Today's Ruling

[mkgal1]

You thought of this before watching the idea on TV or hearing it on radio? You never saw Phil Donahue promote this stuff in the 1980's?

No....I never saw Phil Donahue "promote this stuff"-- ever. Like I said......I didn't come to this belief through media outlets. I read my Bible---tossing away preconceived ideas.

It most certainly is not merely an opinion. God's opinions are truths, and His commandments are not mere opinions. It is clear enough that God opposed male homosexual behavior and prescribed a death penalty for it in Israel.

The verse you're referring to is much like other ritual transgressions (it's your opinion that they apply to what this ruling is about--and I disagree). There was also a death penalty for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) and improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32) .....but it's opinion as to what is actually behind all that (why that was important to holiness).

Another example of opinion (for instance) that people presume they "know what God said/His truth" is Genesis 2:8 ("it's not good for man to be alone"). There are all kinds of variations as to "what God clearly meant" by that. We don't have the full meaning spelled out in MOST of the Bible and it's left to---hopefully---be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.

 

[DZoolander]

BTW - those "old sodomy laws" varied by state and often included masturbation, oral sex, and even in some cases woman-on-top intercourse.

I believe Washington state still has a sodomy law on the books making it illegal to have sex with a virgin, even if you are married to her.

Yep - sure did!

 

[LinkH]

The verse you're referring to is much like other ritual transgressions (it's your opinion that they apply to what this ruling is about--and I disagree). There was also a death penalty for gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) and improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32) .....but it's opinion as to what is actually behind all that (why that was important to holiness).

God gave Israel the Sabbath because they were slaves in Egypt, as it says in Deuteronomy. But regarding the laws against incest, adultery, homosexual behavior, beastiality, and child sacrifice, Leviticus tells us that God drove the Gentiles out of the land for these things and that Israel was not to do them either. And the apostles wrote to abstain from fornication. Paul called the desire to engage in homosexual behavior 'vile passions' and wrote that doing so was 'unseemly' and that men who have sex with men will not inherit the kingdom of God.

We don't have the full meaning spelled out in MOST of the Bible and it's left to---hopefully---be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.

It's presumptuous to think that if you have come to a conclusion such as yours that it came from the Holy Spirit. There are many spirits, and the Bible says to believe not every spirit.

 

[LinkH]

What does 'bring back' old sodomy laws mean? Enforcing them? I don't think they should have laws like that for married couples. But aside from that, I don't have a problem with the state enforcing that, or criminalizing or having a death penalty for men having sex with men, for adultery, for certain types of child molestation, or for beastiality assuming their are reliable witnesses to the act.

 

[mkgal1]

Paul called the desire to engage in homosexual behavior 'vile passions' and wrote that doing so was 'unseemly' and that men who have sex with men will not inherit the kingdom of God.

That's the other thing: the word "homosexual" is a new word (late 1800's).....so what Paul was writing about was--most likely---something other than same-sex, long term, committed relationships (as I've posted already).

 

[mkgal1]

It's presumptuous to think that if you have come to a conclusion such as yours that it came from the Holy Spirit. There are many spirits, and the Bible says to believe not every spirit.

You think so? I think it's rather presumptuous to use phrases like "God's opinions" when you're presenting your own opinions (and to infer, just because my conclusion differs from yours, that my opinions/conclusions must have come from evil spirits).

I've not posted that others should take my stance because it's "from the Holy Spirit" (not as a definite---I used the word, "hopefully" and was applying that to *all* of us seeking the Bible for truth)......but since that's a priority of mine (walking in the Spirit).....doesn't it make sense that I'm convinced that my conclusions are of Him (just as you are convinced that your beliefs are)?

Fortunately....that's just what "free will" is that He allows of us. The fact remains, though....that much is left up to interpretation. I'm quite aware of other spirits....but thanks for the reminder. I'll take that opportunity to bring up Acts again....and how resistant to new understanding the Sanhedrin were (in Acts 7)....and how that caused them to not recognize that their Messiah had been right in front of them.

