|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:19 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Baptist Holman Kt-Chi With that beside the point.. you want me to try to be straight again, feeling that everyone hates me, and to feel deeply depressed and suicidal because I cant be what I clearly am? You want me to... try and actually LIKE the male genitals? NO. Disgusting. I'm not suggesting you go have sex with a male. I'm just point out that there is support against homosexuality in the Bible. Celibacy is an option for homosexuals.
Its also an option for straight people.
But if you found someone you love and want to be with your whole life, would you just dump them and say, Oh, eff you, I want to be celebant.
neutral |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:55 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:46 am
|
|
|
|
Cometh The Inquisitor Kt-Chi See, its not really the sex part. Its having someone to spend your life with. ... Homosexual lusts are wrong. That's it. It's simply and purely the sex (and the thoughts and emotions behind the sex) that is condemned by the Bible.
Allow me to indulge in the arrogance of quoting myself.
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori SonnyBabe I think this issue is addressed a little too lightly. One (as a Christian) can't just pick what they want out of the Bible, and leave the rest. You're quite right, and quite hypocritical. Watch closely. SonnyBabe ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ 1) Genesis 19 is about men wanting to have sex together. verse 13b is spoken by and angel, and says: "'The outcry against this place is so great it has reached the LORD, and he has sent us to destroy is.'" Ezekiel 16:48-50 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. You may say that "detestable" referred to homosexual sex, but the hebrew word is "to'ebah", referring to treason. Most likely referred to idols. It's clear here that Sodom's sin was disrespect towards guests. In addition, angels don't have genders. Duh. SonnyBabe 2) Leviticus 18:22 states (God is speaking to Moses): "'Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22 and 20:12 both referred to male temple prostition, a pagan practice in those days. God wanted the Israelites to distances themselves from these people. In addition, they were refuted by the passage in the new testament, Colossians 2:13-17. 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
^-^
SonnyBabe 3) Romans 1:18-32 talks about how people turned away from God. When they followed Him, they had normal relationships. Once they turned away from God, they started acting gay (no God lead to homosexuality). verses 26b-32 "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty that they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do the things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." That's not saying that gay people are horrible people, but it is saying that things like that come from ungodly people. They can turn around, just like you can with any other sin.
Some context would be nice.
Romans 1:14-17
"14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d]"
Romans 2 (too long to post)
When we look at the passage in its full context, it's plain that this is a condemnation of hypocrites, not homosexuals.
FURTHERMORE. The verses 26 and 27 were simply an aside. The direct punishment God gave out, abandoning them to wickedness, came as a result on refusing to acknowledge Him. Check the list of depravities he gave them over to. Is homosexuality mentioned? No.
This passage is meant to show a church what they will become like if they continue on their current path. It is a parable, and as such, it is the moral of the story that matters; Don't be a hypocrite. Would we take the parable of the man sowing seeds as instructions to throw seeds on the road before the field?
SonnyBabe Notes: 1) (Quoted word-by-word from my Bible.) Is the gay lifestyle really wrong? Shows like Will & Grace, Boy Meets Boy, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would say no. Instead, they would argue that homosexuality is "an alternative lifestlye"--one that you hear about more and more on TV and also in the courts. For example, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage was unconstitutional. They also decided that the definition needed to change from union of a man and a woman to the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
I highly doubt your bible mentions W&G, BMB, or QEFTSG.
Our nation is bsaed on secular teachings, not any one religion, as proven by the Treaty of Tripoli. As such, it is only right that they ignore religious pressure when forming laws.
SonnyBabe By now, you might wonder what the real scoop is. In the face of changing legislature, has God's view of homosexuality also changed? Here's the short answer: No. Now here's a longer one: in Romans 1:18-32, the apostle Paul has particularly hash words for those who engage in idolatry and homosexuality. Men and women who practice homosexuality go against God's design for sexuality and will experience consequences for their actions. Two important messages need to be given on the subject of homosexuality. One is for out society, where biblical notions of right and wrong are sometimes viewed as outdated. That message is that some lifestyles are not acceptable "alternatives." The second message is for Christians. While homosexuality is a sin, it is not the unforgivable sin. (See Mark 3:29.) God loves homosexuals just as much as he loves other people who do wrong. Jesus' death on the cross paid for the sin of homosexuality, just as it paid for the sins of lying, greed, lust, hate, and pride. Homosexuals, like all wrongdoers, stand guilty before God. If that were the whole story, there would be now hope. The great message of Romans--and of the entire Bible--is that Jesus can set us free, regardless of what we've done wrong. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
You're right, No he didn't, No they won't, The first message violates the constitution, while the second is wrong, God MADE homosexuals, It's not a sin, we are not guilty, And you're right on the last count that Jesus can save anyone.
ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:05 pm
|
|
|
|
Ananel (Liberal View) We should cover a few things first: 1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life. 2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don't feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur. 3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this. Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so. A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul's writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God's will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8. If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these. B) Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex. (Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah) C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones. In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock. D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. 1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That's all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the 'bottom' partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul's letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the 'top' partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one's neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi. 2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage. One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it. Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one's innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was 'on bottom.' Such a position degrades the citizen's status and was considered to be a horrible thing. Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that "shameful lusts" meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman's understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation. Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case. My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this. My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don't argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin? No. I don't think it's wrong, and I'll be happy to stand on Scripture to that effect.
------------------------------------------------
Jedediah Smith (Fundamental [or Conservative] View) A1) Ananel believes that the Torah is purely ceremonial laws, which is his belief. If the Torah is purely ceremonial then it would make the Ten Commandments ceremonial law. I believe that the Torah (the Law) is divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Moral laws (e.g., the Decalogue), based on the unchanging character of God, are eternally binding. Civil laws (e.g., Exod. 21-23), although they may illustrate moral law, were limited historically to the theocratic state of Israel and are not binding on the church. Ceremonial laws (e.g., sacrifices) were intended to prefigure Christ, and ceased to be applicable upon his first advent. However, these categories "moral, civil, and ceremonial" are artificial. I'm guessing your wondering how can this position be biblical, I'll show ya... Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18 ) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. There are those who oppose to such teachings, such as Martin Luther. However, I agree with the great reformer, John Calvin on the subject. "What Pauls says, as to the abrogation of the Law [Gal 3:10] evidently applies not to the Law itself, but merely to its power of constraining the conscience. For the Law not only teaches, but also imperiously demands .... We must be freed from the fetters of the law, ... those of rigid and austere exaction .... Meanwhile, ... the law has lost none of its authority, but must always receive from us the same respect and obedience." [S1] Accordingly, the church has tended to divide into two different positions, even while it continued to affirm with Paul in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 that the law is indeed most useful and profitable for Christians. The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"), Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10). In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction. No one can receive eternal salvation by works of the law (Ga 2:16) because none perfectly keeps the law (Rom 3:23), and violation of any part of it makes one guilty of the whole (James 2:10; cf. Rom 2:25; Gal 3:10). Instead, salvation is a gift obtained by faith, not works (Rom 4:4-5; Eph 2:8-10; Php 3:9). Nonetheless, the law was meant to lead us to Christ (Ga 3:24). It makes the sinner conscious of sin (Rom 3:20; 7:7; 1 John 3:4). It provokes and incites rebellion (Rom 5:20; 7:13), thereby making one fully accountable before God for violation of God's moral requirements (Rom 3:19; 4:15; 5:13; 7:8-10). By this means, the law shows sinners their need for a mediator to redeem them from the law's condemnation (Ga 3:13). Hence, the law is an essential prerequisite in preparing sinners for the gospel. The believer, through the Spirit, keeps the righteousness requirements of the law (Rom 8:3-4), following the principle of love which is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Mark 12:31, ; cf. Lev 19:18 ). As the New Testament use of Old Testament laws shows, the moral aspect of the law continues to define proper and improper behavior for Christians. Old Testament laws supplement New Testament morality by addressing some issues not directly treated in the New Testament. God's commandments were intended to bring life (Rom 7:10), and the promises of life associated with the law remain applicable (Eph 6:2-3; cf. Exod 20:12). A2) Homosexuality also carried strong disapproval of Scripture. It is labelled an "abomination" five times in Leviticus 18 (vv. 22, 26, 27, 29, 30) and in Leviticus 20:13. The root meaning of "abomination" is "to detest," "to hate," or "abhor." It is that which is hated and detested by God and is therefore degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Some would attempt to classify the prohibition against homosexuality along with the other parts of the ceremonial law which were dispelled in Christ's death and resurrection. To prohibit homosexuality today, some would argue, would be like