Questions Regarding the Creation Story

[leecappella]

Lee,

I can see where rape and how you treat your neighbor are issues in Gen. 19. But I still think that you are missing the point of Jude's commentary on this event. Christians are "to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (verse 3). But certain men crept in, unnoticed and ungodly, who turn God's grace into licentiousness and deny God and Jesus (verse 4). The Lord saved the Israelites from Egypt, but then destroyed those who did not believe Him (verse 5). Even angels who did not keep their proper place are reserved for judgment (condemnation) in verse 6. Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth "as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" in verse 7. Why? . . . because "having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh." While I do not believe that God approves of rape or mistreating visitors, I do not see those particular issues being singled out in this passage. What I see is the ungodly desire for sexual immorality and going after strange flesh. Obviously, this unharnessed desire for unlawful sexual relations led these men to attempt rape to fulfill their desires.

I am not sure what Greek reference source you are using to define "strange flesh" in Jude 7. I looked in Strong's at the Greek words: heteros is the word for strange, and sarx is the word for flesh. I did not find the definition that you suggested. These same Greek words are used elsewhere in the N.T. Perhaps, you can help me understand what I am missing. I believe that the men of Sodom saw what they perceived to be men entering Sodom in Gen. 19. Their ungodly desire for fornication and "strange flesh" led them to desire what they saw - - men - - men that they were sexually attracted to.

Jude 7 is a comdemnation concerning fornication and going after strange flesh. Perhaps, as you re-study the definition of strange flesh you can also study this general term that includes all unlawful sexual activity.

Now, concerning Romans 1. Let's start at verse 18. The wrath of God is God's anger. God is angry with the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. God had revealed certain of His characteristics to them since the creation of the world (vs. 19-20) - - see also Psalm 19:1-6. These ungodly and unrighteous people knew God, they did not glorify Him (vs. 21). The ungodly and unrighteous professed to be wise, but they became fools - - they made idols (vs. 22-23). Therefore (in light of the previous points) God gave then up to their lusts (vs. 24). As a result, these ungodly and unrighteous people exchanged the truth of God for the lie (vs. 25). God gave them up to their passions. Their women exchanged the "natural use" for what is "against nature" (vs. 26). Likewise (in the same manner) the men left the "natural use of the woman," and "burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful" (vs. 27). Since they did not like to retain God in their knowledge (or mind), God gave them over to a "debased mind" (vs. 28). The debased mind leads to many possible ungodly acts and behaviors (vs. 29-31). The consequences of such behaviors are clearly spelled out - - "those who practice such things are worthy of death" (vs. 32). I really don't see what is so ambiguous about verses 26-27. They directly relate to the discussion prompted by this thread. It should be very clear what is going on in those verses. Also, verses 29-31 cannot be ignored. The consequences of "those who practice such things" are the same as the consequences of those who practice the unlawful activities in verses 26-27.

I suggest that you re-think your understanding of 1 Cor. 11:14-15. What Paul says (under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit) that nature teaches, nature teaches. Nature teaches us that long hair is a dishonor to a man, but an honor to a woman. Because of what nature teaches, men maintain shorter hair than women (generally speaking). It has nothing to do with the fact that hair grows on both genders at about the same rate. Or if it does, I missed it totally.

. . . Denny

me: I will address 1Corinthians 11:14 first. As you said, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Paul says long hair is a dishonor to a man, but an honor to a woman. I fail to understand why an externality such as hair dishonors a man just because it is long. How long is too long? Hmm. If 'nature' teaches these things, I'd like to know just what this 'nature' is. By definition, what is 'nature' to Paul? Is going against it always a moral sin? I'd imagine that Paul can only answer what his version of 'nature' implies. I can still take your opinionated faith view! I should also note that if God does not see as humans see and, therefore, does not look on the outward appearance of things but instead looks on the heart, then I would think long hair would not be an issue to him as it appears to be to humans like Paul. Which sounds like God to you? A concern for the outward appearance of one's hair or a concern for one's heart? Surely, the length of one's hair does not determine the kind of heart one has. Though he was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. I am led to test all things and to keep the good and discard the bad. Paul was not God, but a follower of Him. His intentions were good, but he was human like any pastor, preacher, etc. who gives a sermon that he feels has been inspired of God. No human is infallible. Not even those inspired by God!

It is my view that in Jude, the issue is about 'ungodly men' (Strong's #765=worship irreverant). Those who 'denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ'. The reference to Egypt (verse 5) and the destruction of 'them that believed not' is, in my view, about, once again, those who have denied God and Christ. The faith that leads to salvation is of God and Christ. Denial of this faith was the issue. There existed persons who believed that since we are saved by God's grace through faith alone in Christ, that meant any and everything could be engaged in. Needless to say, anyone who has accepted God's gift of salvation and who is continually developing a relationship with God, such a person does have a conscience and heeds to it. We don't use God's grace to gain salvation and ignore all else. This is the type of persons being described in Jude. Lasciviousness connotes lust. It is Strong's #766 and it means licentiousness and lustful. I see no reason to equate any committed union between two adult persons as lascivious or lustful in foundation. Though such relationships can be, they are not all like this, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Sodom and Gomorrah is described in Jude 1:7 as 'giving themselves over to fornication'. This phrase is Strong's #1608 and it means to be utterly unchaste. Sodom was an idol worshipping city that had image worshippers as citizens. 2Peter 2:6 refers to them as being 'ungodly' (Strong's #764). This means the same as the previously mentioned #765, worship irreverent. The worship of false gods was common in bible days. In Jude, 'strange' of strange flesh is #2087 and it is heteros. Its definition is 'other or different'. It makes no sense to me to refer to a male's flesh as 'other or different' in comparison to his human counterpart, the female. Both are human and both are made of the same flesh. Sodom was known for its inhospitality to others and for its abominations. When referenced in Ezekiel, the abominations credited to Sodom is Strong's #8441, which means something morally disgusting, especially idolatry, or concretely an idol. It is my view that Sodom was guilty of many ungodly things and abominations (ie. idolatries) were one of them. The intent of the men of Sodom was indeed wicked as Lot called it, but, having lived in Sodom, Lot would know better than we just what specifically was the wicked thing. No doubt, the intent was harm. Rape is indeed harm and has nothing to do with loving relations. Same sex relationships is not an issue in Genesis 19. God, being the Source of love, was denied by these people. Did they know love or how to? My speculative view is that the citizens (Mind you, 'all the people from every quarter') were not drawn 'to know' the angels disgused as males because of same sex attraction, as you seem to believe. My thought is that the wicked thing was indeed a sexual act that was well known in ancient times among idolators. Their well known 'common courtesy', so to speak. To abuse or sodomize another male was done for degrading, humiliating purposes. This has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Ask a heterosexual male who spent time in prison! You dont' have to be sexually attracted to the same sex in order to pull off the act of sodomizing him. Rent the movie American Me and you will, hopefully, see the purpose behind the act and what it symbolizes in the hearts of those whose intentions are wicked.

In Romans 1, Paul describes, first, briefly, the gospel that he is so willing to preach. It is salvation to them that believe. 'To everyone that believeth'! He who has faith, it is salvation. God's wrath is against ungodliness. It is, yet again, #765 and it means godlessness, irreverent. God is opposed to those who deny Him (ie. the godless). Those who do not reverence Him. My take on this passage, which can and has been taken many ways, is this: Paul says these ungodly and unrighteous people knew God, but they did not glorify Him. Who are 'they'? They professed to be wise and became fools. Who are 'they'? They made images for worship and service. Who are 'they'? The very mention of images (ie. idols) tells me that 'they' are idolators. In contrast to the brief mention of those 'that believeth', Paul thereafter begins discussing those who do not believe! If salvation is for everyone that does believe, then those that do not believe or have faith in this gospel of Christ, God's wrath is upon. This cannot apply to homosexual persons that believe. The reason I find this text ambiguous is because in Paul's day and time, who knows what could be deemed 'unnatural'? Sex may have been seen as only for procreation, so when sex was done without this purpose, that could have been labeled 'unnatural'. The 'natural use' of the woman could mean anything. What was she used for? Was a woman used back then. Possibly, considering their status then. Even further, the text does imply that males burned in lust towards another. This does sound like same sex acts occured. However, lust is licentiousness. These are not monogamous relationships being spoken of here. Based on sources relating to idolatrous practices, lust filled sex acts were a part of their rituals. Sex with whomever and whatever. Married or not married. Their vain imaginaitons thought these things up in order to serve their idols, which were merely dead images. This is a context of sex outside the confines of a committed union between two. Due to the definiton of 'reprobate' minds, it is clear to me that Paul is referencing idolatrous practices. Reprobate means unwelcoming. Their minds were unwelcoming of God, resulting in service to false gods. Besides, Paul's definition of 'nature' and 'natural' is up in the air. I don't think he defined it as you are defining it. If I had to guess if Paul was opposed to same sex acts, I would say yes. If I had to guess if Paul was aware of sexual inversion, I'd say no. If I had to guess if Paul thought that all same sex acts were a result of a people or person who had denied the faith of God for an image, I'd say yes. I'd say Paul would consider same sex acts as something done by one who did not acknowledge God and by one whose sole focus was on sex, lust, and satisfying self. Such a person, in my view, to Paul, was worship irreverent. It is also my belief that he saw all of creation as being created heterosexual and anything else supported his view of such persons being people who loved not God, denied God, and did not like to retain God in their minds. As a gay christian, I can tell you that is an incorrect conclusion. I cannot blame Paul though. He was a victiom of his limited time and culture. As time goes on, more things are learned, such as inversion vs. perversion.

 

[- DRA -]

me: I will address 1Corinthians 11:14 first. As you said, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Paul says long hair is a dishonor to a man, but an honor to a woman. I fail to understand why an externality such as hair dishonors a man just because it is long. How long is too long? Hmm. If 'nature' teaches these things, I'd like to know just what this 'nature' is. By definition, what is 'nature' to Paul? Is going against it always a moral sin? I'd imagine that Paul can only answer what his version of 'nature' implies. I can still take your opinionated faith view! I should also note that if God does not see as humans see and, therefore, does not look on the outward appearance of things but instead looks on the heart, then I would think long hair would not be an issue to him as it appears to be to humans like Paul. Which sounds like God to you? A concern for the outward appearance of one's hair or a concern for one's heart? Surely, the length of one's hair does not determine the kind of heart one has. Though he was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. I am led to test all things and to keep the good and discard the bad. Paul was not God, but a follower of Him. His intentions were good, but he was human like any pastor, preacher, etc. who gives a sermon that he feels has been inspired of God. No human is infallible. Not even those inspired by God!

Lee,

2 Timothy 3:16 starts with these words: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." You say you realize that Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but then refer to "Paul's version of nature" as if was his own opinion. I believe that Paul does share his judgment about some things with us - - because he tells us when that occurs i.e. 1 Cor. 7:6,25. I see no indication of Paul giving his judgment in the discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Perhaps, I missed it and you could point it out. I encourage you to consider reading further in the text of 1 Cor. 11. Specifically, verse 23. Where had Paul received his understanding from about the Lord's Supper? He wasn't there when Jesus instituted it i.e. Matt. 26:26-29. Paul aso elaborates on the gospel that he teaches in Gal. 1:11-2:9. I would not be quite so quick to dismiss the teaching of Paul as merely his opinion. For instance, have you considered Heb. 2:1-4? We should view the confirmation of the apostles and their teaching just as Nicodemus viewed the Lord's works and teaching (John 3:2).

Your quote: "Though he [Paul] was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. I am led to test all things and to keep the good and discard the bad. Paul was not God, but a follower of Him. His intentions were good, but he was human like any pastor, preacher, etc. who gives a sermon that he feels has been inspired of God. No human is infallible. Not even those inspired by God!"
So, could you share with us the method of testing that you use to determine if Paul was speaking for God, or for himself? If possible, would you test him as did Elymas in Acts 13:6-12? Or, would you test him as did the Jewish exorcists and seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19:11-16. May I be so bold as to ask that you seriously reconsider this line of reasoning that you have presented?

As for the word "nature" in 1 Cor. 11:14, I suppose that you already know that it is the same Greek word for nature in Rom. 1:26. Have you thoroughly studied this Greek word - - looked at the various definitions and all the places where this word appears in the N.T.?