 

[mkgal1]

Another thing: using the word "presumptuous" implies that I just believed something w/o considering everything that surrounds it (IOW......my original opinion was based on just hearing other---more "experienced"-- Christians....so *that* was a presumptuous opinion).

 

[LinkH]

mkgal1,

It grieves me to see that you support these things. I've seen your posts. If someone cheats on their spouse, you are against it. As I recall, you would be against an unmarried man or woman having sex together, and you'd counsel them against it. And I can appreciate these things about your posts. It's sad to see your moral compass slip on this issue.

That's the other thing: the word "homosexual" is a new word (late 1800's).....so what Paul was writing about was--most likely---something other than same-sex, long term, committed relationships (as I've posted already).

I watched an NT Wright video recently where he said that those who argue that in the first century, the idea of a committed homosexual relationship wasn't something that people were familiar with or that Paul would not have known about it just didn't know their history, and he referred to Plato's Symposium as evidence. Sure, the word 'homosexual' has a history, but so do all words, and I was pretty clear with how I worded it, 'homosexual behavior.' Homo means same. Sex means sex. I'm talking about people having sex with people of the same gender.

One problem with the way some people who abuse the social and cultural approach to the Bible is that you seem to take the approach that if you can find the reason a passage was written, you can find an excuse for why the passage doesn't apply to them. For example, Romans 1 shows us that men sexually desiring each other and women sexually desiring each other are 'vile passions.' Actings on them is unseemly. Men who have sex with men, as referred to in I Corinthians 6, do not inherit the kingdom of God.

I actually see this line of reasoning a lot. The historical context of X teaching in scripture was Y. We are not in Y condition, therefore X does not apply. This type of loose reasoning can easily lead to disobedience. It's looking for excuses not to obey God. Romans 1 does show us that homosexual behavior-- men having lust for each other and having sex together, and women having sex with each other, was something men was delivered over to because of idolatry. But whether someone bows down and worships literal stone or metal, the passage still shows us that men wanting to have sex with each other is an example of vile passions.

I Corinthians 6 doesn't say that only the men who have sex with men after going to an idol's temple would not inherit the kingdom of God. It doesn't say that only the ones who pay for it or rape small children would not inherit the kingdom of God. In Romans 1, both parties are willing, since they burn in their lust one to another. You could find plenty of examples of same-sex sex mixed with idolatrous practices or child molestation in the ancient world if you wanted to, but you can also find evidence acts between adults that aren't religious rituals.

I also see in some of your posts that you are rather free at times with labeling certain things as idolatry. If these other things are idolatry, then why wouldn't a man putting desire for the body of another man on such a high level that He disobeys God's will as revealed through creation, and even prophets and apostles, but having sex with another man... as idolatry?

doesn't it make sense that I'm convinced that my conclusions are of Him (just as you are convinced that your beliefs are)?

I'm not disagreeing that that is the case. What doesn't make sense is to think that both conclusions come from the leading of the Holy Spirit. If I were you, I'd be asking why my conclusions departed so sharply from the plain sense of the text of the Bible, from how just about every church until recent decades throughout history has interpreted the passage, from the beliefs of religious leaders that you listen to for spiritual encouragement, and from the witness of those who experience the contemporary work of the Spirit today as it relates to this issue.

We aren't living in some kind of post-modern reality where reality is one thing for you, and something else for me and the rest of the church throughout history.

I'll take that opportunity to bring up Acts again....and how resistant to new understanding the Sanhedrin were (in Acts 7)....and how that caused them to not recognize that their Messiah had been right in front of them.

I don't see how recognizing the promised Messiah and the work of God through His miracles, compassion, healing, death, and resurrection is analagous to your accepting sexual perversion that God condemned as abominable, as something acceptable.

Jesus did not like the fact that one of the churches was tolerant of those who promoted sexual immorality, so why should I or any other Christian be tolerant of such an idea?

Revelation 2
20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, 23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.

It's a rare thing in scripture where Jesus says that He will strike anyone dead, so we should pay attention to this warning. Promoting sexual immorality must be something He is very concerned about. This is something very serious. I'll pray for you about it, and I'd ask you to really pray and consider this.

