Questions Regarding the Creation Story

[- DRA -]

Leecappella: However, Jesus says all (humans) cannot receive his words concerning heterosexual marriage. Verse 12 explains why this is so.

DRA: You have distorted the words of the Lord in Matthew 19. While Jesus was discussing marriage, and the marriage he was discussing is a heterosexual marriage, you seem to be using this terminology to suggest that since Jesus is discussing heterosexual relationships, he is not referring to homosexuals relationships. You have yet to show that a homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.

dra: 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?

Leecappella: Where is the scriptural context that allows for the existence of cats? Where are they referenced in the bible? If they are not specifically mentioned in scripture, does that mean they did not exist? You know that same sex relationships of love are not presented in scripture, thus you can see why I've asked you a similar question. Your answer is?

DRA:The existence of cats is allowed because God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:25). While it is true that God did not specifically mention all of the animals that He created, I conclude by faith that He brought forth cats into existence on the sixth day, with all the other animals.

Have you ever studied Bible authority? Like in Gen. 6, where Noah built the ark. God told him to use gopherwood, so that excluded all other woods. NO oak, pine, cedar, hickory, or whatever other trees would have been in Noah's neck of the woods. What if there were different types of gopherwood . . . say light gopher, and dark gopher? Which one could Noah have used . . . the light? . . . the dark? . . . or either? If that were the case, he could have used either wood and still obeyed God - - as long as he used gopherwood.

You on the other hand want us to ignore that God made Adam and Eve, and want to suggest that Adam and Steve would be an acceptable match. You have absolutely no authority for this - - no specific authority - - and no general authority. You just want it to be this way because you want it to be this way. Have you ever studied the silence of the scriptures? As in Heb. 7:14 & 8:4 and Lev. 10:1-3? The silence of the scriptures doesn't authorize: rather, it prohibits! There is no scripture that says that someone from the tribe of Judah could not be a priest, so does that mean that one could be a priest, or does it mean that one from that tribe could not be a priest? When God speaks and specifies, that excludes other options. So, it is specifically pointed out in the text of Hebrews that Jesus could not be a priest under the law of Moses - - for only the Levites were specified. In the incident of Nabak and Abihu, they got the fire from a different place than where God told them. It seems rather obvious from the text that God was not well pleased with their actions. He had told them where to get the fire, but had not specifically listed all the places they shouldn't get the fire from.

So, what about the creation account leads you to conclude that either Eve or Steve would have been an acceptable mate for Adam? Where do you find God's approval for same-sex sexual activity from the O.T.? Or, from the N.T.? Unless I'm mistaken, you assume that God would be pleased. Or, you hope God is pleased.

In actuality, God communicates His feelings about such activities. Romans 1:24-26 does everything except draw you a picture about what is happening there between women and women, and between men and men. God does not approve of such actions. Likewise, 1 Cor. 6:9 gives us a good enough idea of what is being described that we should refrain from such activities. Jude 7 gives a commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah.

To justify homosexuality, thus far, you have attempted to undermine these New Testament passages, the apostle Paul's writings, and seek justification in the silence of the scriptures. Have you given any more thought to Col. 3:17? It applies!

 

[- DRA -]

dra: 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?

Leecappella: Ambiguous means something is capable of being understood in more than one way. Verse 26 tells us that the women exchanged the natural use for a use that is against nature. Verse 27 begins with 'likewise'. Verse 27 is more detailed in the male's actions than verse 26 is about the female's actions. We do know that both went against nature. The possibility of 'likewise' implying lesbianism took place is something I am open to, but it is not something that I see as the only exclusive conclusion. Just because 'likewise' is a mediating word used between verses 26 and 27 does not mean that since males were with males, then women were 'likewise' with women. Paul could have been referring to some other act or acts. Considering this is an idolatrous context, the females could have engaged in sex with animals, as was the case in some idolatries. Based on what I've read, the possibilities are endless. Especially where orgies and prostitution and debauchery are concerned. Simply put, even heterosexual acts associated with ritualistic rites could be deemed 'against nature'. If I said, "Timmy abruptly turned right and, shortly thereafter, Tommy 'likewise' turned left", what do you learn? You learn that 'likwise' does not always mean that the actions involved were exactly the same. Something was similar, but not exact. This is one way of looking at verses 26 and 27. I would also like to say that based on the definition of 'natural' (ie. Strong's #5446 - physical ie (by implication) instinctive), that Paul's view was that all humans were created naturally instinctive physically towards the opposite sex. The term itself implies this. Ask a homosexual if they are naturally physically instinctive towards women. The answere is likely a 'no'. That makes Paul's view of humanity, as a whole in regards to orientation, untrue. Orientation (ie. inversion) was likely not a concept in bible days. We learn more as time goes by.

DRA: "Likewise" is not an ambiguous term. It is clear what is meant. It is also clear that you just don't want to accept what it means.

So what is your reasoning about the instinct of a homosexual? Are you implying that God is to blame? Why would orientation be any different today than in the first century. It sounds like you are describing a cultural, or learned change.

Once again, you have undermined the teaching of the apostle Paul. I read of the confirmation that God sent to accompany the apostles in Heb. 2:3-4 (including Paul), but I do not see any kind of confirmation that what you are offering is from God.

 

[leecappella]

DRA: You have distorted the words of the Lord in Matthew 19. While Jesus was discussing marriage, and the marriage he was discussing is a heterosexual marriage, you seem to be using this terminology to suggest that since Jesus is discussing heterosexual relationships, he is not referring to homosexuals relationships. You have yet to show that a homosexual relationship is acceptable to God.

me: Nowhere in Matthew 19 is Jesus referring to homosexual relationships. That is, until He begins speaking of eunuchs "so born from their mother's womb". Am I suggesting that homosexuals are possibly a part of a class or group of people that Jesus calls 'eunuchs'? Yes!

DRA:The existence of cats is allowed because God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:25). While it is true that God did not specifically mention all of the animals that He created, I conclude by faith that He brought forth cats into existence on the sixth day, with all the other animals.

me: Much in the same manner, I conclude, by faith, that God, having created all humans, that homosexual oriented persons were a part of that creation as well. The creation story is not a story presented to show us what is the only acceptable union. It is a story presented to show us how things came to be. That includes the presentation that God created male and female (ie. humanity). Homosexuals are a part of humanity. To show how humanity is multiplied, enter Adam and Eve. To say that God didn't create Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve is to imply that homosexuals are not a part of the human race when we are indeed. How else do you think we got here? God also created other aspects of humanity like flatworms, which are created hermaphroditic. He didn't have to, but He did. What of human hermaphrodites? Which gender are they? With whom should they enter into relationship with, a male or female? It makes one wonder if one can define a male or female by the existence of male or female genitalia or lack thereof. What of the creation of hens that are known to have two sets of genitalia and are able to become male chickens once one of their sets has been destroyed? God did this. Is it so difficult or out there to ponder that God also made persons who are relationship oriented towards the same sex? I wonder if Jesus was talking to persons like yourself with his statement at the end of Matthew 19:12. It sure does imply that some people would not be 'able to receive it'!

DRA: You on the other hand want us to ignore that God made Adam and Eve, and want to suggest that Adam and Steve would be an acceptable match.

me: Your words, not mine. I never said anything about ignoring Adam and Eve. The concept of God creating male and female equals the concept of God creating humanity as a whole. Homosexuals are a part of that humanity. I mean, in order to know if other races that are present in the world are acceptable to God, do we have to figure out what race or ethnicity Adam or Eve was to say God made them or if God accepts them or not? This seems to be the logic you are presenting to me by implying that whatever was in the creation story is the universal norm.

DRA: You have absolutely no authority for this - - no specific authority - - and no general authority. You just want it to be this way because you want it to be this way. Have you ever studied the silence of the scriptures? As in Heb. 7:14 & 8:4 and Lev. 10:1-3? The silence of the scriptures doesn't authorize: rather, it prohibits!

me: Surely, you are not saying that just because something is not mentioned (ie. the argument of omission or silence) then that renders it unacceptable! As I said before, cats are not mentioned, but as I am aware of God created all animals. The point of the creation story being to show how things came to be as they are. No direct mention of homosexual relationships either, that you know of, but as I am also aware of, God also created all humans of which homosexuals are a part of. Just like cats are a part of all of the animals created, though not specifically mentioned in creation or in scripture.

DRA: So, what about the creation account leads you to conclude that either Eve or Steve would have been an acceptable mate for Adam? Where do you find God's approval for same-sex sexual activity from the O.T.? Or, from the N.T.? Unless I'm mistaken, you assume that God would be pleased. Or, you hope God is pleased.

me: I think I've explained my view of the creation story and its purpose.

