. I sank so low trying to protect a friend that had just suddenly lost her husband, (heart attack) that it was years before I heard the Lords still small voice calling me, but..........................Thankfully I heard the Sheperds Call!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7blZSdVv6ns

 

[savedandhappy1]

I don't really think there is a difference.

Well, obviously, everyone is aware male-female heterosexual intercourse is obviously different to same-sex intercourse.

But when one becomes one flesh, I would think there would be as much metaphor in there as much as being literal. If two people marry, and share their lives together, their hopes, their dreams - isn't that what marriage is fundamentally about? Two against the world? Unity? A couple-dom that isn't entered by anyone else?

Really, when you look at comitted homosexual couples there really is no difference, metaphorically. Homosexuals have long-term relationships, that if you removed gender, are no different to a heterosexual marriage.

So, I don't think the whole "One man and one woman" thing really holds that much clout. Really, I think its declasse to have wild, promiscuous sex - regardless of orientation. So, providing the homosexual couple in question are united, and are safe and devoted to each other, and aren't really hurting themselves or others around them, I think its a non-issue that the parties just happen to prefer the same gender.

Well the Bible seems to think it holds that much clout since it is mention many times.

The male and female bodies were made, by God, to fit together perfectedly thus making the one flesh.

I don't know why when that alone is so obvious, besides the fact that God made them male and female in the Garden, and it says many times in the OT and the NT how a MAN will leave his parents and cleave a WIFE.....................that anyone could rational out that God thinks it is ok to do the opposite of what He planned.

Then I read the scriptures that tell me this will happen, and so I prayfully strive to let the Lord use me to hopefully lead some away from the deceiving copycatting of the devil.

God made us to love one another, and the devil wants us to kill eachother.

God made us to be truthful, and the devil leads us to little white lies that lead to even bigger lies. Because we don't what to hurt anybody if they ask if they look alright, so instead of saying something nice about their hair, the color of the outfit, etc. we lie and say you look great. It is kind of like some of the people who come to try out for American Idol, and their friends tell them they sing great when they can't carry a tune. I have heard people say that it is better to lie then be truthful because it will crush them. How crushed are those people who really think they can sing and then get rejected and slammed by Simon?

God tell us to not covet out neighbors wife or stuff, but yet we have adultery and stealing.

God tells us to honor our parents, and yet it seems that at least once a week we hear about a kid killing their parents because they wouldn't let them go to the show or something just as stupid.

God made us to go forth and multiple, and the devil leads us to have relationships with those we can't multiple with.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying any of the above is the devil made me do it. No we have the choice to make and it is us who will have to answer for those choices. The devil may tempt us but we are plainly told in the Word that the Lord can lead us pasted those temptations, and can even take us through them if we don't call on Him before we fall into them.

 

[savedandhappy1]

That's true. Us Bible-believing Christians who don't use the Bible to justify our hatred of things we don't understand such as homosexuality are not fooled at all.

Because we read the Bible without the glasses of prejudice on.

So those of us that aren't prejudice and still read the Bible and believe it to mean what it says are what????????????

You know it really gets old being told we are haters and prejudice because we believe God when He calls a sin a sin. So no matter how many times or how long someone lies and says I am a hater and that I am prejudice.........well it won't make it so. No matter how the devil tries to make me get mad because of the constant false witnessing against me I refuse to become what I am so falsely accused of being.

Thankfully the Lord gave the examples of how we should respond when these things happen, and I just pray that I will always follow that example.

Some of these threads remind me of the political races we are watching, they attack the other person instead of just stating what they will do and why. Just like the political races, the people don't want to hear the attacks, and they aren't fooled, well at least most aren't by this. (Example: saying Hillary's health plan forces people who can't afford it to buy health insurance, but Obama doesn't say how his health plan is different. Not siding with either of them, and am not voting for either of them, this is just an example.)

I sometimes feel like those that accuse me of being a hater, prejudice, etc., are .....................well maybe they are what they accuse me of being, don't know?

I will love them in Christ in spite of whether they are those things or not, because again the examples of our Lord and Saviour shows me if He can do it then with Him in me, I can too.

I realize that He was put to death by those people, and I am in no ways saying that anything done here even compares to that. I am saying that if He could go through that that, if I let Him work through me, I can surely get past any verbal attacks/name callings, etc., I might get here.

