|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:47 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Break Sage Genesis 2:18-24: "[...] Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones/ and flesh of my flesh;/ she shall be called 'woman',/ for she was taken out of man." [...] ,and they will become one flesh. Facts: The 7th Commandment is You shall not commit adultery. CorrectMen don't have a full set of ribs (I call it God's signature) This is an Urban Myth Biologically speaking Women and Men are equal in the terms of Rib Bone and muscle and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever, ever been differant....i have huge walls of text to throw at you if you even dare call this Sex gives a connection to your partner after the fact. Correct...its wonderful isnt it?..the feeling of love and euphoria when you look into his/her eyes after There are medical diseases that come from (or are transferred through) homosexual sex. The exact same desises also exist within the Hetrosexual community and they all origonally stem from the Hetrosexual community, though no one can argue Homosexual intercourse carrys a greater chance to spread due to the large number of blood vessel's in the a**sMatthew 5:28, "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The bit that says "in his heart", his uses the word αὐτός which means he she or it. Hence unisex. In English, we are forced to assume the masculine. I could argue that since it only mentions looking at women, guy on guy is cool So, God is basically telling you that when you look at someone man or woman with lust; you have committed adultery. And as you should know; you love God by obeying his commandments and sin keeps you separated from God. So yes, it is wrong. Try your best to keep yourself away from any temptation. The truth is people enjoy sin and you seem to enjoy this particular one but we all know the problems with sin. Just pray to not be led into temptation and the like. God be with you.
As to your last bit, if the Chrisitan faith would just Legalise gay marriage then this would not be an issue as two men could marry and therefore bypass the whole lust magigger.
Also ill add in that there is absolutely nothing in the bible forbidding premarital sex. It is one of the traditions that is man made to control people. The only reference is in the OT and in the NT only the total mistranslation of the Greek word "porneia" as "fornication" - a clear lie that has no basis.
In biblical times there was nothing wrong with a married man having as many wives as he could afford, concubine and "common" prostitutes. Adultery was only wrong for a married women, since it violated her husbands property (and sexual) rights over her and his other wives or concubines. This was how it worked in Jewish sociaty, in fact many people had Concubines (Abraham anyone?) bore children by them and had sexual intercourse outside of marrige and no punishment was ever visited on them
In every case of pre-marital sex in the Bible there is no punishment for the sexual act. The only penalty is the compensation to the father for the woman's change in status. (See Deuteronomy and Exodus for examples)
NT Discussion
There is nothing said about premarital sex in the New Testament.
The scriptures were not written in English. "Fornication" is a great example of the lies in translation of some bibles. Some English bibles say that, others say the more correct translation "sexual immorality". The koline Greek word that has been mistranslated as fornication is porneia. There is no biblical basis whatsoever to translate porneia into fornication (singles sex).
Porneia meant sexual immorality which included:
1) Sex during women's menstruation.
2) Adultery which biblically was understood by the Hebrews to mean wrong for a married women to have sex with another man since violated her husbands property rights. It was never understood to be wrong for a married man since his wife had no such rights. The married man could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as he wished as long as not married (another man's property. Nothing ever was wrong with singles sexuality. "Fornication" is a total mistranslation of Greek "porneia"
3) Pagan sex goddess prostitution. Porneia as used in I Cor 6-9, falsely translated in some bibles as fornication was actually the practice of the prostitutes in the Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of pagan fertility goddess worship which was what Paul was warning against. Not even specifically about prostitution (still legal and very popular in Israel today) but used as a pagan sexual goddess worship.
4) Pederasty - one of the worst of all sexual sins that took various forms: The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct styles. First is the relationship between an older man and a young boy. Second is the practice of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another heterosexual male by a**l intercourse after capturing them in battle. Another practice was heterosexual's using a**l intercourse to drive out other heterosexual strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story. It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today, which is simply being as God designed some people to be.
Yet another example of poor Translations messing everything up.
