Transsexuals

[ahab]

Hi artybloke,

Fundamentalist ideology is responsible for the suicides of those gay people who can't live with themselves because some fundamentalist preacher has told them they are condemned.

Well if the scriptures that say the wicked like homosexual offenders shall not inherit the Kingdom then the fundamentalist preachers may have a point. However, why are you telling me this as I don’t agree that homosexual people are condemned by being homsoexual. I see there is condemnation is of same-sex sex. Can you see the difference between Jesus forgiveness to those who killed him because they didn’t know what they were doing. Can you separate those people from what they were doing?

Anyway, I suggested that Christain fundamentalists were those that try and obey all the Jesus commanded in loving God and ones neighbour and so obeying the gospel of love.

So if this doesn’t describe Christian fundamentalists, how would you describe these people?

Jesus came to give good news to the poor and to set the captives free. He didn't come to enslave them in another set of laws, interpreted from on high by self-righteous preachers and hypocrites.

True, especially the poor, but he came to give the good news of the Kingdom of God to all and one of the things He came to set us free from was sin, What is your point?

It isn't condemned. There is nowhere in scripture that condemns all forms of gay sexual practice.

Scripture condemns same-sex sex wherever it mentions it and allows no room for it by what sexual activity it does countenance. I would say if it did countenance it in any form then it would make a contradiction with several other passages, but it doesn’t countenance it. As to all forms, I dont think it deals with forms of it, I think thats half your problem in that you have tried to allocate forms to it so the form you want can be excluded and justify what you think.

Jesus never mentions it. If Jesus never mentions it, that's good enough for me; if he obviously didn't think it was a problem I don't see why I should.

Well Paul does and Paul claims his revelation and teaching was from Jesus. Also Jesus gave severe warnings about sexual immorality and his audience understood that to include same-sex sex.. yes? Also how are you so sure that Jesus didnt mention it? Theres as much a 50% chnace that He did condemn it. Of course Jesus never mentions inappropriate behavior with animals or incest. However I am sure that Matt 19 and Mark 10 amongst other passages certainly place all sex outside a faithful marriage between a man and a woman as not of God’s purpose.

What would you say to someone who thought inappropriate behavior with animals was alright because Jesus doesn’t mention it? I know the answer to that already, you would introduce a different reason other than Jesus doesn’t mention it, to explain it away.

 

[JohnnyV]

Lets face it people, neither side is going to convince the other one to agree with them.
Jesus Loves the sinner, but he does not Love the sin. Can we all agree on that atleast???
Lets leave it to God to show us the truth in ALL things and move on. Or is that possible at this point?

 

[artybloke]

and his audience understood that to include same-sex sex.. yes?

No.

Scripture condemns same-sex sex wherever it mentions it and allows no room for it by what sexual activity it does countenance.

Scripture condemns long hair wherever it is mentioned. All the mentions of gay sexual practive refer to either temple prostitution or to exploitative relationships. It does not condemn love. It doesn't even call it a sin; it calls it a "toe'vah", which is ritual uncleanliness, like eating shellfish. But then you know all this, you've been told umpteen times and you choose to ignore it.

Also how are you so sure that Jesus didnt mention it? Theres as much a 50% chnace that He did condemn it

He didn't mention it to the centurion. There's as much as a 50% chance that the servant he loved was also his boyfriend.

Anyway, I suggested that Christain fundamentalists were those that try and obey all the Jesus commanded in loving God and ones neighbour and so obeying the gospel of love.

They do nothing of the sort. They impose rules not only on themselves but on others. They are the same as the Judaizers that Paul fought against: they want to impose the Old Testament dispensation on New Testament people. They use condemnatory language against others; they do not show love to others. They use the Bible as a weapon against people. They are the whited sepulchres and dry bones that Jesus preached against.

What would you say to someone who thought inappropriate behavior with animals was alright because Jesus doesn’t mention it?

I can always tell that someone who claims not to be homophobic really is when this kind of argument comes up. Well, if you can find a way in which inappropriate behavior with animals can ever obey the law of love, I'd like to see you argue it. This is the argument of desperation; and you know it. Two people in love with one another - whatever gender - are two people in love with one another. There is mutual affection, mutual consent and mutual sharing of joy and trouble. I can see nowhere in scripture that condemns such a blessing.