From an analytical viewpoint, I do not clearly understand why God made the distinction between clean and unclean animals under the law of Moses. I am sure that the Israelites didn't either, but were still expected to obey God. Faith is like that sometimes. God has His reasons. Rather than accept what God has said, I could always press God for His reasoning as did Job. I imagine that if I did such a thing, God would respond to me like He did to Job (Job chapter chapter 38 - 40:7). Or, I could just accept what God has said and let it go as that.

As you choose the path that you follow, you must be willing to accept the consequences of where it takes you.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

It is my view that in Jude, the issue is about 'ungodly men' (Strong's #765=worship irreverant). Those who 'denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ'. The reference to Egypt (verse 5) and the destruction of 'them that believed not' is, in my view, about, once again, those who have denied God and Christ. The faith that leads to salvation is of God and Christ. Denial of this faith was the issue. There existed persons who believed that since we are saved by God's grace through faith alone in Christ, that meant any and everything could be engaged in. Needless to say, anyone who has accepted God's gift of salvation and who is continually developing a relationship with God, such a person does have a conscience and heeds to it. We don't use God's grace to gain salvation and ignore all else. This is the type of persons being described in Jude. Lasciviousness connotes lust. It is Strong's #766 and it means licentiousness and lustful. I see no reason to equate any committed union between two adult persons as lascivious or lustful in foundation. Though such relationships can be, they are not all like this, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Sodom and Gomorrah is described in Jude 1:7 as 'giving themselves over to fornication'. This phrase is Strong's #1608 and it means to be utterly unchaste. Sodom was an idol worshipping city that had image worshippers as citizens. 2Peter 2:6 refers to them as being 'ungodly' (Strong's #764). This means the same as the previously mentioned #765, worship irreverent. The worship of false gods was common in bible days. In Jude, 'strange' of strange flesh is #2087 and it is heteros. Its definition is 'other or different'. It makes no sense to me to refer to a male's flesh as 'other or different' in comparison to his human counterpart, the female. Both are human and both are made of the same flesh. Sodom was known for its inhospitality to others and for its abominations. When referenced in Ezekiel, the abominations credited to Sodom is Strong's #8441, which means something morally disgusting, especially idolatry, or concretely an idol. It is my view that Sodom was guilty of many ungodly things and abominations (ie. idolatries) were one of them. The intent of the men of Sodom was indeed wicked as Lot called it, but, having lived in Sodom, Lot would know better than we just what specifically was the wicked thing. No doubt, the intent was harm. Rape is indeed harm and has nothing to do with loving relations. Same sex relationships is not an issue in Genesis 19. God, being the Source of love, was denied by these people. Did they know love or how to? My speculative view is that the citizens (Mind you, 'all the people from every quarter') were not drawn 'to know' the angels disgused as males because of same sex attraction, as you seem to believe. My thought is that the wicked thing was indeed a sexual act that was well known in ancient times among idolators. Their well known 'common courtesy', so to speak. To abuse or sodomize another male was done for degrading, humiliating purposes. This has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Ask a heterosexual male who spent time in prison! You dont' have to be sexually attracted to the same sex in order to pull off the act of sodomizing him. Rent the movie American Me and you will, hopefully, see the purpose behind the act and what it symbolizes in the hearts of those whose intentions are wicked.

Lee,

To save myself a lot of time, I am going to post from a commentary of a brother in Christ on Jude 5-7.

"THE EPISTLE OF JUDE"

Reminders Of God's Righteous Condemnation (5-7)

INTRODUCTION

1. Exhorting his readers to "contend earnestly for the faith", in verse
4 Jude introduces the reason for them to take such as stand...
a. "Certain men" have crept in unnoticed
b. They were "ungodly men", guilty of:
1) Turning the grace of God into lewdness
2) Denying the Lord God and the Lord Jesus Christ

2. Jude also writes of these men that they were "long ago marked out
for this condemnation"
a. Some might infer that Jude meant that these men were predestined
to act this way
b. However, as Warren Wiersbe in The Bible Exposition Commentary
correctly states:
"Jude did not write that these men were ordained to become
apostates, as though God were responsible for their sin. They
became apostates because they willfully turned away from the
truth. But God did ordain that such people would be judged and
condemned. The Old Testament prophets denounced the false
prophets of their day, and both Jesus Christ and His Apostles
pronounced judgment on them."
c. Yes, what is ordained is their punishment, that those who turn
from God will not escape His righteous condemnation!

3. To reinforce his point, Jude reminds his readers of three examples
in which the ungodly did not escape God's righteous condemnation
- Ju 5-7
a. Israel in the wilderness
b. The angels who sinned
c. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah

4. That we might be reminded as well, in this study we shall briefly
review what is known about these three "case histories" of divine
judgment, and draw some points that can be gleaned from them
a. If you feel a sense of "deja vu", it may be because Jude follows
a pattern set by Peter in his second epistle - 2 Pe 2:4-6
b. Jude's action is understandable, as he is warning against the
very presence of those Peter had warned would one day come

[There is a difference, however. Whereas Peter used as one of his
examples the people destroyed in the flood, Jude selects the example
of...]

I. ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS (5)

A. THE PARTICULARS OF THIS EXAMPLE...
1. A well known event in Israel's history, God "saved" the nation
by bringing them out of the land of Egypt
2. Yet despite their being recipients of His wonderful grace, God
"destroyed" those who did not believe
a. Their lack of faith required that they wander for 40 years
in the wilderness
b. So that those over the age of 20 when they left Egypt, none
but two (Joshua and Caleb) entered the Promised Land
3. The final "tally": 603,550 men were "saved", but then 603,548
were "destroyed"

B. THE POINT TO BE MADE FROM THIS EXAMPLE...
1. God may destroy those He has saved!
a. Paul made this point in writing to the Corinthians - 1 Co
10:1-12
b. The writer to the Hebrews made the same point - He 3:12-
4:2,11
2. The reason? Lack of obedient faith!
a. "God destroyed those who did not believe" - Ju 5
b. "they could not enter in because of unbelief" - He 3:18-19
3. While the Bible teaches "the security of the believer" (cf.
1 Pe 1:5)...
a. It warns against the believer developing a heart of
unbelief
b. It teaches "the insecurity of the unbeliever"
4. Therefore the Biblical admonition: "...let him who thinks he
stands take heed lest he fall." - 1 Co 10:12
5. A recurring theme throughout the New Testament is this:

"Remember what happened to Israel!"

[Having reminded his readers that the example of Israel shows the
possibility of "once saved, but destroyed", he then provides an example
that shows God has a place reserved for the wicked...]

II. THE ANGELS WHO SINNED (6)

A. THE PARTICULARS OF THIS EXAMPLE...
1. Very little is known from the Scriptures themselves
a. As described by Jude, there were angels who:
1) "did not keep their proper domain"
2) "left their own habitation"
b. Peter simply writes that the angels "sinned" - 2 Pe 2:4

B. THE POINT TO BE MADE FROM THIS EXAMPLE...
1. God is prepared to render everlasting punishment to the
wicked!
a. He has the angels in "everlasting chains under darkness"
- Ju 6
b. For the "ungodly men" described later, He has "reserved the
blackness of darkness forever" - Ju 13
2. Just as He had a place prepared for the angels who sinned, so
He has a place prepared for the wicked and unbelievers! - cf.
Re 21:8

[So God has demonstrated that He is prepared to punish the wicked. That
He will do so is emphasized with one more example: The judgment that
came upon...]

III. THE CITIES OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH (7)

A. THE PARTICULARS OF THIS EXAMPLE...
1. The judgment against these cities is vividly described in Gen
19:24-28
2. Why this terrible judgment?
a. The LORD said it was "because their sin is very grievous"
- Gen 18:20
b. Jude says that "in a similar manner to these" (the angels
who sinned), they had:
1) "given themselves over to sexual immorality"
2) "gone after strange flesh"
c. We see a sample of this in Gen 19:4-11

B. THE POINT TO BE MADE FROM THIS EXAMPLE...
1. Both Peter and Jude make the point that Sodom and Gomorrah are
an "example"
a. Peter, an example "to those who afterward would live
ungodly" - 2 Pe 2:6
b. Jude, an example of those "suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire" - Ju 7
2. I.e., God has given us an example of the eternal fire awaiting
the subjects of His righteous vengeance!

. . . Denny

 

[PastorFreud]

I'll have a go and trying to answer these.

1. GOD, ALL KNOWING? - In Genesis 2:18, God decides to make a help meet for Adam. After deciding to do this, God forms every beast of the field and every fowl of the air. This, to me, implies that God expected these animals to meet the help meet needs of Adam. However, in verse 20, we see that God still sees the need for a help meet for Adam because, obviously, the animals did not meet the expected expectation of God to be a help meet for Adam. Follow me? The question arises for me, then, that if God is all knowing, which I believe He is, why would He not see that the animals would not meet Adam's help meet needs before he created them to be Adam's help meet? It's almost as if in verse 20, God realizes that the animals didn't work, so I have to come up with something else for Adam. Wouldn't he have known this beforehand? Comments, please!

Why in the world did God think an alligator would be a good helper? Or a mosquito? Or a serpent, for that matter?

The whole problem here is that the story is told as a foundational mythology. The point is not to lay out a sequencial history, but to provide identity and purpose and answer the big, metaphysical questions. Why are we here? Why is this place messed up? Etc. As such, the question you ask is out of range. But fun. And personally, I think all of the "omni" words are from the realm of philosophy and not religion. They just don't work. In describing a transcendental being, we don't have adequate language. Philosophy pushes the language to extremes that don't work.

2. AN ANDROGYNOUS FIRST HUMAN? - I have read that the first human (ie. Adam) was an androgynous human (ie. male and female). The rib that God formed Eve from, in hebrew, can be translated as 'side'. So, God formed woman from Adam's side. Was it an actual rib or was it the side of Adam that was female that God used to form woman? Have any of you read anything like this before? Comments, please!

Since I think the point of the story is not to tell us how it happened, but to tell us who we are, I think the question is also out of range. (I'll be a broken record on this before the end, I'm sure.) The original audience took this language as a way of showing that men should care for women and treat them as equal, but different. I have heard something of this from the movie Yentl, but I am not sure Barbra Streisand is a good theologian.

3. ALL MEN SHOULD MARRY? - Reading Genesis 2:24, it is implied that when a man leaves father and mother, he will cleave to a wife and become one flesh with her. To me, it implies that no man should be without a wife. This seemingly makes being single a sin since it (ie. being single) is not in line with God's original intent at the time of creation. Keep in mind that this thought is following along the same line of reasoning as used by those who use the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. I am approaching the text in the same manner as those who approach the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. Comments?

4. BEING 'ONE FLESH' - The 'one flesh' aspect in the Creation story has seemed to lead a lot of people to believe that only a married man and woman can be one flesh. Well, as some of you may know, Paul did not see the 'one flesh' concept as only applicable between married persons. He saw sex between unmarried persons as being a 'one flesh' thing as well, and that is likely why he opposed such sex outside of the marital union. Your thoughts!

I'll lump these together since they revolve around the same euphemism. "One flesh" is simply a euphemism for sex. The Hebrew Bible avoids naming body parts and functions. "Covering your feet" is relieving your bowels, for example. "Knowing" your wife is intimate knowledge. As such, the text cannot be distorted to mean that something else occurs besides physical union.

But Jesus does take this one step farther. Of course, in his discourse he is advocating for women's rights, so it would be a totally different task to explore that passage.

Paul just saw that two people could have sex and not be married. This would actually be harmful for a virgin woman. She could be killed in Jewish society for this. She was, after all, her father's property until married. Paul is dealing with a difference in the way women are treated, which had good and bad points.

5. PROCREATION AT ALL TIMES! - Using the same line of approach to the Creation story as used by those who use it to oppose same sex unions, it would seem evident that the 'be fruitful and multiply' command in the story is one that would result in all married persons to procreate when married. It's in the story, just like the male and female are, so why would it not be expected from married persons to have children as opposed to not having children? It could be argued that to marry without the intent of having children is to be out of the will of God and to have sex with no intent of doing so could be considered unnatural, based on this approach to the Creation story, which is similar to the approach those opposed to same sex unions use.

