|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 6:05 am
 |
|
|
 |
Jedediah Smith *Waits for Ananel's thesis to be posted*
...seriously? It's everywhere. Hell, there's a link to it right there in the first post.
Ananel 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 7:32 am
|
|
|
|
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: LINK
C) 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: Wed May 17, 2006 9:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 6:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:16 pm
|
|
|
|
I personally belive that homosexuality is a sin. I'm not saying i'm right, I'm not saying I'm wrong either. All I know for sure is that I'm not god. I can't say if it goes against what god says. I don't know that bible well enough to say that for sure. But in my opinion if the two people are married then sex between them whoever they are is okay. I don't belive, however, that the Christian church as a whole, Catholic, protestant, should marry same sex couples. There are other ways to get married. Legally all you need is a marriage liscense, and a judge to pronounce you married, plus the witnesses and all of that. From there I believe that there can be a ceremony with all of the cake and chapel and all of that sice the couple is legally married. All that needs done in my opinion, it to leave out the whole "and in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, I now pronounce you (insert desired phrase here)" and just make it "I now pronounce you..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:30 pm
|
|
|
|
OMG its Luisito The problem here is that a lot of people here think that they're better because they're straight. We are all equal and God loves us all equally. Quote: While yes your completely right. Your completely wrong in you principles here. Your point doesn't verify that homosexuality isn't a sin. That passage also means that murderers, and rapists are loved as much as the rest of us are. This is completely true. A nonbeliever is loved as much as a devout christian. This is also true. But, the nonbeliever doesn't get into heaven while the christian does. Assuming for this example that the nonbeliever remains a nonbeliever until death. All that you pointed out with this is that homosexuals can be forgiven and still make it into heaven. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Now, I know that I am not a member, so please don't kill me for butting in but this shall be my only post within this guild.
From what I have read, all who have commented here are incredibly intelligent and passionate people with two very opposing opinions.
My opinion is very different from what I have read so far in that I have some passionate opinions, some dispassionate opinions, some questions
that may be able to be answered by those who have posted to this thread. I hope that some of these questions and/or statements may cause some of you to reflect your perceptions in your hearts.
Honestly, I have a very tentative belief in God; my love in an ultimate being is split between the Goddess and God. The Goddess is the central being of the Wiccan religion, much like God is the central being in the Christian/Catholic/etc religions. When I say etc, I don't mean to slight anyone, but I don't know the other branches of this religion will certainity.
My questions about homosexuality tie into the above paragraph concerns my personal religious beliefs. I think the best analogy for homosexuality is to compare the topic of discussion itself to a religion. God loves all and that includes followers of other religions. In the Islamic religion, women who think for themselves are looked down upon. Does God, in this instance Allah, damn women who think for themselves or is that the human interpretation? Homosexuality is the same; countless religions celebrate the same events and uphold the same practice, yet what defines and separates each religion are the small details, like the forbidding and binding of love.
My questions for all who have read this are as follows:
1) Is it right to forbid and bind love, something that the Bible professes love for others as the ultimate show of love for God Himself?
2) Can humans ever fully comprehend what God says, for even prophets may have ingrained biases that could effect the wording or subtle emphasis on God's word?
3) Do those of you who think homosexuality is a sin believe that only because of a verse in the Bible or do you have another reason for believing that homosexuality is a sin?
All I can say in closing is this:
Anything can be read into
Anything can be seen as something else if that is only what you to see
Humans are imperfect, yet we strive for perfection
With that last statement I shall leave all of you with one last question to consider: Can impefect humans dispense the will of the perfect God in our own interpretations, or is that simply another form of vigilantism and outside of God's word and law?
God Bless and Blessed Be,
Silver Shadow Sinner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:09 pm
|
|
|
|
Silver Shadow Sinner Now, I know that I am not a member, so please don't kill me for butting in but this shall be my only post within this guild.
From what I have read, all who have commented here are incredibly intelligent and passionate people with two very opposing opinions.
My opinion is very different from what I have read so far in that I have some passionate opinions, some dispassionate opinions, some questions
that may be able to be answered by those who have posted to this thread. I hope that some of these questions and/or statements may cause some of you to reflect your perceptions in your hearts.
Honestly, I have a very tentative belief in God; my love in an ultimate being is split between the Goddess and God. The Goddess is the central being of the Wiccan religion, much like God is the central being in the Christian/Catholic/etc religions. When I say etc, I don't mean to slight anyone, but I don't know the other branches of this religion will certainity.
My questions about homosexuality tie into the above paragraph concerns my personal religious beliefs. I think the best analogy for homosexuality is to compare the topic of discussion itself to a religion. God loves all and that includes followers of other religions. In the Islamic religion, women who think for themselves are looked down upon. Does God, in this instance Allah, damn women who think for themselves or is that the human interpretation? Homosexuality is the same; countless religions celebrate the same events and uphold the same practice, yet what defines and separates each religion are the small details, like the forbidding and binding of love.
My questions for all who have read this are as follows:
1) Is it right to forbid and bind love, something that the Bible professes love for others as the ultimate show of love for God Himself?
2) Can humans ever fully comprehend what God says, for even prophets may have ingrained biases that could effect the wording or subtle emphasis on God's word?
3) Do those of you who think homosexuality is a sin believe that only because of a verse in the Bible or do you have another reason for believing that homosexuality is a sin?
All I can say in closing is this:
Anything can be read into
Anything can be seen as something else if that is only what you to see
Humans are imperfect, yet we strive for perfection
With that last statement I shall leave all of you with one last question to consider: Can impefect humans dispense the will of the perfect God in our own interpretations, or is that simply another form of vigilantism and outside of God's word and law?
