WHY is homosexuality sinful?

[GenemZ]

-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]1 Samuel 18:3-4[/FONT]​

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)​

[/FONT]

Jonathan was the prince, heir to the Throne of Saul. Jonathan gave David the prince's uniform, for Jonathan knew David was annointed to become King. It was his submission to the reality that his Father Saul was enraged about. Saul hated David and spent his last days obsessed with killing him, because the Prophet Samuel had annointed David to be the next King of Israel. Jonathan, King Saul's son, would have become king if Saul did not rebel against God.

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Today it would seem strange. But when Peter jumped into the water when seeing the Lord? Guess what?

John 21:5-7 (New International Version)​

"He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" ​

"No," they answered. ​

He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish. ​

Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water."​

I will leave that one for your own interpretation.

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Other translations have a different ending to the verse: [/FONT]-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)[/FONT]-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)[/FONT]-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)[/FONT]-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)[/FONT]-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)[/FONT]-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)[/FONT]-[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

This is perverting the truth. Its really embarrassing because too many theologians lack enough doctrine to see what was going on.

My Pastor read Hebrew fluently and also has an excellent back ground in theological training.

I got the following from notes on a message he gave on this passage. I find it amazing how when one is obsessed with proving the gay cause, how one will interpret what they do to mean what they want it to. And, sadly. Be oblivious, completely, to the theological significance there to be known.


Here...

{Farewell Meeting of Right Friends - David and Jonathan}
41^~ And as soon as the lad was gone,
David rose up out of a place toward the south,
and fell on his face to the ground
and bowed himself three times
{three bows to Jonathan - the highest honor of the day}, and they kissed one another {a holy kiss of honor - like the French do today}, and continued weeping one with another {another sign of their real true friendship - they truly will miss each others company} . . . so David became the greater.

{Note: At this point, Jonathan was the greater of the two SuperGrace friends. From this time on, Jonathan will stay with his father and go into reversionism himself. David will recover from his reversionism and come back. David always rebounded and recovered. He never let his failures keep him down and he will become the greater - and David will be one of the greatest ever.}

Jonathan up till then had been the greater of the two men. David was running scared. Not trusting God. Lacking faith.

But, because Jonathan refused at that point to break away from his father's rebellion against God, he then decreased. David from that point on had became the GREATER. Gadal..... not an erection!

From then on, David became the greater of the two men! Jonathan from then on backslid because he refused to separate himself from his father who was obsessed with evil. In contrast, David was coming out of his failing to walk by faith and trusting in God.

Because he failed to separate from evil, Jonathan was soon killed in battle with his father. He died because he stayed with the camp which was in rebellion agianst God! David went on with God. David at that moment became the greater of the two. For if it were to be done, that was the time Jonathan was to separate from his evil father. Jonathan refused. He decreased. David became the greater!

Grace and truth, GeneZ​

​

 

[ebia]

You don't believe that it's a fact that it's possible to love someone, regardless of gender?

Not in the particular sense of love being discussed, no.

You mentioned "romantic love" as is it's entirely different from any kind of love you would feel for anyone else.

Substantially different, yes.

Well let me ask you this then. If we didn't have these flesh bodies, would it even be possible to have "romantic attractions" to just one KIND of soul? They would have no gender,

Who's to say they would have no gender.

so you couldn't say that you are heterosexual or homosexual and only attracted to one KIND of soul. Behind these flesh bodies, we are all the same

I don't agree.

In my opinion, "romantic love" is different from the love you would feel for your best friend only because it includes sexual attraction.

I don't agree at all.

I think you become romantically attracted to the opposite sex and choose them as a life partner because that is how you will procreate and start a family.

In my experience having children is well down the list of reasons to get married for most men. It didn't appear on my list at all.

 

[ChuRoo]

Who's to say they would have no gender.


I don't agree.


I don't agree at all.


In my experience having children is well down the list of reasons to get married for most men. It didn't appear on my list at all.

What does gender matter outside of a flesh body?

In your experience? Well from many of the men I've known that have gotten married, it seems to me that having a family was pretty high on the list to them. If it didn't appear on your list at all, that's all you, then. Can't really debate that any further without poking into your personal life, which I'm not interested in doing and I'm sure you're not interesting in sharing with me.

Since you didn't bother to give me an explaination as to why you don't agree with my opinion, I assume you don't want to discuss why. So I guess that's where the argument ends.

 

[MarkEvan]

Hi Ebia,

7Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

This is a passage from 1 john ch 2 and is what I am refering to when I say that Jesus gave a new command and yet it is no new command, i believe that the two are taking a different angle about the same subject.

I don't agree with your analysis here.

which is fine, but what I said is what the scriptures say, I quoted jesus own words about the pharisees and their ability to teach the law, and then his criticism of their adding to the law. They did have knowledge about the scriptures, but they didn`t have love and therefore did not apply what thay knew rather they added new laws that bennefitted them.