Think outside the box |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:14 pm
|
|
|
|
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Immorality, Sexual: Interpersonal activity involving sex organs that does not conform to God's revealed laws governing sexuality. The account of creation (Gen 1:1-28 ) includes reproductive activity as an essential part of the developmental scheme. This important function is given special prominence in the narrative describing the creation of woman (Gen 2:21-24). In a process cloaked in mystery, God takes an aspect (Heb. sela, improperly translated "rib" in many versions) of Adam and fashions it into a genetic counterpart that is specifically female, and which matches Adam's maleness for purposes of reproducing the species. Adam and Eve are thus equal and complementary to one another, of the same physical and genetic composition apart from the slight difference that governs the characteristic nature of male and female fetuses. God tells them to "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill all the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28 ). In normal males the sex drive is a powerful biological and emotional force that is often difficult to control satisfactorily, particularly when it expresses itself in aggressive terms. But in the early narratives dealing with human family life there are no specific regulations for sexual behavior apart from the statement that Eve's husband will be the object of her carnal desires (Gen 3:16). As the world's population grows, so do the human misdemeanors (Gen 6:5-6), which seem to include mixed marriages (Gen 6:2) and possible sexual perversions, although the latter are not mentioned explicitly. At the same time there are certain situations of a sexual nature that are to be avoided by followers of the Lord. The shame associated with the exposure of male genitalia and the penalties that might accrue to observers (Gen 19:22-25) illustrates one form of prohibited sex-related activity. This represents the beginning of later Jewish traditions that held that nakedness was shameful. In the patriarchal age, homosexuality was a prominent part of Canaanite culture, as the incident involving Lot in Sodom illustrates (Gen 19:1-9). So rampant was sexual perversion in that place that in later times the name of the city became synonymous with homosexual behavior. God's judgment upon such a perversion of sexuality was to destroy the city and its corrupt inhabitants. When God entered into a covenant relationship with the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exod 24:1-11), his intent was to assemble and foster a select group of human beings who would be obedient to him, worship him as their one and only true God, and live under his direction in community as a priestly kingdom and a holy nation (Exod 19:6). Holiness demands adherence to certain stringent rules regarding worship and general conduct, but also requires a complete commitment of will and motive to the Lord's commandments. Because of the gross promiscuity of surrounding nations, whose behavior the Israelites are warned periodically to avoid, the covenant Lord reveals through Moses a collection of strict regulations that are to govern Israelite sexuality and morality. If these directives are followed, the individual and the community alike can expect blessing. But if the Israelites lapse into the immoral ways of nations such as Egypt and Canaan, they will be punished. God's keen interest in the sexuality of his chosen people has two objectives: to exhibit Israel to the world as a people fulfilling his standards of holiness, and to ensure that, in the process, they enjoy physical, mental, and moral health. The pronouncements on sexuality given to Moses while the Israelites are encamped at Mount Sinai occur in two separate places in Leviticus (18:6-23; 20:10-21). It should be remembered that Leviticus (the "Levite" book) comprises a technical priestly manual dealing with regulations governing Israelite worship and the holiness of the covenant community. God had chosen the covenant nation to be an illustration to pagan society of how individuals can become as holy as God through implicit faith in him and continuous obedience to his commandments. By setting out guidelines for the priests to teach to the Israelites, God promulgates explicitly a catalog of what is, and is not, acceptable social, moral, and spiritual behavior. In the distinctions between clean and unclean that occur in various parts of the priestly handbook, the emphasis is on that purity of life that should characterize God's people. Enactments of this kind are unique in the ancient world, and only serve to demonstrate the seriousness of God's intent to foster a people that can indeed have spiritual fellowship with their Lord because they reflect his holy and pure nature as they walk in the way of his commandments. A closer look must now be taken at the regulations governing sexuality. In Leviticus 18:6-23, the matter is approached by the use of denunciations to describe immoral behavior. These fall into two groups, one dealing with carnal associations among people closely related by blood (consanguinity), and the other governing the sexual behavior of persons related through marriage (affinity). Accordingly a man is prohibited from copulating with his mother or any other wife belonging to his father; a sister or half-sister, a daughter-in-law or a granddaughter, an aunt on either side of the family, a woman and her daughter or her son's daughter or daughter's daughter, a wife's sister as a rival wife, a neighbor's wife, and a woman during the menses. Homosexuality is castigated as reprehensible morally, and bestiality is condemned summarily. Everything forbidden had already led to the moral defilement of the nations surrounding Israel, and for these perversions they are to fall under divine judgment (v. 24). Homosexuality is described in the Mosaic legislation in terms of a man lying with a man "as one lies with a woman" (Lev 18:22; 20:13), that is, for purposes of sexual intercourse. The practice originated in humanity's remote past, and appears to have formed