forbidding unclean meats. It is admitted, of course, that there is a category of temporary ceremonial laws, but I do not agree that homosexuality is among them. Nothing in its proscription points to or anticipates Christ, and the death penalty demanded for its violation places it in the moral realm and not in predominate character of the law of holiness is moraland its content is still binding today (e.g., prohibiting incest, adultery, child scrifice, idolatry, oppression of the poor, slander, hatred, unjust weights and measures). Greg L. Bahnsen states: "Christ himself appealed [to the contents of Lev. 18-20] as summarizing all the law and the prophets (Lev 19:18; cf. Matt 22:29,40 .... The defender of homosexuality must produce a viable criteria for distinguishing between moral and ceremonial laws, or else consistently reject them all (contrary to the emphatic word of Christ). We have the New Testament warrant for discontinuing obedience to the sacrificial system (Heb 10:1-10), ... However, the Scriptures never alter God's revealed law regarding homosexuality, but leave us under its full requirement (cf. Deut. 8:3; 12:32; Matt 4:4). Indeed, the Bible repeatedly condemns homosexuality, the New Testament itself stressing that it is contrary to God's law (1 Tim 1:9,10), bringing God's judgement and exclusion from the kingdom (Rom 1:24ff.; 1 Cor 6:9,10). Therefore, the prohibition against homosexuality cannot be viewed as part of the ceremonial system prefiguring Christ or as a temporary in its obligation. [S2] Neither will it solve the problem by attempting to associate homosexuality with ancient cultic fertility rites or the like as if they were actually warning about avoiding procreation, dishonoring the superior [?] male gender, or contact with idolatrous religions that had this act as part of their ritual. Such a circumstantial or cultic interpretation seeks to place homosexuality in the same class as the prohibition against boiling a goat in its mother's milk (Exo 23:19). The problem with this suggestion is that there are no references to the cult or prostitutes. Its setting is in a context of holiness of life; only in Leviticus 21 does the text resume the ceremonial and ritual legislation observed in Leviticus 1-16. When the New Testament arguments are added to these hermeneutical observations, it is extremely difficult to deny that the prohibition against homosexuality is based on moral reasons and not ceremonial or circumstantial ones. B) The interpretations/perspectives about the story of the city of Sodom can be a complicated one. However, I see that Ananel limits possibilities about what happen in the city. Traditionally, Jewish Orthodox position holds that homosexuality was part of Sodom's wickness, which I agree with. Sodom was not only "complete lack of hospitality" but they also practiced abominations (Eze 16:46-47). Ananel's position is that "It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex." But I find that to be quite misleading for there are many possibilities and even the attempt of homosexual rape in the story. Here is an interesting discussion on the subject: LINKC) I have no problem with Ananel's comments about Adam and Steve argument. However, I do have a problem with this statement, "If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock." It appears to me that Ananel is quite liberal on his definition of marriage. The problem is that we must separate modern ideology and biblical ideology apart to have a correct biblical theology on the subject. Biblically, marriage is between man and woman (Gen 2:24), because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband (1 Cor 7:2), the husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband (1 Cor 7:3). This was a small example of what marriage is and its purpose. God brings a man and a woman together in marriage (Matt 19:6; cf. Eve to Adam, Rebecca to Isaac). It is not humankind's prerogative to separate what God has chosen to put together (Matt 19:6). The woman was created as "a helper suitable" for the man (ezer kenegdo) (Gen 2:18 ). The English "complement" best conveys the meaning of neged. A wife is a "helper" who "complements" her husband in every way. A helper always subordinates self-interests when helping another, just as Paul reminds us in Philippians 2:1-11. A helping role is a worthy one, not implying inferiority. The wife, therefore, helps the husband to lead their family to serve and glorify God. The husband also complements his wife so that together they become a new balanced entity that God uses in an enhanced way. "Cleaving" in Genesis 2:24 pictures a strong bond between the members of this union. The marriage bond was to be permanent. Separation or termination of the marriage union was not an option before sin entered the world and death with it (Gen 3). All later revelation shows that separation/divorce was because of sin (Deut 24:1-4; Ezra 9-10; Mal 2:14; Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7:1-16, 39). God's ideal was for marriage to be permanent and exclusive. Same-sex marriage was not designed by God nor is it defined as marriage in the Bible. Surprisingly, Ananel tried to make his position biblical by pointing out 1 Corinthians 7:9, which states "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Ananel has now twisted the scripture for his own ideology. To say that Paul support any type of marriage is way out of context, even Paul says, "each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband" (1 Cor 7:3). Ananel is ignoring what scripture has to say on the subject and ignoring the correct exegesis method. The truth is same-sex marriage is not marriage accordingly to the Bible because its man-made and it doesn't follow scripture. D1) Finally the criticism of Arsenokoites. My position, two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 [arsenokoites] are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual Acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. [S3] Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual Acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual Acts in the Old Testament. D2) About Romans 1:26-27. The remaining passage appears to be an unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality. While