You are taking them out of a specific context to construct a general law with wider applicability than is implicit in the original in context. You are doing exactly what the Pharisees had done with, say, the Law about the Sabbath, or the teachers that Paul critises in his letter to the Galatians. And justifying, no doubt, in the same way they did.

What is the context that you see this passage written in? As to Paul and the teachers that were teaching the galations that they must be circumcised, Paul specificaly states that were they to allow themselves to be circumcised then Christ would be of no avail to them, Paul however says that homosexuality is wrong, the two therefore cannot be compared, even were it true that it is Ok for some to be homosexual so long as that is their nature, because Paul is saying that if they are circumcised full stop it is wrong.

That's a huge assumption. Just because someone is taught by Fred doesn't mean their words are always the words of Fred.

I would agree, but when what they say is allways in line with what Jesus said, why? Because they always repeated what they heard from Him, its like when Jesus says that He only speaks what He has heard the Father speak.


Mark

 

[ebia]

What does gender matter outside of a flesh body?

The question is becoming circular; for one it matters precisely for the reason we are talking about. It's and integral part of our identity. For a small number of people it doesn't even match the physical sex of their body.

In your experience? Well from many of the men I've known that have gotten married, it seems to me that having a family was pretty high on the list to them.

Either we mix with different people, or men are less honest when talking to women. Either way, it's not top of the list for all men (or women for that matter).

If it didn't appear on your list at all, that's all you, then.

Sorry, it's not just me.

Can't really debate that any further without poking into your personal life, which I'm not interested in doing and I'm sure you're not interesting in sharing with me.

That depends. If you ask in an appropriate way then I might be prepared to answer.

Since you didn't bother to give me an explaination as to why you don't agree with my opinion, I assume you don't want to discuss why. So I guess that's where the argument ends.

Since neither of our points of view seemed remotely provable at first sight, I didn't think it worth elaborating. If you particularly want to explore a particular point then I'm happy to join you.

 

[ebia]

Hi Ebia,

7Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

This is a passage from 1 john ch 2 and is what I am refering to when I say that Jesus gave a new command and yet it is no new command, i believe that the two are taking a different angle about the same subject.

Perhaps we were talking at cross purposes. Is it worth trying to untangle the previous conversation?

which is fine, but what I said is what the scriptures say, I quoted jesus own words about the pharisees and their ability to teach the law, and then his criticism of their adding to the law. They did have knowledge about the scriptures, but they didn`t have love and therefore did not apply what thay knew rather they added new laws that bennefitted them.

That's part of the picture, but I don't think you are giving the whole picture. Their "new laws" were laws that they believed were merely applications of the divinely given laws, just as (IMO) you do. In that sense they had misunderstood the divine Law, and in that sense I believe you have misunderstood St Paul.

What is the context that you see this passage written in?

In the context of the particular actions that were going on in Corinth and Rome at the time Paul wrote his letters to those places. His letters are written to very specific circumstances and situations. When he condemns an action he has in mind the particular action that is happening in that place. Our generalisation from that specific, therefore, needs to be done very cautiously, especially if condemnation of the specific can be directly and easly inferred from (say) the 2nd Great Commandment but the general cannot.

As to Paul and the teachers that were teaching the galations that they must be circumcised, Paul specificaly states that were they to allow themselves to be circumcised then Christ would be of no avail to them, Paul however says that homosexuality is wrong, the two therefore cannot be compared, even were it true that it is Ok for some to be homosexual so long as that is their nature, because Paul is saying that if they are circumcised full stop it is wrong.

Maybe it's just because it's late at night, but I can't make sense of this paragraph - too many commas. Could you rephrase it. Thanks.

I would agree, but when what they say is allways in line with what Jesus said, why? Because they always repeated what they heard from Him, its like when Jesus says that He only speaks what He has heard the Father speak.

In the specific sense, I don't believe the 'standard understanding' of what Paul wrote about homosexuality is in line with what Jesus said.

To comment more generally, that's precisely how I approach (say) St Paul's writings - how can I understand this in a way that is in line with Jesus teaching.

 

[GenemZ]

What does gender matter outside of a flesh body?

Gender was not determined by the flesh. Gender is determined by the soul.

Genesis 1:26-27 (New American Standard Bible)​

"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." ​

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."​

Before a body was formed in the next chapter from the elements of the earth to place the created soul in, the souls of male and female had already been created by God! God created your soul female. The body only reflects that reality.

Created in his image. He created male and female in his image. Man with his God designed woman form a bond that makes them fulfilled and complete as a whole person. With those called of God to remain single, the LORD himself makes up for what was not given. Paul made such a sacrifice, as well as others.