You see, the first humans who were brought together were male and female. So, from this, it is assumed that only males and female can 'come together' in union. The first humans were told to be 'fruitful and multiply', but, from this, is it believed that likewise all males and females who come together in union should procreate as well? The first humans were considered fit for one another because they were of the same flesh. Are not two same sex persons of the same flesh as well? The first woman was made from the first man. Like two children who come from the same parent, does this not make their relationship somewhat incestuous? Even further, if we all came from Adam and Eve, are we not related in much the same way, no matter who we end up with in marriage? Just a thought and just a question! And for the 'one flesh' aspect, I find that not because they were male and female is why they are 'one flesh', but because one came out of the other. After it is explained that the woman came out of man, the next verse says, "Therefore", which usually means because of this or because of what was just said before this verse. Comments, please! Remember also that illogical reasonings can lead to illogical conclusions.

You are onto something in recognizing that the point the author is making has to do with relationship one to another, not a scientific process. As such, I think I can say that marriage between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman is the norm. But that doesn't make deviations from that norm sinful. A woman or man that chooses not to marry, or a couple that marries and chooses not to sin, are NOT the norm, but not evil. Likewise, homosexuals wanting to partner together for life are NOT the norm, but not evil.

If Genesis is our guide for sexuality, exactly where did the rest of the people come from? Incest is required somewhere in order for the population to grow. I have heard some fundamentalists say that incest was not a sin, it was the natural created order of things. They say that incest only became a sin after the law was given. It doesn't make sense, though, to point to Genesis as the model since it has been altered.

Luckily, I don't worry about that because I don't try and force the text to be something it was not intended to be. It is a beautiful story that, when contrasted with the Babylonian myth of creation, reveals a creator that is filled with love, acceptance, and forgiveness. Compared to Marduk and Timnath, YHWH comes out smelling like a rose. That's the point of the story and it is not helpful to push it any farther.

For example, the point of Cinderella is that sometimes the abused and neglected girl who is a princess in her heart will come out on top. Trying to make this a technical manual for changing mice into horses and pumpkins in to coaches is to miss the point. The "magic" is just part of the fantasy backdrop. In a similar way, the creation myth has elements that are simply literary devices for this genre. To turn those literary devices into prescriptions for morality is to miss the point.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I sympathize quite a bit with Pastor Freud's post, but would like to take a few different approaches to the OP.

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

First (agreeing with PF) I think it's a good idea to understand the creation story first from the POV of its main purposes. After that, we can mine its rich theological implications. The main purpose of the creation story is certainly not to condemn homosexuality. The implications of the creation story towards homosexuality - if there really are any - need to be drawn only after we have a good basic understanding of the text. If we disagree in our basic understanding, we are going to draw out different implications and probably won't understand why.

1. GOD, ALL KNOWING? - In Genesis 2:18, God decides to make a help meet for Adam. After deciding to do this, God forms every beast of the field and every fowl of the air. This, to me, implies that God expected these animals to meet the help meet needs of Adam. However, in verse 20, we see that God still sees the need for a help meet for Adam because, obviously, the animals did not meet the expected expectation of God to be a help meet for Adam. Follow me? The question arises for me, then, that if God is all knowing, which I believe He is, why would He not see that the animals would not meet Adam's help meet needs before he created them to be Adam's help meet? It's almost as if in verse 20, God realizes that the animals didn't work, so I have to come up with something else for Adam. Wouldn't he have known this beforehand? Comments, please!

One interpretation of this is that God put Adam through this exercise so Adam would see that all the animals had mates - male and female, yet there was only one human being. God wanted Adam to see what God saw - "It is not good for the human to be alone."

BTW, there are two distinct words in the Hebrew creation story that are translated "man" in English. One of them (adam) does not mean male, but is simply related to the word for earth. It might be translated "earthling" or "mud creature." It also is translated, when it appears without "the" as the personal name Adam, but the Hebrew text is very ambiguous as to whether and when "adam" is used as a personal name or simply to mean "human." I will use "human" or "Adam" where Genesis uses the generic word, and "man," "male" or "husband" for the word which specifically means a human male. We know that "adam" may include both male and female because Genesis 1:37 specifically says so.

2. AN ANDROGYNOUS FIRST HUMAN? - I have read that the first human (ie. Adam) was an androgynous human (ie. male and female). The rib that God formed Eve from, in hebrew, can be translated as 'side'. So, God formed woman from Adam's side. Was it an actual rib or was it the side of Adam that was female that God used to form woman? Have any of you read anything like this before? Comments, please!

Yes, I think this is a very likely reading. Many rabbis have interpreted it this way for thousands of years. Genesis 1:37 may legitimately be translated as saying God created Adam in God's image, male and female.

I wouldn't stake my life on whether the author of Genesis intended to say that God first created a human male, and then made a female out of some part of his body, or that God created a human being that was not sexually differentiated like the other animals, and then separated this single human into the two sexes. The Hebrew word for human male is not used in Genesis until 2:23.

3. ALL MEN SHOULD MARRY? - Reading Genesis 2:24, it is implied that when a man leaves father and mother, he will cleave to a wife and become one flesh with her. To me, it implies that no man should be without a wife. This seemingly makes being single a sin since it (ie. being single) is not in line with God's original intent at the time of creation. Keep in mind that this thought is following along the same line of reasoning as used by those who use the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. I am approaching the text in the same manner as those who approach the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. Comments?

I think the story tells us that marriage is good, normative, and blessed by God. It does not tell us anything about exceptions to this norm. When making rules, I think we need to take into consideration both the norm and its exceptions. All exceptions are not automatically condemned just by virtue of the fact that a norm exists and is blessed by God. We are going to have to compare this description of the normative basic human relationship with other scriptures describing non-normative relationships (and lack of relationships) before drawing conclusions about this.

4. BEING 'ONE FLESH' - The 'one flesh' aspect in the Creation story has seemed to lead a lot of people to believe that only a married man and woman can be one flesh. Well, as some of you may know, Paul did not see the 'one flesh' concept as only applicable between married persons. He saw sex between unmarried persons as being a 'one flesh' thing as well, and that is likely why he opposed such sex outside of the marital union. Your thoughts!

Yes, Paul uses the phrase in that way. The Bible taken as a whole supports as the norm a marriage relationship - a permanent and exclusive relationship between a man and a woman that includes, sexuality, companionship and partnership. We are now beginning to look at what Paul says about one kind of relationship that falls outside this norm, and see that this one (prostitution) is not endorsed anywhere in scripture. It is often condemned, but not always (e.g. Rahab). By comparison with other offenses, it may occasionally be tolerated as the lesser of 2 evils. (see Genesis 38)

5. PROCREATION AT ALL TIMES! - Using the same line of approach to the Creation story as used by those who use it to oppose same sex unions, it would seem evident that the 'be fruitful and multiply' command in the story is one that would result in all married persons to procreate when married. It's in the story, just like the male and female are, so why would it not be expected from married persons to have children as opposed to not having children? It could be argued that to marry without the intent of having children is to be out of the will of God and to have sex with no intent of doing so could be considered unnatural, based on this approach to the Creation story, which is similar to the approach those opposed to same sex unions use.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is probably a blessing, rather than a command. The OT is full of infertility stories. If you want to think of this as a command, you are going to have to try to interpret the command in light of these narratives. If this is taken as a universal command, how do we deal with those who are unable to obey it? The Bible usually treats infertility as a tragedy and a catastrophe, occasionally as a punishment, but never as disobedience.

 

[leecappella]

Lee,

2 Timothy 3:16 starts with these words: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." You say you realize that Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but then refer to "Paul's version of nature" as if was his own opinion. I believe that Paul does share his judgment about some things with us - - because he tells us when that occurs i.e. 1 Cor. 7:6,25. I see no indication of Paul giving his judgment in the discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Perhaps, I missed it and you could point it out. I encourage you to consider reading further in the text of 1 Cor. 11. Specifically, verse 23. Where had Paul received his understanding from about the Lord's Supper? He wasn't there when Jesus instituted it i.e. Matt. 26:26-29. Paul aso elaborates on the gospel that he teaches in Gal. 1:11-2:9. I would not be quite so quick to dismiss the teaching of Paul as merely his opinion. For instance, have you considered Heb. 2:1-4? We should view the confirmation of the apostles and their teaching just as Nicodemus viewed the Lord's works and teaching (John 3:2).

Your quote: "Though he [Paul] was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. I am led to test all things and to keep the good and discard the bad. Paul was not God, but a follower of Him. His intentions were good, but he was human like any pastor, preacher, etc. who gives a sermon that he feels has been inspired of God. No human is infallible. Not even those inspired by God!"
So, could you share with us the method of testing that you use to determine if Paul was speaking for God, or for himself? If possible, would you test him as did Elymas in Acts 13:6-12? Or, would you test him as did the Jewish exorcists and seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19:11-16. May I be so bold as to ask that you seriously reconsider this line of reasoning that you have presented?

As for the word "nature" in 1 Cor. 11:14, I suppose that you already know that it is the same Greek word for nature in Rom. 1:26. Have you thoroughly studied this Greek word - - looked at the various definitions and all the places where this word appears in the N.T.?

From an analytical viewpoint, I do not clearly understand why God made the distinction between clean and unclean animals under the law of Moses. I am sure that the Israelites didn't either, but were still expected to obey God. Faith is like that sometimes. God has His reasons. Rather than accept what God has said, I could always press God for His reasoning as did Job. I imagine that if I did such a thing, God would respond to me like He did to Job (Job chapter chapter 38 - 40:7). Or, I could just accept what God has said and let it go as that.

As you choose the path that you follow, you must be willing to accept the consequences of where it takes you.

. . . Denny

me: I never said that I realized that Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I simply began by saying, "As you said..." Maybe I should have underlined 'you' in my initial post. My intent was not to imply realization of Paul being under the Spirit's guidance. I simply reiterated what you said. I don't think I ever expressed an agreement towards whom Paul was guided by, but rather contrasted it with 1Samuel 16:7, which seems to contradict Paul's focus on the outward appearance in 1Corinthians 11. If God does not indeed look at things as man looks at them, then I think it's safe to say that God is not concerned with the length of a man's hair as opposed to a man's heart! For how long a man's hair is does not determine what is in his heart nor what type of man, at heart, he is. I am fully aware that, at times, Paul does mention that he is sharing his judgements, but does he ever inform his audience when 'his judgement' has ended and his inspiration has begun again? In 1Corinthians 11:23, I'm not sure if Paul is saying he was personally told by Christ Himself of what happened at the Lord's Supper or that from the Lord's Supper, he (ie. Paul) received a message as a result of having known of the Lord's Supper. At any rate, I am simply saying that Paul was human like any preacher or pastor who preaches an inspired message on Sunday morning. He's inspired, yet human and fallible! It is not the gospel that I test, but Paul's humanity. Does God's communication with humankind express itself through our mortal, fallible, and imperfect perception or does the concept of God breathed inspiration imply that human self expression (such as speech and writing) is temporarily absorbed or halted totally into the periphery of the infallible mind of God? Simply put, when God communicates to a human, such as Paul, via inspiration, is our mortalness, our fallibleness, and our imperfection still in play and a part of our being when inspiration is incoming to us or does all of these (ie. mortalness, fallibleness, and imperfection) cease to exist when inspiration takes place? This raises questions in regards to preachers, pastors, etc. and their inspired messages that they deliver to their congregations. Would they (ie. pastors, etc.) consider their messages inspired of God? And, if they do, does this mean that whatever they say is inerrant, although considered inspired by God? What is the difference between the inspired servant of God know as your pastor, preacher, etc. and the inspired servant of God, Paul? If both are inspired by God and both are fallible humans, should we trust their every word? I, personally, would consult 1Thessalonians 5:19-22. Your answer to these quesitons will likely fall into one of two categories in relation to how one perceives the bible: 1) The bible contains the infallible message of the gospel and bears witness to the living Word of God (ie. Jesus, not the scriptures) or 2) The bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God (along with Christ, Who is also the Word). Which of the two best describes your view of the bible? All the questions I have presented seemingly relate to these two choices. Maybe the answer to these should be the first order of business before anyone starts discussing or debating an issue. They are two different foundations, which could result in differing conclusions.