 

[savedandhappy1]

So, you actually believe then - and please tell me if I'm wrong - that someone who calls themself a homosexual is REALLY a heterosexual (someone who finds those of the opposite gender attractive) that is lying ...?

I would be astonished if someone on this forum were to actually confess to actually believing that a homosexual is really a heterosexual who is feigning 'opposite' orientation.

Such a thing as "I'm not 'gay' but I'm going to pretend that I'm 'gay' just to bug God and Christians" would surely finish up in Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

I don't believe anyone is pretending to be "gay" just to bug God and Christians, and don't believe anyone here has ever said that.

I don't believe people lie, steal, murder, etc just to bug God and Christians or that they are pretending either. I believe we are born with a sinful nature and because of that we do just that, we sin.

I believe that the great deceiver does just that, he deceives people into doing the opposite of what God planned and requires of those that He wants to call His children.

Do you believe that anyone who commits sexual sins or any of the other sins I have mentioned above, or that the Bible tells us are sins are righteous people pretending to be unrighteous? Or are we unrighteous people who God calls to righteousness?

The entire Bible speaks of only hetrosexual design, and with the amount of homosexual relationships that were done, according to history, during Biblical times there is no way that I can say or see that they didn't understand homosexuality. They married people of the same sex, and had long time relationships with them. These same people also had hetrosexual relationships so they could have families. You would think that if homosexuality was ok in God's eyes that somehow in one of the 66 books of the Bible, He would have shown this to be good and exceptible. Even looking at other writings from that time we see how it isn't exceptible, Plato, Second Maccabees, and other manuscripts found from that era all carry the same consistant message against homosexuality.

Do you believe that God created people to kill? Steal? Lie? Be Greedy? Covet other peoples wives and possessions? Dishonor their parents? Commit Adultrey? Be addicted to porn?

The list could go on and on, and yet it all boils down to we are born with a sinful nature, and without Christ we will sin.

 

[OllieFranz]

Well the Bible seems to think it holds that much clout since it is mention many times.

That depends on whether or not you consider 10 (or, if you count Jude, 11) to be "many," especially compared to the number of passages against so many other sins. I started to count the passages about theft but quickly lost count. Likewise for passages about lying.

The issues that we umbrella under the general term "homosexuality" only appear in ten passages in the entire Bible. Only five of these are explicitly teaching passages. The other five are accounts of outrageous behavior: either attempted or successful man-on-man rape done for political power.

Three* of these accounts never enter into discussions of whether the Bible forbids all forms of "homosexuality or whether it "condones" it in certain situations. These three document the two successful male-on-male rapes reported in the Bible. Ham and Noah (Genesis 9) and the rape Hanun ordered of David's ambassadors (2 Samuel 10 and 1 Chronicles 19).

(* If you want to insist that these passages are not about rape, as I have heard many Christians claim, I won't dispute you. But then your "many" passages are further reduced, and you have only seven.)

The fourth (Judges 19) only recently entered the discussion, and that as a counter to the fifth (Genesis 19). The claim has been made that because the crowd refused the offer of Lot's daughters, they must have all been gay. The crowd in Gibeah also refused the Levite's concubine, at first. They weren't about to settle for humiliating a woman, if they could get the strander himself. When they realized that he was not coming out, they did "settle" for the concubine, but humiliation was not enough, and they killed her as well.

Something very similar might have happened in Sodom as well, but for the intervention of the angels. We don't know. We do know that everywhere in the Bible (with the possible exception of Jude) where Sodom is mentioned, "homosexuality" is not named as one of her major sins. If it is present at all, it is buried with many other sins as unspecified "abominations."

Jude itself must be read with 2 Peter, which it parallels and complements. Both letters show that their authors were familiar with one or both of two apocryphal books which go into more detail about the "Sons of God" and the Nephilim (Genesis 6) and about Sodom; they claim that the angels were recognized as "Sons of God," A lot of people claim that this is why wanting to "know" the angels was, in Jude's words going after "strange flesh." I do not feel comfortable with this explanation. But the traditional explanation is even worse.

Given the obvious difference between someone who is the same (homo) sex and someone who is the "other" (hetero) sex, it seems strange that Jude would forbid hetero-sex, and even stranger that we are supposed to automatically read "hetero" as "strange" and interpret "strange" as "abnormal," and therefore must refer to homo-sex.