I know you want to be compassionate, and that is a good thing. And a lot of people want to be accepting of gays to be compassionate. I'm in favor of being accepting to Christians who struggle with same sex attraction, just like I'd be in favor of being accepting of a brother who used to fornicate who struggles a bit with being attracted to women and struggles to keep his mind pure, or people with a variety of other struggles with sins. We are all frail human beings, and it is by God's grace that we are saved.

But I also believe in the power of the Spirit in the life of a believer. I believe in grace that reigns through righteousness, and that's powerful. If any man be in Christ, He is a new creation. Old things are passed away and behold all things are become new. And we show grace and mercy to people when we tell them about the Gospel and encourage them to walk in the face, and God, by His Spirit, empowers them to live lives in which sin does not have dominion over them, and they live in such a way as to please God.

 

[LinkH]

This is worth listening to http://www.ihopkc.org/resources/ass...ssage&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Resources

 

[DZoolander]

What does 'bring back' old sodomy laws mean? Enforcing them? I don't think they should have laws like that for married couples. But aside from that, I don't have a problem with the state enforcing that, or criminalizing or having a death penalty for men having sex with men, for adultery, for certain types of child molestation, or for beastiality assuming their are reliable witnesses to the act.

This is why the church is increasingly being held in disdain - and why you might start seeing efforts to infringe upon what would normally have been considered sacrosanct "separation of church and state" issues. Like I said before - if I were a gay guy and I had the feeling that churchgoers would seriously like to see me executed - I'd probably feel spiteful enough to get the state involved and start suing your church to do things like marry me out of just pure old spite.

And odds are - the state would end up complying - because who's going to take the side of people who think "Gays ought to be executed by the state"?

By taking that sort of stance - you're sowing the seeds and setting the stage for reaping what you most fear...which is state intrusion upon church matters. The hypocrisy that the churchgoers are trying to hide behind the "separation of church and state" - while simultaneously trying their hardest to influence state policy with church principles isn't lost on anyone. The door can swing both ways.

 

[DZoolander]

Just out of curiosity - which types of child molestation ought to be punishable by death - and which ones spared? The gay ones are the ones to be executed? lol

 

[HannahT]

Just out of curiosity - which types of child molestation ought to be punishable by death - and which ones spared? The gay ones are the ones to be executed? lol

Well, since he can transfer the middle east where they still do the 'stoning' he loves so much...maybe its the men that have 'child brides' that need to be spared.

 

[mkgal1]

I watched an NT Wright video recently where he said that those who argue that in the first century, the idea of a committed homosexual relationship wasn't something that people were familiar with or that Paul would not have known about it just didn't know their history, and he referred to Plato's Symposium as evidence.

Pardon? I never posted that "the idea of a committed homosexual relationship wasn't something that people were familiar with" (to start with). I posted that the word "homosexual" is a relatively new one (so that affects the biblical translation, is what I meant).

What does Plato's Symposium have to do with a committed same-sex relationship? From what I understand about that....it was a group of men (no women---b/c culturally men and women didn't socialize together) that got together and *discussed* (platonic) love. That's where the word "platonic" came from (Plato). Look up the word "Platonic" and you get this: "with genuine platonic love, the beautiful or lovely other person inspires the mind and the soul and directs one's attention to spiritual things". They weren't couples at that Symposium. They were philosophers.....and "lovers of wisdom". Now talking about love is a "vile" and "detestable" thing (hopefully I'm misunderstanding)? And you're still convinced that I'm "following another spirit"? Is it detestable of me to believe that--as Christians, especially---men *should be* stirring up and inspiring other men to love others and directing them to spiritual things? That doesn't mean they're gay (but it also doesn't exclude those that are, either). I believe there's even a Bible verse about how that ought to be a goal (Hebrews 10:24-25).

 

[mkgal1]

What doesn't make sense is to think that both conclusions come from the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I never posted that both conclusions come from the Holy Spirit. You are free to your opinion....and I am free to mine.

I don't see how recognizing the promised Messiah and the work of God through His miracles, compassion, healing, death, and resurrection is analagous to your accepting sexual perversion that God condemned as abominable, as something acceptable.

