MedicBravo
Active
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2022
- Messages
- 2,151
It's sad but laughably moronic to see so many, Christians included, making excuses for sins especially the Alphabet perverts.
Seven approaches to the LGBT Community
- Thread starter Dylan569
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,670
Dear Dylan,
Yet I thought afterwards that it was a bit scatterbrained as well. lol
You may not have gone into the salvation aspect of it, but if you're going to talk about sin, don't you think excluding how to be saved from it is paramount to the discussion? All the while seeking "a Christian solution", is well and good, but only through the one who died on Cross is where the only valid Christian solution there is to sin. To try to come up with something that implies otherwise, is just plain wrong, because our Lord didn't ask us to clean them up before presenting the Gospel to them. However, part of that presentation is having them understand sin in its many nuances and repentance from it.
Anything else, whether it's trying to let them know that their behavior is not actually identified in the Bible as portrayed by many, will lead you back to the Biblical aspects of marriage no matter how you shake it and not the worldly one which you will have to address as well. Bottom line for them and the heterosexual and again why the marriage topic is integral to this discussion is that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and sorry for your luck you can't be married! Because Biblically marriage is between a man and a woman, and of course not what you identify yourself as, but as God made you. You think they'll be any happier when they find that out? Of course not or will that be another part of your argument.
That is why one must be about the making of disciples, and then Lord willing they will come to that repentance and change that we all struggle with in one way or another. Meanwhile you're not sleeping together in my house or are doing any canoodling in my house either and don't think sin is going to be whitewashed either. I will acknowledge that this rarely happens with sinful behavior, but that is no justification for allowing it to happen when you see it or know of it.
"So, I hear you saying: "I know any and all M-M sexual behavior is sin, no regardless of the name you use, sodomite or gay or homosexual."
Yep, because the best you can say to them is "Just don't do it." then you'll be okay. Why can't I do it? You are then committing a sin if you do. Not just you but for the other one as well. When is it not a sin? Only when you don't do it. What if I get married? Sorry, marriage is only between a man and a woman. Hey, that's not fair.
And the beat goes on.
Hey, Dylan, I am willing to listen to your work around but thinking one can whitewash sin to accommodate/justify the sinful nature of humanity, will get you nowhere but to the point where you wind up excusing it.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
KingJ
Active
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 5,783
You quote a post you don't link and have likely purposely misquoted it just so you can create a thread pushing your pro LGBT view.
Expected nothing less from someone who also believes God cherry picks people for heaven and that many babies and children will go to hell. Now you also believe that people who go completely against the purpose for which they were created are fine with God. You need to learn to read more than the cherry-picked scriptures Google gives you when you type '''LGBT not mentioned in scripture, LGBT is holy and fine''.
Rom 1:26-28 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones (AKA Lesbian). And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men (AKA Gay) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (AKA Bisexual, transgender);
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (AKA @Dylan569).
In case you don't understand the above passage, let me summarise it for you. LGBT sins are mentioned, and God says these sins are worthy of death. Death for those who commit and also for those who approve of them.
Last edited:
Bill
Loyal
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2018
- Messages
- 5,447
Well for once I completely agree with you
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
Coming down so hard on those who are in some simple type of M-M friendship that includes a sexual element, they must end up bashing what is said about Jonathan and David:
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1-3 KJV)
When you read the commentaries, they are quick to point out that the Hebrew qashar translated "knit with" in the KJV is also used in the following of a father about his son:
"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up (qashar) in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 KJV)
There is a problem with that explanation. Some OT Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles give the gender indicated in the Hebrew. Not all of the OT interlinear Bibles show the gender in the inflection, but I have two that do.
"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" I put the words in proper English order.
The feminine gender "she" is assigned here to Jonathan, apparently in some nuance of the Hebrew language. The "she" is absent in the OT Interlinear of Gen. 44:30 where the Hebrew qashar is used of the father-son relationship.
In the Zondervan OT Hebrew-English Interlinear also, a 1987 Edition, it renders as literal 1 Sam 18:1 -
"then-spirit-of Jonathan she-became-one with-spirit-of David" Again the "she" is feminine about Jonathan; and in this Interlinear also, the word "she" is not used in Gen. 44:30.
The use of "she" describing Jonathan would indicate he was, in our language of today, having some bisexual feelings and on the more submissive side. The entire story of Jonathan and David would seem to indicate this; yet they both married and we know that Jonathan had "sons" plural, and David had many wives and concubines as well as sons. It seems clear that there was an erotic overtone to the love between Jonathan and David even though they are what we'd call heterosexuals, straight.
