What is marriage, and why does it preclude homosexuality? (Moved from C,P&E to DOH)

[OllieFranz]

However, since you brought up the subject:

The following things are toevah:

* Sharing a meal with Israelites is toevah to Egyptians (Gen 42:32)
* Daily association with foreign shepherds is toevah to the Egyptians (Gen 46:34)
* Hebrew sacrificial practices are toevah to the Egyptians (Exo 8:26)
* Lying with men (Lev 18:22 and 20:13)
* Foreign idols and the gold and silver that adorn them (Deut 7:25-26*, 27:15)
* Child sacrifice and/or sacrifice to foreign gods (Deut 12:31, 13:12-17)
* The eating of unclean animals (Deut 14:3)
* Sacrificing diseased animals to the LORD (Deut 17:1)
* Certain (religious) practices of the Canaanites (Deut 18:9-12, 20:18, 32:16)
* Cross-dressing (Deut 22:5)
* Tithing with money earned in the (sexual) worship of foreign gods (Deut 23:18)
* Re-marrying a woman whom you divorced for sexual indecency (adultery?) and who was later married to someone else (and is now divorced again, or widowed) (Deut 24:1-4)

The following things are sheqets:

* Eating unclean animals (Lev 11, passim)
* Allowing toevah idols in the house (Deut 7:26*)
* Objects that were offered in sacrifice to foreign idols (Deut 29:17, See also Acts 15:29)

The following things are ta'ab:

* toevah idols (Deut 7:26*)
* However, Edomites are specifically claimed not to be ta'ab, as are Egyptians.

The following things are zimmah (wicked):

* Having sex with two women who are closely related (Lev 18:17, 20:14)
* Pimping your daughter, or otherwise forcing her to become a harlot (Lev 19:29)

The various words seem to divde themselves into different areas -- different types of "abominations."

 

[mattlock73]

No.

Leviticus bans a certain action, by one of the participants, for the sake of clearly differentiating Jews from heir neighbors. It is possible to argue that this ban was even more restrictive, restricted to rape or to pagan religious practices, but even if they were not so restricted, these are separateness bans that were not meant to apply to Gentile Christians, as explained in Acts 10-11, Acts 15, Romans, Galatians, and touched on in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 do seem to refer back to the Levitical ban, but both passages are general listings of many sins against the Law of Moses. And both are making the point that the christian has been redeemed out of sin.

Romans 1:26-27 is making a point about Passion, by quoting an example of Passion gone amok from a famous piece of Greek literature. The original work takes great pains to emphasize that the thing that went against nature was the akrateian hêdonês, "out-of-control pleasure-seeking (hedonism)" or unbridled Passion all through the rest of the passage. Paul was not about to quote a whole two chapters to make the same point, but he did re-phrase the passage slightly, to allow him to insert five key words: the five components of unbridled Passion.

The Romans 1 passage does lend itself to an anti-gay reading if you are unfamliar with the Greek work from which Paul drew his example, but that is why, as you say, we must compare scripture with scripture.

As a whole, Romans 1:18-32 is a set-up for chapters 2 and 3. Paul describes the wickedest people immaginable, and then tells his readers, "and you are no better than they are." The sins must be vividly described and must be considered especially heinous to give the proper initial effect, but once the Christian reads as far as Romans 2:1-3, the specifics do not matter. We are all guilty. As James wrote: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." (James 2:10)

The specifics may not matter later, but the sins must be real sins. So: Is woman with woman and man with man the sin? If it is, then why was all the emphasis placed on unbridled Passion?

Nowhere else in scripture is "woman with woman" condemned. The phrases "according to nature" and "against nature" do not appear anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures; when they appear elsewhere in the Greek scriptures the merely mean "as expected" or "against all expectations." It is only here that the phrases take on their original philosophic meaning of "ethically correct" and "that which ought not be done."

On the other hand, lust, Passion, and sexual immorality defined -- usually, in many of those same passages -- as adultery, fornication, and prostitution are condemned in many passages, not just here.

These five passages (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-11, and Romans 1:26-27) are the only teaching passages that touch specifically on same-sex relations. There are few historical passages that include actions between men that are seen as sexual in nature. The most famous such historic passage is Genesis 19. But in this passage, as in the less well known ones, the action would be evil even if the victims were the opposite sex and, indeed, even if there were no sexual overtones at all.

So, by comparing scripture with scripture you can't help but see that the Bible is gay-neutral. It bans evil homosexual acts the same way it bans their heterosexual counterparts. The Mosaic Law ritually banned one act under certain circumstances, but Acts 10-11 and 15 apply to Christians. Otherwise it is silent on the subject of same-sex relations*, though it does have praise for certain same-sex relationships*.