part of Babylonian religious activities. The Canaanites regarded their male and female cultic prostitutes as "holy persons, " meaning that they were dedicated specifically to the service of a god or goddess, not that they were exemplars of moral purity in society. While general condemnations of homosexuality occur in Leviticus, none of the pagan Near Eastern religions thought it either necessary or desirable to enact comparable legislation, since for them such activities were all part of normal religious life in temples or other places of cultic worship. In general, homosexuality in Mesopotamia is not documented to any extent in surviving tablets, but that it was a widespread problem in the Middle Assyrian period (1300-900 b.c.) is indicated by the fact that legislation from that time stipulates that an offender, when caught, should be castrated. This judicial sentence, when compared with the Hebrew prescription of death (Lev 20:13), shows that in Mesopotamian society the offense was regarded as a secondary civic infraction. While homosexuality seems to have been a recognized part of Hittite life, their laws nevertheless prescribe execution for a man who sodomizes his son. Hebrew tradition, in contrast, is emphatic in condemning homosexuality, even though some Israelites succumbed to it. In Deuteronomy 23:18, male cultic prostitutes, and perhaps homosexuals also, are castigated as "dogs, " which is most probably the significance of the term in Revelation 22:15. Since the dog was generally despised by the Hebrews as an unclean animal, serving much the same scavenging purpose as the vulture (1 Kings 22:38 ), the disparaging nature of the allusion is evident. Bestiality, defined in terms of a man or woman having sexual relations with an animal (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16), is stigmatized in the Mosaic enactments as a defilement for a man and a sexual perversion for a woman. It appears to have been fairly common in antiquity (Lev 18:24), being indulged in by the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Hittites. The shorter list of prohibited relationships in Leviticus 20:10-21 deals with many of the same offenses, but also prescribes punishments for such violations of Israel's moral code. Thus a man who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife is to be executed, along with his sexual partner. This is also the penalty for a man who defiles his father's wife or his daughter-in-law, because such activity constitutes sexual perversion as defined by God's laws. Homosexuality is once again condemned, and the sexual perverts sentenced to death. The marriage of a man, a woman, and her mother is deemed wicked, and the offenders sentenced to be burned with fire so as to expunge completely the wickedness of the act from the holy community. Bestiality, condemned already as a perversion, is regarded as a capital offense, which includes the animal also. The marriage of a man with his sister from either side of the family is declared a highly immoral union, and the participants are to be put to death. The same is true of a man and a woman engaging in sexual activity during the woman's menstrual period. Such blood is considered highly defiling, and a gross violation of the purity that God desires as the norm for Israel's social behavior. The seriousness with which God assesses his holiness is reflected in the severe penalties prescribed for the infractions listed above. The phrase "their blood will be on their own heads" is a euphemism for capital punishment. Sexual relations between a man and his aunt, or between a man and his brother's wife, are regarded as dishonoring the legal spouses, and are accorded the lesser sentence of childlessness. In some cases, however, this is tantamount to causing the death of the family, a prospect that few Hebrews could contemplate with equanimity. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the law allows a man to marry his deceased brother's childless wife so as to rear a son for his brother's family, but this is very different from a man marrying his brother's wife while her legal husband is still alive. There are important reasons why these enactments were part of ancient Hebrew law. Moral purity and spiritual dedication were fundamental requisites if the chosen people were to maintain their distinctive witness to God's power and holiness in society. The prohibitions reinforced the traditional emphasis on family honor, since the family was the building block of society. It had to be maintained at all costs if society was to survive. Any marriage relationship that was too close would have exerted a devastating effect on community solidarity by provoking family feuds that could last for centuries. Serious problems would also have arisen through intermarriage when the result of such unions was the concentration of lands and riches in the hands of a few Hebrew families. For modern observers, however, the greatest danger by far would have resulted from the pollution of the genetic pool because of inbreeding. The bulk of the relationships prohibited by the legislation involved first and second degrees of consanguinity, that is, parent-child and grandparent-grandchild incest. Coition within the forbidden degrees of family relationships generally results in genetic complications when offspring are produced. Recessive genes often become dominant and endow the fetus with various kinds of diseases or congenital malformations. This seems to have been the force of the Hebrew "tebel," a word that occurs only in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:12. It comes from "balal," meaning "to confuse, " and conveys aptly the genetic upheaval that occurs in many cases of inbreeding, since God's rules for procreation have been upset. Only in a few instances does close inbreeding produce beneficial effects by removing recessive lethal genes from the genetic pool. (This may have happened in the case of ancient Egyptian royalty.) Nevertheless, even in such instances, inbreeding diminishes the energy and vigor of species that are normally outbred, and reinforces the wisdom and authority of the Mosaic