H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. It includes the inflection "she" in only 3 verses, 2 speaking of females, and the one speaking of Jonathan.
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".
The qashar shows gender "he" in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)
Context again shows here that these are referring to men, males; the pronouns being of the male gender.
So, why is Jonathan grouped with the other two occurrences which are clearly female?
In addition, the word for love, 'ahabah, H160 is found in 1 Sam. 18:3 and 2 Sam. 1:26 in reference to the love of Jonathan for David. The word, when used of human to human love, is overwhelmingly used of m-f love relationships. A survey shows Strong's H160 is used 37 times in the OT and 10 times are in Song of Solomon alone, 27% of the occurrences are in this one short book of 8 chapters.
Of course, David's lament upon the death of Jonathan is so clear that the Latin Vulgate, and the Douay English translation of that Latin, adds a completely spurious and fake sentence trying to lead a person away from the obvious "love of women", to a love of mother -
I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee. (2Sam 1:26 DRC)
The sentence underlined in bold is a total fabrication out of the mind of a man, trying to avoid the obvious meaning of the verse. The verse reads "love of women" plural and it does not read wife/wives, father, mother or brother... but "women". Reading how the plural "women" is used in 1 Samuel, it is clear what David was saying -
"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how that they lay with the women that did service at the door of the tent of meeting." (1Sam 2:22 ASV)
"And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days; when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey; how much more then to-day shall their vessels be holy?" (1Sam 21:4-5 ASV)
Only a person blinded with his bias can avoid seeing the obvious about the love of Jonathan for David, which is returned. They both married and had children, but still....
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1-3 KJV)
When you read the commentaries, they are quick to point out that the Hebrew qashar translated "knit with" in the KJV is also used in the following of a father about his son:
"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up (qashar) in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 KJV)
There is a problem with that explanation. Some OT Hebrew-English Interlinear Bibles give the gender indicated in the Hebrew. Not all of the OT interlinear Bibles show the gender in the inflection, but I have two that do.
"and soul-of Jonathan she-was-tied in-soul-of David" I put the words in proper English order.
The feminine gender "she" is assigned here to Jonathan, apparently in some nuance of the Hebrew language. The "she" is absent in the OT Interlinear of Gen. 44:30 where the Hebrew qashar is used of the father-son relationship.
In the Zondervan OT Hebrew-English Interlinear also, a 1987 Edition, it renders as literal 1 Sam 18:1 -
"then-spirit-of Jonathan she-became-one with-spirit-of David" Again the "she" is feminine about Jonathan; and in this Interlinear also, the word "she" is not used in Gen. 44:30.
The use of "she" describing Jonathan would indicate he was, in our language of today, having some bisexual feelings and on the more submissive side. The entire story of Jonathan and David would seem to indicate this; yet they both married and we know that Jonathan had "sons" plural, and David had many wives and concubines as well as sons. It seems clear that there was an erotic overtone to the love between Jonathan and David even though they are what we'd call heterosexuals, straight.
H7194 qashar is found in 44 verses in the OT. It includes the inflection "she" in only 3 verses, 2 speaking of females, and the one speaking of Jonathan.
Gn38:28 "midwife"; Josh2:21 "Rahab"; but then we have this one, 1Sa18:1 "Jonathan".
The qashar shows gender "he" in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)
Context again shows here that these are referring to men, males; the pronouns being of the male gender.
So, why is Jonathan grouped with the other two occurrences which are clearly female?
In addition, the word for love, 'ahabah, H160 is found in 1 Sam. 18:3 and 2 Sam. 1:26 in reference to the love of Jonathan for David. The word, when used of human to human love, is overwhelmingly used of m-f love relationships. A survey shows Strong's H160 is used 37 times in the OT and 10 times are in Song of Solomon alone, 27% of the occurrences are in this one short book of 8 chapters.
Of course, David's lament upon the death of Jonathan is so clear that the Latin Vulgate, and the Douay English translation of that Latin, adds a completely spurious and fake sentence trying to lead a person away from the obvious "love of women", to a love of mother -
I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee. (2Sam 1:26 DRC)
The sentence underlined in bold is a total fabrication out of the mind of a man, trying to avoid the obvious meaning of the verse. The verse reads "love of women" plural and it does not read wife/wives, father, mother or brother... but "women". Reading how the plural "women" is used in 1 Samuel, it is clear what David was saying -
"Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how that they lay with the women that did service at the door of the tent of meeting." (1Sam 2:22 ASV)
"And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days; when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was but a common journey; how much more then to-day shall their vessels be holy?" (1Sam 21:4-5 ASV)
Only a person blinded with his bias can avoid seeing the obvious about the love of Jonathan for David, which is returned. They both married and had children, but still....