*In this last sentence, I used the term "relations" to indicate sexual acts, and "relationship" to encompass all kinds of connections (all levels of freindship) between people with no assumptions made about any relations they may be having or avoiding.

I disagree with most of what you posted here. The Levitical bans were not simply cultural restrictions, not could they be construed even in the best light to be limited to the case of rape or pagan religious practices.

As to Romans 1, I also do not interpret that passage in the same way you do, but I do see it in the the same light in relation to Rom 2 and 3. In Romans 1 Paul details the worst, then in 2 and 3 says we are all the same in the eyes of God and then goes on to say that we are to live in sin no more. Buried in death with Christ, how can we not then bear his likeness in the resurrection? We are all sinners, there are no degrees of sin so one person's sin is not worse than another's. In God's eyes the sin of gossip is equal to the sin of murder.

But let's assume for the minute that I agree completely with what you are saying. There is still one more problem to get past as far as I can see. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman both in Genesis and in the Gospels from Christ's own words. Fornication is defined as sex outside of marriage, so by the definition of marriage then, all homosexual sex is fornication. There is no disputing that fornication is considered a no-no, even in the light of the NT is there? I realize that you may and probably do disagree with what defines marriage, and I have heard the arguments against it, but they don't hold water as far as I can tell.

 

[mattlock73]

However, since you brought up the subject:

The following things are toevah:

* Sharing a meal with Israelites is toevah to Egyptians (Gen 42:32)
* Daily association with foreign shepherds is toevah to the Egyptians (Gen 46:34)
* Hebrew sacrificial practices are toevah to the Egyptians (Exo 8:26)
* Lying with men (Lev 18:22 and 20:13)
* Foreign idols and the gold and silver that adorn them (Deut 7:25-26*, 27:15)
* Child sacrifice and/or sacrifice to foreign gods (Deut 12:31, 13:12-17)
* The eating of unclean animals (Deut 14:3)
* Sacrificing diseased animals to the LORD (Deut 17:1)
* Certain (religious) practices of the Canaanites (Deut 18:9-12, 20:18, 32:16)
* Cross-dressing (Deut 22:5)
* Tithing with money earned in the (sexual) worship of foreign gods (Deut 23:18)
* Re-marrying a woman whom you divorced for sexual indecency (adultery?) and who was later married to someone else (and is now divorced again, or widowed) (Deut 24:1-4)

The following things are sheqets:

* Eating unclean animals (Lev 11, passim)
* Allowing toevah idols in the house (Deut 7:26*)
* Objects that were offered in sacrifice to foreign idols (Deut 29:17, See also Acts 15:29)

The following things are ta'ab:

* toevah idols (Deut 7:26*)
* However, Edomites are specifically claimed not to be ta'ab, as are Egyptians.

The following things are zimmah (wicked):

* Having sex with two women who are closely related (Lev 18:17, 20:14)
* Pimping your daughter, or otherwise forcing her to become a harlot (Lev 19:29)

The various words seem to divde themselves into different areas -- different types of "abominations."

This was discussed much earlier in this thread as well, but toevah does have 2 meanings. The one you seem stuck on is the ritual definition which referred to unclean foods, the second refers to ethical issues (wickedness) and would be on par with zimmah (which also has multiple meanings including idolatry) which one could argue would put it in the ritual category. To rely only on the first definition when the second is also viable (as the punishment outlined does not seem to fit the same for a ritual sin) leaves this argument on a particularly weak foundation.

 

[OllieFranz]

I disagree with most of what you posted here. The Levitical bans were not simply cultural restrictions, not could they be construed even in the best light to be limited to the case of rape or pagan religious practices.

I said that a case could be made for claiming that it was restricted further (rape or temple practices). I can understand the Biblical backing for such arguments. I do not, however feel that ultimately the arguments can be sustained. But, as I said, my argument does not rely on such further restrictions.

On the other hand, if you got the impression that I think that the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are "simply cultural restrictions" there has been a serious miscommunication. Yes, they apply to the Israelites and not to the Gentiles, and yes they are designed to distinguish the Israelites from their neighbors, but their primary purpose is to remind them that everything they do is to be done as toward the Lord.

And to emphasize a point to the rest of the world. The Jewish people are God's chosen people -- chosen to be an example to the world. If even these people, separated out of the Nations and dedicated to glorifying God's reign here on earth cannot keep themselves pure, then the rest of us have no hope. Or would have no hope if we relied only on the law.