DRA: In actuality, God communicates His feelings about such activities. Romans 1:24-26 does everything except draw you a picture about what is happening there between women and women, and between men and men. God does not approve of such actions. Likewise, 1 Cor. 6:9 gives us a good enough idea of what is being described that we should refrain from such activities. Jude 7 gives a commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah.

me: You have yet to define 'natural' in regards to Romans 1 and the other places in scripture that Paul uses the term. I've posted my view of both Romans and 1Corinthians 6:9. If you consider me to be undermining the passages simply because you don't agree with me, that's your free will to conclude. You don't know my heart and you are not the one whom I am serving.

DRA: Have you given any more thought to Col. 3:17? It applies!

me: Whoever loves experiences God because God is love. Where is the love in Romans 1? And just so you know, I love you although we don't agree. Now, isn't there something to be said about loving someone with agape love with whom you differ? It's so easy to love someone who agrees with you, isn't it?

 

[- DRA -]

dra:The existence of cats is allowed because God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." (Gen. 1:25). While it is true that God did not specifically mention all of the animals that He created, I conclude by faith that He brought forth cats into existence on the sixth day, with all the other animals.

me: Much in the same manner, I conclude, by faith, that God, having created all humans, that homosexual oriented persons were a part of that creation as well. The creation story is not a story presented to show us what is the only acceptable union. It is a story presented to show us how things came to be. That includes the presentation that God created male and female (ie. humanity). Homosexuals are a part of humanity. To show how humanity is multiplied, enter Adam and Eve. To say that God didn't create Adam and Steve, but Adam and Eve is to imply that homosexuals are not a part of the human race when we are indeed. How else do you think we got here? God also created other aspects of humanity like flatworms, which are created hermaphroditic. He didn't have to, but He did. What of human hermaphrodites? Which gender are they? With whom should they enter into relationship with, a male or female? It makes one wonder if one can define a male or female by the existence of male or female genitalia or lack thereof. What of the creation of hens that are known to have two sets of genitalia and are able to become male chickens once one of their sets has been destroyed? God did this. Is it so difficult or out there to ponder that God also made persons who are relationship oriented towards the same sex? I wonder if Jesus was talking to persons like yourself with his statement at the end of Matthew 19:12. It sure does imply that some people would not be 'able to receive it'!

I deny what you affirm. I deny that God created homosexuals any more that he created fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, or extortioners (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The consequences of all of these sins, including homosexuality, is clearly described in these same passages.
All of these actions are sins of choice.

Homosexuality was not a part of the creation story. Obviously, Adam and Eve were not homosexual. The creation of Eve, and the resulting union of the first man and woman is the foundation for the marriage relationship.

I don't have all the answers for folks who may have physical deformities such as you mentioned. This does not influence the element of "nature" that Paul refers to in Romans 1:26. This passage addresses all but the very, very few who may have a physical problem to deal with.

dra: You on the other hand want us to ignore that God made Adam and Eve, and want to suggest that Adam and Steve would be an acceptable match.

me: Your words, not mine. I never said anything about ignoring Adam and Eve. The concept of God creating male and female equals the concept of God creating humanity as a whole. Homosexuals are a part of that humanity. I mean, in order to know if other races that are present in the world are acceptable to God, do we have to figure out what race or ethnicity Adam or Eve was to say God made them or if God accepts them or not? This seems to be the logic you are presenting to me by implying that whatever was in the creation story is the universal norm.

No, we do not have to figure out what race Adam and Eve were. However, I do believe that many people would benefit from accepting and realizing that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve . . . and from Noah and his wife.

We do know that Adam was a male, and that Eve was a female. We do know that God approved of their companionship and physical union. Obviously, homosexuality came upon the scene at some later date. If there is proof that God accepts homosexuality, then you have failed to offer this evidence thus far in our discussions.

dra: You have absolutely no authority for this - - no specific authority - - and no general authority. You just want it to be this way because you want it to be this way. Have you ever studied the silence of the scriptures? As in Heb. 7:14 & 8:4 and Lev. 10:1-3? The silence of the scriptures doesn't authorize: rather, it prohibits!

me: Surely, you are not saying that just because something is not mentioned (ie. the argument of omission or silence) then that renders it unacceptable! As I said before, cats are not mentioned, but as I am aware of God created all animals. The point of the creation story being to show how things came to be as they are. No direct mention of homosexual relationships either, that you know of, but as I am also aware of, God also created all humans of which homosexuals are a part of. Just like cats are a part of all of the animals created, though not specifically mentioned in creation or in scripture.

What I am suggesting to you is that other than wishful thinking, you do not know that God accepts homosexuality. If the Bible contains any language that suggests in any way, shape, or form that God approves a homosexual relationship, where is it? We can show from the creation story, Jesus' teaching (Matt. 19), and Paul's teaching (1 Cor. 7) that God approves of a sexual relationship in marrriage between a man and a woman. The silence of the scriptures on God's approval of homosexual relationship does NOT show God's approval of such a practice, it condemns it.

Actually, the silence of the scriptures is not even relevant to homosexuality. God spoke about these matters i.e. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. Now, what makes you think that God approves of the homosexual relationship?

dra: So, what about the creation account leads you to conclude that either Eve or Steve would have been an acceptable mate for Adam? Where do you find God's approval for same-sex sexual activity from the O.T.? Or, from the N.T.? Unless I'm mistaken, you assume that God would be pleased. Or, you hope God is pleased.

me: I think I've explained my view of the creation story and its purpose.

The answer you gave is not what God demands in Col. 3:17. You need to show how you know that such a thing is meeting God's approval.

DRA: In actuality, God communicates His feelings about such activities. Romans 1:24-26 does everything except draw you a picture about what is happening there between women and women, and between men and men. God does not approve of such actions. Likewise, 1 Cor. 6:9 gives us a good enough idea of what is being described that we should refrain from such activities. Jude 7 gives a commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah.

me: You have yet to define 'natural' in regards to Romans 1 and the other places in scripture that Paul uses the term. I've posted my view of both Romans and 1Corinthians 6:9. If you consider me to be undermining the passages simply because you don't agree with me, that's your free will to conclude. You don't know my heart and you are not the one whom I am serving.

My definition is no different than what I've seen you offer. You just don't want to accept what the word means. Throughout our study, you have made several attempts to undermine Paul's teaching and avoid the obvious conclusions that Rom. 1:26-27 & 1 Cor. 6:9-11 give. Homosexuality needs to stop if one wants to please God.

DRA: Have you given any more thought to Col. 3:17? It applies!

me: Whoever loves experiences God because God is love. Where is the love in Romans 1? And just so you know, I love you although we don't agree. Now, isn't there something to be said about loving someone with agape love with whom you differ? It's so easy to love someone who agrees with you, isn't it?

There are two sides to God (Rom. 11:22). God clearly expects people to know and obey Him (2 Thess. 1:8). Obeying God does not include disobeying Him!

I have spent several hours discussing this issue with you. Why do you think I have done this? I have done it because I am very concerned for your spiritual well-being, and have absolutely no reason to believe that if you remain in your present condition that you will be accepted by God in the day of judgment. I desire a better outcome for you than the course you are on. Therefore, I labor to show you a way that is pleasing to God. I regret that I not able to be more persuasive.