legislation. When God entered into a covenant relationship with the Israelites he furnished them with certain fundamental regulations engraved in stone to symbolize their permanence. These "Ten Commandments, " as they are styled, contain certain injunctions of a moral character dealing with adultery, theft, false witness, and covetous behavior (Exod 20:14-19). The last three offenses are social in character, involving the community of God to a greater or lesser degree. But the commandment prohibiting adultery deals with an act of a highly personal nature, occurring between normally consenting adults, which violates the "one flesh" character of marriage. The fact that a commandment deals specifically with this form of behavior seems to indicate that adultery was common among the ancient Hebrews. At all events, adultery was understood as sexual intercourse between a man and another man's wife or betrothed woman. Similarly, any act of coition between a married woman and a man who was not her husband was also regarded as adultery. Certain exceptions to these stringent rules were tolerated in Old Testament times, however. A man was not considered an adulterer if he engaged in sexual relations with a female slave (Gen 16:1-4), a prostitute (Gen 38:15-18 ), or his wife's handmaid with the spouse's permission (Gen 16:4). Nor was a man deemed to be in an adulterous relationship if he happened to be married to two wives. The traditions banning adultery, made specific in the Decalog, were enshrined deeply in Israel's national life. The prophets warn that divine judgment will descend upon those who practice it (Jer 23:11-14; Ezek 22:11; Mal 3:5). The Book of Proverbs, however, takes more of a social than a specifically moral view of adultery, ridiculing it as a stupid pattern of behavior that leads a man to self-destruction (6:25-35). The prophets use the term figuratively to describe the covenant people's lack of fidelity to the high ideals of Mount Sinai. The prophets view the covenant as equivalent to a marriage relationship between God and Israel (Isa 54:5-8 ). Any breach of the covenant, therefore, is an act of spiritual adultery (Jer 5:7-8; Ezek 23:37). In his teachings Jesus stands firmly in the traditions of the Mosaic law and prophecy by regarding adultery as sin. But he extends the definition to include any man who lusts in his mind after another woman, whether she is married or not. It is thus unnecessary for any physical contact to take place, since the intent is already present (Matt 5:28 ). By this teaching Jesus demonstrates that, under the new covenant, motivation is to be considered just as seriously as the mechanical act of breaking or keeping a particular law. The motivation of a believer should always be of the purest kind, enabling obedience to God's will freely from the heart, and not just because the law makes certain demands. Whereas the female is cast in an inferior, passive role in the Old Testament sexual legislation, Jesus considers the woman as equal to the man in his teachings about divorce and remarriage. In consequence the woman has to bear equal responsibility for adultery. Much discussion has taken place about Christ's return to the strict marriage ideals of Genesis 2:24 (Mr 10:6) and the explanatory clause "except for marital unfaithfulness" (Matt 5:32; 19:9), which allows for remarriage after divorce and which does not occur in either Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18. Before New Testament technical terms are discussed, it is important to realize that Christ was directing his teaching at the new age of grace, which in his death was to render Old Testament legal traditions ineffective. The Mosaic law was specific about the conditions under which divorce could occur. The wife had fallen into disfavor because her husband had found something unclean or indecent about her, and therefore he was entitled to divorce her. Jesus teaches that this procedure was allowed by God as a concession to human obduracy (Matt 19: 8 ), even though the Creator hated divorce. In New Testament times, only the man was able to institute divorce proceedings. It was in reality, however, a rare occurrence, and at that mostly the prerogative of the rich, since poor men could not afford another dowry or "bride price" for a subsequent marriage. The accused woman was protected under the law to the extent that her husband's accusations had to be proved. Thus some scholars have seen the Matthean explanatory clause as indicating immorality as the sole ground for divorce, following the contemporary rabbinical school of Shammai, and not for some purely frivolous cause, as the school of Hillel taught. If this explanation is correct, Jesus was addressing a Jewish controversy that had no bearing on God's marriage ideals in the age of grace, and which Mark and Luke consequently ignored because the exception did not apply to their audiences of Christian believers. The most common term in the New Testament for sexual immorality is "porneia," and its related forms "pornos" and "porneuo." An emphatic form of the verb, "ekporneuo," "indulging in sexual immorality," occurs in Jude 7. These words have been translated variously into English, some renderings for an immoral person being "whoremonger, " "fornicator, " "loose liver, " and "sexually immoral." The term "pornos" refers to a man who engages in coition with a "porne," or female prostitute. The extended description of wanton immorality in Romans 1:24-32 discusses women spurning natural sexual relationships for unnatural ones, that is, indulging in lesbian activities of the kind practiced at Lesbos in pagan Greek religious ceremonies. The males are described as inflamed with lust for one another, and this leads to indecent and immoral behavior. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the sexually immoral are classified as adulterers, male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders. In 1 Timothy 1:10, sexually immoral people are described comprehensively as adulterers and perverts. The New Testament contains far less teaching about sexual immorality than the Old Testament, on which Christian morals and ethics are based. The Mosaic law condemned adultery, but placed less emphasis on prohibiting some other sexual offenses. In the end, disregard for the Mosaic enactments brought Israel to ruin, and this made it important for the Christian church to distinguish carefully, among other matters, between adultery as a sin and "porneia," which was a fatal perversion. The New Testament requires believers to deny physical and spiritual lusting after people and false gods, and to conduct their behavior at a high moral and spiritual level. Sexual activity is to be confined to the marriage relationship, and if a married man or woman has sexual intercourse with someone other than the spouse, that person has committed adultery. To be most satisfying for the Christian, sexual activity must reflect the values of self-sacrificing love and the unity of personality to which the Christian's reconciliation to God by the atoning work of Jesus brings the believing couple. R. K. Harrison
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Homosexuality: It is significant that the word "homosexuality" did not enter the English vocabulary until the early twentieth century. The word, and with it the concept of lifelong primary sexual orientation toward members of one's own gender, was unacknowledged and probably unknown in the biblical world. Some today will therefore argue that what the Bible appears to condemn can be distinguished from homosexuality. They maintain that the homosexual orientation, to the extent that it develops in early childhood or even before birth, is not consciously chosen and is therefore not sinful. As long as this form of sexuality is expressed monogamously, it is argued, homosexual relations merely constitute an expansion of the biblical view of marriage. In order to assess the legitimacy of this approach, it is important to begin with an understanding of the view of same-gender sex in the ancient world. The Ancient World. Because there is so little evidence of same-gender sex before the New Testament period, our view of "the ancient world" must focus more narrowly on the Greco-Roman period. Writings during this period demonstrate familiarity with sexual Acts between members of the same gender, but these were not understood to result from an "orientation." Sexuality was important in the ancient world only in terms of male progeniture. It appears that the rape of other males and the use of boys for sexual pleasure (pederasty) were performed as Acts of dominance, violence, or experimentation by otherwise heterosexual men. As a phase or as an occasional act, sex between males did not detract from male progeniture. In some circles, most notably those of the intellectual elite philosophers and poets, relationships between men and boys were lauded as the highest expression of romantic love. These relationships were not reciprocal, however. Males who were (willing or not) the receiving partners in these Acts, especially on a repeated basis, were socially outcast. Boys were bought as slaves and discarded when they reached puberty. Lesbians, who were by definition reducing the possibility of male progeniture, were scarcely mentioned but consistently condemned. Thus the modern supposition of a tolerant pagan society subsequently oppressed by Judeo-Christian taboos is a complete myth. It was, rather, a culture almost empty of regard for the sexual rights or desires of anyone but the small ruling class of men, who commonly exercised their almost limitless privilege at the expense of those young women and men in their power. The Old Testament. Into this world of ruthless sexuality came the biblical message of restraint, justice, and sexual complementarity, which was revolutionary in its implications. From the beginning it is acknowledged that humankind is created in two genders that together bear God's image (Gen 1:27) and together constitute a unity of flesh (Gen 2:24). The reaffirmation of these two notions in key New Testament passages on sexuality (Matt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7:12-20) demonstrates the continuity and importance of sexual differentiation in the construction of a normative biblical sexuality. More simply put, humankind is created to find human completion only in the (marital) union of two sexes. While there may be legitimate conditions under which this union will not occur (e.g., celibacy), there are no conceivable conditions in which the union can occur fully without sexual differentiation. More specifically in terms of homosexuality, then, same-gender partners can at best pretend to effect a differentiation that is physiologically (and perhaps psychologically) impossible. Some theologians have suggested that to be created in the image of God according to Genesis means to be in social fellowship with other persons. Others deduce that homosexual relations are merely an expansion of the category of marriage under this rubric of fellowship; that is, intimacy and not biology is the appropriate measure of conformity to the Genesis marriage model. But apart from the debatability of this notion of the image of God in Genesis (dominion is the probable focus of the term), the definition of marriage cannot be limited to the meaning of the image of God. However important the social and spiritual aspects of marriage may be, the physical aspect is no less fundamental to its definition. Sexual differentiation (1:27) intends physical union, the becoming of one flesh (2:24). Because a homosexual relationship cannot produce a unity of sexually differentiated beings, there cannot be a marriage. Condemnations of sexual sin in the Old Testament focus on heterosexual Acts, but it is important to note that all sexual sin, including homosexuality, is prohibited in relation to the positive model of marriage presented in Genesis. Thus, while the Old Testament describes homosexual activity as intrinsically unjust or impure, these condemnations do not differ qualitatively from condemnations of heterosexual deviations from the marriage model. The first and most familiar Old Testament passage is the account of intended male rape at Sodom (Gen 19). References to the city later become