As to Romans 1, I also do not interpret that passage in the same way you do, but I do see it in the the same light in relation to Rom 2 and 3. In Romans 1 Paul details the worst, then in 2 and 3 says we are all the same in the eyes of God and then goes on to say that we are to live in sin no more. Buried in death with Christ, how can we not then bear his likeness in the resurrection? We are all sinners, there are no degrees of sin so one person's sin is not worse than another's. In God's eyes the sin of gossip is equal to the sin of murder.

Just as I can see the Biblical backing for the arguments about restricting the scope of Leviticus 18:22, I can see the basis if your interpretation of Romans 1:26-27. It comes from being unfamiliar with the original source of the passage, and unfamiliar with the very pointed use of key words to point to the fact that Paul is emphasizing the unbridled passion, as had Plato before him. It is an almost inevitable result of Plato's works no longer being part of the library of any man of letters.

Likewise, we no longer define Erotic Passion as the combination of epythemia, pathos, ekkaio, orexis, and plane, all words that Paul added to the quote to highlight his point:

διο και παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εν ταις επιθυμιαις των καρδιων αυτων εις ακαθαρσιαν του ατιμαζεσθαι τα σωματα αυτων εν εαυτοις οιτινες μετηλλαξαν την αληθειαν του θεου εν τω ψευδει και εσεβασθησαν και ελατρευσαν τη κτισει παρα τον κτισαντα ος εστιν ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην δια τουτο παρεδωκεν αυτους ο θεος εις παθη ατιμιας αι τε γαρ θηλειαι αυτων μετηλλαξαν την φυσικην χρησιν εις την παρα φυσιν ομοιως τε και οι αρρενες αφεντες την φυσικην χρησιν της θηλειας εξεκαυθησαν εν τη ορεξει αυτων εις αλληλους αρσενες εν αρσεσιν την ασχημοσυνην κατεργαζομενοι και την αντιμισθιαν ην εδει της πλανης αυτων εν εαυτοις απολαμβανοντες

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

But let's assume for the minute that I agree completely with what you are saying. There is still one more problem to get past as far as I can see. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman both in Genesis and in the Gospels from Christ's own words.

Marriage is never defined in the Bible. It is always assumed to already exist as an institution. In Matthew 19 (and, by extension, in Genesis 2:24) one purpose of marriage is described. It is not the only purpose, since other commonly held purposes, such as the rearing of children, are not mentioned. Nor is it a purpose that can only be acheived by one man and one woman.

Fornication is defined as sex outside of marriage, so by the definition of marriage then, all homosexual sex is fornication.

I have to stop right here. The rest of the paragraph would follow if it were true that all homoexual sex were fornication. But by your own definition, sex within marriage is not fornication.

There is no disputing that fornication is considered a no-no, even in the light of the NT is there?

I realize that you may and probably do disagree with what defines marriage, and I have heard the arguments against it, but they don't hold water as far as I can tell.

My definition of marriage, one I believe is supported by Scripture, if not spelled out, is a covenant, a contract, a commitment between two people, (sometimes also involving the parents of on or both persons) for the purpose of "becoming one flesh." There are other aspects of most marriages, but I don't believe most of them are essential to the legitimacy of the covenant, and in Godly marriage contracts, the covenant is a sacred one made calling upon God to witness and bless the union, but it is legitimate even when it is not Godly.

 

[OllieFranz]

This was discussed much earlier in this thread as well, but toevah does have 2 meanings. The one you seem stuck on is the ritual definition which referred to unclean foods, the second refers to ethical issues (wickedness) and would be on par with zimmah (which also has multiple meanings including idolatry) which one could argue would put it in the ritual category. To rely only on the first definition when the second is also viable (as the punishment outlined does not seem to fit the same for a ritual sin) leaves this argument on a particularly weak foundation.

In the post you quoted I listed all of the specific actions in the Law which are described by one or more of these four words. Please illustrate your point. If it helps I have also summarized all of the appearances of the words in the rest of the Old Testament, except for the poetic books:

Toevah: 23 cases where it refers to idolatry, 41 cases where the specific sin is not mentioned, but in at least 25 of them the context implies the likelihood of idolatry, 2 cases where it refers to incest (but which may or may not be poetic references to idolatry.

Sheqets: 5 cases refering to something tainted by contact with idolatry, 21 referring to defilement from unclean objects or to the defiling objects themselves, 3 uunspecified.

Ta'ab: 9 cases refering to something hated, 3 generally "abominable"

Zimmah: 7 references to sexual wickedness (including the gang-rape and murder in Judges 19), 10 references to general wickedness, often metaphorically described as sexual sins, 3 unspecified.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

It seems Anglian is right, that Scripture can be debated incessantly.