To my understanding, the bible contains no passage that calls the writings in it infallible. The only thing claimed not to have any errors is the gospel message itself, not the writings in the scriptures. There is no doubt to me that Paul was a man who loved God and Christ and who was filled with the Spirit. However, being such a man, and a human man at that, does not render Him infallible while under the Spirit's guidance. If one considers the bible to be infallible, one should see that an infallible bible means nothing without an equally infallible interpreter (ie. you, me, and all other humans). Needless to say, as humans, none of us fall under the category of being infallible. It's easy math. An infallible bible + an infallible interpreter = an infallible conclusion. An infallible bible + a fallible interpreter = a view based on one's personal relationship that may not be shared by others. I do believe the latter is the case with us fallible humans (ie. interpreters). We would have to be perfect to understand a supposedly perfect bible. The existence of many christian denominations who claim to be teaching the most accurate version of the truth and insisting that its biblical interpretations are the most accurate is evidence that even though the Holy Spirit is the infallible interpreter of scripture, we christians can only at best imperfectly perceive the flow of God's communication to us (ICorinthians 13:12). In 1Thessalonians 5:19-22 (NEB bible), Paul shares the key to interpreting inspired messages, of which the bible is such: "Do not stifle inspiration, and do not despise prophetic utterances, but bring them all to the test and then keep what is good in them and avoid the bad of whatever kind". The bible is a collection of inspired writings brought forth through human instruments. We should bring it to the test, accepting the obviously inspired portions and rejecting the judgemental errors and archaic social attitudes that may not be consistent with our present understanding of the christian gospel. Read John 5:39. Note that it does not say, "You search the scriptures, because you know that in them you have eterna life..." It says, "...you think that in them you have eternal life..." The scriptures are the inspired written testimony to the living Word of God, who is none other than Christ Himself, alone! The Word of God was not made into a book, but into human flesh and bone. Our focus and devotion should be focused on the One who died for us, not on the printed pages of scripture. So many people have created a theology centered around what can be called The Shrine of the Book. An idolatrous altar which many believers have set up in their hearts unawares. It is no wonder that some find biblical literalism idolatrous. It is antithetical to the kind of life Jesus called His followers. It is also a denial of the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit. John 3:8 informs us that everyone who is born of the Spirit is open to being blown, if you will, where the Spirits wills them to go. If one confines their life to biblical literlism, that, in essence, is putting limitations on where the Spirit may want to lead them. The Spirit becomes unable to "blow where it listeth". To me, this means the Spirit can go, like the wind, wherever it wills without you being aware of where it is going. It means, to me, that it (ie. the Spirit) can lead someone wherever it wills. If you confine the Spirit to blow only within the confines of biblical literalism, then it truly cannot go "where it listeth", can it? If you give a teenager free will, but with limitations, is it really free will? If that teenager wills to go somewhere outside those limitations given them, but they are told they cannot, then they really haven't been given the freedom to go where they will to go, have they? Biblical literalism does this to the Holy Spirit. You cannot be led fully by the Spirit when you are kept down by biblical literalism. The Spirit may be willing to blow you somewhere, but you are unwilling due to dependence upon biblical literalism. Can God use such a person who is resisting the Spirit's guidance?

As far as the term 'nature' goes, in 1Corinthians 11:14, it is Strong's #5449 and in reference to Romans 1:26, it is #5446. #5446 means physical ie. (by implication) instinctive. To me, that means that which is physically and naturally instinctive. Who would know better than the individual him/herself what is naturally instinctive for him or her? Strong's #5449 is more extensive, but it also includes a similar definition:

Nature #5449 (new testament) - 1) growth (by germination or expansion)
Germination = to develop, to begin to develop, to come into being, sprout, evolve.

2) ie. natural production (lineal descent)
Lineal = ancestral, hereditary.

3) by extension, a genus or sort.
Genus = a category of biological classification, birth, race, kind.

4) figuratively, native disposition, constitution, or usage.
Native = inborn, natural
Disposition = natural attitude towards things, tendency, inclination.
Constitution = physical makeup, structure, composition.
Usage = action or mode of using, manner of treating, habitual, or customary practice or procedure.

Apply this to 1Corinthians 11:14 and #5446 to Romans 1.

As far as questioning God, I find nothing wrong with that. To some extent, I believe He expects it of us. What would have done in Abraham's shoes in Genesis 18? When God informs you that He is going to destroy Sodom and Gommorah, would you have had the thoughts and concerns that Abraham had and kept them to yourself and let God do what He willed? Abraham didnt! I reiterate your words back to you: As you choose the path that you follow, you must be willing to accept the consequences of where it takes you.

 

[Vedant]

I just needed to point out that women are saved by having children, because women got us all into this mess. (I can remember the fundamentalist pastor of the church where I grew up actually saying that.)

that's not right.

 

[fejao]

Leecappella,

I don't have a clue what where you read that Adam was both male and female, but I know where you didn't read it - - in the Bible account!

No, I have never read or heard anything like this before. I have heard some pretty ridiculous things before by those with bigger imaginations than I have, but this rates right up there with the best . . . or worst . . . of them (according to how you rate such things). Why not just accept the text for what it says? Why is there a need to read something into it that is not there? In fact, this very act is in violation of 1 Peter 4:11a. It says, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God." When you consider Jesus' teaching in Matthew 21:23-27 about the two sources of authority in spiritual matters, it becomes rather obvious where the rationale for an Adam that was both male and female originated. (It did not come from God, therefore, it came from man.)

. . . Denny

The Hebrew Torah has God creating the ADAM (human being) "both male and female." (Genesis 1: 27) Then God commanded this androgynous bi-sexual Adam (HUMAN BEING) to be sexual, replace him/herself, and fill the earth (see Genesis 1: 28).

In the second chapter, God takes the female Adam (BEING) from the side of an androgynous Adam (BEING) AFTER God has realized that: it is not good for a human to be alone. After the separation of the female Adam from the male Adam, the male Adam says; This one shall AGAIN be bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. She shall be called EESHAH (A Creature of Passion) because she was taken from the Passion Place (Eysh-Fire). A passionate being (masculine side) shall therefore leave his father and his mother and be united with his other passionate being (his feminine side), and they shall be one being (Genesis 2: 23-24).


Fejao x

 

[- DRA -]

In Romans 1, Paul describes, first, briefly, the gospel that he is so willing to preach. It is salvation to them that believe. 'To everyone that believeth'! He who has faith, it is salvation. God's wrath is against ungodliness. It is, yet again, #765 and it means godlessness, irreverent. God is opposed to those who deny Him (ie. the godless). Those who do not reverence Him. My take on this passage, which can and has been taken many ways, is this: Paul says these ungodly and unrighteous people knew God, but they did not glorify Him. Who are 'they'? They professed to be wise and became fools. Who are 'they'? They made images for worship and service. Who are 'they'? The very mention of images (ie. idols) tells me that 'they' are idolators. In contrast to the brief mention of those 'that believeth', Paul thereafter begins discussing those who do not believe! If salvation is for everyone that does believe, then those that do not believe or have faith in this gospel of Christ, God's wrath is upon. This cannot apply to homosexual persons that believe. The reason I find this text ambiguous is because in Paul's day and time, who knows what could be deemed 'unnatural'? Sex may have been seen as only for procreation, so when sex was done without this purpose, that could have been labeled 'unnatural'. The 'natural use' of the woman could mean anything. What was she used for? Was a woman used back then. Possibly, considering their status then. Even further, the text does imply that males burned in lust towards another. This does sound like same sex acts occured. However, lust is licentiousness. These are not monogamous relationships being spoken of here. Based on sources relating to idolatrous practices, lust filled sex acts were a part of their rituals. Sex with whomever and whatever. Married or not married. Their vain imaginaitons thought these things up in order to serve their idols, which were merely dead images. This is a context of sex outside the confines of a committed union between two. Due to the definiton of 'reprobate' minds, it is clear to me that Paul is referencing idolatrous practices. Reprobate means unwelcoming. Their minds were unwelcoming of God, resulting in service to false gods. Besides, Paul's definition of 'nature' and 'natural' is up in the air. I don't think he defined it as you are defining it. If I had to guess if Paul was opposed to same sex acts, I would say yes. If I had to guess if Paul was aware of sexual inversion, I'd say no. If I had to guess if Paul thought that all same sex acts were a result of a people or person who had denied the faith of God for an image, I'd say yes. I'd say Paul would consider same sex acts as something done by one who did not acknowledge God and by one whose sole focus was on sex, lust, and satisfying self. Such a person, in my view, to Paul, was worship irreverent. It is also my belief that he saw all of creation as being created heterosexual and anything else supported his view of such persons being people who loved not God, denied God, and did not like to retain God in their minds. As a gay christian, I can tell you that is an incorrect conclusion. I cannot blame Paul though. He was a victiom of his limited time and culture. As time goes on, more things are learned, such as inversion vs. perversion.

Lee,

Considering your views of Romans 1, I get conflicting signals. You "assume" that Romans 1 cannot apply to homosexuals who believe. You have yet to show the authority for "same sex" sexual activit that Colossians 3:17 says you must have. I direct your attention once again to 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Homosexual activity is condemned in this text,
* "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, not covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV)
* The same text is tranlated in the NASV: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."
* Once again, this same text in the KJV is translated: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Now, let's see what those at Corinth did about these activities: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (NKJV) This verse gives me the distinct impression that the Corithians who received the gospel quit engaging in the previously mentioned "sins." Paul is not encouraging Christians to continue to engage in these sinful activities. Rather, he is clearly pointing out the consequences of such activity. He clearly sounds his warning: "Do not be deceived" in verse 9.

You present Romans 1 as comdemning idolatry, but not homosexuality. Actually, the process of digression that Paul points out starting in verse 18 condemns many practices - - including idolatry and homosexuality. God has given evidence of Himself since the creation (vs. 18-20). Rather than glorify Him, men have turned away (vs. 21). They professed wisdom - - but became fools (vs. 22). They made idols (vs. 23). Now, let's stop and ask a relevant question at this point, "Is God pleased with this behavior at this point? Are these actions acceptable to God? The answer is NO! (See Acts 17:30.) Now, lets continue looking at Romans 1. God gives these people over to "uncleanness," "lust," and "dishonor" (NKJV - vs. 24). These people worshipped, not the Creator, but the creature (vs. 25). Because of this, God gave them up to "vile passions (NKJV - vs. 26). Their vile passions included women who "exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 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". . . (vs. 26-27). Yes, in this context there is a natural "use" of the woman, just as there is the natural "use" of the man. Going against this natural use is "shameful"! Because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a "debased" mind (vs. 28). Thus, their minds were filled with "all unrighteousness". . . (vs. 29-31). Those who practice such things also approve of them - - which the righteous judgment of God has said that those who practice such things are "worthy of death." (vs. 32)

Now, let's consider your line of reasoning in light of these verses. You say that this passage only disapproves of idolatrous activities that result in lustful homosexual activities taking place. Really? Let's see. Let's look at verse 29. Would only idolatrous wicked people be worthy of death, or would just plain ole wicked people also be worthy of death? The same question also could be asked for all of the characteristics listed in verses 29-31? See where your reasoning leads you?

I believe that you have overlooked the message of verse 27, ". . . Men with men committing what is shameful." Such activity is shameful, not because it is involved with idolatry, but because of the activity itself - - men with men . . . committing what is shameful.