As for the five teaching passages, two of them mention arsenokoiten, along with a list of other sins, in passing while making another point entirely. Although Paul seems to have invented the word, and there are not enough different surviving documents left to be reasonably sure of its meaning, I have no problem going along with those who feel he is refrring back to the verses in Leviticus that ban "man-lying."

As a Pharisee and Biblical scholar, Paul woud certainly be aware of the teachings of the rabbis on Leviticus. [Due to length considerations I have had to cut out a lot of stuff here. I will post it in the near future, though perhaps in a different thread. Basically, though I pointed out that the command (even in Lev 20:13 where the lifeblood of both particpants is required) only bans being the "active" partner in one particular act.]

And then there's the last passage. The one where Paul chose a famous example of runaway Passion. Where Paul carefully crafted the phrasing to reflect the five symptoms of runaway passion. Where he added the fact that the same people would only "use" women, not love them, and where he was careful to use very mild words to descibe the nature of the acts, so that the spectre of "abomination" would not be raised. He did all this because the example that he "borrowed" from Plato was a same-sex example, and he wanted to be clear that the sin is not a "gay" sin, that it is equally wrong whether the partner is male or female

(Wow all this in response to just the first sentence of your post! I'll comment on the rest of your post later.)

 

[OllieFranz]

So, you actually believe then - and please tell me if I'm wrong - that someone who calls themself a homosexual is REALLY a heterosexual (someone who finds those of the opposite gender attractive) that is lying ...?

I would be astonished if someone on this forum were to actually confess to actually believing that a homosexual is really a heterosexual who is feigning 'opposite' orientation.

Such a thing as "I'm not 'gay' but I'm going to pretend that I'm 'gay' just to bug God and Christians" would surely finish up in Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

KCKID--

As I mentioned last week on another thread, it's not so much that people like savedandhappy1 and Floatingaxe think gays are lying about their orientation, but rather that they themselves don't believe in orientation, and they think that gays are deluding themselves about it.

They believe that the personality differences between gays and straights can be better explained by a "spirit of rebellion." And when prayer and repentence fail to lift this "spirit of rebellion" the failure is in the gay person, never in their theology.

 

[Brieuse]

KCKID--

As I mentioned last week on another thread, it's not so much that people like savedandhappy1 and Floatingaxe think gays are lying about their orientation, but rather that they themselves don't believe in orientation, and they think that gays are deluding themselves about it.

They believe that the personality differences between gays and straights can be better explained by a "spirit of rebellion." And when prayer and repentence fail to lift this "spirit of rebellion" the failure is in the gay person, never in their theology.

In a nutshell, that basically defines many so called "Faith" Churches.

Regardless that the Bible defines how little faith can move a mountain, somehow we never have enough of it when we need it.

 

[savedandhappy1]

That depends on whether or not you consider 10 (or, if you count Jude, 11) to be "many," especially compared to the number of passages against so many other sins. I started to count the passages about theft but quickly lost count. Likewise for passages about lying.

The issues that we umbrella under the general term "homosexuality" only appear in ten passages in the entire Bible. Only five of these are explicitly teaching passages. The other five are accounts of outrageous behavior: either attempted or successful man-on-man rape done for political power.

Three* of these accounts never enter into discussions of whether the Bible forbids all forms of "homosexuality or whether it "condones" it in certain situations. These three document the two successful male-on-male rapes reported in the Bible. Ham and Noah (Genesis 9) and the rape Hanun ordered of David's ambassadors (2 Samuel 10 and 1 Chronicles 19).

(* If you want to insist that these passages are not about rape, as I have heard many Christians claim, I won't dispute you. But then your "many" passages are further reduced, and you have only seven.)

The fourth (Judges 19) only recently entered the discussion, and that as a counter to the fifth (Genesis 19). The claim has been made that because the crowd refused the offer of Lot's daughters, they must have all been gay. The crowd in Gibeah also refused the Levite's concubine, at first. They weren't about to settle for humiliating a woman, if they could get the strander himself. When they realized that he was not coming out, they did "settle" for the concubine, but humiliation was not enough, and they killed her as well.

Something very similar might have happened in Sodom as well, but for the intervention of the angels. We don't know. We do know that everywhere in the Bible (with the possible exception of Jude) where Sodom is mentioned, "homosexuality" is not named as one of her major sins. If it is present at all, it is buried with many other sins as unspecified "abominations."