common extrabiblical Jewish euphemisms for sexual perversion in general and homosexual practices in particular (in the New Testament, see 2 Peter 2:6-7; and Jude 7). Some modern revisionists point to the subsequent Jewish tradition condemning Sodom for inhospitality and argue that the passage does not have homosexual rape in view. In this view, when the Sodomites demand to "know" Lot's visitors, they want to interrogate them, and Lot considers this breach of hospitality as so objectionable that he offers to distract the men with sex, offering his own daughters. The major obstacle to this interpretation is the Hebrew verb "to know" (yada), which, while not often used in a sexual sense, is used in just that sense in verse 8—only two verses after its occurrence expressing the desire of the men of Sodom. Clearly the Sodomites desired sexual relations with Lot's guests. The later references to inhospitality in relation to Sodom are not due to a misunderstanding of the sin of Sodom on the part of the Jews, but to their habit of speaking indirectly of sexual matters out of modesty. A parallel account of sexual violence occurs in Judges 19-20, where the men of Gibeah rape a man's concubine to the point of death in substitution for the man himself. There can be no doubt that this is fundamentally an act of violence, but the initial desire for the man coupled with the sacrifice of the concubine to avoid "such a disgraceful thing" (19:24) suggests that same-gender sex, and not only inhospitality, is seen in a very negative light. More obscure reference to same-gender sex may be found in Genesis 9:20-27, where the statement that Ham "saw his father's nakedness" may be a euphemism for rape. There may be a connection here to two additional references to sexual sins involving one's father (Lev 18:7; Deut 23:1), since Ham is the father of Canaan, the nation traditionally associated with same-gender sex and whose impure practices are condemned in detail in the context of these references. Explicit condemnation of same-gender sexual relations occurs in two Old Testament passages. Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 reads, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." The wording here is ambiguous with regard to rape or manipulation versus mutual consent; instead, the focus is on the act itself as a mutual defilement. Modern revisionists often dismiss these strong passages on the grounds that they are part of the Old Testament purity code and therefore irrelevant to a gospel that frees believers from the constraints of Jewish cultural taboos. But the surrounding verses, which involve such concerns as care for the poor and respect of property show that it is impossible to make a simplistic distinction between purity laws and permanent moral principles. The reaffirmation of sexually differentiated marriage in the New Testament, as noted above, suggests that this levitical condemnation of the violation of differentiation retains its force throughout the entire biblical period. The New Testament Message of Liberation. Some revisionists maintain that the message of Jesus is fundamentally a message concerning the liberation of captives (Luke 4:18-19). These captives, it is argued, are to be understood not in individual terms as sinners, but in corporate terms as those who are forgotten or oppressed by the proud and powerful. In this view, the place to begin a truly Christian consideration of sexual ethics is not with Genesis and the legal code but with Exodus and freedom from law proclaimed by Jesus. The homosexual community, with its long history of persecution, naturally sees itself described in the Beatitudes and other offers of hope to the downtrodden. It sees analogies to modern "heterosexism" in the historic subjugation of women and of blacks. There are, however, many problems with an approach that so simply makes biblical material a vehicle for experience. One objection is that the choice of one kind of sexual proclivity as "oppressed" is arbitrary: there is no definitive reason to exclude pederasty or sadomasochism or adultery. Furthermore, the analogies to other modern liberation movements are dubious. In the case of slavery, for example, the biblical message is ambiguous; in the case of homosexual Acts, on the other hand, what little material we have is all decidedly negative. Finally, it is impossible to evaluate a behavior by means of its perception, as if disapproval by the majority automatically constitutes legitimacy on the part of a persecuted minority. At some point the behavior itself must be held up to a light other than the fire of its own passion. The light of revelation in the New Testament message offers liberation, but explicit in this offer is the provision of power to conform individuals to full humanity as God created it. In order to exercise responsibility in relation to such an offer it is essential for believers to take seriously both the construction of full humanity as the Scriptures describe it, and deviations from that full humanity as the Scriptures warn against them. The Gospels. There is no explicit reference to same-gender sex in the Gospels, but there may be an echo of a reference in Mark 9:42-10:12 (cf. Matt 5:27-32). A passage in the Talmud (b. Niddah 13b) links masturbation and pederasty together as violations of marriage, and in so doing makes reference to harming children, offending with the hand or the foot, and cutting off offending limbs rather than going down to the pit of destruction. These similarities of wording to the Gospel passages may suggest a common understanding in the first century that "putting a stumbling block before one of these little ones" involved sexual sin against them. Paul's Epistles. 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 "arsenokoitai" 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 [a 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. 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. 