I am really surprised by your logic in your quote that I put in orange font. You suggest that Paul is not really discussing same-sex relationships in Rom. 1, but then speculate from this text that Paul doesn't approve of homosexuality. That tells me that you can really see the points that Paul is making . . . you just don't want to accept them. Rather, you would dismiss them as just a part of Paul's culture and the first-century society. Such a view contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

I suggest you do just as the Corinthians did in 1 Cor. 6:11. Make such sinful activity a thing of the past.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

It is my view that in Jude, the issue is about 'ungodly men' (Strong's #765=worship irreverant). Those who 'denied the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ'. The reference to Egypt (verse 5) and the destruction of 'them that believed not' is, in my view, about, once again, those who have denied God and Christ. The faith that leads to salvation is of God and Christ. Denial of this faith was the issue. There existed persons who believed that since we are saved by God's grace through faith alone in Christ, that meant any and everything could be engaged in. Needless to say, anyone who has accepted God's gift of salvation and who is continually developing a relationship with God, such a person does have a conscience and heeds to it. We don't use God's grace to gain salvation and ignore all else. This is the type of persons being described in Jude. Lasciviousness connotes lust. It is Strong's #766 and it means licentiousness and lustful. I see no reason to equate any committed union between two adult persons as lascivious or lustful in foundation. Though such relationships can be, they are not all like this, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Sodom and Gomorrah is described in Jude 1:7 as 'giving themselves over to fornication'. This phrase is Strong's #1608 and it means to be utterly unchaste. Sodom was an idol worshipping city that had image worshippers as citizens. 2Peter 2:6 refers to them as being 'ungodly' (Strong's #764). This means the same as the previously mentioned #765, worship irreverent. The worship of false gods was common in bible days. In Jude, 'strange' of strange flesh is #2087 and it is heteros. Its definition is 'other or different'. It makes no sense to me to refer to a male's flesh as 'other or different' in comparison to his human counterpart, the female. Both are human and both are made of the same flesh. Sodom was known for its inhospitality to others and for its abominations. When referenced in Ezekiel, the abominations credited to Sodom is Strong's #8441, which means something morally disgusting, especially idolatry, or concretely an idol. It is my view that Sodom was guilty of many ungodly things and abominations (ie. idolatries) were one of them. The intent of the men of Sodom was indeed wicked as Lot called it, but, having lived in Sodom, Lot would know better than we just what specifically was the wicked thing. No doubt, the intent was harm. Rape is indeed harm and has nothing to do with loving relations. Same sex relationships is not an issue in Genesis 19. God, being the Source of love, was denied by these people. Did they know love or how to? My speculative view is that the citizens (Mind you, 'all the people from every quarter') were not drawn 'to know' the angels disgused as males because of same sex attraction, as you seem to believe. My thought is that the wicked thing was indeed a sexual act that was well known in ancient times among idolators. Their well known 'common courtesy', so to speak. To abuse or sodomize another male was done for degrading, humiliating purposes. This has nothing to do with sexual attraction. Ask a heterosexual male who spent time in prison! You dont' have to be sexually attracted to the same sex in order to pull off the act of sodomizing him. Rent the movie American Me and you will, hopefully, see the purpose behind the act and what it symbolizes in the hearts of those whose intentions are wicked.

Lee,

Jude 7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)

According to Strong's, the Greek word for fornication in this verse is ejkporneuvw. It is defined as: to go a whoring, "give one's self over to fornication." Strong's defines fornication (the Greek word proneiva) as: illicit sexual intercourse adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, metaph. the worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols. I am using Strong's Online version at crosswalk.com

Whether or not the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were idolatrous is irrelevant to our discussion. Their sexual nature is what Jude focuses on - - and comdemns! Whatever gratification that one finds by abusing another person sexually can be varied. But as far as the male goes who is the instigator, if there isn't something there that the male finds stimulating, "then it ain't gonna happen." I do not have to rent a movie to envision what goes on in prisons today, or why it happens.

I highlighted a small portion of your quote with orange font. So then, do you approve of a heterosexual couple living together and engaging in sexual activity before marriage? Or would you apply your reasoning only to homosexual couples who do such? Whatever answer you give, I would like to see it harmonized with 1 Cor. 7:1-3.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

You are onto something in recognizing that the point the author is making has to do with relationship one to another, not a scientific process. As such, I think I can say that marriage between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman is the norm. But that doesn't make deviations from that norm sinful. A woman or man that chooses not to marry, or a couple that marries and chooses not to sin, are NOT the norm, but not evil. Likewise, homosexuals wanting to partner together for life are NOT the norm, but not evil.

Freud,

I have not found the evidence for the conclusion that you draw. Could you be so kind as to point out the passage (or passages) of scripture that suggest that homosexuality is acceptable to God? ( 1 Peter 4:11a)

In His service,
. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

The Hebrew Torah has God creating the ADAM (human being) "both male and female." (Genesis 1: 27) Then God commanded this androgynous bi-sexual Adam (HUMAN BEING) to be sexual, replace him/herself, and fill the earth (see Genesis 1: 28).

In the second chapter, God takes the female Adam (BEING) from the side of an androgynous Adam (BEING) AFTER God has realized that: it is not good for a human to be alone. After the separation of the female Adam from the male Adam, the male Adam says; This one shall AGAIN be bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh. She shall be called EESHAH (A Creature of Passion) because she was taken from the Passion Place (Eysh-Fire). A passionate being (masculine side) shall therefore leave his father and his mother and be united with his other passionate being (his feminine side), and they shall be one being (Genesis 2: 23-24).


Fejao x

Fejao,

What is the exact wording of the Torah for Gen. 1:27?

The NKJV Bible reads, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them." This verse gives an overview of the creation of man on the sixth day. It includes the creation of woman, which also occurred on the sixth day. Verses 20-25 in chapter 2 are a more detailed account of what God on the sixth day - - he created Woman from the Man.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see anywhere in this discussion what you suggest - - God bringing forth the female Adam from the male Adam. All I see in the latter part of Genesis 2 is where God made the first woman from one of Adam's ribs. That's it! Woman from Man.

After God created the man and woman on the sixth day (and still during the sixth day), he told them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28).

. . . Denny

 

[PastorFreud]

Freud,

I have not found the evidence for the conclusion that you draw. Could you be so kind as to point out the passage (or passages) of scripture that suggest that homosexuality is acceptable to God? ( 1 Peter 4:11a)

In His service,
. . . Denny

I can't point out the text that suggests message boarding is acceptable to God. Can you point out one that suggests it isn't?

 

[leecappella]

Part One of my response to DRA:

Lee, 2 Timothy 3:16 starts with these words: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." You say you realize that Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but then refer to "Paul's version of nature" as if was his own opinion. I believe that Paul does share his judgment about some things with us - - because he tells us when that occurs i.e. 1 Cor. 7:6,25. I see no indication of Paul giving his judgment in the discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Perhaps, I missed it and you could point it out. I encourage you to consider reading further in the text of 1 Cor. 11. Specifically, verse 23. Where had Paul received his understanding from about the Lord's Supper? He wasn't there when Jesus instituted it i.e. Matt. 26:26-29. Paul aso elaborates on the gospel that he teaches in Gal. 1:11-2:9. I would not be quite so quick to dismiss the teaching of Paul as merely his opinion. For instance, have you considered Heb. 2:1-4? We should view the confirmation of the apostles and their teaching just as Nicodemus viewed the Lord's works and teaching (John 3:2).

Your quote: "Though he [Paul] was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. I am led to test all things and to keep the good and discard the bad. Paul was not God, but a follower of Him. His intentions were good, but he was human like any pastor, preacher, etc. who gives a sermon that he feels has been inspired of God. No human is infallible. Not even those inspired by God!"
So, could you share with us the method of testing that you use to determine if Paul was speaking for God, or for himself? If possible, would you test him as did Elymas in Acts 13:6-12? Or, would you test him as did the Jewish exorcists and seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19:11-16. May I be so bold as to ask that you seriously reconsider this line of reasoning that you have presented?

As for the word "nature" in 1 Cor. 11:14, I suppose that you already know that it is the same Greek word for nature in Rom. 1:26. Have you thoroughly studied this Greek word - - looked at the various definitions and all the places where this word appears in the N.T.?

From an analytical viewpoint, I do not clearly understand why God made the distinction between clean and unclean animals under the law of Moses. I am sure that the Israelites didn't either, but were still expected to obey God. Faith is like that sometimes. God has His reasons. Rather than accept what God has said, I could always press God for His reasoning as did Job. I imagine that if I did such a thing, God would respond to me like He did to Job (Job chapter chapter 38 - 40:7). Or, I could just accept what God has said and let it go as that.

As you choose the path that you follow, you must be willing to accept the consequences of where it takes you.

. . . Denny

dra: Considering your views of Romans 1, I get conflicting signals.

me: I assume you are getting conflicting signals because you have your mind set on what the bible does or does not say on this issue and you have not, maybe, entertained the idea that your view is not the correct view. I know the possibility is there that I could be wrong, being human and fallible. However, since we, as humans, accept what makes sense to us in our minds and hearts, what you are about to read is what I believe.

dra: You "assume" that Romans 1 cannot apply to homosexuals who believe.

me: Like all who read the bible, I am sharing my view of what the bible is saying and isn't saying, based on how I see it. Fortunately, God is aware that we all are made uniquely and differently and, as a result of that differentness, we may see something differently though looking at the very same thing. As you may know, Paul contrasts them that believe with those who do not believe, in Romans 1. If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, then everyone includes homosexuals. Those whom Paul speaks of in Romans 1, following verse 18 and onward, in my view, are those persons, in Paul's day and time, that he is familiar with who have chosen not to believe the gospel of salvation, which comes from God the Creator. Heterosexuals are included in this! There is no doubt that Paul is referencing idolators here. Such persons are perfect examples of those who have denied God, glorify not God, are not thankful to God, and do not acknowledge God as God. Paul references 'them' and 'they'. Those who hold the truth (ie. God's existence) in unrighteousness. I suppose you can look up the greek definition of 'unrighteousness'. 'So that 'they' are without excuse' is about those, whom Paul mentally has in mind, who do know of God's existence because God has 'shewed it unto them' yet 'they' deny it (ie. God's existence) still. 'They' knew God but glorified Him not as God'. Instead, 'they' exchanged God the Creator for corruptible gods (ie. images) of man, birds, etc. These are idolators. Just as many people have said on this forum, idolators had lust filled, orgy-like idolatrous sex practices all in the name of glorifying their gods and goddesses. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what Paul is referencing in Romans 1.

dra: You have yet to show the authority for "same sex" sexual activit that Colossians 3:17 says you must have.

me: Colossians 3:17 says 'whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.' This verse does not tell me to show authority. It tells me to give thanks to God for whatsoever I do or say. Idolators or image worshippers, as Paul knew them in his day, are contrary to this and contrary to giving thanks to God. Since God knows my heart and intentions and motives and why I credit Him with thankfulness, that's all I need to be concerned about. You have your reasons for opposing homosexuality in all forms. God knows your heart and why you give Him glory, praise, and thanks seeing things as you do as well. He knows us both.

dra: I direct your attention once again to 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Homosexual activity is condemned in this text,

* "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, not covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

* The same text is tranlated in the NASV: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

* Once again, this same text in the KJV is translated: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

me: How nice of you to present varying translations regarding this verse. I am a king james bible reader, though. Interesting that the NKJV has both 'homosexuals' and 'sodomites' when tradition has taught that a sodomite is a homosexual and vice versa. I disagree with this by the way! The NASV has taken what was translated in the NKJV as 'homosexual' and used 'effeminate' and replaced 'sodomites' with 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. I will atleast agree with the translation of 'sodomite' into 'abusers of themselves with mankind' since my concordance defines 'abusers of themselves with mankind' as a 'sodomite'. According to the KJV, 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind' are used. Here's the link to the study I did some time ago in regards to this verse: http://christianforums.com/t64687. You will find what a 'sodomite' is at that link.

dra: Now, let's see what those at Corinth did about these activities: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (NKJV) This verse gives me the distinct impression that the Corithians who received the gospel quit engaging in the previously mentioned "sins." Paul is not encouraging Christians to continue to engage in these sinful activities. Rather, he is clearly pointing out the consequences of such activity. He clearly sounds his warning: "Do not be deceived" in verse 9.

me: I've studied this chapter and my view is that Paul is againt believers going to non believers for advice in their affairs. It is my view that Paul, in verses 9 and 10 of 1Corinthians chapter six, is describing what he believes to be characteristics of those who are non believers. He, in my view, does the same thing in Romans 1. I don't believe Paul to be aware of sexual inversion vs. sexual perversion. Are you? I believe he believed all humans were created heterosexual and that homosexual acts were an indication to him that those engaging in it were, without a doubt, non believers because, as mentioned before, same sex acts were a part of some idolatrous worship practices, which he was aware of, thus his letter to the Romans. If, in Paul's day, same sex acts were known to be associated with pagan idolatry, then it is of no wonder that these acts were symbolic of a denial of God the Creator since pagans indeed did deny God their Creator and they did so via all kinds of acts of sexual worship, including same sex acts. Whether they were married or not, they engaged in them. In today's world, we know more than those who came before us about things that did not exist in Paul's day, like the concept of sexual inversion (ie. orientation).

dra: You present Romans 1 as comdemning idolatry, but not homosexuality. Actually, the process of digression that Paul points out starting in verse 18 condemns many practices - - including idolatry and homosexuality. God has given evidence of Himself since the creation (vs. 18-20). Rather than glorify Him, men have turned away (vs. 21). They professed wisdom - - but became fools (vs. 22). They made idols (vs. 23). Now, let's stop and ask a relevant question at this point, "Is God pleased with this behavior at this point? Are these actions acceptable to God? The answer is NO! (See Acts 17:30.)

me: Have you ever read sources on the issue of pagan idolatrous worship? The gross, sexual conduct that took place was horrendous. Orgies of such mangnitude that would even make today's world blush! Search for yourself on the subject. These idolatrous acts were all outside of the confines of a committed union between two people. Not only was same sex acts involved, but opposite sex acts were also involved. The context was idol worship and, as Paul points out, these people burned in their lusts. Surely, love and lust are not one and the same in foundation or premise! It should also be said that God, as in Leviticus, prohibited ANYTHING that was done in honor and service to foreign gods. No matter if that 'anything' could be considered acceptable to do outside of the context of idolatry, it was still viewed by God as figuratively an idolatrous thing (Leviticus 11:10).

