The Biblical view of homosexuality

pescador said:

Why does 2 Samuel 1:26 say about Israel's greatest king, "At Jonathan’s funeral, David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman."

Click to expand...

I have not had any replies to this message. It's in the Bible, and the Bible is God's word.

How about it, those of you who use God's word to condemn two men who love each other...

pescador said:

Why does 2 Samuel 1:26 say about Israel's greatest king, "At Jonathan’s funeral, David declares that he loved Jonathan more than any woman."

Click to expand...

There are different kinds of love and love does NOT equal sex. In fact, a love without sex can be even deeper than a sexual love, so it's not at all impossible for David's statement to be true. Sadly, most men (in Western culture and probably some Asian cultures) begin to feel awkward as soon as a male friendship becomes even slightly intimate, so many never experience the deep kind of relationship you can have.

That's kind of what I think David and Jonathan had going on. They had made a covenant with each other and swapped outer clothes as was the custom. David took care of Jonathan's son for him after Jonathan's death and Jonathan helped save David's life. They even cried together.

It's just a picture of a real and intimate friendship between men, which is often misunderstood.

Good Day,

Here is a good discussion on the issue:

Is Homosexuality Consistent with New Testament Obedience?



In Him,

Bill

Messerve said:

There are different kinds of love and love does NOT equal sex. In fact, a love without sex can be even deeper than a sexual love, so it's not at all impossible for David's statement to be true. Sadly, most men (in Western culture and probably some Asian cultures) begin to feel awkward as soon as a male friendship becomes even slightly intimate, so many never experience the deep kind of relationship you can have.

That's kind of what I think David and Jonathan had going on. They had made a covenant with each other and swapped outer clothes as was the custom. David took care of Jonathan's son for him after Jonathan's death and Jonathan helped save David's life. They even cried together.

It's just a picture of a real and intimate friendship between men, which is often misunderstood.

Click to expand...

This is a truly excellent post. It dispels the rage that so many feel toward people -- not just men -- who have a real and intimate friendship between them even though they are the same gender. They get fixated on the (supposed) sexual aspect without considering the true affection. Never forget that John referred to himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

John 13:22-23, "The disciples began to look at one another, worried and perplexed to know which of them he was talking about. One of his disciples, the one Jesus loved, was at the table to the right of Jesus in a place of honor. Then the disciple whom Jesus loved leaned back against Jesus’ chest and asked him, “Lord, who is it?”

Christians are told by the Lord to "love your neighbor as yourself". There are no qualifications.

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day,

Here is a good discussion on the issue:

Is Homosexuality Consistent with New Testament Obedience?

Click to expand...

I watched half of this. Sorry, but 3 hours of recording are a bit much.

The con side was national experts experienced in debating. The pro side was two local folks who aren't experts in the Bible or theology. It showed. They were great at talking about their experience, but with one exception didn't deal with the Biblical issues.

In the first statement the con side laid out the typical case, with the typical weaknesses:

* They tried to distinguish between the prohibitions against homosexuality in Lev as being moral but the other prohibitions as just part of the law distinguishing Jews from Gentiles. But despite lots of claims, they didn't really identify a distinction in the text. I'm not convinced there was any. That distinction is useful for Christian theology, but I'm convinced it's reading back into the OT a distinction that wasn't there for the authors.

* They give the usual analysis that Rom 1:27 fits the prohibition of homosexuality into an overall analysis of the purpose of creation. The problem is that this misses the actual purpose of the section. The section is not about sexual ethics. That's not what Romans is about. It is about whether it's OK for Gentiles to become Christians. Rom 2 argues that it is, for two reasons (1) any supposed moral difference is hypocritical, (2) there are Gentiles who have the law written in their hearts and live righteous lives. Rom 1 is the stock Jewish argument that Gentiles are inherently immoral, because of idolatry. It seems unlikely that Paul would start the book with an argument that contradicts his major point. (1 says that pagans are inherently immoral; 2 says that some of them live righteous lives.) Not to mention the fact the Rom 2:2 explicitly rejects 1:32. Rom 1 is a summary of Paul's opponents' views, which he then rebuts. This is called "diatribe style." All major commentators agree that Paul is using that style, and that 1 is a setup for 2. For some reason they don't draw the obvious conclusion that if 1 is the argument made by Paul's opponents, he might not have agreed with it.

* They make the typical modern analysis of the sin list in 1 Cor 6:9 as referring to the two participants in (male) homosexual sex. Forget the fact that there's no reason to think that the words mean that. There's a more serious problem: the receptive partner was almost always a minor or a slave. For the receptive partner to be a free adult was scandalous and in many cases illegal. Would Paul actually treat the perpetrator and victim the same? Particularly since many of his converts were likely slaves and would have seen and maybe experienced this?