Jude itself must be read with 2 Peter, which it parallels and complements. Both letters show that their authors were familiar with one or both of two apocryphal books which go into more detail about the "Sons of God" and the Nephilim (Genesis 6) and about Sodom; they claim that the angels were recognized as "Sons of God," A lot of people claim that this is why wanting to "know" the angels was, in Jude's words going after "strange flesh." I do not feel comfortable with this explanation. But the traditional explanation is even worse.

Given the obvious difference between someone who is the same (homo) sex and someone who is the "other" (hetero) sex, it seems strange that Jude would forbid hetero-sex, and even stranger that we are supposed to automatically read "hetero" as "strange" and interpret "strange" as "abnormal," and therefore must refer to homo-sex.

As for the five teaching passages, two of them mention arsenokoiten, along with a list of other sins, in passing while making another point entirely. Although Paul seems to have invented the word, and there are not enough different surviving documents left to be reasonably sure of its meaning, I have no problem going along with those who feel he is refrring back to the verses in Leviticus that ban "man-lying."

As a Pharisee and Biblical scholar, Paul woud certainly be aware of the teachings of the rabbis on Leviticus. [Due to length considerations I have had to cut out a lot of stuff here. I will post it in the near future, though perhaps in a different thread. Basically, though I pointed out that the command (even in Lev 20:13 where the lifeblood of both particpants is required) only bans being the "active" partner in one particular act.]

And then there's the last passage. The one where Paul chose a famous example of runaway Passion. Where Paul carefully crafted the phrasing to reflect the five symptoms of runaway passion. Where he added the fact that the same people would only "use" women, not love them, and where he was careful to use very mild words to descibe the nature of the acts, so that the spectre of "abomination" would not be raised. He did all this because the example that he "borrowed" from Plato was a same-sex example, and he wanted to be clear that the sin is not a "gay" sin, that it is equally wrong whether the partner is male or female

(Wow all this in response to just the first sentence of your post! I'll comment on the rest of your post later.)

Considering I was speaking of the many times that we are told God created them male and female, or a man will leave his parents and cleave a wife, or a Pastor or deacon will be the husband of one wife, etc. I wasn't speaking of homosexual but hetrosexual scriptures, because there is no homosexual scriptures that state God created them male and male or that a man will leave his parents and cleave to himself a husband, etc.

I don't know how many times that is shown throughout the Bible, hetrosexual creation, marriage, etc., but however many times it is, is that many more then homosexual creation, marriage, etc. I will try to look that up, because that would be an interesting stat I think.

I have done some studing but will admit not a whole bunch, and have yet to find any proof that Paul borrowed anything from Plato. Even if he did, he still is condemning the act, which again shows how they were very much aware of it and found it wrong, just as the Bible does.

Paul invented the word, but yet he borrowed Plato"s statements to make his point, oh my?

I'm sorry it has been a really long week, and I don't think I am up to going into more detail right now. I guess I should have waited alittle longer after my mothers death to post. I will try to get back to this later, thanks.

 

[Trashionista]

God made us to love one another, and the devil wants us to kill eachother

Uhh... I never said two gay men clobbering each other over the head with a club was ok.

But two homosexuals in a comitted, loving relationship isn't something I take issue with.

The male and female bodies were made, by God, to fit together perfectedly thus making the one flesh.

Being male & female and having intercourse doesn't equal healthy sex life. That just means you can have intercourse in the traditional way.

Gay men and gay women still have sex, so I don't know what argument you're making there.

 

[TimRout]

It is important to remember that Jesus is God, and God is the author of all Scripture through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, it matters not whether Jesus preached on homosexuality during His earthly ministry. He has spoken elsewhere in the Bible and made His perspective exceedingly clear. Namely, homosexuality is a sin.

 

[KCKID]

KCKID--

As I mentioned last week on another thread, it's not so much that people like savedandhappy1 and Floatingaxe think gays are lying about their orientation, but rather that they themselves don't believe in orientation, and they think that gays are deluding themselves about it.

They believe that the personality differences between gays and straights can be better explained by a "spirit of rebellion." And when prayer and repentence fail to lift this "spirit of rebellion" the failure is in the gay person, never in their theology.

Oh, okay. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear KCKID,

It's just that we don't see other 'clobber' passages used with the same enthusiasm as those aimed at 'gays'. What does that tell you?