I suppose all I can do is as he said: Follow the Church, and my own relationship with God.

Only question remaining is then, how do I know whether my relationship with God is real? (What is real?)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It seems Anglian is right, that Scripture can be debated incessantly.

I suppose all I can do is as he said: Follow the Church, and my own relationship with God.

Only question remaining is then, how do I know whether my relationship with God is real? (What is real?)

I like to think that logical meditation on scripture poinbts the way

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I like to think that logical meditation on scripture [points] the way

Right. And if you don't belong to a well-established church, such as the Catholic church or Orthodox church, then not only do you think that, but you must think that; you really have nothing else to go on.

The problem is, especially among Protestants (say, Episcopalian vs. Southern Baptist), that Scripture points to heaven for some, while others claim it points to hell.

A road sign that is seen to be pointing simultaneously in opposite directions isn't very helpful objectively. Scripture is then of very limited use by itself -- very helpful subjectively, though. People believe the Holy Spirit guides them as they read, that God Himself speaks to them through the passages. The problem many Protestants encounter is that they attempt to apply logic in arguments -- that which deals with objective truth -- for what they read: attempting to apply objective tools to subjective material.

I have a fundamentalist friend who becomes irate whenever she hears this. Because, of course, -- especially since she belongs to no church in particular, "not believing in them" -- the Bible is "the inerrant literal word of God," which of course means there's only one way to read it ...

Blah. This post would be far more coherent if I wasn't attempting to write it at 00:57 ...

I came here because I had a minor epiphany. I was about to view porn, a young woman masturbating, in an attempt to convince myself that I was heterosexual.

It then occurred to me that I would apparently be much better off in a chaste homosexual relationship, than a sinful heterosexual fantasy. Yes, yes, apples and oranges, and yes, it's better to do neither, I know. ... It seemed an expression of frustration, though, that you know, life would be much simpler if I didn't worry about everything so much.

My point is that around the world (on average) the divorce rate seems to be rising, and the pornography industry is making more money than ever. These things seem to be far more sinful than a chaste homosexual relationship ... maybe even an unchaste (and dedicated) one.

 

[KCKID]

I use the Amplified, the New King James, and the King James. Pick one. All of them say 'homosexuals', with the exception of the King James, which says 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Why are you trying to twist the scriptures? Homosexuality is an abomination to God. He hates it.

Here we go again ...the old worn-out record is back. Is it possible to state this one last time and have someone acknowledge that it HAS been stated? PLEASE?

RED ALERT: The words 'homosexual/homosexuality' were NOT in the original manuscripts of scripture.

RED ALERT: The words 'homosexual/homosexuality' were NOT in the original manuscripts of scripture.

RED ALERT: The words 'homosexual/homosexuality' were NOT in the original manuscripts of scripture.

Would someone PLEASE scknowledge that they understand what was just stated? We need to understand that the word 'homosexual/homosexuality' are MODERN words that have replaced the words 'sodomy/sodomite'.

Homosexuals are NOT necessarily sodomites. Heterosexuals CAN be sodomites.

Kirk to Enterprise: "Please acknowledge message received." Kirk out.

 

[buchanan701]

You are not going to like this. God is against homosexuality. So obviously, same sex marriages would be a mockery of what He originally instituted. He instituted man for woman.


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


If God is against homosexuality, why would He be for gay marriage?

The Levi ones - Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the
Hebrew word for this shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having
any number of people. what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a
prohibition of carnal relations between two men (shakabh) we do not eve find the
strangely and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie”… which is the Hebrew mishkabh.
Rather we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament
and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words,
some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce,
another man to have sex. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an
abomination.
(by the way I totally just hijjacked this off of some thread, so all credit due to the person who did it)

Cor - I don't even have to know a hell of a lot about the good book to answer this.
This version of the translation is a fairly recent one. Other translations have included masterbators, or offenders or others such as this. The phrase 'homosexual' was unheard of up until fairly recently, therefore it would be rather odd if people 2000 years ago used it. I'm not even sure the people would have had a word for homosexual (I would love if a person would back this up).

Romans -18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.

Now we’re seeing a bit more of the big picture, aren’t we? This is clearly not talking about Christians. Paul is talking about those who have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Verse 25 makes the point clear. They “worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator.” In a word, this entire chapter deals with idolatry. And the “gay-bashing” verses are about the pagan practices in temple rites.