 

[ahab]

Hi artybloke and good morning.

and his audience understood that to include same-sex sex.. yes?

I think that the Jewish audience that Jesus was speaking to all understood the Mosaic law or were trying to abide by it. What makes you say ‘no’?

Scripture condemns long hair wherever it is mentioned. All the mentions of gay sexual practive refer to either temple prostitution or to exploitative relationships. It does not condemn love. It doesn't even call it a sin; it calls it a "toe'vah", which is ritual uncleanliness, like eating shellfish. But then you know all this, you've been told umpteen times and you choose to ignore it.

There are many scholars who would not agree with you that all mention of same-sex practice is temple prostitution or exploitative, there are many who suggest none of the references are specifically that so I cant ignore them just to suit you, I have to take into account all. Please don’t ask me to close my mind to all arguments.

Besides my point was that all the mention of same-sex practice is negative which you haven’t denied.



As to the centurion, same-sex sex with their servants was apparently quite common. One might ask why Jesus didn’t mention it. The issue was that the centurion had faith. That he may have been a sinner doesn’t prevent him from having faith and Jesus obviously recognised him as a soldier and his duties under authority. However, centurions were actually employed as soldiers not lovers, but I wouldn’t assume Jesus is countenancing killing any more than same–sex sex, would you?



Anyway, I suggested that Christain fundamentalists were those that try and obey all the Jesus commanded in loving God and ones neighbour and so obeying the gospel of love and you say they do nothing of the sort, so my idea of a Christian fundamentalist is completely different from yours.

I can always tell that someone who claims not to be homophobic really is when this kind of argument comes up. Well, if you can find a way in which inappropriate behavior with animals can ever obey the law of love, I'd like to see you argue it. This is the argument of desperation; and you know it. Two people in love with one another - whatever gender - are two people in love with one another. There is mutual affection, mutual consent and mutual sharing of joy and trouble. I can see nowhere in scripture that condemns such a blessing.

What do you mean by homophobic? I very much support the views of my ex-gay and celibate homosexual Christian brothers and sisters, rather than the views of for example the LGCM. What do you mean exactly homophobic?
Also I see that the law for a man not to lie with another man Lev 18:22 is followed by the law not to lie with an animal, so its hardly ‘clutching at straws’ Jesus refers to one of the various laws that follows Lev 19:18 “'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."
However I could have used Lev 18:20 “Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her” as an example. One way or the other what Jesus confirms about God’s purpose in creation that a man and a woman should be united as one flesh in faithful marriage, cant include therefore a man with his neighbours wife or with another man or with an animal. And yet amazingly you are suggesting it is.

When you say the ‘law of love’ what law of love? I know that 'God is love' 1 John 4:16 and that whoever lives in love lives in God and God in him, but not ‘law is love’ whats that? Surely law doesnt live in us, its written on our hearts but God lives in us by His Holy Spirit and its a Holy Spirit not an unholy one.
If you mean love (phileo) then I cant phileo (love) someone I personally don’t have any affection for, nor can I eros (love) them but I can agape (love) them. As to mutual affection, mutual consent and mutual sharing of joy and trouble I agree, that sounds like fellowship and agape.

 

[Sharp]

Jesus Christ is the living Word of God (God's revelation of Himself to us) and the Bible is the written Word of God (God's love letter to the human race).

Karin,

I can tell you feel very strongly. That is good. God can use strong-willed people such as the Apostle Peter.

Christian social justice must be built upon the foundation of truth in God's Word. We must approve that which God approves and oppose that which God opposes. This is espeically true concerning sexual impurity. In I Corinthians 5 Paul instructed the church to judge blatant sexual sin among Christians and separate from anyone who claims to be Christian and continues to commit such sins.

The original post concerned such a situation. The most loving act of service we can do for the unrepentant friend who describes herself a follower of Christ is to reject her in the name of Jesus and have no Christian fellowship with her until she repents. The goal is restoration, and the Biblical method is separation after she rejects Christ's standards for her life.

You are from Great Britain. There are some good, Bible-based ministries there as well as solid Bible teaching on the internet. Why don't you discuss these issues with a born-again, Bible-believing minister or church elder? Let the Bible be your guide.

Sharp

 

[ahab]

I think in summary what we have here is something like this.