The Sanhedrin *didn't* recognize the promised Messiah.

The point and correlation is the resistance to new understanding kept the Sanhedrin from acknowledging their Messiah had stood right before them (instead....they clung to their traditional way of thinking and denied the truth that Stephen was pointing out). Again.....it's your opinion that I'm "accepting sexual perversion......".

 

[LinkH]

EZoolander, I'm not actively campaigning for the death penalty for sexual sins, but generally if the Old Testament allows for the death penalty for a civil crime, I would not say that is unjust, for example for murder, adultery, homosexual acts. If child molestation falls into those last two categories, as some do, I don't see the death penalty for that as unjust. I wouldn't say the death penalty for raping little girls has any Biblical basis, but I probably wouldn't be protesting against it if a law passed. I do think adults who have sex with little kids need to be dealt with very strictly by the government.

 

[mkgal1]

NM

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Well, just when you think that a conversation can't get any more awkward, the Internet goes above and beyond in surprising me.

 

[tall73]

Pardon? I never posted that "the idea of a committed homosexual relationship wasn't something that people were familiar with" (to start with). I posted that the word "homosexual" is a relatively new one (so that affects the biblical translation, is what I meant).

There is not a translation difficulty in Rom. 1. And the word "homosexual" is not used there. Nor is it used in Lev. 18.

Both refer to sex between people of the same gender. So you can leave out the modern term homosexual, and you are still left with a condemnation of sex between two people of the male gender.

 

[tall73]

But regarding the laws against incest, adultery, homosexual behavior, beastiality, and child sacrifice, Leviticus tells us that God drove the Gentiles out of the land for these things and that Israel was not to do them either.

Indeed, these items were not sins just for the Israelites, or matters of sanctuary laws, etc.
They applied to the prior inhabitants of the land as well.

 

[mkgal1]

There is not a translation difficulty in Rom. 1. And the word "homosexual" is not used there. Nor is it used in Lev. 18.

Both refer to sex between people of the same gender. So you can leave out the modern term homosexual, and you are still left with a condemnation of sex between two people of the male gender.

I believe we've been all through this in the thread, but as a refresher:

There are a few main "clobber verses" that I know of for the non-affirming group to use:

• Leviticus 18:22 (which is referring to ritual purity)
  
  
• Romans 1:26-27 (which....you're right, that doesn't use the word "homosexual"--that's not the verse I was referring to. Neither should that verse be taken out of context & used as proof text. Paul's main grievance was the influence of Paganism as stated in the beginning of that letter in verse 23)
  
  
• First Corinthians 6:9 and First Timothy 1:10 are where some translations use the word "homosexuals". According to that link:
  
  

  Evangelical New Testament scholar Gordon D. Fee of Regent College says that these two terms are “difficult.” The Fundamentalist Journal admits: “These words are difficult to translate.” Of arsenokoitai, Fee says: “This is its first appearance in preserved literature, and subsequent authors are reluctant to use it, especially when describing homosexual activity.” Scroggs explains that “Paul is thinking only about pederasty, … There was no other form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world which could come to mind.” Ancient sources indicate that the malakoi were “effeminate call boys.” Though Paul seems to have coined arsenokoitai it refers, perhaps, to the call boys’ customers, although nobody knows for sure. Paul’s main point, however, is clear: Christians who slander and sue each other in pagan courts are just as shameful as robbers, drunkards, the greedy, and the malakoi and arsenokoitai (whatever they were). The other kind of pederasty in Paul’s day was that of the slave “pet boys” who were sexually exploited by adult male owners. The desired boys were prepubescent or at least without beards so that they seemed like females. These men had wives for dowries, procreation and the rearing of heirs. They had “pet boys” for sex — hardly the picture of gay relationships today.
  
  The Bible is an empty closet. It has nothing specific to say about homosexuality as such. But the Bible has plenty to say about God’s grace to all people and God’s call to justice and mercy. Jesus summarized God’s law in these words of scripture: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind… [and] you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39).

  
  ***There are links provided in this post that elaborate (see Scriptural references).