 

[buchanan701]

You are not going to like this. God is against homosexuality. So obviously, same sex marriages would be a mockery of what He originally instituted. He instituted man for woman.


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


If God is against homosexuality, why would He be for gay marriage?

The Levi ones - Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the
Hebrew word for this shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having
any number of people. what we do not find in either Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 is a
prohibition of carnal relations between two men (shakabh) we do not eve find the
strangely and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie”… which is the Hebrew mishkabh.
Rather we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament
and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words,
some type of rape.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce,
another man to have sex. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an
abomination.
(by the way I totally just hijjacked this off of some thread, so all credit due to the person who did it)

Cor - I don't even have to know a hell of a lot about the good book to answer this.
This version of the translation is a fairly recent one. Other translations have included masterbators, or offenders or others such as this. The phrase 'homosexual' was unheard of up until fairly recently, therefore it would be rather odd if people 2000 years ago used it. I'm not even sure the people would have had a word for homosexual (I would love if a person would back this up).

Romans -18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.

Now we’re seeing a bit more of the big picture, aren’t we? This is clearly not talking about Christians. Paul is talking about those who have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Verse 25 makes the point clear. They “worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator.” In a word, this entire chapter deals with idolatry. And the “gay-bashing” verses are about the pagan practices in temple rites.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

You don't have to post it twice, and with whom are you arguing? This thread is pretty much dead; I kind of inadvertently revived it.

 

[Jerrell]

If the mind becomes secular it's easy to accept homosexuality, and it becomes very easy to make excuses for it. But if we truly serve a Holy God how can we simply ignore, and support an act which he deems abomidable, not only in the OT but also in the New Testament. Paul was telling the truth when he said that in latter times some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.

 

[KCKID]

If the mind becomes secular it's easy to accept homosexuality, and it becomes very easy to make excuses for it. But if we truly serve a Holy God how can we simply ignore, and support an act which he deems abomidable, not only in the OT but also in the New Testament. Paul was telling the truth when he said that in latter times some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.

Absolute baloney. You have said nothing about the thread topic but have instead given the same old bigotted - and expected - rhetoric. Jesus is the Son of God and He (Jesus) never breathed a word about this issue. Considering that Christians have made this issue larger than life one might be forgiven for asking why Jesus Himself didn't even deem the subject worthy of mention or discussion.

Just be careful that those seducing spirits and doctrines of devils that you mention are not more applicable to the rather vast number of professed Christians who are blatantly spreading hatred toward others under the guise of Christianity!

 

[Angel4Truth]

Jesus is the Son of God and He (Jesus) never breathed a word about this issue

Jesus didnt need to mention it. He defined what marriage is e even referenced creation - one doesnt need to then define all the things it isnt. The bible defines what adultery is. The bible already defined that homosexual relations are a sin.

It sure would be nice though if certain members would stop coming into threads and personally attacking others so that some of us would be better able to have conversation. The personal attacks are the real tired old rhetoric if you ask me.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear KCKID,

Absolute baloney.

On the contrary I think what Jerrell wrote is true, I think what you have written is the same old bigoted non factual rhetoric for this reason...
The NT is the testimony of Jesus Christ, the authors record all Jesus said, did and taught the first disciples. In fact Peter endorses Paul who is also endorsed by Luke who wrote one of the synoptic gospel along with Matthew and Mark.
As to the NT it refers extensively to the OT, and before Abraham was Jesus said, I AM.

If God’s purpose in creation is male and female so that a man and a woman shall unite them man and man, woman and woman isn’t what God has created men and woman for. To say therefore that Jesus says nothing about homosexuality is not true, what Jesus has spoken about makes the acts of this modern concept, error. Jesus offers celibacy as the alternative to marriage, celibacy isn’t an alternative union but an abstinence. If abstinence is the only alternative to man/woman union and man/woman union and celibacy are the only countenanced options throughout the entire Bible then the idea of same-sex unions is not only baseless but in direct denial of the Bible. These are the facts, Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 7 etc. which all say what they say. You havent supplied any evidence to support your view, if you did others of us may like to dispute whether its bigoted or in context.

Just be careful that those seducing spirits and doctrines of devils that you mention are not more applicable to the rather vast number of professed Christians who are blatantly spreading hatred toward others under the guise of Christianity!

They aren’t speaking hatred towards others, they are speaking love, some just see God’s love as hatred, which is probably equivalent of hating God.

You are entitled to make your choice and live your life as you see fit, you are also entitled to your opinion just as those who believe the word of God are, whether you think they are bigoted and hateful or not. But your objections seem to be more about Christianity than homosexuality.