Incidentally, the last argument also applies to Rom 1. Rom 1 is certainly a stereotypical 1st Cent Jewish view of the moral results of paganism. But it fails to note the reality of most homosexual relationships in that culture.

By the way, on 1 Cor 6:9. The Greek word that they took to mean homosexual was used rarely, never before Paul, and mostly in quotations of or allusions to this passage. There's not enough context to be sure of its meaning. Various translations over time have been homosexual, pederasty, male prostitute, and even masturbation. The second term, which they took to be the receptive side of same-gender sex, means literally "soft." Until the recent battle over homosexuality, it was typically translated as something like "effeminate," though even that may not be right.

Sometimes I think Paul was a monster who then had an experience with Jesus which changed everything for him.

he then went on to do wonderful things for the faith - undeniably.

but if someone questioned me on whether or not he was perfect - I’m not so sure. He might still have held to views we would consider abhorrent- homophobic? Sexist? Not vehemently opposed to slavery? Maybe

he did wonderful things but I don’t know anyone who had a God experience and was perfect thereafter. Maybe he carried some cultural thoughts with him?

Confused-by-christianity said:

Sometimes I think Paul was a monster who then had an experience with Jesus which changed everything for him.

he then went on to do wonderful things for the faith - undeniably.

but if someone questioned me on whether or not he was perfect - I’m not so sure. He might still have held to views we would consider abhorrent- homophobic? Sexist? Not vehemently opposed to slavery? Maybe

he did wonderful things but I don’t know anyone who had a God experience and was perfect thereafter. Maybe he carried some cultural thoughts with him?

Click to expand...

Paul was not perfect. However, his views on homosexuality concur exactly with the Old Testament view, except that the consequences were spiritual, not physical death. Not at the hands of the church, anyway. I lost a gay friend to aids. I did not know that he was gay until I was told about his death. Long story.....

Aussie Pete said:

Paul was not perfect. However, his views on homosexuality concur exactly with the Old Testament view, except that the consequences were spiritual, not physical death. Not at the hands of the church, anyway. I lost a gay friend to aids. I did not know that he was gay until I was told about his death. Long story.....

Click to expand...

I suppose they do.

If we are to be getting better and growing all the time, I assume I'd disagree with my predecessors??

tampasteve said:

Paul was certainly not perfect. Further, most of Paul's writings needs to be read in their original intention. He was writing to specific people and churches, churches with specific problems that need to be understood in the context of the 1st century and Judaism. Not everything he wrote is applicable to all places and all times.

Click to expand...

one thing for sure - maybe you agree?

It's a beautiful story that seems to repeat itself over and over again. Evil person, has life changing experience with God / Jesus, has a total change of heart. Their whole life becomes about working for Christ and spreading His kingdom & Love.

tampasteve said:

Sure, that definitely happens. The key is seeing what is applicable in that story to our times by testing it against the rest of the body of scripture and understanding that 1st century Judaism and the church at the time was still developing.

Click to expand...

I guess in it's proper context - Paul becomes a human guy with a life changing experience. I've found people with an experience like this to be very good teachers - I feel i recognise God's voice in them. Then they say something stupid or rude and I think - "yep - still only human" haha

Perhaps digging into every little detail and word of Paul's letters is taking them out of context?
If he was writing to specific churches/persons about specific things, we could argue they aren't intended to be "how to live your life" books? Not 20 Centuries later in every culture on earth.

Perhaps we can justify using them as inspirational texts - like how we listen to testimonies, or guidance from a really wise older person?

Confused-by-christianity said:

I suppose they do.

If we are to be getting better and growing all the time, I assume I'd disagree with my predecessors??

Click to expand...

Truth is truth. It does not change. People change because they seek to justify behaviour that is unacceptable to God. God's methods may change. No longer does He demand that adulterers be stoned. But Jesus also said, "Go, and sin no more". Personally, I believe that modern society is regressive. We are going backwards. Communicate with emojis? Hey, that's what the Egyptians did! I won't go on, it's nearly 2.00 am.....

Aussie Pete said:

Truth is truth. It does not change. People change because they seek to justify behaviour that is unacceptable to God. God's methods may change. No longer does He demand that adulterers be stoned. But Jesus also said, "Go, and sin no more". Personally, I believe that modern society is regressive. We are going backwards. Communicate with emojis? Hey, that's what the Egyptians did! I won't go on, it's nearly 2.00 am.....

Click to expand...

Haha get some sleep mate ;-)

pescador said:

I have not had any replies to this message. It's in the Bible, and the Bible is God's word.

How about it, those of you who use God's word to condemn two men who love each other...

Click to expand...

