WHY is homosexuality sinful?

[ReformedChapin]

You really do love to argue. I'll explain one more time and then I'm done - I'll even let you have the last word, if you so choose.

The Old Testament law is not applicable to modern Christians, this is the truth. I'll stipulate that I did, and continue to, state this as fact.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]


First and foremost - it is not exhibiting prejudice to point out that something is sinful. I do not exhibit prejudice to anyone, be they homosexuals, liars, adulterers, or whatever - we are ALL sinners, and I hold no prejudice of one over another over my-own-self. Stating that something is a sin does not make me prejudiced.

Beyond that, however, I will state yet again that since the Bible states we are no longer under the Old Testament law, and since the New Testament which we held accountable to does state that homosexual behavior is a sin, your "picking and choosing" comment does not pertain. I don't know why you keep harping on that. I'm not saying that any Old Testament laws are to be held to. I'm saying New Testament "laws" are what we are to follow now.

One of those laws, as you've mentioned, is Jesus' Most Important Commandmants: Love God, love each other. Every single one of the ten commandmants falls under one or both of these two rules. So yeah, the ten commandmants are covered.



Right. See above.



You're just wrong about this. Nothing tosses Romans out the window. You disbelieve an entire book of the Bible??

Again, it's not showing prejudice or discrimination to state that something is a sin. You don't know anything about me, yet you presume that I am an unloving discriminator who hates homosexuals and is prejudiced against them. Is it prejudice to say that murder is a sin, when the Bible says that it is? No... it's not, it's just a fact. And that doesn't mean that we should not still demonstrate God's love to murderers. But we aren't to condone their actions.
[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]


I completely agree. Thanks for the beautiful passage. I love reading it.

I'm done. Enjoy.

Excellent Job sister.

=]

 

[127Rockledge]

How convenient for you to leave the argument when you have proven absolutely nothing and are being confronted by a more informed argument.

If you read Romans, not only does it talk about homosexuality being a sin

Great, you seem to have found the answer we're all looking for!!!

Now, what verse? - and if you could, please explain your interpretation of the verse.

 

[Athanasian Creed]

...

Now, what verse? - and if you could, please explain your interpretation of the verse.

There are 13 pages to this thread and you have to ask what Romans verses (from chapter 1 BTW) mention the sin of homosexuality. They have been mentioned SEVERAL times (not to mention the verses in 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 where Paul equated homosexuals as "unrighteous" who "will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God!"

How much more clear can it be...or it must be true "there is none so blind as those who WILL not see!!"

**TO THOSE WHO ARE** - STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY AND CONDONE A LIFESTYLE/ACTION THAT THE WORD OF GOD CLEARLY CONDEMNS AS SIN AND AN ABOMINATION!



Ray

 

[127Rockledge]

CF will not let me post a link - this info is from whosoever dot org slash bible slash corin

I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10
It is amazing the number of times that you will see the word "sodomite" or "homosexual" or "pervert" in different translations concerning this text. It is amazing because no one knows exactly what the words of the original text mean! The layperson, unfortunately, has no way of knowing that interpreters are guessing as to the exact meaning of these words. Pastors and laypersons often have to rely upon the authority of those who have written lexicons (dictionaries explaining the meaning of words) of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words. The authors of scriptural lexicons search for the meaning of the word within the scriptures themselves and also go outside of scripture and research literature written around the same time the scriptures were written. If the interpreter is already prejudiced against homosexuality they can translate these words as condemning homosexual sex even based upon little usage of that word in the Scriptures and little if any contemporaneous usage of that word.
The truth is that the word some translators "transform" into "sodomite/homosexual/pervert" in I Corinthians 6:9-10 is actually TWO words. Some translators combine them because they "think" they go together but they DO NOT KNOW. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that other translators keep the words separate and translate them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind".
The two words in the original Greek are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". Malakoi is a very common Greek word. It literally means "soft". It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25 in reference to soft clothing. Scholars have to look at material outside of the Bible in order to try and figure out just what this means. The early church Fathers used the word to mean someone who was "weak" or "soft" in their morals and from the time of the reformation to the 20th century it was usually interpreted as masturbation. In Greek this word never is applied to gay people or homosexual acts in general. "No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians." (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 105-107) "Arsenokoitai" is discussed in the next section as it is found here and in I Timothy 1:8-11. Note: Greek contained no word which compares to the English noun "homosexual" meaning someone of homosexual orientation. In fact the word "homosexual" (meaning someone of homosexual orientation) was not even coined until the late 1800'S by German psychologists, and introduced into English only at the beginning of the 1900's. (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 42) However, during scriptural times there were a number of Greek words to describe homosexual sex acts and the two words "malakois" and "arsenokoitai" do not appear among them (on "arsenokoitai" see Boswell, pp 345-346.)