KingJ
Active
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 5,783
This is such a cringe synopsis of the passages; no wonder you are a 5-point Calvinist.
This an easy debunk - What was the relationship between David and Jonathan? | GotQuestions.org
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
There does not seem to be anyone willing to put up a verse that condemns a simple M-M intimate relationship. All I see in opposition are theological constructions of inferences. Yet, if the M-M relationship is clearly sinful, shouldn't it be easily be seen in God's law?
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4 KJV)
Charles H Spurgeon on Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Some have but feeble desires concerning marriage, and they were so born. They will find it good to remain as they are. Others subdue the desires of nature, for holy and laudable reasons, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but this is not for all, nor for many. It is optional with individuals to marry or not: if they marry, nature commends, but grace is silent; if they forbear for Christ’s sake, grace commends, and nature does not forbid. Enforced celibacy is the seed-bed of sins. “Marriage is honorable in all” Violations of purity are abominable in the sight of the Lord. In this matter we need guidance and grace if we follow the usual way; and if we elect the less frequented road, we shall need grace and guidance even more. As to a resolve to persevere in a single life: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Though the literal Greek is eunuch, that is not seen to be the controlling factor in the translation -
For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept who can.’ (Matt 19:12 REB)
There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12 Weymouth)
So far, all I am seeing in opposition to my understanding, are reasoning of man rather than clear "thus says the Lord" in a verse in its context. In response to the conservative, evangelical teaching on this topic, the liberal religious people are tearing you up as can be seen in two movies based on true events. "Prayers for Bobby" and "Boy Erased" and they can be viewed on Netflix and Amazon Prime at this time.
Is it any wonder that some who may be of God's elect, leave fundamentalism, evangelicalism and go to apostate churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, or Presbyterian Church in the USA, etc.
I'll close my participation in this thread at the risk of being seen as a cynical misogynist. Considering the rank feminism, the turning upside down the God-given roles of man to woman, and how divorce laws have made men defenseless even when the wife is unfaithful; I wonder why any sane man in this day risks marriage or even palimony by 'shacking up'! To be even more cynical, I've wondered at the sanity of the LGBTQ crowd in their drive for marriage, and the lousy legal entanglements that brings to them. How is this for putting the proverbial 2 by 4 in the hands of those disagreeing with me!
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1John 3:4 KJV)
Charles H Spurgeon on Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Some have but feeble desires concerning marriage, and they were so born. They will find it good to remain as they are. Others subdue the desires of nature, for holy and laudable reasons, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but this is not for all, nor for many. It is optional with individuals to marry or not: if they marry, nature commends, but grace is silent; if they forbear for Christ’s sake, grace commends, and nature does not forbid. Enforced celibacy is the seed-bed of sins. “Marriage is honorable in all” Violations of purity are abominable in the sight of the Lord. In this matter we need guidance and grace if we follow the usual way; and if we elect the less frequented road, we shall need grace and guidance even more. As to a resolve to persevere in a single life: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Though the literal Greek is eunuch, that is not seen to be the controlling factor in the translation -
For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there are others who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept who can.’ (Matt 19:12 REB)
There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12 Weymouth)
So far, all I am seeing in opposition to my understanding, are reasoning of man rather than clear "thus says the Lord" in a verse in its context. In response to the conservative, evangelical teaching on this topic, the liberal religious people are tearing you up as can be seen in two movies based on true events. "Prayers for Bobby" and "Boy Erased" and they can be viewed on Netflix and Amazon Prime at this time.
Is it any wonder that some who may be of God's elect, leave fundamentalism, evangelicalism and go to apostate churches such as the Episcopal Church USA, or Presbyterian Church in the USA, etc.
I'll close my participation in this thread at the risk of being seen as a cynical misogynist. Considering the rank feminism, the turning upside down the God-given roles of man to woman, and how divorce laws have made men defenseless even when the wife is unfaithful; I wonder why any sane man in this day risks marriage or even palimony by 'shacking up'! To be even more cynical, I've wondered at the sanity of the LGBTQ crowd in their drive for marriage, and the lousy legal entanglements that brings to them. How is this for putting the proverbial 2 by 4 in the hands of those disagreeing with me!