Ps. Sorry for the bold type. Copying and pasting seems to do that. It was not my intention. Means nothing See Part Two below.

 

[leecappella]

Part Two of my response to DRA:

Lee, 2 Timothy 3:16 starts with these words: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." You say you realize that Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but then refer to "Paul's version of nature" as if was his own opinion. I believe that Paul does share his judgment about some things with us - - because he tells us when that occurs i.e. 1 Cor. 7:6,25. I see no indication of Paul giving his judgment in the discussion in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Perhaps, I missed it and you could point it out. I encourage you to consider reading further in the text of 1 Cor. 11. Specifically, verse 23. Where had Paul received his understanding from about the Lord's Supper? He wasn't there when Jesus instituted it i.e. Matt. 26:26-29. Paul aso elaborates on the gospel that he teaches in Gal. 1:11-2:9. I would not be quite so quick to dismiss the teaching of Paul as merely his opinion. For instance, have you considered Heb. 2:1-4? We should view the confirmation of the apostles and their teaching just as Nicodemus viewed the Lord's works and teaching (John 3:2).

Your quote: "Though he [Paul] was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. I am led to test all things and to keep the good and discard the bad. Paul was not God, but a follower of Him. His intentions were good, but he was human like any pastor, preacher, etc. who gives a sermon that he feels has been inspired of God. No human is infallible. Not even those inspired by God!"
So, could you share with us the method of testing that you use to determine if Paul was speaking for God, or for himself? If possible, would you test him as did Elymas in Acts 13:6-12? Or, would you test him as did the Jewish exorcists and seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19:11-16. May I be so bold as to ask that you seriously reconsider this line of reasoning that you have presented?

As for the word "nature" in 1 Cor. 11:14, I suppose that you already know that it is the same Greek word for nature in Rom. 1:26. Have you thoroughly studied this Greek word - - looked at the various definitions and all the places where this word appears in the N.T.?

From an analytical viewpoint, I do not clearly understand why God made the distinction between clean and unclean animals under the law of Moses. I am sure that the Israelites didn't either, but were still expected to obey God. Faith is like that sometimes. God has His reasons. Rather than accept what God has said, I could always press God for His reasoning as did Job. I imagine that if I did such a thing, God would respond to me like He did to Job (Job chapter chapter 38 - 40:7). Or, I could just accept what God has said and let it go as that.

As you choose the path that you follow, you must be willing to accept the consequences of where it takes you.

. . . Denny

dra: Now, lets continue looking at Romans 1. God gives these people over to "uncleanness," "lust," and "dishonor" (NKJV - vs. 24). These people worshipped, not the Creator, but the creature (vs. 25). Because of this, God gave them up to "vile passions (NKJV - vs. 26). Their vile passions included women who "exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 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". . . (vs. 26-27). Yes, in this context there is a natural "use" of the woman, just as there is the natural "use" of the man. Going against this natural use is "shameful"! Because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a "debased" mind (vs. 28). Thus, their minds were filled with "all unrighteousness". . . (vs. 29-31). Those who practice such things also approve of them - - which the righteous judgment of God has said that those who practice such things are "worthy of death." (vs. 32)

me: Uncleanness, in the greek, means physical or moral impurity. This does not necessarily mean sin. It is usually associated with what is or isn't acceptable to a Jew and for a Jew. Lust, I'd say is self explanatory. It is not love! Dishonor means to insult or treat shamefully. No doubt, a context that is similar to or is specifically an orgy is shameful. The vile passions you referred to are, in the greek, passions that are a disgrace, shame (shame means no regard for others, inhumane, unchase, undisciplined, wantoness), infamy. My concordance tells me that the term 'vile' has the meaning that is OPPOSITE of honor, value, respect, nobility, etc. I find it hard to believe that a commited union between two people can be considered anything but honorable, valuable, respectful, and noble. An orgiastic context, on the other hand, I would definitely call vile! Note that Paul is talking about the same group of people in verses 23 and 24 as in verses 18-22. He speaks of idolators specifically in verse 23 because, after professing themselves to be wise, 'they' changed God into a corruptible image (ie. an idol). God to them was an idol and so they began worshipping not God but gods. Following verse 23, verse 24 gets into the uncleanness and lusts that took place by those very same people as spoken of since verse 18. Verse 25 hits back to the subject of image/idol worship via the worship of created things that were made to resemble the created things that God the Creator had created (ie. man, animals, etc.). In verse 26, Paul gets back to the dishonoring of the bodies by going a bit further into what was actually going on. This is where speculation really sets in. Paul doesn't exactly say just what it was that the women were doing to the point that they exchanged (ie. gave up one thing for something else) their natural use for. Determining what Paul means by 'natural' and 'nature' is also another venture to get into. In Strongs, 'natural' is physically instinctive nature. Thus, my view that he believes all humans are naturally physically instinctive or inclined towards the oppposite sex. Again, today we are aware of sexual orientation or inversion. I'd say Paul was not. In Strongs, 'nature' has varying meanings. You can find them here: http://www.christianforums.com/t91124&page=3&highlight=germination. See post #26. Considering Paul's use of nature in 1Corinthians 11:14, I am leaning towards his meaning to mean native disposition (ie. inborn or natural attitude towards things;inborn or natural tendency;inborn or natural inclination). This is Strong's #5449. You will also find in scripture where God is referred to as acting contrary to 'nature' when He grafted the Gentiles with the Jews. If acting against or contrary to 'nature' is a sin, God so acted! That's only if Paul's definition of 'nature' has moral implications.

dra: Now, let's consider your line of reasoning in light of these verses. You say that this passage only disapproves of idolatrous activities that result in lustful homosexual activities taking place. Really? Let's see. Let's look at verse 29. Would only idolatrous wicked people be worthy of death, or would just plain ole wicked people also be worthy of death? The same question also could be asked for all of the characteristics listed in verses 29-31? See where your reasoning leads you?

me: Wickedness, in the greek, means depravity, ie. (specifically), malice. Malice is badness; (subjectively), depravity; (actively), malignity; (passively), trouble. Malice is also the desire to cause injury or distress to another. This causes me to think of the idolatrous citizens of Sodom and Gommorah who desired 'to know' the men who were disguised as angels. It also makes me think of the Judges 19 story and the 'sons of Belial' who were no more than ungodly persons who liked to cause trouble. They were the personification of Satan. Sodomy, as I have stated many times in the past, was an act done toward one man to another with the intent/motive of harm to the man in the passive role. To lower a man to the level of a woman, in biblical society, was the goal. It was degrading and humiliating. This act symbolized this intent, aside from the fact that in the context of idolatry, same sex acts were used to serve an idol with the hopes of gaining blessings from that particual fertility god or goddess.This is what same sex acts were known for in the scriptures. This is why it was prohibited. If one really thinks about it, people were using others for selfish gain via ritualistic sexual acts hoping to gain blessings from a false god or goddess. No mention of loving same sex relationships in the bible some of you say? Exactly! Homosexuality in the scriptures had nothing to do with love and the intent of love towards God or another. Wickedness, no matter what context it is in, is wickedness at its foundation. Certain actions, on the other hand, depending on context, can either be deemed good actions or bad. A wicked action is wicked in intention and motive. Love, if it is genuinely love, is not wicked in its intentions or motives towards another person. Love is considerate of another's feelings. Note also that heterosexual sex was a part of idolatrous worship, but it is not a sin in and of itself. Also note that eating certain foods offered to idols is not a sin either. The intent and use of it, in an idolatrous context, was, to God, unacceptable, and was prohibited at one time. God is a jealous God. There should be no other gods before Him, and since there were in bible days, all things associated with those false gods was off limits!

dra: I am really surprised by your logic in your quote that I put in orange font. You suggest that Paul is not really discussing same-sex relationships in Rom. 1, but then speculate from this text that Paul doesn't approve of homosexuality. That tells me that you can really see the points that Paul is making . . . you just don't want to accept them. Rather, you would dismiss them as just a part of Paul's culture and the first-century society. Such a view contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."

me: Maybe you misunderstand me. When I say 'relationships', I mean two people in a relationship of love who have as their goal a committed union for life in the foreseeable future. This is not what Paul is talking about in Romans 1. I believe that just because something is inspired by God, it does not automatically render it infallible (ie. incapable of errors). Especially, when the instrument being used is a fallible human. At its source (ie. God), the inspiration is not fallible, but though we are not perfect, God still uses us fallible humans to do His will. If you believe that the bible is infallible and all in it is how God feels via Paul's words, you will have to agree that, as a believer, you should not have an issue with slavery, which Paul did not condemn. Sure, he told the believing slave to take the chance to be free if it arose, but if not, he told them not to worry about it. He did not condemn it, as he was known for condeming all other things he did not condone (ie. adultery, etc.). He could have spoke out against it if he viewed it is wrong, but he did not. Another thing to consider is 1Corinthians 14:35. If you say the bible is infallible and all things in it are without error and it is as if God spoke it, women should, even today, be silent in the churches. If you say this text applies to a particular situation where there was a problem of some sorts of overtalkative women or something, you have already undermined your position on biblical literalism and taking the bible for what it says. Even further, if long hair on a man is a shame to the man, as Paul says, and God does not look on the outward appearance, as 1Samuel 16:7 says, you too have a contradiction to deal with. So, to say that all scripture is inspired of God does not, to me, mean infallibility on the part of the human that was inspired. If that is the case, a preacher or pastor who preaches his inspired sermon would have to be deemed incapable of error in whatever he has preached and it would have to be expected to be taken as gospel by his congregation. That is, if everything an inspired human says is, without a doubt, without any possiblity of error.

dra: I suggest you do just as the Corinthians did in 1 Cor. 6:11. Make such sinful activity a thing of the past.

me: I'm in agreement with you there, but just as some believers considered eating food that was offered to idols a sin while others, like Paul, did not, I don't consider homosexuality in all forms to be a sin.

I will keep in mind the words of an acquaintance who said to me in an email:"Never (yes, never) be disappointed by the failure of people to turn their thinking around relative to the issue of Christianity and homosexuality. Because most heterosexuals focus on homoerotica rather than sexual orientation when they think of homosexuals, they are repulsed by us --- because they think of sexual acts and not people (of course, most homosexuals are equally repulsed by heteroerotica). Because most Christian heterosexuals think that homosexuals are an abomination --- and therefore cursed, they really are not willing to be swayed by dialogue or debate, because in their minds we are preaching a gospel different from the one in which they believe. So, do what God has called you to do in terms of writing in defense of reconciliaztion, but never (yes, never) be disappointed when someone does not change his or her way of thinking, conceptualizing, and emoting about the issue."

Ps. Sorry for the bold type. Copying and pasting seems to do that. It was not my intention. Means nothing

 

[- DRA -]

me: I never said that I realized that Paul was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I simply began by saying, "As you said..." Maybe I should have underlined 'you' in my initial post. My intent was not to imply realization of Paul being under the Spirit's guidance.

This is one of your sentences from the same paragraph: Though he was an apostle of God, he too was human and I personally don't think everything he said was under divine inspiration. The implication is that you think either some of the things Paul said were under divine inspiration, or that none of the things which Paul wrote are by divine inspiration. Which is it?