Sexual unions.

Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5:31. describes the purpose in creation for man and woman for faithful marriage and forms the basis of all the other references to this.

Approx 191 (NIV) references to marriage

Approx 130 references to husband

Approx 329 references to man and wife.



References to same sex unions and partners = 0



It also illustrates in Matt 19 that eunuchs or celibates who cant and don’t this are also blessed.



Same-sex sex.

Lev 18:22, 20:13 prohibited

Gen 19 wicked (also referred to Jer 23:10-11, Eze 16, 2 Pet 2, 1 Jud 7)

1 Cor 6:9 not the Kingdom

Rom 1 perversion

1 Tim lawbreaking




1 Tim 9 is very interesting because Paul uses this word arsenokoites again. This passage is a warning about false teaching or false doctrines which promote controversies. We have an endless controversy here dont we? The goal of God’s work Paul says is love.which is what we continually talk about here isnt it? Some have turned away from this but don’t understand what they are wanting to affirm. Paul says that the law was made for lawbreakers and the ungodly, unholy and irreligious sins, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts [arsenokoitaiV (arsenokoitais)],, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. So if the law was made for men that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitaiV) and this is ungodly, we shouldn’t do it right? By grace now we are not under threat not to do it but free not to do it. Yes?
The point is, arsenokoitaiV looks derived from the septuagingt Lev 18:22 and so it would seem as Paul is talking about the law. So if 'a man with another man' is contrary to the gospel, we should not promote it, which is what some are doing, as Paul says in affirming things they dont understand. So even if 1 Cor 6:9 arsenokoitaiV is about prostitution we see here that it is ungodly becuase it is man with man, not ungodly becuase it is prostitution. So one cant say man with man is alright if in love because Paul is saying the work of God is love and 'man with man' isnt the work of God.

As Paul says to the Galatians "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. We are to live by the Spirit .."So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[DanielRB]

I can always tell that someone who claims not to be homophobic really is when this kind of argument comes up. Well, if you can find a way in which inappropriate behavior with animals can ever obey the law of love, I'd like to see you argue it. This is the argument of desperation; and you know it. Two people in love with one another - whatever gender - are two people in love with one another. There is mutual affection, mutual consent and mutual sharing of joy and trouble. I can see nowhere in scripture that condemns such a blessing.

Hi Artybloke,

Arty, I'm not trying to get you mad, but here you're only addressing inappropriate behavior with animals. What about incest? People in incestous relationships could view themselves as two people in love with one another (regardless of gender). There can be mutual affection, mutual consent (assuming they're both adults or whatever 'age of consent' happens to be) and mutual sharing of joy and trouble.

Do you believe that incest between two adults is ok? Remember, the only passage that condemns this in the New Testament is 1 Cor 5:1--Jesus never spoke against incest explicitly. Paul may have been more concerned with a son's betrayal of his father and his father's marriage to his step mother than the actual sexual activity (perhaps Paul wouldn't have condemned it if his father had been dead.)

Do you think an incestous relationship today can be of God? (After all, Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister--Gen 20:12). Would it be within God's will for a brother and a sister (or a brother and a brother, or a sister and a sister, or a father and a daughter, etc) to have a monagamous sexual relationship? Do we have any right to say that it is sinful?

I'm really not trying to bait you; I'm just trying to see the extent and the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[Treasure the Questions]

You make some good points, as usual, arty.

Sharp I do let the Bible be my guide and I discuss these issues with people who take Christ's teaching seriously. I hope you do the same.

As to social justice, let's start with the fact that the US economy, just like that of the UK and the rest of the West are built on the exploitation and poverty of the majority of people in the developing world. When you and I have persuaded our governments and the giant multinationals to pay fair wages, to ensure that every person on this globe has access to free, clean drinking water, affordable health care and affordable education for every child, perhaps we can start to address the issue of homosexuality.

If homosexuality is a sin (and I only said if), there are far greater sins being committed in our name, supported by us and our shopping habits, by our consumption of excessive oil etc. Until we have sorted those we are straining at gnats and swallowing camels with our petty discussions of whether its OK or not for certain people to sleep with the person they love.

Sadly I think Johnny V is right when he says,

Lets face it people, neither side is going to convince the other one to agree with them.

​

 

[Treasure the Questions]

DanielRB, have you read The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy? It could make you think.