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,670
This proposition has been made by the community of sinners, both within and outside the church, to justify their actions. It is also biased towards seeking acceptance for behaviors that are clearly contrary to what God desires for humanity and is nothing new.
Your attempt to equate the possibility of David's actions as being homosexual/acceptable or not sinful because of how David is viewed in the Bible, and by God as I said is not new. However, I do not believe it to be true, but saying you are right, it still makes David no less a sinner for his actions. And now you understand why I mentioned marriage, as it is integral to this discussion, and why there is a global effort to make it acceptable. When God had no intention of making it so.
Oh, and I ask you to please don't go next to the example route of the disciple John that Jesus loved which many attempt to do as well. That would truly be anathema!!!
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
MedicBravo
Active
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2022
- Messages
- 2,151
Untrue. You're cherry picking.
God set the human standard with Adam and Eve. He performed the first marriage. Nowhere does He or the the Bible suggest anything other than this is a marriage.
Homosexuality, cross dressing, and transgenderism are also sins in this.
I'm no mod but in pushing pro Alphabet pervert sins you and they will NEVER win.
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
Feel free to cherry pick any verse that you think condemns all M-M relationships in the Christian era. As to appealing to the perfection of the created order, as what defines sin, you'd certainly have a very long list of supposed sins! Furthermore, Jesus himself stated:
"He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt 19:8-9 NRSV)
Yet, Jesus allowed the sad fact of divorce for the offense of unchastity by a spouse, even though it was not the perfection of the created order. Jesus made allowance for us living in a fallen world. Are those born with a birth defect sinful because they are not the perfection of the created order? Did Jesus permit a sin of divorce in the case of unchastity?
The only reason the topic of marriage keeps popping up is the assumption of many that somewhere God said only sex within marriage was okay, all sex outside of marriage is sinful. You might read that into some verses, but nowhere does the Bible state such. As far as that goes, can you find anywhere that King David was condemned as sinning for having 10 wives and many concubines? The created order was one man with one woman.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,670
It continues to be brought up because I keep posing it to you!
And you follow that up with "somewhere God said only sex within marriage was okay, all sex outside of marriage is sinful." If you are right and you are not, then what is adultery and fornication?
[Heb 13:4 NKJV] 4 Marriage [is] honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Stop being disingenuous and stop with your eisegesis of Scripture.
I state this because I'm sure you would say it says "honorable among all" that it must include homosexuality & lesbianism.
[Rom 1:24-27 KJV] 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And you could go on to finish the chapter as well.
Again, to bring up King David, and you might as well include Solomon too (but I'm sure you didn't add him because his wives turned him against God and that won't fit your argument), that they had wives, and many concubines and God said nothing. Yep, they were sinning against what God had set for them. How many times does God have to say something for it to be valid?
Don't think that because God in every instance doesn't say "THIS IS A SIN", that He hasn't provided you with enough knowledge as His Creation, to know what is wrong without being told ad nauseum, because everyone knows that humanity is going to do what they want to do regardless!
I did not realize that you felt so strongly about this. You are welcome to PM to discuss it, and I will keep it private between us, and God. I ask this because your age reflects a different time period during which many mores including sexual ones were being broken down and cast aside. Things that were considered dirty, and not to be spoken of, were starting to come out to the light of day as topics of discussion, and sadly acceptability.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
MedicBravo
Active
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2022
- Messages
- 2,151
Simple:
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - If God calls something an abomination, which it is, then your or anyone's opinion otherwise is wrong and irrelevant.
Romans 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
ANYTHING that is not straight/heterosexuality is an abomination and sin. SIMPLE.
5 year old kids know all that Alphabet pervert stuff is revolting and evil.
You will NOT win here. No matter how many lies, twisted verses, and blasphemous things you type on thier or any sin being "accepted" will change God.
Per God someone like you, "You are of your father, the Devil."
MedicBravo
Active
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2022
- Messages
- 2,151
Matthew 1o - The sending of the Twelve.
1-4: The 12 Disciples are listed.
5-6: Where they are to go: unto Israel (The Jewish people only.)
7-8a: What they are to do.
8b-15: How they were to provide for themselves
“Freely you have received, freely give. Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food. Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!”