 

[leecappella]

DRA: I deny what you affirm.

me: That's alright. I am not sharing my views with the hopes of you agreeing with me.

dra: I deny that God created homosexuals any more that he created fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, or extortioners (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The consequences of all of these sins, including homosexuality, is clearly described in these same passages.

me: I don't have 'homosexuals' in my 1Corinthians 6:9 text.

dra: All of these actions are sins of choice.

me: Sexual orientation, including your own, is not an act of choice. Atleast, not in the act of choosing the orientation itself.

dra: Homosexuality was not a part of the creation story. Obviously, Adam and Eve were not homosexual. The creation of Eve, and the resulting union of the first man and woman is the foundation for the marriage relationship.

me: I've already shared my view of the purpose of the creation story.

dra: No, we do not have to figure out what race Adam and Eve were.

me: Your logic seems to suggest that we do. If you insist on saying whatever was in the creation story is what should be, then we need to know all aspects of what was in that story, including race, etc. and not just what genders were there (ie male and female).

dra: However, I do believe that many people would benefit from accepting and realizing that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve . . . and from Noah and his wife.

me: I believe this as well.

dra: We do know that Adam was a male, and that Eve was a female. We do know that God approved of their companionship and physical union. Obviously, homosexuality came upon the scene at some later date. If there is proof that God accepts homosexuality, then you have failed to offer this evidence thus far in our discussions.

me: We also know that what you see as the purpose of the creation story is not the same as my view of its purpose. Our conclusions differ likely due to this difference in view. Obviously, homosexuality came at a later date if one's view is like your view. If God condemns homosexual relationships in the context of love as likened unto their heterosexual counterparts, you have failed to offer evidence thus far as well.

dra: What I am suggesting to you is that other than wishful thinking, you do not know that God accepts homosexuality.

me: You only think God condemns all contexts of homosexuality based upon your personal view of particular texts that deal with same sex acts. Your view is not the only way to see these texts. Everything that you put into your study of the bible results in your personal view. You may see it as God's view, but it is your view of God's view as you see it. It is God's view to you because it sits well with you and it makes sense to you. However, you are not me and vice versa.

dra: If the Bible contains any language that suggests in any way, shape, or form that God approves a homosexual relationship, where is it?

me: This is the cat discussion all over again!

dra: We can show from the creation story, Jesus' teaching (Matt. 19), and Paul's teaching (1 Cor. 7) that God approves of a sexual relationship in marrriage between a man and a woman.

me: If 'we' share your view from top to bottom and word for word, you are correct, Denny. Meow! Meow! I keep hearing cats, but I don't see them mentioned anywhere in scripture! There are many things that exist in our world today that were not present in the world before us. If you believe that you should be able to go to the bible for every single issue in life and find a reference to it specifically as you are asking me to present to you, you will be disappointed.

dra: The silence of the scriptures on God's approval of homosexual relationship does NOT show God's approval of such a practice, it condemns it. Actually, the silence of the scriptures is not even relevant to homosexuality. God spoke about these matters i.e. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. Now, what makes you think that God approves of the homosexual relationship?

me: I do believe that I have already referenced Leviticus 18:22 and what I believe this is in context of. Even further, OT law has been nailed to the cross. If you reference it and expect others to live by it, I will assume you live by it as well. It meaning all of it and not some of it. ?There is no keeping some and discarding some.

dra: The answer you gave is not what God demands in Col. 3:17. You need to show how you know that such a thing is meeting God's approval.

me: God's approval can be found in Galatians 5:22-23. A heart that seeks after God and has received the gift of grace provided via Christ's death is accepted. I have not ruled out Christ or His death. For some reason, you seem to imply that I have viewed it as frivolous.

dra: My definition is no different than what I've seen you offer. You just don't want to accept what the word means.

me: You say that, but you have yet to define it specifically for me in your words. I want to see it typed out as you understand it in both Romans 1 and in 1Corinthians 11:14.

dra: Throughout our study, you have made several attempts to undermine Paul's teaching and avoid the obvious conclusions that Rom. 1:26-27 & 1 Cor. 6:9-11 give.

me: Obvious? Take a poll and see if 100% of the results agree with you.

dra: There are two sides to God (Rom. 11:22). God clearly expects people to know and obey Him (2 Thess. 1:8). Obeying God does not include disobeying Him!

me: This text is in reference to those who do not seek God and who do not obey the gospel, which is the good news. The good news that God loves us so much that He gave His only Son to die for our sins in our place, which is His gift of grace to us. There is nothing else we can do in order to gain God's acceptance. It has been done for us already. We would only be adding to God's gift of grace if we said there was something we can do to obtain God's acceptance. I do not deny or disobey the gospel. It seems I only disobey your version of what the bible says. The two are not the same. 'Obey' in the verse you gave me means 'to listen to attentively', 'to heed', and 'conform'. This is in context of the good news or the gospel. If one does 'obey' the gospel, one would want to seek God and get to know Him. 2Thessalonians 1:8 states that vengeance is for those who do not wish to get to know God via the open door He has provided via Christ's death. Christ reconciled us to God. That is what 'mediator' means. It does not mean that everyone should be a christian in order to get to heaven. It means that we can have relationship with God because He came down to earth to open the door to that relationship by dying in our place. Accepting that gift of grace because of Christ's death and seeking God because of it is what God wants. It's all for bringing us back to God, not back to Christ, to God because of what Christ has done. To refuse to know God is to refuse the gospel, which is to reconcile us to God. That is the good news. You don't have to worship Jesus, you have to understand that He is the one that paved the way to reconciliation. The focus, however, is God. It all points back to God.

dra: I have spent several hours discussing this issue with you. Why do you think I have done this? I have done it because I am very concerned for your spiritual well-being, and have absolutely no reason to believe that if you remain in your present condition that you will be accepted by God in the day of judgment. I desire a better outcome for you than the course you are on. Therefore, I labor to show you a way that is pleasing to God. I regret that I not able to be more persuasive.

me: I appreciate your intentions. They are well taken. Just as long as you are not trying to get me to see things the 'denny way'! Don't assume that your way of seeing things is 'the' way. You are open to being wrong just as much as the rest of us, are you not? Plant your seeds and let God be God. I will do the same. It is not your nor my job to convice, but to plant. I am persuaded that nothing is unclean in and of itself, but to the man who thinks it is unclean, it is unclean.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA: I deny what you affirm.

me: That's alright. I am not sharing my views with the hopes of you agreeing with me.

dra: I deny that God created homosexuals any more that he created fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, or extortioners (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The consequences of all of these sins, including homosexuality, is clearly described in these same passages.

me: I don't have 'homosexuals' in my 1Corinthians 6:9 text.

Homosexuals and sodomites are words that appear in 1 Cor. 6:9 in the NKJV.
What makes you think that the translators used the wrong words?

dra: All of these actions are sins of choice.

me: Sexual orientation, including your own, is not an act of choice. Atleast, not in the act of choosing the orientation itself.

dra: Homosexuality was not a part of the creation story. Obviously, Adam and Eve were not homosexual. The creation of Eve, and the resulting union of the first man and woman is the foundation for the marriage relationship.

me: I've already shared my view of the purpose of the creation story.

God says that women with women is "against nature" in Romans 1:26. Did God make them that way and then comdemn them for fulfilling the desires that He placed in them? Is that your defense for homosexuality?

dra: No, we do not have to figure out what race Adam and Eve were.

me: Your logic seems to suggest that we do. If you insist on saying whatever was in the creation story is what should be, then we need to know all aspects of what was in that story, including race, etc. and not just what genders were there (ie male and female).

We know for dead certain sure what gender Adam and Eve were. I didn't even realize this was an issue. What you need to show is how you figure that Adam and Steve would have been an acceptable match in the account of creation. You have not done that.

Jesus, not me, alludes to the creation story as the basis for marriage (Matt. 19:3-6).

dra: We do know that Adam was a male, and that Eve was a female. We do know that God approved of their companionship and physical union. Obviously, homosexuality came upon the scene at some later date. If there is proof that God accepts homosexuality, then you have failed to offer this evidence thus far in our discussions.

me: We also know that what you see as the purpose of the creation story is not the same as my view of its purpose. Our conclusions differ likely due to this difference in view. Obviously, homosexuality came at a later date if one's view is like your view. If God condemns homosexual relationships in the context of love as likened unto their heterosexual counterparts, you have failed to offer evidence thus far as well.

I don't see where you have any option but to concede that homosexuality came at a later time than the creation story. Since there NO other men and women around, it has to be that Adam and Eve "knew" only each other. Do you see any other options for them at that point?

You suggest that love makes the homosexual relationship okay. Where did you get this idea? According to Col. 3:17, the burden of proof is your responsibility.

dra: What I am suggesting to you is that other than wishful thinking, you do not know that God accepts homosexuality.

me: You only think God condemns all contexts of homosexuality based upon your personal view of particular texts that deal with same sex acts. Your view is not the only way to see these texts. Everything that you put into your study of the bible results in your personal view. You may see it as God's view, but it is your view of God's view as you see it. It is God's view to you because it sits well with you and it makes sense to you. However, you are not me and vice versa.

It sounds like you are promoting the idea that everybody is entitled to their own interpretation. Evidently, you think God accepts some form of homosexuality. Okay, show me exactly how you determine this from scripture. Maybe I've missed something. Show me what I've missed.

dra: If the Bible contains any language that suggests in any way, shape, or form that God approves a homosexual relationship, where is it?

me: This is the cat discussion all over again!