many modern revisionists simply disagree with Paul or discount his proscription as applying only to prostitution or pederasty, some have attempted to reinterpret the passage as tacit approval of homosexuality. The argument is that Paul portrays homosexual Acts as impure but carefully avoids the language of sin; he intends merely to distinguish a Gentile practice considered by Jews to be "unclean" in order to draw Jews (or "weaker brethren") into his subsequent explanation of the gospel. Careful investigation of the passage, however, shows this explanation to be untenable. Paul's general purpose in the context (Rom 1:18-32) is to show the need for the gospel in the Gentile world. As a result of idolatry, God "gave them over" to all kinds of sinful behavior. The trifold structure of the passage is a rhetorical device to drive home the point: a general complaint (vv. 24-25), consideration of a specific vice (vv. 26-27), and a culminating list of various vices (vv. 28-32). The distinction between the second and third sections may follow another Greek-styled distinction of sins of passion and sins of the unfit mind. Paul is accused of everything from extreme prejudice to repressed homosexual urges for choosing same-gender sex as his focus in verses 26-27. But the scarcity of other references and the use of impersonal, rhetorical language here suggests, on the contrary, considerable detachment. The choice of homosexuality in particular is due to Paul's need to find a visible sign of humankind's fundamental rejection of God's creation at the very core of personhood. The numerous allusions to the creation account in the passage suggest that creation theology was foremost in Paul's mind in forming the passage. Paul's terminology in the passage clearly denotes sin and not mere ritual impurity. The context is introduced by the threat of wrath against "godlessness and wickedness" (v. 18 ). Those in view in verses 26-27 have been given over to "passions, " a word group that elsewhere in Romans and consistently in Paul's writings connotes sin. Words like "impurity" (v. 24) and "indecent" (v. 27; cf. "degrading, " v. 24) had in Paul's time extended their meaning beyond ritual purity to moral and especially sexual wrongdoing. To do that which is "unnatural" (vv. 26-27) or "contrary to nature" was common parlance in contemporary literature for sexual perversion and especially homosexual Acts. Paul uses several expressions here that are more typical of Gentile moral writers not because he is attempting to soften his condemnation but because he wishes to find words peculiarly suited to expose the sinfulness of the Gentile world in its own terms. The substance of Paul's proscription of homosexuality is significant in several respects. First, he mentions lesbian relations first and links lesbianism to male homosexuality. This is unusual if not unique in the ancient world, and it demonstrates that Paul's concern is less with progeniture than with rebellion against sexual differentiation or full created personhood. Second, Paul speaks in terms of mutual consent (e.g., "inflamed with lust for one another, " v. 27), effectively including Acts other than rape and pederasty in the prohibition. Third, the passage describes corporate as well as individual rebellion, a fact that may have implications for modern discussions of "orientation." In other words, although Paul does not address the question here directly, it is reasonable to suppose that he would consign the orientation toward homosexual Acts to the same category as heterosexual orientation toward adultery or fornication. The "natural" or "fleshly" proclivity is a specific byproduct of the corporate human rebellion and in no way justifies itself or the activity following from that proclivity. On the basis of any of these three implications, it is legitimate to use the word "homosexuality" as it is conceived in the modern world when speaking of Romans 1 and, by cautious extension, when speaking of the related biblical passages. (S1): John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2.7.13. (S2): Greg L. Bahnsen, Homosexuality, 40-41 (S3): Thomas Schmidt, Arsenokoites |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:14 am
|
|
|
|
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Allow me to indulge in the arrogance of quoting myself. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori SonnyBabe I think this issue is addressed a little too lightly. One (as a Christian) can't just pick what they want out of the Bible, and leave the rest. You're quite right, and quite hypocritical. Watch closely. SonnyBabe ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ 1) Genesis 19 is about men wanting to have sex together. verse 13b is spoken by and angel, and says: "'The outcry against this place is so great it has reached the LORD, and he has sent us to destroy is.'" Ezekiel 16:48-50 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. You may say that "detestable" referred to homosexual sex, but the hebrew word is "to'ebah", referring to treason. Most likely referred to idols. It's clear here that Sodom's sin was disrespect towards guests. In addition, angels don't have genders. Duh. SonnyBabe 2) Leviticus 18:22 states (God is speaking to Moses): "'Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22 and 20:12 both referred to male temple prostition, a pagan practice in those days. God wanted the Israelites to distances themselves from these people. In addition, they were refuted by the passage in the new testament, Colossians 2:13-17. 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
^-^
SonnyBabe 3) Romans 1:18-32 talks about how people turned away from God. When they followed Him, they had normal relationships. Once they turned away from God, they started acting gay (no God lead to homosexuality). verses 26b-32 "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty that they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do the things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." That's not saying that gay people are horrible people, but it is saying that things like that come from ungodly people. They can turn around, just like you can with any other sin.