I simply reiterated what you said. I don't think I ever expressed an agreement towards whom Paul was guided by, but rather contrasted it with 1Samuel 16:7, which seems to contradict Paul's focus on the outward appearance in 1Corinthians 11. If God does not indeed look at things as man looks at them, then I think it's safe to say that God is not concerned with the length of a man's hair as opposed to a man's heart! For how long a man's hair is does not determine what is in his heart nor what type of man, at heart, he is. I am fully aware that, at times, Paul does mention that he is sharing his judgements, but does he ever inform his audience when 'his judgement' has ended and his inspiration has begun again? In 1Corinthians 11:23, I'm not sure if Paul is saying he was personally told by Christ Himself of what happened at the Lord's Supper or that from the Lord's Supper, he (ie. Paul) received a message as a result of having known of the Lord's Supper. At any rate, I am simply saying that Paul was human like any preacher or pastor who preaches an inspired message on Sunday morning. He's inspired, yet human and fallible! It is not the gospel that I test, but Paul's humanity.

Christ promised to send the Spirit of truth to the apostles (John 16:13) to guide them into all truth. The message of the apostles was confirmed by signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 2:3-4). We now have the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25) and all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

Now, about 2,000 years later, you have decided that you will test the apostle Paul's teaching. How do you propose to do this?

You wish to test his humanity? He was human. I thought that was a given. I don't think that it is his humanity you want to test. Rather, you disagree with his teachings i.e. homosexuality, so you would downplay and discredit an apostle of the Lord who wrote much of the New Testament. You compare an apostle of the Lord who wrote under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit to one who preaches a sermon today. They are not the same. Is Paul's teaching against homosexuality the only part of his teaching that you take issue with?

To my understanding, the bible contains no passage that calls the writings in it infallible. The only thing claimed not to have any errors is the gospel message itself, not the writings in the scriptures

2 Pet. 1:3 & 1 Peter 4:11a are good starters. Also, you might consider what Jesus said in John 8:32. Either we have the truth, or we don't. I believe it is there for us. Evidently, you do not.

There is no doubt to me that Paul was a man who loved God and Christ and who was filled with the Spirit. However, being such a man, and a human man at that, does not render Him infallible while under the Spirit's guidance. If one considers the bible to be infallible, one should see that an infallible bible means nothing without an equally infallible interpreter (ie. you, me, and all other humans). Needless to say, as humans, none of us fall under the category of being infallible. It's easy math. An infallible bible + an infallible interpreter = an infallible conclusion. An infallible bible + a fallible interpreter = a view based on one's personal relationship that may not be shared by others. I do believe the latter is the case with us fallible humans (ie. interpreters). We would have to be perfect to understand a supposedly perfect bible. The existence of many christian denominations who claim to be teaching the most accurate version of the truth and insisting that its biblical interpretations are the most accurate is evidence that even though the Holy Spirit is the infallible interpreter of scripture, we christians can only at best imperfectly perceive the flow of God's communication to us (ICorinthians 13:12). In 1Thessalonians 5:19-22 (NEB bible), Paul shares the key to interpreting inspired messages, of which the bible is such: "Do not stifle inspiration, and do not despise prophetic utterances, but bring them all to the test and then keep what is good in them and avoid the bad of whatever kind". The bible is a collection of inspired writings brought forth through human instruments. We should bring it to the test, accepting the obviously inspired portions and rejecting the judgemental errors and archaic social attitudes that may not be consistent with our present understanding of the christian gospel. Read John 5:39. Note that it does not say, "You search the scriptures, because you know that in them you have eterna life..." It says, "...you think that in them you have eternal life..." The scriptures are the inspired written testimony to the living Word of God, who is none other than Christ Himself, alone! The Word of God was not made into a book, but into human flesh and bone. Our focus and devotion should be focused on the One who died for us, not on the printed pages of scripture. So many people have created a theology centered around what can be called The Shrine of the Book. An idolatrous altar which many believers have set up in their hearts unawares. It is no wonder that some find biblical literalism idolatrous. It is antithetical to the kind of life Jesus called His followers. It is also a denial of the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit. John 3:8 informs us that everyone who is born of the Spirit is open to being blown, if you will, where the Spirits wills them to go. If one confines their life to biblical literlism, that, in essence, is putting limitations on where the Spirit may want to lead them. The Spirit becomes unable to "blow where it listeth". To me, this means the Spirit can go, like the wind, wherever it wills without you being aware of where it is going. It means, to me, that it (ie. the Spirit) can lead someone wherever it wills. If you confine the Spirit to blow only within the confines of biblical literalism, then it truly cannot go "where it listeth", can it? If you give a teenager free will, but with limitations, is it really free will? If that teenager wills to go somewhere outside those limitations given them, but they are told they cannot, then they really haven't been given the freedom to go where they will to go, have they? Biblical literalism does this to the Holy Spirit. You cannot be led fully by the Spirit when you are kept down by biblical literalism. The Spirit may be willing to blow you somewhere, but you are unwilling due to dependence upon biblical literalism. Can God use such a person who is resisting the Spirit's guidance? ]

Consider Jesus' prayer in John 17 i.e. vs.21. Does it sound like the Lord promotes different understandings? How about 1 Cor. 1:10-15 . . . does Paul promote following different preachers? How about Eph. 4:3-6? Doesn't Paul promote the unity of the Spirit? No. No. No. No. What did the Bereans do in Acts 17:10-11 when confronted with the teachings of Paul and Silas?
Should we not focus our attention on his WORD - - the basis for our faith (Rom. 10:17)?

The Spirit of God is likened to a wind (John 3:6-7). It is in the context of contrasting the spirit with the flesh. You have taken a scriptural concept and started running with it . . . wildly . . . as one beating the air (1 Cor. 9:26-27). I suggest that you learn about the discipline that Paul is speaking of in verse 27.

 

[- DRA -]

Part One of my response to DRA:

dra: Considering your views of Romans 1, I get conflicting signals.

me: I assume you are getting conflicting signals because you have your mind set on what the bible does or does not say on this issue and you have not, maybe, entertained the idea that your view is not the correct view. I know the possibility is there that I could be wrong, being human and fallible. However, since we, as humans, accept what makes sense to us in our minds and hearts, what you are about to read is what I believe.

I don't believe that is it at all. What I see as conflicting is two totally different lines of reasoning. First, you attempt to say that the teaching of Paul is ambiguous. Therefore, you cannot determine exactly what is against nature. Then, you wish to challenge the apostle Paul's teaching - - your charge is that he is expressing his own ideas and culture - - and is not speaking from God. I personally don't find what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26-27 to be that hard to figure out. Deep down, I also suspect that you can what I see. That is why you feel the need to downplay or discredit Paul's teaching.

dra: You "assume" that Romans 1 cannot apply to homosexuals who believe.

me: Like all who read the bible, I am sharing my view of what the bible is saying and isn't saying, based on how I see it. Fortunately, God is aware that we all are made uniquely and differently and, as a result of that differentness, we may see something differently though looking at the very same thing. As you may know, Paul contrasts them that believe with those who do not believe, in Romans 1. If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, then everyone includes homosexuals. Those whom Paul speaks of in Romans 1, following verse 18 and onward, in my view, are those persons, in Paul's day and time, that he is familiar with who have chosen not to believe the gospel of salvation, which comes from God the Creator. Heterosexuals are included in this! There is no doubt that Paul is referencing idolators here. Such persons are perfect examples of those who have denied God, glorify not God, are not thankful to God, and do not acknowledge God as God. Paul references 'them' and 'they'. Those who hold the truth (ie. God's existence) in unrighteousness. I suppose you can look up the greek definition of 'unrighteousness'. 'So that 'they' are without excuse' is about those, whom Paul mentally has in mind, who do know of God's existence because God has 'shewed it unto them' yet 'they' deny it (ie. God's existence) still. 'They' knew God but glorified Him not as God'. Instead, 'they' exchanged God the Creator for corruptible gods (ie. images) of man, birds, etc. These are idolators. Just as many people have said on this forum, idolators had lust filled, orgy-like idolatrous sex practices all in the name of glorifying their gods and goddesses. There is no doubt in my mind that this is what Paul is referencing in Romans 1.

I agree that the gospel in Romans 1:16 is extended to homosexuals just as it is to heterosexuals. Why can we not agree that certain activities must be stopped when one desires to follow the Lord - specifically, why can we not agree on 1 Cor. 6:9-11?

I still reject your reasoning on Romans 1. You would have us conclude that homosexuality is wrong just because it is associated with idolatry. Let's follow through with your logic. What about the list of sins in verses 29-31? Are they only wrong because they are associated with idolatry? Now, I don't know about you, but I can clearly see where such reasoning leads.

dra: You have yet to show the authority for "same sex" sexual activit that Colossians 3:17 says you must have.

me: Colossians 3:17 says 'whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.' This verse does not tell me to show authority. It tells me to give thanks to God for whatsoever I do or say. Idolators or image worshippers, as Paul knew them in his day, are contrary to this and contrary to giving thanks to God. Since God knows my heart and intentions and motives and why I credit Him with thankfulness, that's all I need to be concerned about. You have your reasons for opposing homosexuality in all forms. God knows your heart and why you give Him glory, praise, and thanks seeing things as you do as well. He knows us both.

The phrase "in the name of the Lord" expresses the need for the authority of the Lord. We are not required to say "in the name of the Lord" everytime we say or do something, but we are required to have authority for what we say and do. In Matt. 21:23-27 Jesus clearly provides the two sources of authority. Notice the language of Acts 4:7, "By what power or by what name have you done this?" In this context, the Sanhedrin is asking Peter and John who authorized them to be teaching the people.

dra: I direct your attention once again to 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Homosexual activity is condemned in this text,

* "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, not covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

* The same text is tranlated in the NASV: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

* Once again, this same text in the KJV is translated: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

me: How nice of you to present varying translations regarding this verse. I am a king james bible reader, though. Interesting that the NKJV has both 'homosexuals' and 'sodomites' when tradition has taught that a sodomite is a homosexual and vice versa. I disagree with this by the way! The NASV has taken what was translated in the NKJV as 'homosexual' and used 'effeminate' and replaced 'sodomites' with 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. I will atleast agree with the translation of 'sodomite' into 'abusers of themselves with mankind' since my concordance defines 'abusers of themselves with mankind' as a 'sodomite'. According to the KJV, 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind' are used. Here's the link to the study I did some time ago in regards to this verse: http://christianforums.com/t64687. You will find what a 'sodomite' is at that link.

I tried, but could not connect to the web address you gave. For about 15 years I studied solely from the King James version, but have since branched out in the past 14 years to other credible translations. I thought that it might help you to see how separate groups of translators sought to relay the meanings of the various words in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Tell me, what do you think of the other things listed in these verses? Do you seek to justify them also?

dra: Now, let's see what those at Corinth did about these activities: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:11 - NKJV) This verse gives me the distinct impression that the Corithians who received the gospel quit engaging in the previously mentioned "sins." Paul is not encouraging Christians to continue to engage in these sinful activities. Rather, he is clearly pointing out the consequences of such activity. He clearly sounds his warning: "Do not be deceived" in verse 9.

me: I've studied this chapter and my view is that Paul is againt believers going to non believers for advice in their affairs. It is my view that Paul, in verses 9 and 10 of 1Corinthians chapter six, is describing what he believes to be characteristics of those who are non believers. He, in my view, does the same thing in Romans 1. I don't believe Paul to be aware of sexual inversion vs. sexual perversion. Are you? I believe he believed all humans were created heterosexual and that homosexual acts were an indication to him that those engaging in it were, without a doubt, non believers because, as mentioned before, same sex acts were a part of some idolatrous worship practices, which he was aware of, thus his letter to the Romans. If, in Paul's day, same sex acts were known to be associated with pagan idolatry, then it is of no wonder that these acts were symbolic of a denial of God the Creator since pagans indeed did deny God their Creator and they did so via all kinds of acts of sexual worship, including same sex acts. Whether they were married or not, they engaged in them. In today's world, we know more than those who came before us about things that did not exist in Paul's day, like the concept of sexual inversion (ie. orientation).

Look at 1 Cor. 6:8. It seems that you did not grasp this verse when you explained your prior studies in this chapter. The Christians at Corinth were doing wrong and defrauding their brethren. Paul clearly tells them the consequences of unrighteousness actions. Paul lists a wide variety of sinful activities that the Corinthians need to be aware of - - and not deceived into thinking that these activities are acceptable or unnoticed by God (vs. 9-10).