Is this it? This is your reasoning? This is your justification? Homosexuals are here, therefore, God approves of them, right? Read your newspaper or listen to the news. Pedophiles are here, also. Therefore, God approves of them, right? And there are wife-beaters, child abusers, and people guilty of all kinds of ungodly behavior, right? So, because they are here, God approves of their behavior, right? WRONG!!!! THIS REASONING IS VERY WRONG!!!!

dra: We can show from the creation story, Jesus' teaching (Matt. 19), and Paul's teaching (1 Cor. 7) that God approves of a sexual relationship in marrriage between a man and a woman.

me: If 'we' share your view from top to bottom and word for word, you are correct, Denny. Meow! Meow! I keep hearing cats, but I don't see them mentioned anywhere in scripture! There are many things that exist in our world today that were not present in the world before us. If you believe that you should be able to go to the bible for every single issue in life and find a reference to it specifically as you are asking me to present to you, you will be disappointed.

Is this it? Is this the only basis you have to justify in your mind your "catting" around?

dra: The silence of the scriptures on God's approval of homosexual relationship does NOT show God's approval of such a practice, it condemns it. Actually, the silence of the scriptures is not even relevant to homosexuality. God spoke about these matters i.e. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. Now, what makes you think that God approves of the homosexual relationship?

me: I do believe that I have already referenced Leviticus 18:22 and what I believe this is in context of. Even further, OT law has been nailed to the cross. If you reference it and expect others to live by it, I will assume you live by it as well. It meaning all of it and not some of it. ?There is no keeping some and discarding some.

While don't you run Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 by me once again. I don't recall you discussing it. Maybe I just missed it.

I agree. The O.T. law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So, what makes you think that God approves of homosexual behavior under the law of Christ. I learn (Rom. 15:4) that he didn't in the O.T., and I can find NO EVIDENCE to even remotely suggest that He approves of it today.

dra: The answer you gave is not what God demands in Col. 3:17. You need to show how you know that such a thing is meeting God's approval.

me: God's approval can be found in Galatians 5:22-23. A heart that seeks after God and has received the gift of grace provided via Christ's death is accepted. I have not ruled out Christ or His death. For some reason, you seem to imply that I have viewed it as frivolous.

Do you think that you might just be reading a few things into Gal. 5:22-23? For instance, how do you see in this verse that one that pleases God and has such a pure heart and seeks God so diligently, but yet keeps practicing sexual activity that has not been shown to be acceptable to Him? I can't find this scenario there at all. I think you are reading this into the verse.

 

[- DRA -]

dra: My definition is no different than what I've seen you offer. You just don't want to accept what the word means.

me: You say that, but you have yet to define it specifically for me in your words. I want to see it typed out as you understand it in both Romans 1 and in 1Corinthians 11:14.

The word "nature" that appears in Rom. 1:26 & 1 Cor. 11:14 is the Greek word "phusis." It is one of three forms of the Greek word "phuo" that appear in the N.T. The other forms are "phusin" and "phusikos," and are translated natural. Here are the places where the words appear:

phusis - translated nature
Romans 1:26; 2:14,27; 11:24(2x)
1 Cor. 11:14
Gal. 2:15; 4:8
Eph. 2:3
2 Peter 1:4

phusin - translated natural
Rom. 11:21,24

phusikos - translated natural
Rom. 1:26,27
2 Pet. 2:12
Jude 10

Here is the way I define the word "nature" or "natural" as it appears in the KJV passages:
Rom. 1:26; 2:14; 1 Cor. 11:14; 1 Pet. 1:4 - nature - that which is inborn, or instinctive
Rom. 2:27; 11:24(2x); Gal. 4:8 - nature - the way God made it
Gal. 2:15; Eph. 2:3 - nature - born that way
Rom. 11:21,24 - natural - ones that God made
Rom. 1:26,27; Jude 10 - natural - that which is inborn, or instinctive
2 Pet. 2:12 - natural - the way God made them

I use the an overall view of how the forms of the Greek word "phusis" are used to determine an overall meaning. When I apply that meaning to Rom. 1:26,27, I have no problem understanding what women were doing with women that was against "nature," nor do I have a problem understanding what men were doing with men when they left the "natural" use of the woman. It is clearly homosexual sexual acts that God is disapproving of in this passage of Scripture.

dra: Throughout our study, you have made several attempts to undermine Paul's teaching and avoid the obvious conclusions that Rom. 1:26-27 & 1 Cor. 6:9-11 give.

me: Obvious? Take a poll and see if 100% of the results agree with you.

I don't have to take a poll. Your posts are there that portray Paul as one who wrote by his own opinions and first century culture, and some of what he wrote contradicts other passages of Scripture. Do you seek the approval of men, or of God? He clearly sees what you are doing in your attempts to justify your chosen lifestyle (Heb. 4:13).

dra: There are two sides to God (Rom. 11:22). God clearly expects people to know and obey Him (2 Thess. 1:8). Obeying God does not include disobeying Him!

me: This text is in reference to those who do not seek God and who do not obey the gospel, which is the good news. The good news that God loves us so much that He gave His only Son to die for our sins in our place, which is His gift of grace to us. There is nothing else we can do in order to gain God's acceptance. It has been done for us already. We would only be adding to God's gift of grace if we said there was something we can do to obtain God's acceptance. I do not deny or disobey the gospel. It seems I only disobey your version of what the bible says. The two are not the same. 'Obey' in the verse you gave me means 'to listen to attentively', 'to heed', and 'conform'. This is in context of the good news or the gospel. If one does 'obey' the gospel, one would want to seek God and get to know Him. 2Thessalonians 1:8 states that vengeance is for those who do not wish to get to know God via the open door He has provided via Christ's death. Christ reconciled us to God. That is what 'mediator' means. It does not mean that everyone should be a christian in order to get to heaven. It means that we can have relationship with God because He came down to earth to open the door to that relationship by dying in our place. Accepting that gift of grace because of Christ's death and seeking God because of it is what God wants. It's all for bringing us back to God, not back to Christ, to God because of what Christ has done. To refuse to know God is to refuse the gospel, which is to reconcile us to God. That is the good news. You don't have to worship Jesus, you have to understand that He is the one that paved the way to reconciliation. The focus, however, is God. It all points back to God.

God had extended His grace to all (Titus 2:11), but all will not be saved (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23). Therefore, there is more involved in man's salvation than just grace. We must obey the Lord (Heb. 5:9). We must obey ALL his commands (Luke 17:10). Paul warns of those things which must be avoided (Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 6). If you would like to discuss the requirements for salvation, then why not join in the discussions about the necessity of baptism or being in Christ that are also within the Liberal Theology section?

dra: I have spent several hours discussing this issue with you. Why do you think I have done this? I have done it because I am very concerned for your spiritual well-being, and have absolutely no reason to believe that if you remain in your present condition that you will be accepted by God in the day of judgment. I desire a better outcome for you than the course you are on. Therefore, I labor to show you a way that is pleasing to God. I regret that I not able to be more persuasive.

me: I appreciate your intentions. They are well taken. Just as long as you are not trying to get me to see things the 'denny way'! Don't assume that your way of seeing things is 'the' way. You are open to being wrong just as much as the rest of us, are you not? Plant your seeds and let God be God. I will do the same. It is not your nor my job to convice, but to plant. I am persuaded that nothing is unclean in and of itself, but to the man who thinks it is unclean, it is unclean.

I am not laboring to convert anyone to my way of thinking. If the reasoning I propose is wrong, then reject it. But if you find that it is indeed in harmony with the word of God, then give God the glory and do that which is necessary to please God. I deserve no credit, but labor simply because God has been more gracious to me than I deserve.

Yes, I am open to being wrong. Passages such as 1 Cor. 10:12 and 2 Thess. 2:10-12 are there to help keep us all humble and focused on doing God's will - - and not OUR own.

The last sentence of your last paragraph is worthy of comment. Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8 deal with the principle you are thinking about. Your statement is only true if viewed in the context of those things that God is INDIFFERENT about i.e. eating meat vs. vegetables only, the esteeming of one day above another, eating meats sacrificed to idols, etc. God is NOT indifferent on some things - - Rom 1, 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 5:19-21.

 

[leecappella]

Homosexuals and sodomites are words that appear in 1 Cor. 6:9 in the NKJV.
What makes you think that the translators used the wrong words?



God says that women with women is "against nature" in Romans 1:26. Did God make them that way and then comdemn them for fulfilling the desires that He placed in them? Is that your defense for homosexuality?



We know for dead certain sure what gender Adam and Eve were. I didn't even realize this was an issue. What you need to show is how you figure that Adam and Steve would have been an acceptable match in the account of creation. You have not done that.

