WHY is homosexuality sinful?

[vernodey]

One does not have to subscribe to any particular doctine of inspiration to be a Christian, generally, or for the purposes of CF.

Oh sure, but Star seemed to be saying that all the Bible is is someone's idea of what is God's mind and that is pretty way out in left field for a Christian.
The Bible is the Holy Spirit's idea of what God thinks and he inspired ordinary men to write the most extraordinary book ever.
But I get your point, sorry for judging her and anyone else!

 

[ReformedChapin]

Oh sure, but Star seemed to be saying that all the Bible is is someone's idea of what is God's mind and that is pretty way out in left field for a Christian.
The Bible is the Holy Spirit's idea of what God thinks and he inspired ordinary men to write the most extraordinary book ever.
But I get your point, sorry for judging her and anyone else!

A lot of liberals just pull out of the bible what they like, and they leave out what they don't like or take it out of context. That in itself is a an abomination.

 

[HunterRose]

A lot of liberals just pull out of the bible what they like, and they leave out what they don't like or take it out of context. That in itself is a an abomination.

So you personally do not shave
" 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. (Leviticus 19:27)


And have never eaten shellfish?
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10-12)

And would never give your wife a gold wedding ring?
“I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.” (I Timothy 2:9)

 

[Ave Maria]

Homosexuality is not sinful.

 

[vernodey]

To address saeph's question simply,
Jesus quotes Adam in Matthew, gives the basis for God-given union 19:4-6 (ESV)

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Genesis 2:24 (ESV)
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Paul mentions the same passage in `

Ephes. 5:31-32 (ESV)
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." [32] This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

seeming to relate mel/female union as an expression of the unity between Christ and the Church.

Another good thought about unity is that Adam was made in God's image, or likeness and the perfect union of the Individuals in the triune Godhead is reflected in earthly union of male and female.
It would follow that any major variation of that 'copy' would be an insult to the Creator.
Homosexuality comes, not from God but from Satan! I have first-hand experience of this.

A man I knew and was friendly with (as a friend only) was reportedly leaning towards homosexuality, turnes out to be 'interested' in me as a partner. the only barrier, in his mind, was my Christian faith. One day I heard from his mouth the most foul abusive tirade against me that I've ever heard and I was mortified.

When I went quiet, and very pale, he asked what was wrong. I still couldn't answer, so he insisted he had said nothing that could have been taken as upsetting to me.
Since then I have heard another with the same experience, not with a homosexual but against her Christian faith nevertheless.

My friend was also a Buddhist so maybe he picked up more than he bargained for in his frequent trips to India, I don't know.

That is my experience and is open to verification or otherwise, but I was very greatly offended by the attack and am in no doubt as to its origin.

I stand on the blood of Jesus Christ, shed for me, praise His Name!

 

[ebia]

Abomination isn't just applied to rituals, but in the proper context it's like commiting such a horrid sin.

You are dodging the point. The hebrew word translated as abomination with regard to "men lying with men" is one only used to refer to ritual sins. Combined with "don't do as the egyptians do", this is a pretty heavy hint that what is being condemned is ritual prostitution.

Let me give an example, when you do something bad people state "oh man he's going to kill you"..does that mean the person is going to kill the other? Nope. Just stating the degree of that action. That's just liberal world play,

Looking at what the bible actually says, and how it uses words, is "liberal wordplay"?

and yes Jesus wanted the sinners to come to him, but they also wanted him to stop sinning. The liberals seem to only like one side of Jesus, not his entirety.

A handy accusation, but one that doesn't stack up. The need for genuine repentance and sanctification is exactly why one needs to learn to understand right from wrong, not just follow a set of rules to the letter.

 

[ebia]

To address saeph's question simply,
Jesus quotes Adam in Matthew, gives the basis for God-given union 19:4-6 (ESV)

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Genesis 2:24 (ESV)
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Paul mentions the same passage in `

Ephes. 5:31-32 (ESV)
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." [32] This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.

seeming to relate mel/female union as an expression of the unity between Christ and the Church.

Neither passage sets out to define the limits of who can marry. The first sets out to talk about divorce, the second as one metaphore of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Neither sets out to be a complete description of marriage and therefore to use them as such is an abuse of what is said, IMO.

Another good thought about unity is that Adam was made in God's image, or likeness and the perfect union of the Individuals in the triune Godhead is reflected in earthly union of male and female.
It would follow that any major variation of that 'copy' would be an insult to the Creator.

The question is, what constitutes a major variation? It follows back from what you said that any relationship that shows the same fruits as the Trinitarian relationship is from God. I know of homosexual relationships that show all the same fruits as the best hetrosexual marriages. (Also, we all know of hetrosexual marriages that constitute "an insult to the Creator" in your words.) To quote out of context "by their fruit you shall know them".

Homosexuality comes, not from God but from Satan! I have first-hand experience of this.

A man I knew and was friendly with (as a friend only) was reportedly leaning towards homosexuality, turnes out to be 'interested' in me as a partner. the only barrier, in his mind, was my Christian faith. One day I heard from his mouth the most foul abusive tirade against me that I've ever heard and I was mortified.

When I went quiet, and very pale, he asked what was wrong. I still couldn't answer, so he insisted he had said nothing that could have been taken as upsetting to me.
Since then I have heard another with the same experience, not with a homosexual but against her Christian faith nevertheless.

My friend was also a Buddhist so maybe he picked up more than he bargained for in his frequent trips to India, I don't know.

That is my experience and is open to verification or otherwise, but I was very greatly offended by the attack and am in no doubt as to its origin.

I've been abused by hetrosexuals and tall people, so that's proof that being hetrosexual, and being tall, is sinful and from Satan.