 

[artybloke]

Beyond that, however, I will state yet again that since the Bible states we are no longer under the Old Testament law, and since the New Testament which we held accountable

We're no more held accountable to the New Testament than we are to the Old. Christ did not come to free us from the demands of the Law just to impose another set of rules and regulations on us. To do so is to play the same trick as the Judaizers who tried to get Christians circimscised, and we know what Pual had to say about that.

We are accountable to the example of Christ: "A new law I give unto you: that you love one another."

 

[MarkEvan]

We're no more held accountable to the New Testament than we are to the Old. Christ did not come to free us from the demands of the Law just to impose another set of rules and regulations on us. To do so is to play the same trick as the Judaizers who tried to get Christians circimscised, and we know what Pual had to say about that.

We are accountable to the example of Christ: "A new law I give unto you: that you love one another."

Hi Artybloke,
You know, thats a very good answer, but the Holy Spirit "saw fit" to constreign the gentiles who became believers with a few things that remained from the OT, of which one is sexual imorality, (see acts 15 vs 20). I guess it then remains to define sexual immorality.
Also you are right about what Paul said about the judaizers, however Paul also says in Romans 1 that "men exchanged natural intercourse with women and commited shameless acts with other men" I believe here that Paul makes it clear about what he teaches.

 

[127Rockledge]

Paul also says in Romans 1 that "men exchanged natural intercourse with women and commited shameless acts with other men" I believe here that Paul makes it clear about what he teaches.

Can you expand upon this? What verse and what version?

 

[artybloke]

I believe here that Paul makes it clear about what he teaches.

So do I. He makes it quite clear, that if you're straight, you're not to engage to gay sex.

With the corollary that if you're gay, you shouldn't engage in straight sex.

I'm sure that's how you read it too, isn't it?

Amazing how 2000 years of history can disappear as if it never existed and we all suddenly know what a 2000 year old text written in koine Greek to an audience who probably did know what he was talking about, suddenly disappears, isn't it?

I also remember that the same council of the church recommended that Christains don't eat meat offered to idols too. And we all know what Paul had to say about that...

 

[meepmoopmeep]

because God had never intended for the same sex to be attracted together... they are an anomaly

 

[127Rockledge]

because God had never intended for the same sex to be attracted together... they are an anomaly

So all of the sudden you know God's will and intent for every being that ever was?

The science of this has already been discussed. yes, homosexuality is quite unusual in the animal world. Yet it is not unheard of.

However as discussed before, the numbers of homosexuals in the animal world vs. humans has no correlation to homosexuality being a sin.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Bible conspiracy theories make me laugh.

With that assumption your stating that God let people pervert his word and he did nothing about it.


BTW no has answer my question as to WHY GOD NEVER APPROVED HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AS HE CONSTANTLY APPROVES HETEROSEXUAL. NOT ONL THAT WHY WOULD HE MAKE PEOPLE GAY? When he can make them the opposite sex? I think it's funny how people try to hard to find inconsistencies that aren't there to make the bible fit their agenda.

 

[127Rockledge]

Bible conspiracy theories make me laugh.

With that assumption your stating that God let people pervert his word and he did nothing about it.


BTW no has answer my question as to WHY GOD NEVER APPROVED HOMOSEXUAL ACTS AS HE CONSTANTLY APPROVES HETEROSEXUAL. NOT ONL THAT WHY WOULD HE MAKE PEOPLE GAY? When he can make them the opposite sex? I think it's funny how people try to hard to find inconsistencies that aren't there to make the bible fit their agenda.

NewGuy, I don't know what argument you're talking about. Please qoute. As for homosexual relationships in the bible God "approved." - This is taken from religioustolerance.org

Ruth and Naomi
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:
"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.

​

<H3 style="MARGIN: auto 0in">David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.
Interpretation:

Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.

Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are:

1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)
David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"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)
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.

1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)
In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)
Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."
In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)
Other translations have a different ending to the verse:

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)

"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)

"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)

"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)

"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)

"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)
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.

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

​

Daniel and Ashpenaz

Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Various English translations differ greatly:

"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)

"Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)

"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)

"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)

"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)

"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain..." (New American Bible)

"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)

"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)

"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)

[/FONT]</H3>

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The science of this has already been discussed. yes, homosexuality is quite unusual in the animal world. Yet it is not unheard of.

Really? I'd say its pretty common.

 

[127Rockledge]

Really? I'd say its pretty common.

Well for me to say unusual or uncommon is really inappropriate as we don't have a finite number in which to establish how many make something "common".