Jesus, not me, alludes to the creation story as the basis for marriage (Matt. 19:3-6).



I don't see where you have any option but to concede that homosexuality came at a later time than the creation story. Since there NO other men and women around, it has to be that Adam and Eve "knew" only each other. Do you see any other options for them at that point?

You suggest that love makes the homosexual relationship okay. Where did you get this idea? According to Col. 3:17, the burden of proof is your responsibility.



It sounds like you are promoting the idea that everybody is entitled to their own interpretation. Evidently, you think God accepts some form of homosexuality. Okay, show me exactly how you determine this from scripture. Maybe I've missed something. Show me what I've missed.



Is this it? This is your reasoning? This is your justification? Homosexuals are here, therefore, God approves of them, right? Read your newspaper or listen to the news. Pedophiles are here, also. Therefore, God approves of them, right? And there are wife-beaters, child abusers, and people guilty of all kinds of ungodly behavior, right? So, because they are here, God approves of their behavior, right? WRONG!!!! THIS REASONING IS VERY WRONG!!!!



Is this it? Is this the only basis you have to justify in your mind your "catting" around?



While don't you run Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 by me once again. I don't recall you discussing it. Maybe I just missed it.

I agree. The O.T. law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So, what makes you think that God approves of homosexual behavior under the law of Christ. I learn (Rom. 15:4) that he didn't in the O.T., and I can find NO EVIDENCE to even remotely suggest that He approves of it today.



Do you think that you might just be reading a few things into Gal. 5:22-23? For instance, how do you see in this verse that one that pleases God and has such a pure heart and seeks God so diligently, but yet keeps practicing sexual activity that has not been shown to be acceptable to Him? I can't find this scenario there at all. I think you are reading this into the verse.

dra: Homosexuals and sodomites are words that appear in 1 Cor. 6:9 in the NKJV. What makes you think that the translators used the wrong words?

me: Compare other bible translations where this text is concerned. You may see my point. Have you ever heard a homosexual be referred to as a sodomite?



dra: God says that women with women is "against nature" in Romans 1:26. Did God make them that way and then comdemn them for fulfilling the desires that He placed in them? Is that your defense for homosexuality?

me: First, you assume that lesbianism took place. You can't know that unless you were there, so you can only speculate because of the term 'likewise', but we've been through that already. You've come to the table with your mind set on God being opposed to homosexual relationships of any kind, so ofcourse this makes no sense to you.



dra: We know for dead certain sure what gender Adam and Eve were.

me: Do we know for dead certain sure what specific gender the first 'man' was? That's Strong's #120 (man/human) prior to becoming 'man' (Strong's #376)? The meaning of these two words differ.

dra: I didn't even realize this was an issue. What you need to show is how you figure that Adam and Steve would have been an acceptable match in the account of creation. You have not done that.

me: I do not need to show how they would have been an acceptable match. The purpose of the creation story was not to show who would be the acceptable match. I've already given my views on the creation story's purpose.

dra: Jesus, not me, alludes to the creation story as the basis for marriage (Matt. 19:3-6).

me: Jesus alluded to the creation story to answer a question that related to those who asked it. Although it was asked with evil intentions, the question was about divorce, not if two same gendered persons can marry. I doubt that there was any confusion about whether or not God had made males or females, but Jesus references the words indicating that God did indeed make them male and female. Why? Because, as I see it, he was directing the Pharisees' mental thoughts to something that they were knowledgeable of: the scriptures. Jesus' point was not to focus on the fact that God had made them male and female, but to inform the Pharisees of the oneness of marriage. Paraphrasing, Jesus says, "You know where it says that God made them male and female and that if a man leaves home and goes out on his own and decides to marry a wife, they will be one flesh and not two?" Jesus is wanting the Pharisees to focus on the oneness of the marriage union. God created the first 'human' (Strong's #120), caused a deep sleep to come over the human (#120), and then formed the female out of the human. Hence, they were previously one. After the deep sleep, they were two. When they marry, they become one again. Since God is the Creator of ALL humanity, which consists of males and females, when two humans marry, they are figuratively 'one', which was the original state of the first human (#120) before becoming #376. The point of Jesus was that two become one and should remain such.



dra: I don't see where you have any option but to concede that homosexuality came at a later time than the creation story. Since there NO other men and women around, it has to be that Adam and Eve "knew" only each other. Do you see any other options for them at that point?

me: Adam and Eve had to be present to fulfill the purpose of the creation story of which I have, once again, already shared with you. IMO, that is.

dra: You suggest that love makes the homosexual relationship okay. Where did you get this idea? According to Col. 3:17, the burden of proof is your responsibility.

me: Faith is my proof. God knows what my faith is even if I cannot articulate it as I would like to. Which faith is stronger? A faith that has physical proof or a faith that has no seen proof? Scripture condemns same sex acts. I'd say we are in agreement there. However, each and every same sex act presented in scripture is, to you, a condmenation of same sex acts in general, no matter the context. I do not see it that way. It has nothing to do withe whether I am gay or whether I am not gay. There are many people who are NOT gay who will not agree with you on this issue.



dra: It sounds like you are promoting the idea that everybody is entitled to their own interpretation. Evidently, you think God accepts some form of homosexuality. Okay, show me exactly how you determine this from scripture. Maybe I've missed something. Show me what I've missed.

me: When you open your bible and read it and come to the conclusions that you do, you are establishing your own interpretation. Everyone does this. People's views of the bible may differ and that is probably why one person accuses another of using the bible for their own selfish means: because they do not agree. When I was in school, in english class we would read poems from our english book by featured poets that were talked about in the book. There would be a poem or two there and some historical facts about the poet and his or her poetry. Sometimes we would be asked to read a poem and share our view of what the poem was saying to us. We were asked to share what we thought the meaning of the poem was. There would be different interpretations of that one poem shared throughout the class. Why is that? Eventually, we would discover the story behind the poem, according to the poet that is. What some of us had thought the poem was saying was actually nothing compared to the author's intent when writing the poem. I cannot explain as to why people see things differently, but we just do. Some are in denial, yes. Some are just ignorant, and some simply believe what they believe and have reasons for doing so. Some can explain their belief in words and some are not as eloquent and articulate as others when doing so, but their inability to explain themselves so that someone can understand does not nor should not render their belief invalid.



dra: Is this it? This is your reasoning? This is your justification? Homosexuals are here, therefore, God approves of them, right? Read your newspaper or listen to the news. Pedophiles are here, also. Therefore, God approves of them, right? And there are wife-beaters, child abusers, and people guilty of all kinds of ungodly behavior, right? So, because they are here, God approves of their behavior, right? WRONG!!!! THIS REASONING IS VERY WRONG!!!!

me: This is not my reasoning. This is my reaction in response to your reasoning...Two adults who understand all aspects of what a relationship is and means and who have committed to one another in union are not to be compared with pedophiles, wife beaters, child abusers, etc.

dra: Is this it? Is this the only basis you have to justify in your mind your "catting" around?

me: My "catting around" is only in response to your 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' cliched statement. I find it to be a fitting analogy. No Adam and Steve in the creation story, but an Adam and Eve, so, therefore, male and female unions are acceptable to God. This is your reasoning. I merely responed in like manner with no cats in the creation story or in scripture and, therefore, since cats are not mentioned specifically in scripture (like you are seemingly expecting same sex relationships to be mentioned in scripture), then their existence or being is somehow not validated or supported by scripture. I simply gave an example of your reasoning.



dra: While don't you run Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 by me once again. I don't recall you discussing it. Maybe I just missed it.

me: Our discussions have been pretty much in this thread. If you search, you should find what I've posted. I'm not a fan of repetitiously typing what I've already typed before, especially for the person I have been focusing my conversations with.

dra: I agree. The O.T. law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So, what makes you think that God approves of homosexual behavior under the law of Christ. I learn (Rom. 15:4) that he didn't in the O.T., and I can find NO EVIDENCE to even remotely suggest that He approves of it today.

me: There is no doubt that we can learn from what was written aforetime. Part of that learning is taking into account the contexts of which the biblical authors were in and what they were referring to in any given text as it related to their culture. A text without a context is a pretext. Marriage is honorable in all. Marriage, as defined in the greek, is not 'a union between a man and a woman'. It is simply 'nuptials'. No prerequisite for who can partake. Matthew 19:12 is a positive verse on God's awareness of his gay and lesbian children.



dra: Do you think that you might just be reading a few things into Gal. 5:22-23? For instance, how do you see in this verse that one that pleases God and has such a pure heart and seeks God so diligently, but yet keeps practicing sexual activity that has not been shown to be acceptable to Him, to be pleasing to God? I can't find this scenario there at all. I think you are reading this into the verse.

me: I think you fail to see the reason why same sex acts were prohibited in the old testatment.