 

[ReformedChapin]

So you personally do not shave
1)" 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. (Leviticus 19:27)


And have never eaten shellfish?
"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10-12)

And would never give your wife a gold wedding ring?
“I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.” (I Timothy 2:9)

Another three verses taken out of context. The first two verse is addressed to the Jews and is part of the old covenant we are in the New covenant.

The third verse you have to extract the principle which is clear, dress modestly.

C'mon, atleast take a hermanutics class so you know what you are talking about.

 

[ebia]

Another three verses taken out of context. The first two verse is addressed to the Jews and is part of the old covenant we are in the New covenant.

The third verse you have to extra the principle which is clear, dress modestly.

C'mon, atleast take a hermanutics class so you know what you are talking about.

In other words, "I can dismiss or interpret away the bits that would be inconvenient to me, but apply literally the bits that wouldn't."

 

[ReformedChapin]

You are dodging the point. The hebrew word translated as abomination with regard to "men lying with men" is one only used to refer to ritual sins. Combined with "don't do as the egyptians do", this is a pretty heavy hint that what is being condemned is ritual prostitution.

I'm not dodging the point, it's clear the context that is and it DOESN'T just refer to ritual sins. How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

Did you forget romans? And how it speaks against homosexuality as well? Or is that just a ritual for pagans?

Looking at what the bible actually says, and how it uses words, is "liberal wordplay"?.

Actually it's just word play, I have seen very few people here who have good hermanutics.

A handy accusation, but one that doesn't stack up. The need for genuine repentance and sanctification is exactly why one needs to learn to understand right from wrong, not just follow a set of rules to the letter.

And genuince repentance requires repentance from sin, which many liberals don't do. It's basically "jesus loves me don't judge me."


Finally, the bible is very concrete one sexual purity. If God supports homosexuality and homosexual marrige, why didn't he say anything like he did for straight marrige?

 

[ReformedChapin]

In other words, "I can dismiss or interpret away the bits that would be inconvenient to me, but apply literally the bits that wouldn't."

Nope, I just have theological training. I hope you can say the same thing.

 

[ebia]

I'm not dodging the point, it's clear the context that is and it DOESN'T just refer to ritual sins.

Where else in the bible is that word used for a non-ritual sin?

Did you forget romans? And how it speaks against homosexuality as well? Or is that just a ritual for pagans?

Again, it is entirely possible that Paul is talking about ritual, abusive, sex.

Actually it's just word play, I have seen very few people here who have good hermanutics.

"Good hermanutics" meaning "comes to the same conclusion as me"?

And genuince repentance requires repentance from sin, which many liberals don't do. It's basically "jesus loves me don't judge me."

Sorry, but I don't have to answer for you completely inaccurate portray of what anyone says.

Finally, the bible is very concrete one sexual purity. If God supports homosexuality and homosexual marrige, why didn't he say anything like he did for straight marrige?

For the same reason that John didn't write down everything that Jesus said and did.

 

[HunterRose]

Another three verses taken out of context. The first two verse is addressed to the Jews and is part of the old covenant we are in the New covenant.

The third verse you have to extra the principle which is clear, dress modestly.

C'mon, atleast take a hermanutics class so you know what you are talking about.

So when you just pull out of the bible what you like, that is OK.

When someone sites verses that you would rather ignore because they conflict with your particular world view…that’s not OK

 

[HunterRose]

Another three verses taken out of context. The first two verse is addressed to the Jews and is part of the old covenant we are in the New covenant.

The third verse you have to extra the principle which is clear, dress modestly.

C'mon, atleast take a hermanutics class so you know what you are talking about.

Aside from the fact you do not like being confronted with these verses…how exactly are they “out of context”?

 

[HunterRose]

In other words, "I can dismiss or interpret away the bits that would be inconvenient to me, but apply literally the bits that wouldn't."

Bingo!

 

[ebia]

Nope, I just have theological training. I hope you can say the same thing.

I didn't realise theological training entitled one to do that!

 

[Tychicum]

It really isn't difficult to read for yourself ...

Rom 1:24-32
(24) Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves,
(25) who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(26) Because of this, God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for even their females changed the natural use to that contrary to nature.
(27) And likewise, the males also forsaking the natural use of the female burned in their lust toward one another, males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving back within themselves the reward which was fitting for their error.
(28) And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right,
(29) having been filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, iniquity, covetousness, malice, being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers,
(30) slanderers, God-haters, insolent, proud, braggarts, devisers of evil things, disobedient to parents,
(31) without discernment, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful,
(32) who knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also approve those practicing them.

This is not the old testament (law) folks ... read the whole book of Romans ... it isn't difficult to understand.


.

 

[ebia]

... read the whole book of Romans ... it isn't difficult to understand.

Or perhaps it isn't difficult to misunderstand.

 

[vernodey]

Neither passage sets out to define the limits of who can marry. The first sets out to talk about divorce, the second as one metaphore of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Neither sets out to be a complete description of marriage and therefore to use them as such is an abuse of what is said, IMO.


The question is, what constitutes a major variation? It follows back from what you said that any relationship that shows the same fruits as the Trinitarian relationship is from God. I know of homosexual relationships that show all the same fruits as the best hetrosexual marriages. (Also, we all know of hetrosexual marriages that constitute "an insult to the Creator" in your words.) To quote out of context "by their fruit you shall know them".


I've been abused by hetrosexuals and tall people, so that's proof that being hetrosexual, and being tall, is sinful and from Satan.

Don't worry, they'll understand.

 

[HunterRose]

It really isn't difficult to read for yourself ...


This is not the old testament (law) folks ... read the whole book of Romans ... it isn't difficult to understand.


.

The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals. This is not a condemnation of homosexuals…rather it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.