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. Responses to Paul's Proscription. The discussion does not end with the conclusion that Paul condemns homosexuality. Some argue that a modern understanding of "natural" differs from Paul's and requires that we absolve those who discover rather than choose a homosexual orientation. These, it is argued, should be seen as victims, or simply different, and our definition of allowable sexual activity expanded accordingly. The major problem with this response is that it shifts the meaning of "natural" from Paul's notion of "that which is in accord with creation" to the popular notion of "that which one has a desire to do." But deeply ingrained anger does not justify murder, nor does deeply ingrained greed justify theft or materialism, nor does the deeply ingrained desire of many heterosexuals for multiple partners justify promiscuity. Desire in all of these areas, chosen or not, must come under the reign of Christ. The action in question must be considered not in terms of its source in the person but in light of the relevant biblical principles. These principles often involve denial of deeply ingrained desires, for the heterosexual who desires multiple partners no less than for the homosexual who laments the option of celibacy. There is considerable evidence that a homosexual orientation, and certainly the occasional homosexual experience, does not indicate a permanent state but an immature stage of sexuality that may be "fixed" at some point by physiological, psychological, or social factors, and by the individual will, all acting in combination. This has theological significance because it implies that movement toward completion or maturity will involve movement toward obedience to the biblical model. One need not conclude, then, that the homosexual orientation is an indication either of God's approval of the orientation or that the orientation is God's "curse" of the individual. It is, rather, a challenge to growth in discipleship, more or less difficult depending on individual circumstances, but accompanied by the promise of grace equal to those circumstances (Rom 5:19-21; 1 Cor 10:13; 2 Col 12:9). Thomas E. Schmidt
Think inside the Bible. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:14 pm
|
|
|
|
Syrokal Break Sage Genesis 2:18-24: "[...] Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones/ and flesh of my flesh;/ she shall be called 'woman',/ for she was taken out of man." [...] ,and they will become one flesh. Facts: The 7th Commandment is You shall not commit adultery. CorrectMen don't have a full set of ribs (I call it God's signature) This is an Urban Myth Biologically speaking Women and Men are equal in the terms of Rib Bone and muscle and there is no evidence to suggest that it has ever, ever been differant....i have huge walls of text to throw at you if you even dare call this Sex gives a connection to your partner after the fact. Correct...its wonderful isnt it?..the feeling of love and euphoria when you look into his/her eyes after There are medical diseases that come from (or are transferred through) homosexual sex. The exact same desises also exist within the Hetrosexual community and they all origonally stem from the Hetrosexual community, though no one can argue Homosexual intercourse carrys a greater chance to spread due to the large number of blood vessel's in the a**sMatthew 5:28, "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The bit that says "in his heart", his uses the word αὐτός which means he she or it. Hence unisex. In English, we are forced to assume the masculine. I could argue that since it only mentions looking at women, guy on guy is cool So, God is basically telling you that when you look at someone man or woman with lust; you have committed adultery. And as you should know; you love God by obeying his commandments and sin keeps you separated from God. So yes, it is wrong. Try your best to keep yourself away from any temptation. The truth is people enjoy sin and you seem to enjoy this particular one but we all know the problems with sin. Just pray to not be led into temptation and the like. God be with you. As to your last bit, if the Chrisitan faith would just Legalise gay marriage then this would not be an issue as two men could marry and therefore bypass the whole lust magigger. Also ill add in that there is absolutely nothing in the bible forbidding premarital sex. It is one of the traditions that is man made to control people. The only reference is in the OT and in the NT only the total mistranslation of the Greek word "porneia" as "fornication" - a clear lie that has no basis. In biblical times there was nothing wrong with a married man having as many wives as he could afford, concubine and "common" prostitutes. Adultery was only wrong for a married women, since it violated her husbands property (and sexual) rights over her and his other wives or concubines. This was how it worked in Jewish sociaty, in fact many people had Concubines (Abraham anyone?) bore children by them and had sexual intercourse outside of marrige and no punishment was ever visited on them In every case of pre-marital sex in the Bible there is no punishment for the sexual act. The only penalty is the compensation to the father for the woman's change in status. (See Deuteronomy and Exodus for examples) NT Discussion There is nothing said about premarital sex in the New Testament. The scriptures were not written in English. "Fornication" is a great example of the lies in translation of some bibles. Some English bibles say that, others say the more correct translation "sexual immorality". The koline Greek word that has been mistranslated as fornication is porneia. There is no biblical basis whatsoever to translate porneia into fornication (singles sex). Porneia meant sexual immorality which included: 1) Sex during women's menstruation. 2) Adultery which biblically was understood by the Hebrews to mean wrong for a married women to have sex with another man since violated her husbands property rights. It was never understood to be wrong for a married man since his wife had no such rights. The married man could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as he wished as long as not married (another man's property. Nothing ever was wrong with singles sexuality. "Fornication" is a total mistranslation of Greek "porneia" 3) Pagan sex goddess prostitution. Porneia as used in I Cor 6-9, falsely translated in some bibles as fornication was actually the practice of the prostitutes in the Temples of Corinth selling their services as a part of pagan fertility goddess worship which was what Paul was warning against. Not even specifically about prostitution (still legal and very popular in Israel today) but used as a pagan sexual goddess worship. 