 

[- DRA -]

dra: Homosexuals and sodomites are words that appear in 1 Cor. 6:9 in the NKJV. What makes you think that the translators used the wrong words?

me: Compare other bible translations where this text is concerned. You may see my point. Have you ever heard a homosexual be referred to as a sodomite?

1 Cor. 6:9 in various translations:

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."

ASV - "Or 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 men"

KJV - "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."

NLT - "Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals."

NRSV - "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites"

RSV - "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts."

GNT - "Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts."

Okay, here various tranlations. I think I have a pretty good idea what the various translators mean in 1 Cor. 6:9. Yes, it seems that homosexuals are sometimes referred to as Sodomites. Do you need three guesses to determine where that name originated? As I look at the overall view of these various translators, I don't see where the NKJV translators gave a different impression of these words any more that any of the other translators, do you?

 

[- DRA -]

dra: God says that women with women is "against nature" in Romans 1:26. Did God make them that way and then comdemn them for fulfilling the desires that He placed in them? Is that your defense for homosexuality?

me: First, you assume that lesbianism took place. You can't know that unless you were there, so you can only speculate because of the term 'likewise', but we've been through that already. You've come to the table with your mind set on God being opposed to homosexual relationships of any kind, so ofcourse this makes no sense to you.

The text of Romans 1:26-27 says, "women exchanged their natural use for what is against nature. Likewise (just as the women) also the men, leaving their natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, committing what is shameful" . . . (NKJV). I didn't have to be there. God does everything except draw us a picture to describe what was going on. The passage makes good sense to me. It should make sense to you. Why doesn't it? What part of it do you not see?

If I look at the passage through biased eyes as you describe, then show me where I get off track. While you charge me with assuming lesbian activities are being described in verse 26, I don't recall you offering any other options. What activities do you think the Scripture is describing in verses 26 & 27?

 

[- DRA -]

dra: We know for dead certain sure what gender Adam and Eve were.

me: Do we know for dead certain sure what specific gender the first 'man' was? That's Strong's #120 (man/human) prior to becoming 'man' (Strong's #376)? The meaning of these two words differ.

Yes, we do know know what gender the first "man" was. I checked both Strong's Lexicon and Young's Analytical Concordance. Young's defines the Hebrew word for "man" (transliterated adam) that appears in Gen. 1:26,27 and 2:5,7(2x),8,15,16,18,22(2x), & 25 as a man, a human being. Strongs defines "adam" (#120 - noun masculine) as
man, mankind
a.) man, human being
b.) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c.) Adam, first man
d.) city in Jordan valley
A different Hebrew word for "man" also appears in the creation story. The word "ish" or "iysh" appears in Gen. 2:23,24. Young's defines it as a man, husband, individual. Strong's defines it (#376 - noun masculine) as
1.) man
a.) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
b.) husband
c.) human being, person (in contrast to God)
d.) servant
e.) mankind
f.) champion
g.) great man
2.) whosoever
3.) each (adjective)

Evidently, I do not see what you see in the meanings of these words. What makes you think that Adam was not a "man" (adam)? And, what makes you think that Adam was not a husband (ish or iysh)? I think it is clear that Adam was a man - - a man who married a woman. That should not be hard to determine from the text or a study of the Hebrew words?

 

[- DRA -]

dra: Jesus, not me, alludes to the creation story as the basis for marriage (Matt. 19:3-6).

me: Jesus alluded to the creation story to answer a question that related to those who asked it. Although it was asked with evil intentions, the question was about divorce, not if two same gendered persons can marry. I doubt that there was any confusion about whether or not God had made males or females, but Jesus references the words indicating that God did indeed make them male and female. Why? Because, as I see it, he was directing the Pharisees' mental thoughts to something that they were knowledgeable of: the scriptures. Jesus' point was not to focus on the fact that God had made them male and female, but to inform the Pharisees of the oneness of marriage. Paraphrasing, Jesus says, "You know where it says that God made them male and female and that if a man leaves home and goes out on his own and decides to marry a wife, they will be one flesh and not two?" Jesus is wanting the Pharisees to focus on the oneness of the marriage union. God created the first 'human' (Strong's #120), caused a deep sleep to come over the human (#120), and then formed the female out of the human. Hence, they were previously one. After the deep sleep, they were two. When they marry, they become one again. Since God is the Creator of ALL humanity, which consists of males and females, when two humans marry, they are figuratively 'one', which was the original state of the first human (#120) before becoming #376. The point of Jesus was that two become one and should remain such.

Jesus referred to Gen. 2:24 in Matt. 19:5 as he taught about marriage and divorce. Did you happen to notice the wording of Matt. 19:4, "He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' - - which refers to Gen. 1:27c? These passages should end any confusion you have about the gender of the first man and the first woman - - Moses recorded the creation story, and Jesus quoted it. In earlier comments, you threw out Strong's #120 and #376 as evidence that it was unclear what gender the first man was.

You have given a good explanation of Jesus' teachings on marriage and divorce in Matt. 19. However, you do attempt to downplay the significance of Jesus' mention of Gen. 1:27c. Jesus mentioned that verse because it is a factor in the first marriage - - the male and female married and became "one flesh." Where do you find Scriptural evidence for a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) becoming "one flesh" and having God's approval? You won't find it in Rom. 1:26-27, because that is exactly what is being described there and God declares it to be "shameful."

 

[- DRA -]

dra: You suggest that love makes the homosexual relationship okay. Where did you get this idea? According to Col. 3:17, the burden of proof is your responsibility.

me: Faith is my proof. God knows what my faith is even if I cannot articulate it as I would like to. Which faith is stronger? A faith that has physical proof or a faith that has no seen proof? Scripture condemns same sex acts. I'd say we are in agreement there. However, each and every same sex act presented in scripture is, to you, a condmenation of same sex acts in general, no matter the context. I do not see it that way. It has nothing to do withe whether I am gay or whether I am not gay. There are many people who are NOT gay who will not agree with you on this issue.

According to Rom. 10:17, faith comes by hearing the word of God. If you don't have Scriptural authority for what you believe, your faith is better defined as "wishful thinking." According, to Col. 3:17, you must have a Scriptural basis for what you say, or what you do.

Just because you want to view some homosexual acts as being acceptable to God, and others rejected by God does not mean that it is so. What you have failed to do is show where the passage (or passages) is that gives you this impression. I sense that you think you have done this with Rom. 1:26-27. You suggested that burning in lust is what made them wrong - - not necessarily their homosexual activities. If that is the case, then you need to further explain how lusting is "against nature" (vs. 26), and how that "men with men committing what is shameful" (vs. 27) is acceptable if lust is not involved. If there is a sexual outlet that is acceptable to God other than between a man and woman who are married to each other, then I will readily admit that I have completely missed it. Since you have faith (supposedly based on God's word - Rom. 10:17) that such is the case, then I await your posting of the passage (or passages) that teach such.

My primary interest is NOT in the number of people that agree . . . or disagree . . . with what I say. My primary interest is:
1st. - whether or not my teaching agrees with what God has spoken. If is does, then I should be about to show how it does according to the Scriptures. (1 Pet. 4:11a)
2nd. - not in proving myself right, or you wrong. My interest is in letting God and His word be true (Rom. 3:4).

 

[- DRA -]

dra: It sounds like you are promoting the idea that everybody is entitled to their own interpretation. Evidently, you think God accepts some form of homosexuality. Okay, show me exactly how you determine this from scripture. Maybe I've missed something. Show me what I've missed.

me: When you open your bible and read it and come to the conclusions that you do, you are establishing your own interpretation. Everyone does this. People's views of the bible may differ and that is probably why one person accuses another of using the bible for their own selfish means: because they do not agree. When I was in school, in english class we would read poems from our english book by featured poets that were talked about in the book. There would be a poem or two there and some historical facts about the poet and his or her poetry. Sometimes we would be asked to read a poem and share our view of what the poem was saying to us. We were asked to share what we thought the meaning of the poem was. There would be different interpretations of that one poem shared throughout the class. Why is that? Eventually, we would discover the story behind the poem, according to the poet that is. What some of us had thought the poem was saying was actually nothing compared to the author's intent when writing the poem. I cannot explain as to why people see things differently, but we just do. Some are in denial, yes. Some are just ignorant, and some simply believe what they believe and have reasons for doing so. Some can explain their belief in words and some are not as eloquent and articulate as others when doing so, but their inability to explain themselves so that someone can understand does not nor should not render their belief invalid.