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
I was not going to post any more on this thread, but since you finally have brought forth some verses, I will reply to those.It continues to be brought up because I keep posing it to you!
And you follow that up with "somewhere God said only sex within marriage was okay, all sex outside of marriage is sinful." If you are right and you are not, then what is adultery and fornication?
[Heb 13:4 NKJV] 4 Marriage [is] honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Stop being disingenuous and stop with your eisegesis of Scripture.
I state this because I'm sure you would say it says "honorable among all" that it must include homosexuality & lesbianism.
[Rom 1:24-27 KJV] 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And you could go on to finish the chapter as well.
Again, to bring up King David, and you might as well include Solomon too (but I'm sure you didn't add him because his wives turned him against God and that won't fit your argument), that they had wives, and many concubines and God said nothing. Yep, they were sinning against what God had set for them. How many times does God have to say something for it to be valid?
Don't think that because God in every instance doesn't say "THIS IS A SIN", that He hasn't provided you with enough knowledge as His Creation, to know what is wrong without being told ad nauseum, because everyone knows that humanity is going to do what they want to do regardless!
I did not realize that you felt so strongly about this. You are welcome to PM to discuss it, and I will keep it private between us, and God. I ask this because your age reflects a different time period during which many mores including sexual ones were being broken down and cast aside. Things that were considered dirty, and not to be spoken of, were starting to come out to the light of day as topics of discussion, and sadly acceptability.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
"[Heb 13:4 NKJV] 4 Marriage [is] honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."
Biblical marriage is only one woman to one man, and yes, that is surely honorable among all who are eligible to marry, M-F. I agree 100% with that clear statement, what I do not agree with is seeing this as having anything to do with a M-M relationship? You seem to see something in that verse about homosexuality and lesbianism, but that is the real eisegesis, and also, reading into my words what I do not say is misleading as well.
"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
NOTHING in v26 refers to sex between women. In v27, these are men "leaving" the natural use of the women. That sounds like what we'd call heterosexuals leaving their wives. That v27 has two Greek words found ONLY in this one verse, in the entire NT: ἐκκαίω ekkaio(to inflame deeply) and ὄρεξις orexis(lust). As the RSV reads, "consumed with passion", eaten up. The sin in this section is the exchange of the one true God for idols, and then the judgment of sin upon sin, which in v27 is heterosexual males so eaten up with outrageous lusts, they leave their wives for men, plural. Interpretation involves not only grammatical context, but historical context as well. A Greek poet or philosopher in Paul's day described exactly what Paul was writing about, and it has nothing to do with simple M-M sex. There is a CONTEXT to this, Paul was not writing in a vaccum. Read -
From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse
Phrasing lifted from text numbered 133 through 152
"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."
That is again speaking about heterosexuals who are so eaten up with lust they leave their wives and go to hookers, and then to other males when females no longer satisfy their lusts. That is not a simple M-M relationship described.
You made the kind offer for me to PM you, but I have to say I've not found anyone in this Forum with the knowledge to discuss matters of theology or matters such as M-M relationships intelligently, so I'll pass on your idea of being helpful.
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
Is that truly "simple", or merely simple minded? From what I can read, sadly it is simple minded. You write:
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." - If God calls something an abomination, which it is, then your or anyone's opinion otherwise is wrong and irrelevant.
1. The last verse of the book of Leviticus reads: "These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34 KJV) That does not apply to anyone in this day, the Christian era.
2. Lev,. 19:18b reads "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." and that applies to us in the Christian era also, because it is quoted exactly for us several times in the NT. It is not for us because it is in Leviticus.
3. The claim is made that the Septuagint uses a couple of words that Paul uses to create the Greek arsenokoites so Paul must mean the same thing. Paul quotes exactly from Leviticus several times, if he wished to repeat Lev. 18:22, he could so so. But, Paul himself uses the two Greek words that he combines into arsenokoites so he had no need to appeal to the LXX for it.
4. What did Lev 18:22 mean to the Israelites in that OT day? In Lev 18:3, introducing the chapter, is the Hebrew chuqqah a word used of religious rites, and then in v22 the word behind the English "abomination" is the Hebrew to ebah, once again a word of religion. Lev. 18:22 is speaking about the idolatrous prostitution as Moses wrote about in Deut. 23:17.