I have seen a study which produces numbers of 1/11000 having homosexual tendencies - taking part in a homosexual act (or 10k I'm not sure as I cannot find this study online) in a random survey of the animal world (focused on mice) vs. the claimed 1/10 humans.

This is a great margin, but it proves nothing in the long run.

The point I was trying to make is that while, and I qoute for purpose of this thread, "unusual", we do find homosexuality in the "natural" world of animals.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I found the number 450 offered for higher order species of mammal and bird that practice homosexuality, to varying degrees through out the population

 

[127Rockledge]

I found the number 450 offered for higher order species of mammal and bird that practice homosexuality, to varying degrees through out the population

I think the number might fluctuate as the definition of "homosexual" becomes more lax.

 

[ReformedChapin]

NewGuy, I don't know what argument you're talking about. Please qoute. As for homosexual relationships in the bible God "approved." - This is taken from religioustolerance.org

Religious tolerance is a website that promotes pluralism and relativism, it has an agenda like any other website.

Ruth and Naomi
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." (NIV)

I don't see any reference to homosexuality there. That just states bond as sisters, another verse taken out of context by the liberals.

Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: " Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)

Just because the words are identical that doesn't imply it's used in the same context. It's really not that hard to understand.

This book was probably included in the Hebrew Scriptures because King David was one of the descendents of Ruth. Although this same-sex friendship appears to have been very close, there is no proof that it was a sexually active relationship.

Indeed, so what was the point in posting that?

<H3 style="MARGIN: auto 0in">David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.
Interpretation:

Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.

Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are:

Like I said liberals pull random things out of their buns. There has no historic evidence at all that there was a sexual connection wat's so ever going back to the Jews.

1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

Again context, if male to male relationship had occured the Jews would have enphacied...they didn't. Are you going to mention a cover up?

1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)
David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Forced connection.

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"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)
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.

He just gave him his freaken robe? Talk about making the text say something that isn't there.

1 Samuel 18:20-21
"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)
In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)
Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."
In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

lol

1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)
Other translations have a different ending to the verse:

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)

"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)

"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)

"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)

"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)

"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)

"...and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)
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.

2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of this since it's ridiculous and written straight out with an agenda. What a waste of my time, not only that but very poor hermanutics by the liberals. I would think they didn't have to FORCE the text to say something that isn't there, there is again NO EVIDENCE OF permission of homosexuality. While heterosexual marrige is clear without a doubt.
[/FONT]

 

[ReformedChapin]

I found the number 450 offered for higher order species of mammal and bird that practice homosexuality, to varying degrees through out the population

By what definition of homosexuality and what research? *Sigh*

Liberals try too hard to pervert the bible and still remain unsuccesful. God wont let you mess with his word, nor will his adherents. I suggest you think twice before doing it again, although I doubt you believe in the consquences in the first place.

 

[127Rockledge]

NewGuy, your arrogance is what gets us all.

You say in my qouting religious tolerance that the liberal Christians have an agenda and are taking scripture out of context, yet have you not done the same with Romans?

You state that heterosexual relationships are "clear and without a doubt" yet that is not the argument. In fact I might be able to say that you are trying to throw the topic.

By your own argument we would simply end at a stalemate with you never proving nor disproving anything nor anyone arguing against you because you have not offered any clear and concise evidence as you state none of us have done.

This can go on for all time simply stating "that scripture is taken out of context."

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Religious tolerance is a website that promotes pluralism and relativism, it has an agenda like any other website.
I don't see any reference to homosexuality there. That just states bond as sisters, another verse taken out of context by the liberals.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Just because the words are identical that doesn't imply it's used in the same context. It's really not that hard to understand.[/FONT]
Indeed, so what was the point in posting that? [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
Like I said liberals pull random things out of their buns. There has no historic evidence at all that there was a sexual connection wat's so ever going back to the Jews.[/FONT]
Again context, if male to male relationship had occured the Jews would have enphacied...they didn't. Are you going to mention a cover up?[/FONT]
Forced connection.[/FONT]
He just gave him his freaken robe? Talk about making the text say something that isn't there.[/FONT]
lol[/FONT]
[/FONT]
I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of this since it's ridiculous and written straight out with an agenda. What a waste of my time, not only that but very poor hermanutics by the liberals. I would think they didn't have to FORCE the text to say something that isn't there, there is again NO EVIDENCE OF permission of homosexuality. While heterosexual marrige is clear without a doubt.
[/FONT]

Your outright dismissal of other people's well thought out arguments confirms the conclusions I came to in the thread "Homosexuality is a sin, get over it".

You seem to rail on about "relativism" and "pluralism" so much and so vitriolically, even to the point of using these as a yardstick for damnation in theaforementioned thread, that I really wonder what groups are encompassed under those scare quotes.

Homosexuals?
Union members?
Social progressives?
French people?