It tells me some gays see clobber passages and Christians don’t.

For instance, I have yet to see a thread where the scriptures are used to condemn the practice of LYING.

but I have yet to see anyone claiming lying is a Godly virtue to be blessed. If I did you might have a point, but as there clearly arent, you dont. Nor do I see people ignoring and disputing the Biblical passages that condemn lying.
I am tempted to lie at times, but there are no clobber passages for me as I am free not to lie, if I do happen to fall short I can repent and be forgiven.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Quirk,

But two homosexuals in a comitted, loving relationship isn't something I take issue with.

Ah but some other people do and anyway the point is God does take issue according to His word. We are arguing about God's word in the Bible , people are free can choose whether they believe or not. The problem with this forum and this topic is some seem to have understandings of the Bible opposite to what it says.

 

[KCKID]

Dear KCKID,
It tells me some gays see clobber passages and Christians don’t.

but I have yet to see anyone claiming lying is a Godly virtue to be blessed. If I did you might have a point, but as there clearly arent, you dont. Nor do I see people ignoring and disputing the Biblical passages that condemn lying.
I am tempted to lie at times, but there are no clobber passages for me as I am free not to lie, if I do happen to fall short I can repent and be forgiven.

You're not simple, Phinehas2. You know as well as I do that the 'gay issue' (abomination?) has taken on a life of its own. It overshadows ANY other biblical 'abomination' that one could think of.

Furthermore, Christians on forums such as this jump in on this topic almost with relish even though they are, for the most part, totally ignorant of the facts. They seem to actually believe that spewing out a few well-worn scriptures in order to make some others squirm - that probably don't even relate to the subject matter anyway - will earn them kudos with God.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear KCDAD,

You're not simple, Phinehas2. You know as well as I do that the 'gay issue' (abomination?) has taken on a life of its own. It overshadows ANY other biblical 'abomination' that one could think of.

You asked me what does it tell me and I told you. Yes it is simple, if there was promotion of blessing and condoning lying then it would be the issue that overshadows others. As it is same-sex blessing is being promoted bigtime and obviously that’s the issue overshadowing others.

Furthermore, Christians on forums such as this jump in on this topic almost with relish even though they are, for the most part, totally ignorant of the facts.

When it comes to Christians, as seen on this forum most know the facts as they quote God’s word form the Bible. Many who promote or defend same-sex sex reject or dispute the facts, which is the word of God in the Bible. Such disbelief and denial to suit their own wishes represents an even greater issue than the promotion of the sin.

They seem to actually believe that spewing out a few well-worn scriptures in order to make some others squirm - that probably don't even relate to the subject matter anyway - will earn them kudos with God.

No I don’t think they do, and anyway whatever their motives, it is God’s word they are spewing out. I suggest they also feel that many here who claim to be Christian don’t accept the word of God.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Uhh... I never said two gay men clobbering each other over the head with a club was ok.

But two homosexuals in a comitted, loving relationship isn't something I take issue with.

I take issue with homosexuality because I believe God does, and I'm not sure what you are meaning with the club statement so will just leave the answer as is.

Being male & female and having intercourse doesn't equal healthy sex life. That just means you can have intercourse in the traditional way.

Gay men and gay women still have sex, so I don't know what argument you're making there.

Traditional is all the Bible speaks of, if you are speaking of a man and a woman being husband and wife, or having children, or being the way God created mankind to be together.

Yes, I know homosexuals have sex, but that doesn't mean it is what God planned.

 

[Trashionista]

Dear Quirk,
Ah but some other people do and anyway the point is God does take issue according to His word. We are arguing about God's word in the Bible , people are free can choose whether they believe or not. The problem with this forum and this topic is some seem to have understandings of the Bible opposite to what it says.

Well, who says that all the homosexuals have to live without same sex intercourse? Moreover, if they don't believe that denying that is beneficial to their health.

 

[Trashionista]

I take issue with homosexuality because I believe God does, and I'm not sure what you are meaning with the club statement so will just leave the answer as is.





Traditional is all the Bible speaks of, if you are speaking of a man and a woman being husband and wife, or having children, or being the way God created mankind to be together.

Yes, I know homosexuals have sex, but that doesn't mean it is what God planned.

Well, then, let God do the judging.

I don't see why sinning peons should be sitting here all "Omygoshh you guys! Homosexuality is against the natural order! Insert Bible passage."