When you can explain to us why you choose to quote a translation of 1 Cor. 6:9 that reads "men who practice homosexuality", your argument would have substance. Can you tell us why the translation you quoted left the historic translation used in the KJV, RV, ASV, YLT, which does not match the meaning of homosexuality, and use that term that was coined around 1900? If you can demonstrate, how the Greek for "soft", malakos, becomes a word of sexual conduct, you may have something. I've not found the word used that way in the NT, the LXX, nor in the writing of antiquity referenced by the Thayer and the BDAG.
Everything you wrote after your quote of 1 Cor. 6:9 is clearly coming from your ignorance.
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
A record of the words of Jesus -
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt 10:14-15 KJV)
"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." (Matt 11:23-24 KJV)
It is difficult to explain, if the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, why did Jesus not use that as the example instead of the rejection of the messengers of God? Jesus applied the sin of Sodom as not receiving the messengers of God. Jesus not once hinted that the sin of Sodom was a male to male sexual sin. Ezekiel made clear what the sin of Sodom was:
"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50 KJV)
There is nothing at all about sexual sin in that passage! Then again, we find the religious word to ebah here, translated "abomination" and the word is found 41 times in the book of Ezekiel and invariably it refers to things connected to idols. The Jews did not find Sodom to be a story about sexual sin, as recorded in the apocrypha book of Sirach, written about 180 BC.
"Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride." (Sir 16:8 KJVA)
That is the translation of Sirach in the KJV
"He did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance." (Sir 16:8 NRSVA"
In the historical record, the Jews seemed to have believed Ezekiel, even if the homophobes of today do or not. Yes, the apocrypha is a historical record, not Holy Spirit inspired scripture.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,670
Glad you agree in part. Which leads to the purpose of even mentioning marriage as it pertains to a "M-M relationship" and of which I have alluded to. Is sexual intimacy acceptable and not a sin out of marriage according to the scripture? I would say No, and a Sin.
With that answer you present it to someone, and many would say, but what about love!
Because in truth sex is part of an intimate relationship as seen by the world. Now because it is not acceptable outside of marriage, then what you really should be saying/asking is, can two have a friendly affectionate relationship with someone of any gender without the sex? Personally, I would say yes. For we should be loving each other, but sadly again the World construes the word love as allowing for sexual intimacy because it is not hurting anyone in their eyes as well. And that again is a no. I've been friends with homosexuals in the past. The closest ones were once in the military, who could not be as open as he would have wanted to. In fact, he had attended a seminary for 2 years before leaving and joining the military.
Another who attended the church I now attend. He was a bit flamboyant (mannerisms) and was active in the church. He and his mother used to sit behind me and my wife for a few years in church. The effects of what happened on his mother who is/was a dear lady was hard to see. I try to shower her with love whenever we'd interact. Anyway, her son decided he'd have an intimate relationship with a married woman's husband in the church which of course precipitated his leaving, or I should say them leaving. I've interacted with others and knew them as the spirit allows. They actually have a difficult time with me, because I'm a hugger, and I can tell it's not always comfortable for them, and so I have to try to remind myself "no hugs" with certain folks, which is the same for others who are just not comfortable with physical contact it brings. Some people are just not huggers! lolI'm a simple man brother. So, of course the theological side of the house, I would be a bit short on, but I do have a willing ear, and input where I can. So, know the offer to PM remains open to you.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
Dylan569
Active
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2024
- Messages
- 438
Brother, it looks like we may be able to work together better to understand the other's perspective. So often in discussion on a volatile topic as this, we seem to be shooting past each other. Let me try to clarify some things on my side.
I do not compare M-M relationships to the biblical Man-Female wife in any way. M-M does not qualify for marriage, but in addition, I do not see the sins of fornication and adultery anywhere in scripture applied to any M-M sin. So, the approach of all sex outside of marriage may be sin in the consideration of M-F, who are eligible to marry; but the argument I see has no force applied to M-M.
This does not mean that I do not see boundaries, or guidelines for M-M relationships, though not so clearly defined as with M-F. Obviously abuse whether rape or even emotional abuse would be sin. I believe faithfulness applies to any relationship between individuals, so that also applies.
BUT, I really do understand the situation a truly Bible-believing Pastor may have dealing with the situation of a member of the church family who is dealing with this situation. Since so much would depend on the personality of the Pastor himself, it seems a church needs to have some sort of statement that can cover such matters in general. I admit I cannot expect believers to all agree, so the best solution that I can see may be as follows.