I believe you have described one step in the process of studying the Scriptures. Nehemiah 8:8 describes what you are talking about, "So they read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading." Reading, gaining sense from the passage, and deriving an understanding are important parts of the process of Bible study. However, the process does not stop at this point. There is a checks and balances system built into the Scriptures. Since all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16), then Scriptures will agree, or harmonize. When Scriptures do not harmonize, then something is wrong with our understanding - - the fault lies with us, not with the Scripture. To illustrate how this works, look at Matt. 4:5-7. In the incident, the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12. Then he challenges Jesus to take action based on that passage of Scripture. Jesus responds with another passage of Scripture - Deut. 6:16. The understanding that the devil promoted from Psalm 91:11-12 did not harmonize with the Deut. 6:16, therefore, Jesus rejected the devil's challenge (or temptation). Another incident of those who derived a wrong understanding from Scripture can be found in Matt. 22:23-32. The Saduccees tried to use an erroneous understanding of Deut. 25:5 to say there could be no resurrection. Jesus pointed out that they forgot to consider Ex. 3:6.

The Bible points out several possibilities why people see things differently than God wants them to. Jesus said that human traditions sometimes get in the way (Matt. 15:1-3, 7-9). Some lack the ability to discern spiritual matters (Matt. 16:1-3). Some taught what was right, but did not practice it themselves (Matt. 23:1-2). Some greatly desire to have it their way (2 Thess. 2:10-12). And, rather than labor to eliminate all sin from their lives, some will categorize sin (James 2:1-12).

Look at Matt. 7:21-23. Note that MANY people that profess to follow the Lord are rejected by Him. Why? They do not do the father's will. Christians are also admonished to be careful about what they consent to (2 John 9-11). Christians are even commanded to note (or mark) and avoid those who cause divisions (Rom. 16:17-18). Do these Scriptures give you the impression that we all need to accomodate all the various understandings that folks derive from Scripture? After all, why would Jesus say, "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32), if we wouldn't be able to determine truth from error? We must be able to differentiate between the two if we are going to be free!

 

[- DRA -]

dra: Is this it? This is your reasoning? This is your justification? Homosexuals are here, therefore, God approves of them, right? Read your newspaper or listen to the news. Pedophiles are here, also. Therefore, God approves of them, right? And there are wife-beaters, child abusers, and people guilty of all kinds of ungodly behavior, right? So, because they are here, God approves of their behavior, right? WRONG!!!! THIS REASONING IS VERY WRONG!!!!

me: This is not my reasoning. This is my reaction in response to your reasoning...Two adults who understand all aspects of what a relationship is and means and who have committed to one another in union are not to be compared with pedophiles, wife beaters, child abusers, etc.

Yes, it is your reasoning . . . you may not like it . . . but it is your reasoning - - cats are here because God created them and approves of them; therefore, because homosexuals are here, God also created and approves of them. That was your logic. Then, since pedophiles, wife-beaters, and child abusers are here, they were also created by God and approved of, right? Your reasoning was NOT based on a committed union, but simply on the fact that they were here. I was just pointing out that pedophiles, wife-beaters, and child abusers are also here. Now, you seek to modify your reasoning. I don't blame you. I wouldn't like to keep that kind of company either. So, are you now admitting that just because homosexuals, pedophiles, wife-beater, and child abusers are here that God did NOT create them and does NOT approve of them?

 

[leecappella]

Yes, it is your reasoning . . . you may not like it . . . but it is your reasoning - - cats are here because God created them and approves of them; therefore, because homosexuals are here, God also created and approves of them. That was your logic. Then, since pedophiles, wife-beaters, and child abusers are here, they were also created by God and approved of, right? Your reasoning was NOT based on a committed union, but simply on the fact that they were here. I was just pointing out that pedophiles, wife-beaters, and child abusers are also here. Now, you seek to modify your reasoning. I don't blame you. I wouldn't like to keep that kind of company either. So, are you now admitting that just because homosexuals, pedophiles, wife-beater, and child abusers are here that God did NOT create them and does NOT approve of them?

me: I think you are forgetting the fact that it is you who brought up such reasoning by implying if the couple in the creation story is male and female and there was not a male/male couple there, then a male/male couple is not acceptable to God. After your statements regarding this, I brought up cats not being mentioned in the creation story and since they are not, then they must be somehow unacceptable, invalid, and unapproved of. Obviously, I brought this up to be saracastic in relation to your reasoning. My reasoning about the cats is the same reasoning used by you to support your view about the silence in regards to same sex couples in the creation story. Sure, I don't follow that reasonsing here. It makes not sense, which is all I was trying to get across about your reasoning that just because a same sex couple was not present in the creation story, then that's one reason why same sex couples are unacceptable to God. Clearly, the purpose of the creation story as seen by me is not the same purpose as seen by you.

 

[leecappella]

dra: 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?

Leecappella: Ambiguous means something is capable of being understood in more than one way. Verse 26 tells us that the women exchanged the natural use for a use that is against nature. Verse 27 begins with 'likewise'. Verse 27 is more detailed in the male's actions than verse 26 is about the female's actions. We do know that both went against nature. The possibility of 'likewise' implying lesbianism took place is something I am open to, but it is not something that I see as the only exclusive conclusion. Just because 'likewise' is a mediating word used between verses 26 and 27 does not mean that since males were with males, then women were 'likewise' with women. Paul could have been referring to some other act or acts. Considering this is an idolatrous context, the females could have engaged in sex with animals, as was the case in some idolatries. Based on what I've read, the possibilities are endless. Especially where orgies and prostitution and debauchery are concerned. Simply put, even heterosexual acts associated with ritualistic rites could be deemed 'against nature'. If I said, "Timmy abruptly turned right and, shortly thereafter, Tommy 'likewise' turned left", what do you learn? You learn that 'likwise' does not always mean that the actions involved were exactly the same. Something was similar, but not exact. This is one way of looking at verses 26 and 27. I would also like to say that based on the definition of 'natural' (ie. Strong's #5446 - physical ie (by implication) instinctive), that Paul's view was that all humans were created naturally instinctive physically towards the opposite sex. The term itself implies this. Ask a homosexual if they are naturally physically instinctive towards women. The answere is likely a 'no'. That makes Paul's view of humanity, as a whole in regards to orientation, untrue. Orientation (ie. inversion) was likely not a concept in bible days. We learn more as time goes by.

DRA: "Likewise" is not an ambiguous term. It is clear what is meant. It is also clear that you just don't want to accept what it means.

So what is your reasoning about the instinct of a homosexual? Are you implying that God is to blame? Why would orientation be any different today than in the first century. It sounds like you are describing a cultural, or learned change.

Once again, you have undermined the teaching of the apostle Paul. I read of the confirmation that God sent to accompany the apostles in Heb. 2:3-4 (including Paul), but I do not see any kind of confirmation that what you are offering is from God.

Once again, ambiguous means something can be seen in more than one way. It doesn't necessarily mean something is not clear. It means that one person can see it one way and another person can see it another way.

 

[leecappella]

The word "nature" that appears in Rom. 1:26 & 1 Cor. 11:14 is the Greek word "phusis." It is one of three forms of the Greek word "phuo" that appear in the N.T. The other forms are "phusin" and "phusikos," and are translated natural. Here are the places where the words appear:

phusis - translated nature
Romans 1:26; 2:14,27; 11:24(2x)
1 Cor. 11:14
Gal. 2:15; 4:8
Eph. 2:3
2 Peter 1:4

phusin - translated natural
Rom. 11:21,24

phusikos - translated natural
Rom. 1:26,27
2 Pet. 2:12
Jude 10

Here is the way I define the word "nature" or "natural" as it appears in the KJV passages:
Rom. 1:26; 2:14; 1 Cor. 11:14; 1 Pet. 1:4 - nature - that which is inborn, or instinctive
Rom. 2:27; 11:24(2x); Gal. 4:8 - nature - the way God made it
Gal. 2:15; Eph. 2:3 - nature - born that way
Rom. 11:21,24 - natural - ones that God made
Rom. 1:26,27; Jude 10 - natural - that which is inborn, or instinctive
2 Pet. 2:12 - natural - the way God made them

I use the an overall view of how the forms of the Greek word "phusis" are used to determine an overall meaning. When I apply that meaning to Rom. 1:26,27, I have no problem understanding what women were doing with women that was against "nature," nor do I have a problem understanding what men were doing with men when they left the "natural" use of the woman. It is clearly homosexual sexual acts that God is disapproving of in this passage of Scripture.