Some context would be nice.
Romans 1:14-17
"14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d]"
Romans 2 (too long to post)
When we look at the passage in its full context, it's plain that this is a condemnation of hypocrites, not homosexuals.
FURTHERMORE. The verses 26 and 27 were simply an aside. The direct punishment God gave out, abandoning them to wickedness, came as a result on refusing to acknowledge Him. Check the list of depravities he gave them over to. Is homosexuality mentioned? No.
This passage is meant to show a church what they will become like if they continue on their current path. It is a parable, and as such, it is the moral of the story that matters; Don't be a hypocrite. Would we take the parable of the man sowing seeds as instructions to throw seeds on the road before the field?
SonnyBabe Notes: 1) (Quoted word-by-word from my Bible.) Is the gay lifestyle really wrong? Shows like Will & Grace, Boy Meets Boy, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would say no. Instead, they would argue that homosexuality is "an alternative lifestlye"--one that you hear about more and more on TV and also in the courts. For example, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage was unconstitutional. They also decided that the definition needed to change from union of a man and a woman to the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
I highly doubt your bible mentions W&G, BMB, or QEFTSG.
Our nation is bsaed on secular teachings, not any one religion, as proven by the Treaty of Tripoli. As such, it is only right that they ignore religious pressure when forming laws.
SonnyBabe By now, you might wonder what the real scoop is. In the face of changing legislature, has God's view of homosexuality also changed? Here's the short answer: No. Now here's a longer one: in Romans 1:18-32, the apostle Paul has particularly hash words for those who engage in idolatry and homosexuality. Men and women who practice homosexuality go against God's design for sexuality and will experience consequences for their actions. Two important messages need to be given on the subject of homosexuality. One is for out society, where biblical notions of right and wrong are sometimes viewed as outdated. That message is that some lifestyles are not acceptable "alternatives." The second message is for Christians. While homosexuality is a sin, it is not the unforgivable sin. (See Mark 3:29.) God loves homosexuals just as much as he loves other people who do wrong. Jesus' death on the cross paid for the sin of homosexuality, just as it paid for the sins of lying, greed, lust, hate, and pride. Homosexuals, like all wrongdoers, stand guilty before God. If that were the whole story, there would be now hope. The great message of Romans--and of the entire Bible--is that Jesus can set us free, regardless of what we've done wrong. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
You're right, No he didn't, No they won't, The first message violates the constitution, while the second is wrong, God MADE homosexuals, It's not a sin, we are not guilty, And you're right on the last count that Jesus can save anyone.
ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
FACT: The Bible never says "Don't not love your neighbor', or anything of the sort. Therefore, it is moral to hate your neighbor because exclusion does not mean condemnation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:49 pm
|
|
|
|
Cometh The Inquisitor Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Allow me to indulge in the arrogance of quoting myself. Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori SonnyBabe I think this issue is addressed a little too lightly. One (as a Christian) can't just pick what they want out of the Bible, and leave the rest. You're quite right, and quite hypocritical. Watch closely. SonnyBabe ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ 1) Genesis 19 is about men wanting to have sex together. verse 13b is spoken by and angel, and says: "'The outcry against this place is so great it has reached the LORD, and he has sent us to destroy is.'" Ezekiel 16:48-50 48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. 49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. You may say that "detestable" referred to homosexual sex, but the hebrew word is "to'ebah", referring to treason. Most likely referred to idols. It's clear here that Sodom's sin was disrespect towards guests. In addition, angels don't have genders. Duh. SonnyBabe 2) Leviticus 18:22 states (God is speaking to Moses): "'Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22 and 20:12 both referred to male temple prostition, a pagan practice in those days. God wanted the Israelites to distances themselves from these people. In addition, they were refuted by the passage in the new testament, Colossians 2:13-17. 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[d]
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
^-^
SonnyBabe 3) Romans 1:18-32 talks about how people turned away from God. When they followed Him, they had normal relationships. Once they turned away from God, they started acting gay (no God lead to homosexuality). verses 26b-32 "Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty that they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do the things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." That's not saying that gay people are horrible people, but it is saying that things like that come from ungodly people. They can turn around, just like you can with any other sin.