The flesh is only a means by which our souls can be seen, heard, and felt while living in what we call, 'time and space.' In Heaven our souls can be seen with, or without, a body. For it is outside of time and space, and what is invisible here is what holds true substance with God's Heavenly Kingdom.

You are a female soul. You will remain a female soul after you leave your present body. Gender is not a matter of flesh. For the time being God has assigned female souls to one kind of flesh, and males to another.

In your experience? Well from many of the men I've known that have gotten married, it seems to me that having a family was pretty high on the list to them. If it didn't appear on your list at all, that's all you, then. Can't really debate that any further without poking into your personal life, which I'm not interested in doing and I'm sure you're not interesting in sharing with me.

Some people have not been called to have children. Children should not be the reason for a marriage, even if they desire children. The reason for marriage is that a man and women rightly love each other and want to be one as they go through life together. Having children should not be the reason. Some may not even discover that they want to have children until after they discover the oneness that God's plan has provided for man and wife.

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

​

 

[MarkEvan]

Hi Ebia,

Perhaps we were talking at cross purposes. Is it worth trying to untangle the previous conversation?

Prabably not.

In the context of the particular actions that were going on in Corinth and Rome at the time Paul wrote his letters to those places. His letters are written to very specific circumstances and situations. When he condemns an action he has in mind the particular action that is happening in that place. Our generalisation from that specific, therefore, needs to be done very cautiously, especially if condemnation of the specific can be directly and easly inferred from (say) the 2nd Great Commandment but the general cannot.

Personally I don`t see why social actions at the time should really be a part of how we understand the scriptures. I think that what the writers do is give us the general principles to work by, and in some cases give specific detail about specific circumstances. But the meaning and how we apply it does not change.

Maybe it's just because it's late at night, but I can't make sense of this paragraph - too many commas. Could you rephrase it. Thanks.

No problem, to be honest with you I was like after I wrote it, but kinda hoped you miht of made sense of it.
What I meant was that, Paul was teaching against what the false teachers were saying, so in essance they were teaching something completely different to what Paul was, however with homosexuality I am not saying anything that Paul has not already said, even if we take it that he is talking only of those who are going against nature, I am teaching the same thing.

In the specific sense, I don't believe the 'standard understanding' of what Paul wrote about homosexuality is in line with what Jesus said.

To comment more generally, that's precisely how I approach (say) St Paul's writings - how can I understand this in a way that is in line with Jesus teaching.

Then ultimately it comes back to what is the deffinition of love.

Mark

 

[ebia]

Hi Ebia,
Personally I don`t see why social actions at the time should really be a part of how we understand the scriptures. I think that what the writers do is give us the general principles to work by, and in some cases give specific detail about specific circumstances. But the meaning and how we apply it does not change.

That would seem to be completely at odds with the fact that the epistles are (mostly) letters written to specific communities at specific times when specific things were happening and (in the first instance) the writer is addressing those specifics. To read them without taking those specifics into account is to read them in a way never intended by the author and a way not done by the original audience. It effectively denies a significant aspect of the nature of the text. It's certainly not the default way to read a letter originally addressed to someone else.

No problem, to be honest with you I was like after I wrote it, but kinda hoped you miht of made sense of it.
What I meant was that, Paul was teaching against what the false teachers were saying, so in essance they were teaching something completely different to what Paul was, however with homosexuality I am not saying anything that Paul has not already said, even if we take it that he is talking only of those who are going against nature, I am teaching the same thing.

I think perhaps you are taking my comparision between your PoV and the circumcision party in Galatia a bit further than I intended. I'm not sure the point is worth persuing.

Then ultimately it comes back to what is the deffinition of love.

Mark

Does it? Possibly - I feel I'm missing something in what you are saying.

 

[MarkEvan]

Hi Ebia,

That would seem to be completely at odds with the fact that the epistles are (mostly) letters written to specific communities at specific times when specific things were happening and (in the first instance) the writer is addressing those specifics. To read them without taking those specifics into account is to read them in a way never intended by the author and a way not done by the original audience. It effectively denies a significant aspect of the nature of the text. It's certainly not the default way to read a letter originally addressed to someone else.

I agree that the epistles were writen to specific people at specific times about specific things, however the truth in what Paul writes cannot only be limited to when times are similar to those when Paul wrote the letter. For me, yes the letters have a specific meaning but that meaning is not only limited to that social context, the truth is the truth even when the context of the times may be completely different from the context it was written in.

I think perhaps you are taking my comparision between your PoV and the circumcision party in Galatia a bit further than I intended. I'm not sure the point is worth persuing.

Fair enough.

Does it? Possibly - I feel I'm missing something in what you are saying.

Of course it does, think about it, what ultimately are we arguing about? About the love that God deems acceptable, how we show our love to Him.

Mark