God Bless and Blessed Be,
Silver Shadow Sinner
The bible is meant as a guide to life in simple words. Not every concept of the bible can be understood fully by mankind, however such topics such as homosexuality are "clearly" stated in the bible.
When god says its an abomination...i dont see how more literal that can be taken. if its an abomination...then ITS AN ABOMINATION....nothing more nothing less. there is NOTHING in the bible that speaks of "unnatural acts" in a positive light.
Love is a complicated fickle thing. There are many ways of showing love in different forms, however even though love was made and given to us by god....
mankind likes to "corrupt" things. using the rainbow as a symbol of homosexuality is absolute bull and ALSO mankind's way of corrupting a symbol that god gave us as a promise that he wouldn't flood the earth like he did in Noah's time. >_> homosexuality is love, but a "corrupted" love. not something that god accepts. why? because he SAYS so. directly in "literal" speech, not metaphorical so as not to confuse people or have them speculate what the meaning is.
its true, anything can be seen in different types of light, that doesnt mean those speculations are correct. art never has a right answer....but in regards to something more simple like homosexuality, there is only one right view, and thats the view of god, and gods view is extremely clear, and that being "a man shall NOT lay down with another" "...it is an abomination"
nothing more nothing less. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:49 pm
|
|
|
|
steffi_is_hot1313 my church had a sermon about "abominations in god's eyes" (yes that was the actual title) and we talked about things like this. (which made me a bit uncomfortable because im bi.)well, it does sat that men laying with men and women laying with women is an abomination (depending on the translation you read)my church teaches that god doesnt like it and hates the sin. but thats exactly it! he hates the SIN but can forgive the SINNER!i mean, if you are saved and you are homosexual (like me)gods not gonna say "oh no! they are gay! they cant be in heaven!i will just look over the fact that they are saved, and that i promised eternal life to ALL who believe" i mean, we cant be perfect, we have all sinned and come short but god didnt just turn us away. our sins have been paid for because god already knew that everyone has sinned. (or did you miss the whole Jesus dying on the cross thing)
That doesn't means we need to continue in sin. Or don't you rememberPeter's words?
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19).
In fact, Paul adresses it this way:
"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Romans 6:12-13).
In that same chapter, he also says: "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid" (Rom. 6:15). And a little ahead: "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:18 ).
Now, fornication (sex before marriage) is pointed throughout the whole Bible (both the Old and New Testament) as a sin. God intended sex to take place within marriage. Mark 7:21 as an example: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders," or 1 Cor. 6:18: "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." Ephesians 5:3, as the last one among many: "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints."
Furthermore, even if "being" homosexual wasn't a sin at all, having homosexual sex before marriage is. Now, God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman, so homosexual sex is, in any case, a sin... since sex before marriage is a sinand marriage is to be between a man and a woman.
I'm not saying that "Lo, I'm the saint one here! Repent, homosexuals, because I'm holier than thou!" That's not the case. I have homosexual attractions here and there, but I'm not willing to give myself to them because I don't want to act based on lust, against the will of God.
Yes, homosexuals can be saved, but the concept of "having homosexual sex is ok" must be destroyed. Remember:
"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. " (James 4:7-10). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:58 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:53 pm
|
|
|
|
steffi_is_hot1313 but anyways...i know that some people can resist if they have homosexual thoughts, for that i applaud you, for a long time i tried to ignore them myself, but it didnt feel right. some people are just, (for a lack of better words) naturally gay! some people cant resist as easily as others, me being one of them.
I believe that homosexuals just say, "Oh, I was born this way! It's natural!" According to God, no it's not. It's unnatural as the first half of this converstaion says.
I've thought about what I would feel if I started taking interest in my best friend. If I really belived so, I could go up to her and kiss her right in the middle of the mall and yell, "Guess what! I'm a homo now!"
I believe it's totaly up to the person, not by instincts.
I'm also a "You believe what you think is right, and I'll do the same." Even though this isn't something I'm supposed to say, but I have MANY bi friends and gay friends and they know I'm Christian. They ask me why I'm not yelling at them, and I reply with the above quote, and they agree with that. I also tell them that I would never do such a thing and they respect that.
I won't tell a sinner not to sin. That's like telling the sun to not to shine on a cloudless day. Since you said you were a Christian I now have a right to tell you otherwise.
Salt and fresh water can not come from the same stream. You're either in line with God, or you're not. There is no middle. You can't be plainly sinning, and yet say you are with God. Yes we all do make mistakes, but the fact is that we should learn from them, NOT repeat them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Seority I believe that homosexuals just say, "Oh, I was born this way! It's natural!" According to God, no it's not. It's unnatural as the first half of this converstaion says.
I've thought about what I would feel if I started taking interest in my best friend. If I really belived so, I could go up to her and kiss her right in the middle of the mall and yell, "Guess what! I'm a homo now!"
I believe it's totaly up to the person, not by instincts.
I'm also a "You believe what you think is right, and I'll do the same." Even though this isn't something I'm supposed to say, but I have MANY bi friends and gay friends and they know I'm Christian. They ask me why I'm not yelling at them, and I reply with the above quote, and they agree with that. I also tell them that I would never do such a thing and they respect that.
I won't tell a sinner not to sin. That's like telling the sun to not to shine on a cloudless day. Since you said you were a Christian I now have a right to tell you otherwise.
Salt and fresh water can not come from the same stream. You're either in line with God, or you're not. There is no middle. You can't be plainly sinning, and yet say you are with God. Yes we all do make mistakes, but the fact is that we should learn from them, NOT repeat them.
fine... u know what, i can tell when somebody is just to pigheaded to listen to anything else than what they think is right. and i can tell where im clearly not wanted! im sure that you will be happy to know that im leaving this guild. thank you Seority! evil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