I am not clear exactly what distinction you are trying to make between the terms "sexual inversion" vs. "sexual perversion." I understand that any sexual activity other than between a man and woman that are married to each other is not acceptable in God's eyes. I believe that this is what Paul understood and taught. I don't see the automatic connection that you make between homosexual activity and idolatry. Look closely at 1 Cor. 6:9. Aren't fornication, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, and sodomy all listed separately? Consider fornication? Is fornication only wrong when associated with idolatry, or is fornication wrong just by itself? I'll let you work on this for awhile. I think you know the right answer, but it is very hard for you to accept.

I am not sure what you are alluding to in regard to what we know today. I really hope you are not trying to suggest that God made homosexuals the way that they are.

dra: You present Romans 1 as comdemning idolatry, but not homosexuality. Actually, the process of digression that Paul points out starting in verse 18 condemns many practices - - including idolatry and homosexuality. God has given evidence of Himself since the creation (vs. 18-20). Rather than glorify Him, men have turned away (vs. 21). They professed wisdom - - but became fools (vs. 22). They made idols (vs. 23). Now, let's stop and ask a relevant question at this point, "Is God pleased with this behavior at this point? Are these actions acceptable to God? The answer is NO! (See Acts 17:30.)

me: Have you ever read sources on the issue of pagan idolatrous worship? The gross, sexual conduct that took place was horrendous. Orgies of such mangnitude that would even make today's world blush! Search for yourself on the subject. These idolatrous acts were all outside of the confines of a committed union between two people. Not only was same sex acts involved, but opposite sex acts were also involved. The context was idol worship and, as Paul points out, these people burned in their lusts. Surely, love and lust are not one and the same in foundation or premise! It should also be said that God, as in Leviticus, prohibited ANYTHING that was done in honor and service to foreign gods. No matter if that 'anything' could be considered acceptable to do outside of the context of idolatry, it was still viewed by God as figuratively an idolatrous thing (Leviticus 11:10).

Ps. Sorry for the bold type. Copying and pasting seems to do that. It was not my intention. Means nothing See Part Two below.

No, I have not had the need to read in detail of such activities. I understand that pagans also sacrificed their children during these periods of "worship." I believe that I understand just how low a person will sink when they turn their back to God and everything that has a speck of decency about it from studying the Scriptures.

I also understand from studying the Scriptures how hard it is sometimes to see something that we don't really want to see. Those who do not have a love for truth can be blinded by their desire to pursue whatever has their attention. There is a sense in which the focus of their attention becomes an idol to them. This desire can become so strong within a person that God will send them a "strong delusion" to believe what they desire so strongly to believe (see Col. 3:5 and 2 Thess. 2:10-12).

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

Part Two of my response to DRA:

dra: Now, lets continue looking at Romans 1. God gives these people over to "uncleanness," "lust," and "dishonor" (NKJV - vs. 24). These people worshipped, not the Creator, but the creature (vs. 25). Because of this, God gave them up to "vile passions (NKJV - vs. 26). Their vile passions included women who "exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 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". . . (vs. 26-27). Yes, in this context there is a natural "use" of the woman, just as there is the natural "use" of the man. Going against this natural use is "shameful"! Because they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a "debased" mind (vs. 28). Thus, their minds were filled with "all unrighteousness". . . (vs. 29-31). Those who practice such things also approve of them - - which the righteous judgment of God has said that those who practice such things are "worthy of death." (vs. 32)

me: Uncleanness, in the greek, means physical or moral impurity. This does not necessarily mean sin. It is usually associated with what is or isn't acceptable to a Jew and for a Jew. Lust, I'd say is self explanatory. It is not love! Dishonor means to insult or treat shamefully. No doubt, a context that is similar to or is specifically an orgy is shameful. The vile passions you referred to are, in the greek, passions that are a disgrace, shame (shame means no regard for others, inhumane, unchase, undisciplined, wantoness), infamy. My concordance tells me that the term 'vile' has the meaning that is OPPOSITE of honor, value, respect, nobility, etc. I find it hard to believe that a commited union between two people can be considered anything but honorable, valuable, respectful, and noble. An orgiastic context, on the other hand, I would definitely call vile! Note that Paul is talking about the same group of people in verses 23 and 24 as in verses 18-22. He speaks of idolators specifically in verse 23 because, after professing themselves to be wise, 'they' changed God into a corruptible image (ie. an idol). God to them was an idol and so they began worshipping not God but gods. Following verse 23, verse 24 gets into the uncleanness and lusts that took place by those very same people as spoken of since verse 18. Verse 25 hits back to the subject of image/idol worship via the worship of created things that were made to resemble the created things that God the Creator had created (ie. man, animals, etc.). In verse 26, Paul gets back to the dishonoring of the bodies by going a bit further into what was actually going on. This is where speculation really sets in. Paul doesn't exactly say just what it was that the women were doing to the point that they exchanged (ie. gave up one thing for something else) their natural use for. Determining what Paul means by 'natural' and 'nature' is also another venture to get into. In Strongs, 'natural' is physically instinctive nature. Thus, my view that he believes all humans are naturally physically instinctive or inclined towards the oppposite sex. Again, today we are aware of sexual orientation or inversion. I'd say Paul was not. In Strongs, 'nature' has varying meanings. You can find them here: http://www.christianforums.com/t91124&page=3&highlight=germination. See post #26. Considering Paul's use of nature in 1Corinthians 11:14, I am leaning towards his meaning to mean native disposition (ie. inborn or natural attitude towards things;inborn or natural tendency;inborn or natural inclination). This is Strong's #5449. You will also find in scripture where God is referred to as acting contrary to 'nature' when He grafted the Gentiles with the Jews. If acting against or contrary to 'nature' is a sin, God so acted! That's only if Paul's definition of 'nature' has moral implications.

Lee,

I am responding to your points that I highlighted in orange font, respectively.

Have you not read about Jesus' views of marriage in Matt. 19:3-12? Some people simply do not have a right to remarry. It doesn't matter if they are in a committed relationship or not - - the Lord says that they don't have a right to each other physically. This context relates to the marriage of the husband and wife. Where exactly is the Scriptural context that allows for same sex relationships and/or marriages. I don't believe that I have found it yet. Could you point it out?

It is true that Paul doesn't say exactly what is going on between women in Romans 1:26 that was "against nature." But, he gives us more of an explanation than you may realize. Consider the first word in verse 27 - - "likewise." The points that follow this word tell us that the men left their natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, and men with men committed that which is shameful - - like the women were doing - - that is what is suggested by the word "likewise." So, what is it about this context that you do not understand? Does the text not suggest sexual activity between women and women, and between men and men? And does the text not suggest that this behavior was against nature and shameful? I sense that you find justification in your mind by saying that committed same-sex relationships are not addressed here, just lustful ones. I still haven't found where you find any approval at all for same-sex relationships from the Scriptures. You are assuming the very point that you have to prove (Col. 3:17 & 1 Peter 4:11a). I have no reason to suspect that Paul's understanding of homosexuality was any different than God's (2 Tim. 3:16). In fact, if I really "bought into what you are selling," then all of Paul's writings would be open to question - - we could challenge every single thing that he said on the basis that he was looking at it solely from his own perspective and from a Jewish and first-century culture. Is that what you desire to do? Would you really do that just to attempt to justify homosexuality?

Paul speaks of the grafting of wild olive branches into a good olive tree in Romans 11:17-24. He is using this illustration to show how we might view God bringing Jews and Gentiles together. God is the one who both cuts off the natural limbs, and the one that grafts the wild limbs into the tree. While it is true that God shows he has power over nature here and elsewhere (Matt. 14:25, Mark 4:36-41), that is not justification for anyone to act contrary to nature, as in Rom. 1:26-27! I do not determine by reading these passages that God's actions, although contrary to nature, were sinful. But I do determine by reading Romans 1:26-27 that those actions in that context were against nature and were indeed sinful. I also find that they are not to be tolerated among God's people in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

Part Two of my response to DRA:
dra: I suggest you do just as the Corinthians did in 1 Cor. 6:11. Make such sinful activity a thing of the past.

me: I'm in agreement with you there, but just as some believers considered eating food that was offered to idols a sin while others, like Paul, did not, I don't consider homosexuality in all forms to be a sin.

Lee,

Contrary to what you say, we are not in agreement on 1 Cor. 6:11. This text discusses activities that God views as sinful, and will prohibit one from inheriting the eternal home. You attempt to slide homosexual acts from this category into the discussion of the eating of meats in chapter 8. Tell us, are you willing to slide other sins from 1 Cor. 6:11 into chapter 8's discussion, or is homosexuality really the only sin that you are interested in continuing?

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

Part Two of my response to DRA:

I believe that just because something is inspired by God, it does not automatically render it infallible (ie. incapable of errors). Especially, when the instrument being used is a fallible human. At its source (ie. God), the inspiration is not fallible, but though we are not perfect, God still uses us fallible humans to do His will. If you believe that the bible is infallible and all in it is how God feels via Paul's words, you will have to agree that, as a believer, you should not have an issue with slavery, which Paul did not condemn. Sure, he told the believing slave to take the chance to be free if it arose, but if not, he told them not to worry about it. He did not condemn it, as he was known for condeming all other things he did not condone (ie. adultery, etc.). He could have spoke out against it if he viewed it is wrong, but he did not. Another thing to consider is 1Corinthians 14:35. If you say the bible is infallible and all things in it are without error and it is as if God spoke it, women should, even today, be silent in the churches. If you say this text applies to a particular situation where there was a problem of some sorts of overtalkative women or something, you have already undermined your position on biblical literalism and taking the bible for what it says. Even further, if long hair on a man is a shame to the man, as Paul says, and God does not look on the outward appearance, as 1Samuel 16:7 says, you too have a contradiction to deal with. So, to say that all scripture is inspired of God does not, to me, mean infallibility on the part of the human that was inspired. If that is the case, a preacher or pastor who preaches his inspired sermon would have to be deemed incapable of error in whatever he has preached and it would have to be expected to be taken as gospel by his congregation. That is, if everything an inspired human says is, without a doubt, without any possiblity of error.

Lee,

So, do you share the same understanding of the O.T. scriptures? They had been around about 1500 years when Jesus came on the scene. He frequently quoted from those scriptures i.e. especially the Septuagint translation, where the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. Are you familiar with any errors or mistakes that he corrected from the early writings? If not, why not? Surely, if errors were there, he would have pointed them out so that we would know about them. I don't know of any such things happening. Do you? Rather, I see Jesus' complete confidence in God's ability to preserve His holy word. Consider Matt. 22:32. There, Jesus is emphasizing the tense of the verb "am." Although written about 1500 years prior, Jesus is showing his confidence in the accuracy of the early writings.

You have to read passages like 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:3 and decide if God says that he has given all things to us that are necessary for us to be complete, and if he had given to us all things that pertain unto life and godliness. If not, that means what we have is an incomplete record and that God lied to us. I personally, don't approve of that position.

I study the issues that the Bible addresses such as slavery, women speaking in the assembly of the church, and the length of hair. I don't really see the dilemma that you perceive. It is necessary that I study these issues and understand things from the perspective God wants me to see them. Just because I don't like the conclusion that God draws doesn't mean that I have the right to just dismiss them as being erroneous, biased, unfair, or whatever. Rather, I have to learn to submit my will to His. You portray the Bible as having contradictions; I do not. I believe that when Scripture opposes Scripture, the fault lies in my understanding of one (or both) of the passages that I am studying. For instance, you see a contradiction between 1 Sam. 16:7 & 1 Cor. 11:14-15. You do not seem to understand that this question (in 1 Cor. 11:14) is one that Paul asked because the Corinthians knew the obvious answer (yes - - that is what nature teaches). The correct answer supported his reasoning why women needed to be covered when they prayed and prophesied, and men didn't need to be. I suspect that you see a dilemma because of a misunderstanding of Matt. 15:10-20. Those things that we say or do come from the heart (or mind) of man. Consequently, our speech and actions reveal what is in our heart. That includes our respect for nature in regards to the length of one's hair (1 Cor. 11:14-15), the clothing that one wears (2 Tim. 2:9), and the nature of the sexual partner one chooses (Romans 1:26-27).

I do not put today's Bible teachers (including myself . . . and you) into the same category as those who taught and wrote with God's confirmation that they were speaking the truth (Heb. 2:3-4). We have the completed message of God (James 1:25), therefore, we are admonished to respect it (1 Peter 4:11a).

. . . Denny