Some context would be nice.
Romans 1:14-17
"14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d]"
Romans 2 (too long to post)
When we look at the passage in its full context, it's plain that this is a condemnation of hypocrites, not homosexuals.
FURTHERMORE. The verses 26 and 27 were simply an aside. The direct punishment God gave out, abandoning them to wickedness, came as a result on refusing to acknowledge Him. Check the list of depravities he gave them over to. Is homosexuality mentioned? No.
This passage is meant to show a church what they will become like if they continue on their current path. It is a parable, and as such, it is the moral of the story that matters; Don't be a hypocrite. Would we take the parable of the man sowing seeds as instructions to throw seeds on the road before the field?
SonnyBabe Notes: 1) (Quoted word-by-word from my Bible.) Is the gay lifestyle really wrong? Shows like Will & Grace, Boy Meets Boy, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would say no. Instead, they would argue that homosexuality is "an alternative lifestlye"--one that you hear about more and more on TV and also in the courts. For example, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage was unconstitutional. They also decided that the definition needed to change from union of a man and a woman to the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
I highly doubt your bible mentions W&G, BMB, or QEFTSG.
Our nation is bsaed on secular teachings, not any one religion, as proven by the Treaty of Tripoli. As such, it is only right that they ignore religious pressure when forming laws.
SonnyBabe By now, you might wonder what the real scoop is. In the face of changing legislature, has God's view of homosexuality also changed? Here's the short answer: No. Now here's a longer one: in Romans 1:18-32, the apostle Paul has particularly hash words for those who engage in idolatry and homosexuality. Men and women who practice homosexuality go against God's design for sexuality and will experience consequences for their actions. Two important messages need to be given on the subject of homosexuality. One is for out society, where biblical notions of right and wrong are sometimes viewed as outdated. That message is that some lifestyles are not acceptable "alternatives." The second message is for Christians. While homosexuality is a sin, it is not the unforgivable sin. (See Mark 3:29.) God loves homosexuals just as much as he loves other people who do wrong. Jesus' death on the cross paid for the sin of homosexuality, just as it paid for the sins of lying, greed, lust, hate, and pride. Homosexuals, like all wrongdoers, stand guilty before God. If that were the whole story, there would be now hope. The great message of Romans--and of the entire Bible--is that Jesus can set us free, regardless of what we've done wrong. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
You're right, No he didn't, No they won't, The first message violates the constitution, while the second is wrong, God MADE homosexuals, It's not a sin, we are not guilty, And you're right on the last count that Jesus can save anyone.
ANY QUESTIONS.ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
FACT: The Bible never says "Don't not love your neighbor', or anything of the sort. Therefore, it is moral to hate your neighbor because exclusion does not mean condemnation.
Luke 10:25-28 25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" 27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]" 28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
Jesus clearly tells us to love our neighbour, so that we may live.
However, NOWHERE does he or anyone else in the Bible say "Love women sexually, so that you may live". Or anything of the sort. So don't try throwing that at me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:32 am
|
|
|
|
Kuroi Kokoro no Mendori Luke 10:25-28 25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" 27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]" 28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." Jesus clearly tells us to love our neighbour, so that we may live. However, NOWHERE does he or anyone else in the Bible say "Love women sexually, so that you may live". Or anything of the sort. So don't try throwing that at me.
The large, colorful fonts are nothing short of annoying. Please stop.
Yes, we are commanded to Love our neighbor. It's right there.
Men are also told to marry women (Genesis 2:24 [later quoted twice by Jesus and once in ephesians], and, just about every verse in the Bible that talks about marriage). Like you have previously stated, it does not say to not marry men. According to your logic, then it would be scripturally allowed to not love your neighbor, as, as you claim, exclusion does not mean condemnation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:17 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[~mihael~]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/5c/48/5391813c54485c_flip.png?t=1248751580_6.00_00)