If you think that love equates to sex, you are wrong. I love my kids, but I don't have sex with them. Soldiers often form strong bonds in wartime that are different from male/female bonds. When your life depends on the guys next to you, it helps to be on good terms......As Jesus said, ""Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

Aussie Pete said:

Truth is truth. It does not change. People change because they seek to justify behaviour that is unacceptable to God. God's methods may change. No longer does He demand that adulterers be stoned. But Jesus also said, "Go, and sin no more". Personally, I believe that modern society is regressive. We are going backwards. Communicate with emojis? Hey, that's what the Egyptians did! I won't go on, it's nearly 2.00 am.....

Click to expand...

Truth doesn't change. People do. The questions they ask, the context of their actions. Either the tomb was empty or it wasn't. But the ethics of same-sex behavior have almost reversed, with cultural approval of forms we would consider immoral and disapproval of those that we consider the most responsible.

I believe Jesus' teaching was clearly aimed at teaching us principles, but leaving us the responsibility to determine specifics. If you try to answer every question from the Bible, when you come on one that isn't there, you end up with an answer to a different question that sort-a kind-a looks the same, but may be quite different.

The second half of Rom 1 (which you should know by now is actually quoting Paul's opponents) did not involve Christians trying to live with a same-sex partner according to Christian ideals. It dealt with pagans who had reached the limits of debauchery with the opposite gender, and thus moved on the same same gender. These behaviors are simply not the same. Taking them as the same because both involve the same gender is just like condemning people with opposite-sex marriages because of things in the Bible condemning adultery and other abusive forms of opposite-sex behavior.

The continuing citation of the Sodom story shows just how bankrupt this approach is. That story involved rape of angels. Yet people looking for answers about gay Christians somehow think it's the same thing. It’s not even sort-a kind-a.

No, making sound moral judgements is not making excuses.

hedrick said:

Truth doesn't change. People do. The questions they ask, the context of their actions. Either the tomb was empty or it wasn't. But the ethics of same-sex behavior have almost reversed, with cultural approval of forms we would consider immoral and disapproval of those that we consider the most responsible.

I believe Jesus' teaching was clearly aimed at teaching us principles, but leaving us the responsibility to determine specifics. If you try to answer every question from the Bible, when you come on one that isn't there, you end up with an answer to a different question that sort-a kind-a looks the same, but may be quite different.

The second half of Rom 1 (which you should know by now is actually quoting Paul's opponents) did not involve Christians trying to live with a same-sex partner according to Christian ideals. It dealt with pagans who had reached the limits of debauchery with the opposite gender, and thus moved on the same same gender. These behaviors are simply not the same. Taking them as the same because both involve the same gender is just like condemning people with opposite-sex marriages because of things in the Bible condemning adultery and other abusive forms of opposite-sex behavior.

The continuing citation of the Sodom story shows just how bankrupt this approach is. That story involved rape of angels. Yet people looking for answers about gay Christians somehow think it's the same thing. It’s not even sort-a kind-a.

No, making sound moral judgements is not making excuses.

Click to expand...

I agree that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality. However, it is plainly and simply condemned as wrong in both old and new testaments. The origin of same sex attraction is rebellion. Homosexuality strikes at the very creation of the human race. God created male and female. He told the male and female to reproduce. The alphabet soup of those who rebel against God's order bring judgement on themselves. God's wrath is revealed when He simply lets sinners go their own way. I'm old enough to have seen the rot setting into the western world. Homosexuality used to be called the love that dare not speak its name. Now you can't get it to shut up.

1 Timothy 4: 1&2
"Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.…"

There are many false teachings around. Whitewashing homosexuality is just one of them.

heal103 said:

I am the parent of a college age daughter who was raised in a LCMS Christian church. In the last several years she has drifted away from her faith primarily due to the churches stance on homosexuality. She sees how the evangelical church in general treats homosexuals and rejects them. Often they are rejected by their own family. I am agents this and love everyone as Jesus taught us to do. However the church teaches that although we are to Love all, we can not condone behavior the Bible clearly says is wrong.This is where I'm completely confused. When I read the verses in the bible mentioning homosexuality, it seems pretty clear that it's very much against it and it is wrong.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality in scripture is referring to people having multiple partners and having sex outside of marriage. Not really a surprise, since marriage was not an option.

heal103 said:

She loves her friends gay and straight and can not accept a faith that rejects them. Thank you so much. I look forward to your replies

Click to expand...

Exchanging sex juices and body fluids outside of a bonded marriage is a bad health issue.
As we know...death. As long as she's not salivating on other girls, the church should have no problem. But if they are in each other underwear, that's an issue.

4beanmix said:

Given the parables of Jesus, given the life he led, given the outcasts, undesirables and misfits with which he not only frequented, but accepted into the kingdom of God, the chances that he would have an issue with two same sex people who wanted to live their lives as he espoused, would be very low.

Click to expand...

And then there is the golden rule, which outlaws discrimination.

What Does the Bible Say About Do Also To Them?