I don't have to take a poll. Your posts are there that portray Paul as one who wrote by his own opinions and first century culture, and some of what he wrote contradicts other passages of Scripture. Do you seek the approval of men, or of God? He clearly sees what you are doing in your attempts to justify your chosen lifestyle (Heb. 4:13).



God had extended His grace to all (Titus 2:11), but all will not be saved (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23). Therefore, there is more involved in man's salvation than just grace. We must obey the Lord (Heb. 5:9). We must obey ALL his commands (Luke 17:10). Paul warns of those things which must be avoided (Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 6). If you would like to discuss the requirements for salvation, then why not join in the discussions about the necessity of baptism or being in Christ that are also within the Liberal Theology section?



I am not laboring to convert anyone to my way of thinking. If the reasoning I propose is wrong, then reject it. But if you find that it is indeed in harmony with the word of God, then give God the glory and do that which is necessary to please God. I deserve no credit, but labor simply because God has been more gracious to me than I deserve.

Yes, I am open to being wrong. Passages such as 1 Cor. 10:12 and 2 Thess. 2:10-12 are there to help keep us all humble and focused on doing God's will - - and not OUR own.

The last sentence of your last paragraph is worthy of comment. Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8 deal with the principle you are thinking about. Your statement is only true if viewed in the context of those things that God is INDIFFERENT about i.e. eating meat vs. vegetables only, the esteeming of one day above another, eating meats sacrificed to idols, etc. God is NOT indifferent on some things - - Rom 1, 1 Cor. 6, Gal. 5:19-21.

I can determine from these definitions that your view is that it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be with females and vice versa. That it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be sexually attracted to females and vice versa. That it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be relationship oriented towards females and vice versa. Atleast, based on the definitions and how they are used in the text of Romans 1. If this is how you see what Romans 1 is saying, then we agree. However, we disagree after the fact because I do not believe that it is an inborn, natural instinct for all males to be with females or vice versa. Obviously, hetrosexuality is the predominant orientation, but it is not the orientation shared by all because it is not an inborn, natural instinct for all. I should know! I am aware that God knows me and my heart. This is most comforting to me. He knows my conscience as well. I must follow my heart and conscience regardless of the voices of others. If I forsook my beliefs for what you believe, I would be living your faith and your views. I would kind of be seeking your approval. No doubt, if I saw things as you did, you would approve. Sure, you would probably say it was only your desire that I see it God's way, and that may be well and true, but it also implies that the way you see the bible and what it does and does not say is God's way and all others that contradict your view of the bible are not God's way. It sounds so much like the Jews trying to get the Gentiles not to be Gentiles anymore in order to be accepted by God. You have the right to search the scriptures with your heart and soul and to come to conclusions that do not sear your heart or your conscience. I have that right as well. There are people who will agree with your conclusions and there are those who will disagree, but if you feel at peace with your conclusions, no matter what anyone else says to you, I bet you stay with your beliefs, don't you? I think I will start posting less as usual. One thing I've learned here is that debating as much as we have been is futile. It can go on forever and ever, can it not? It sure can and it has! All I know is that I love God and I live my life every day with Him on my mind and I do for others with the love of God in my heart. God will not turn me away, knowing my heart. Sure, there are those who will be turned away, but it will be because their works and intentions behind their works are not pure. Christ's law is to love God and neighbor. One can do good works towards God and neighbor with ungodly intentions. This is a violation of the law (of Christ). Thanks for your words and time. Look for me when you can. I love you and God bless.

 

[- DRA -]

dra: While don't you run Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 by me once again. I don't recall you discussing it. Maybe I just missed it.

me: Our discussions have been pretty much in this thread. If you search, you should find what I've posted. I'm not a fan of repetitiously typing what I've already typed before, especially for the person I have been focusing my conversations with.

dra: I agree. The O.T. law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). So, what makes you think that God approves of homosexual behavior under the law of Christ. I learn (Rom. 15:4) that he didn't in the O.T., and I can find NO EVIDENCE to even remotely suggest that He approves of it today.

me: There is no doubt that we can learn from what was written aforetime. Part of that learning is taking into account the contexts of which the biblical authors were in and what they were referring to in any given text as it related to their culture. A text without a context is a pretext. Marriage is honorable in all. Marriage, as defined in the greek, is not 'a union between a man and a woman'. It is simply 'nuptials'. No prerequisite for who can partake. Matthew 19:12 is a positive verse on God's awareness of his gay and lesbian children.

Without looking back, you have just told me something about your view of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. You are suggesting that the context and the related culture affect a given text of Scripture. The context of Lev. 18:4-24 deals with various sexual activity that displeases God. So, are you saying that all of these activities are now pleasing to God under the law of Christ? In Lev. 20:10-22 deals with the same various sexual activities - - but now the consequences are given of such action are given - - death. So, are you saying that these activities are now worthy of life? Are you suggesting that the culture back then was not receptive to these things, but now our culture is? If that is your point, I humbly pray that you are not right.

Marriage is honorable among all (Heb. 13:4a), but not in all situations. Jesus describes marriages that are not honorable in Matt. 19:9.

It is true . . . the Greek definition of marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman. But, it is not also true that the Hebrew word for multiply in Gen. 1:28 is not defined as to produce offspring by the mating of a man and woman. Just as the actual definition of marriage does not give every detail about marriage, the actual definition of multiply does not give every detail about conception. We have to harmonize our understanding of all that is included in both marrying and multiplying with ALL other scriptures.
This is where your understanding of homosexual (wanna' be) marriage or a similar relationship falls apart, you have NO Scriptures to support your premise that God recognizes and accepts homosexuals who love and are committed to each other.

Now, concerning Matt. 19:12. How do you read gay and lesbians into that text? Jesus concluded his teaching on marriage and divorce in verse 9. His disciples respond in verse 10. Jesus then responds to their concern in verses 11-12. The disciples concluded that, in light of Jesus' teaching about marriage and divorce (between a male and female - vs. 4-5), then it was better not to marry. Jesus explains that some have indeed reached this conclusion; they became eunuchs - - willfully. A eunuch was NOT someone who satisfied their sexual desires outside of the only marriage that God approves of (between a man and woman). A eunuch was a man who was not able to marry or produce children - - either because of physical, or metaphorical means. Matt. 19:12 focuses on those men who deliberately chose not to be married to a woman. It does NOT include men who chose to have sex with men, rather than with women. Nor does Matt. 19:12 include women who choose to have sex with other women. Rather, Romans 1:26-27 deals with both of these activities - - women with women and men with men - - doing that which is "against nature" and "shameful."

 

[- DRA -]

me: I think you are forgetting the fact that it is you who brought up such reasoning by implying if the couple in the creation story is male and female and there was not a male/male couple there, then a male/male couple is not acceptable to God. After your statements regarding this, I brought up cats not being mentioned in the creation story and since they are not, then they must be somehow unacceptable, invalid, and unapproved of. Obviously, I brought this up to be saracastic in relation to your reasoning. My reasoning about the cats is the same reasoning used by you to support your view about the silence in regards to same sex couples in the creation story. Sure, I don't follow that reasonsing here. It makes not sense, which is all I was trying to get across about your reasoning that just because a same sex couple was not present in the creation story, then that's one reason why same sex couples are unacceptable to God. Clearly, the purpose of the creation story as seen by me is not the same purpose as seen by you.

Your attempt at sarcasm uses flawed reasoning. Comparing cats and homosexuality is like comparing apples and oranges. If lifestyle and behavioral choices are acceptable just because they are in existence, then you have opened the door to ANY and ALL behavior that exists to be viewed as acceptable to God. That is my point to you.

In the Genesis account of creation, I accept what the Scriptures say about God's creation of land animals - - the general description given in 1:24-25. I have no problem saying or accepting that God created cats and MANY other land animals on the sixth day that are not specifically mentioned. However, I refuse to accept your idea that another man would have been an acceptable mate to Adam. You have yet to offer any Scriptural evidence to support this notion.

The creation account of the first man and woman coming together in marriage is important enough for Jesus to emphasize it when he taught on marriage (Matt. 19). If, and I say if, the marriage of a man to a woman is not a requirement for marriage, then where is the Scriptural support to show otherwise. It is definitely not in the text of a discussion that starts with a question about a man divorcing his wife (Matt. 19:3). Nor is it in Matt. 5:31-32. Where is it?