Karin

 

[DanielRB]

DanielRB, have you read The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy? It could make you think.


Karin

Hi Karin,

No, I haven't read it. Could you please give me a brief synopsis of it? Thanks!

In Christ,

Daniel

 

[ahab]

Hi Treasure the Questions,



Could we talk specifically about that on another thread? Jesus askes us as His disciples to obey all He taught and commanded. The fact that not all the world are obeying Jesus, may go some way to explaining why there is so much world poverty in material terms. That Jesus said the poor will always be with us kind of suggests that we would never get round to addressing anything else if you are just saying sort poverty out first.

Please can you try and not limit other people just to the part of the gospel you want to deal with and be a little more inclusive.

 

[Sharp]

As to social justice, let's start with the fact that the US economy, just like that of the UK and the rest of the West are built on the exploitation and poverty of the majority of people in the developing world.

Nonsense. This is typical leftwing extremist propaganda. The reason both some third world nations and the USA have grown successful is freedom - both economic and personal.

When you and I have persuaded our governments and the giant multinationals to pay fair wages, to ensure that every person on this globe has access to free, clean drinking water, affordable health care and affordable education for every child, perhaps we can start to address the issue of homosexuality.

It is not our business to persuade them what to pay. Let the market decide. We Christians are told that the laborer is worthy of his hire, so we ourselves pay fair wages. As to having the government force that on non-believers, forget it. And there is no Christian mandate from God to force that policy upon non-believers.

In like manner we Christians provide free wells in the name of Jesus, but we shouldn't make the US government pay for our personal charity in Jesus' name. Same for our schools and health care work. There is an exception. If the government chooses to provide these services and goods via private enterprise, then let us Christians compete with the secular providers, and may the best provider win.

If homosexuality is a sin (and I only said if), there are far greater sins being committed in our name, supported by us and our shopping habits, by our consumption of excessive oil etc. Until we have sorted those we are straining at gnats and swallowing camels with our petty discussions of whether its OK or not for certain people to sleep with the person they love.

No Bible-believing Christian can question IF homosexual intercourse is sin. That is God's Word. There are other sins, but I will not allow you to try to hide homosexual sin by blaming someone else's sins! I am very doubtful you have even read through the entire Bible. Let God speak to you and not your own prejudices.

 

[artybloke]

The reason both some third world nations and the USA have grown successful is freedom - both economic and personal.

********. The reason for USA economic dominance is pure unadulterated greed.

No Bible-believing Christian can question IF homosexual intercourse is sin. That is God's Word.

No it isn't. It's your narrow-minded, Pharasaical interpretation of a bunch of ancient texts. The Word of God is Christ, not the Bible; calling a bunch of ancient texts the Word of God is idolatrous.

 

[artybloke]

What about incest?

Frankly, I don't know. But one verse in scripture, when I don't know the context, doesn't make a good case for it being unbiblical as such. I suspect there are consequences if pregnancy/children are involved, and it is a taboo that runs through most societies, not just Christian ones. But I'd have to study the issues and I haven't.

Still nowt to do with gay sex between consenting couples though, where as far as I can tell there are no bad consequences.

 

[DanielRB]

Frankly, I don't know. But one verse in scripture, when I don't know the context, doesn't make a good case for it being unbiblical as such. I suspect there are consequences if pregnancy/children are involved, and it is a taboo that runs through most societies, not just Christian ones. But I'd have to study the issues and I haven't.

Still nowt to do with gay sex between consenting couples though, where as far as I can tell there are no bad consequences.

Hi Arty,

Thanks for your post. However, I question the wisdom of using the consequences to children as a good argument against incest, if by this you mean the higher probability of birth defects. Most eugenics laws have been thrown out, and I doubt if many want them back. Of course, it doesn't have to be a legal issue--it can be one of what you might advise a couple. For example, many people would advise any couple that would have a high probability of having children with birth defects against having children.

I appreciate your honesty an openness to study this issue. Another issue that is not directly condemned in the Scriptures--either Old or New Testament--is polygamy.

My views on this, though open to correction if I am shown to be wrong, is that homosexual behavior and incest are sins under the new covenant. As to polygamy, I don't see it as being ideal, but I think it is not directly condemned.

In Christ,

Daniel