4) Pederasty - one of the worst of all sexual sins that took various forms: The practice of pederasty falls into three distinct styles. First is the relationship between an older man and a young boy. Second is the practice of slave prostitutes. Third is that of the effeminate "call boy" or prostitute. Other practices included a heterosexual male degrading another heterosexual male by a**l intercourse after capturing them in battle. Another practice was heterosexual's using a**l intercourse to drive out other heterosexual strangers they didn't like such as the case of the Sodom story. It had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality as we know it today, which is simply being as God designed some people to be. Yet another example of poor Translations messing everything up. Think outside the box
I should have backed up my stuff better. The rib thing is something someone told me a long time ago. Never looked it up (like i usually do). This is a good reminder not to assume things. I'm not gonna argue about the disease thing. That would be pointless. The main thing I'm trying to get at is that it is still wrong. Because no, guy on guy is not cool. It says in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.". That's pretty straight forward. In that area of passages it goes on to say other acts of sexual sin. It doesn't say anything about woman on woman because it wasn't common during that specific time. Everything listed there was common. Not to say woman on woman isn't wrong; because it is. This scripture denies what you say about premarital sex. If you don't believe that this is still law (Leviticus is old law) then read Deuteronomy 22:5 "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." This is to say that men and women are not to switch sexual roles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:06 am
|
|
|
|
If you look at it scientifically, bisexuality is okay. Think of it this way, biologically when we are born, we're born with both testosterone and estrogene in our bodies. When we hit puberty those levels go in their proper place. Female has higher estrogene levels. Male has higher testosterone levels.
Being bisexual doesn't make you gay. Remember word meanings. Homo means 1. Bi means 2. so when you think of homosapien, it means one speicies...or something like that (my latin is bad sort of) so that being said homosexual means liking one gender. Whereas bisexuality means like 2 genders. The Bible talks about lying with ONE gender versus the other. It does not say however, don't lie with 2 different sexes. Or like 2 different sexes. Nothing in it about that. Remember, if you think I'm wrong then you need to go back to grammar school, the word for one, two, 3, 4 etc was covered in the 1st-5th grades. ^.^
And here's something else to prove that homosexuality is indeed natural: Certain animals in the animal kingdom have homosexual tendencies. Male Dolphins with sod other male dolphins and male penguins will sod other male penguins as will male rams. (I read the male ram bit in TIME magazine)
Want to know what is unnatural: Monogamy. In the animal kingdom, animals have MULTIPLE spouses. So polygamy is a okay. Not only that King David had 600 wives. Think about them apples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:41 pm
|
|
|
|
Dark Angel Rai If you look at it scientifically, bisexuality is okay. Think of it this way, biologically when we are born, we're born with both testosterone and estrogene in our bodies. When we hit puberty those levels go in their proper place. Female has higher estrogene levels. Male has higher testosterone levels. Being bisexual doesn't make you gay. Remember word meanings. Homo means 1. Bi means 2. so when you think of homosapien, it means one speicies...or something like that (my latin is bad sort of) so that being said homosexual means liking one gender. Whereas bisexuality means like 2 genders. The Bible talks about lying with ONE gender versus the other. It does not say however, don't lie with 2 different sexes. Or like 2 different sexes. Nothing in it about that. Remember, if you think I'm wrong then you need to go back to grammar school, the word for one, two, 3, 4 etc was covered in the 1st-5th grades. ^.^ And here's something else to prove that homosexuality is indeed natural: Certain animals in the animal kingdom have homosexual tendencies. Male Dolphins with sod other male dolphins and male penguins will sod other male penguins as will male rams. (I read the male ram bit in TIME magazine) Want to know what is unnatural: Monogamy. In the animal kingdom, animals have MULTIPLE spouses. So polygamy is a okay. Not only that King David had 600 wives. Think about them apples.
I'm sorry if this comes out arrogant, but... when you think about biology, you have to remember that God cursed the Earth with Adam and Eve. That basically means everything. Ground, plants, animals, everything.
Within the context of Christianity, I wouldn't take biology or what animals do as proof that it's okay.
Also, you have a point with the bi- bit. I really think it's not that the impulses exist that is the problem as much as if a person follows them through, or thinks on them to the point where it becomes an utter fascination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:39 pm
|
|
|
|
Kazydi Syrokal Its completely cool, every argument against Homosexuality in the bible is a twisted one made to fit the Agenda. Biological reasons are now the findings of the vast majority of Study's and God would not create you in a way against what he deemed correct. Go for it. Geez, he asked for God's opinion. God's pretty clear on his views against this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