I find having a statement in the church Constitution, Articles of Faith, etc., that puts the private sexual affairs of married couples outside the authority of the church. While not equating any M-M situations, maybe a statement that delving into the private life of any single male, or any two males who attend together, is equally improper in and of itself. Meddling, prying noses have no business intruding into the private lives of others because of mere suspicions, so leave the males alone who are not married. It seems that Pastoral guidance can of course preach against the sin of fornication and adultery, and then emphasize faithfulness and love between people is paramount; whether brotherly love, or the love between man and wife.
I try to avoid anecdotal approach to this complicated subject as much as possible to avoid biases, personal opinions, etc. I do believe the conclusion of psychology that sexual orientation is not a set of neat categories, but a continuum of the balance of sexual attraction for the same or opposite sex. In addition, I tend to accept the presentation of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology which describes 5 different forms of M-M sexual relationships, and only one seems to be that of a constitutionally oriented male toward other males. That probably, is the only category that would even care what the Biblical teaching is on it, the young teen having probably not even thought about it biblically.
I can certainly understand the Christian who can't see M-M sexual relationships as anything other than sin. Maybe from that perspective, it is the residual manifestation of Original Sin found in the best of Christians and it just remains a struggle that brings about bitterness and constant sadness and depression. I do not believe simple M-M relationships with physical intimacy is necessarily sinful unless it entails promiscuity and abusiveness.
How ever the situation is dealt with by the body of Christ in individual churches, I do know that the conservative churches have really dropped the ball on this. I hear two answers: 1, it is not a sin to be gay, it is just a sin to behave gay; which of course is contradicted in principle by Christ in Matt. 5:17,18 where if the act is sin, the desire and lust for that sin is also sin. 2, the empty faith-healer approach or reparative therapy idea, both of which have no evidence of solving the problem at all.
Finally, I do believe that M-M sexual orientation is a defect, a deviation from the perfection of the creation, and anomaly if you will; but I do not see it any more as a sin than a physical birth defect. This is as clear as I know to present my understanding of this delicate, heart-rending situation. It has to be extremely difficult for it to cause those afflicted to often commit suicide.
It is true, for the elect of whatever nature and persuasion, if he is looking to Jesus Christ's payment for his sins on the cross; and looks solely to Jesus Christ as his righteousness, rather than his own perceived progress in sanctification; that person is justified, saved, and loved by God Almighty and rescued by God the Son in his mission into our world.
I went online with the Windows 95 and immediately began debating theology and the hot-button topics like homosexuality and abortion. In so doing, I did my best and most successful study when I was challenged. If my stirring up angers in some believers, maybe it will lead to more study also.
I do not compare M-M relationships to the biblical Man-Female wife in any way. M-M does not qualify for marriage, but in addition, I do not see the sins of fornication and adultery anywhere in scripture applied to any M-M sin. So, the approach of all sex outside of marriage may be sin in the consideration of M-F, who are eligible to marry; but the argument I see has no force applied to M-M.
This does not mean that I do not see boundaries, or guidelines for M-M relationships, though not so clearly defined as with M-F. Obviously abuse whether rape or even emotional abuse would be sin. I believe faithfulness applies to any relationship between individuals, so that also applies.
BUT, I really do understand the situation a truly Bible-believing Pastor may have dealing with the situation of a member of the church family who is dealing with this situation. Since so much would depend on the personality of the Pastor himself, it seems a church needs to have some sort of statement that can cover such matters in general. I admit I cannot expect believers to all agree, so the best solution that I can see may be as follows.
I find having a statement in the church Constitution, Articles of Faith, etc., that puts the private sexual affairs of married couples outside the authority of the church. While not equating any M-M situations, maybe a statement that delving into the private life of any single male, or any two males who attend together, is equally improper in and of itself. Meddling, prying noses have no business intruding into the private lives of others because of mere suspicions, so leave the males alone who are not married. It seems that Pastoral guidance can of course preach against the sin of fornication and adultery, and then emphasize faithfulness and love between people is paramount; whether brotherly love, or the love between man and wife.
I try to avoid anecdotal approach to this complicated subject as much as possible to avoid biases, personal opinions, etc. I do believe the conclusion of psychology that sexual orientation is not a set of neat categories, but a continuum of the balance of sexual attraction for the same or opposite sex. In addition, I tend to accept the presentation of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology which describes 5 different forms of M-M sexual relationships, and only one seems to be that of a constitutionally oriented male toward other males. That probably, is the only category that would even care what the Biblical teaching is on it, the young teen having probably not even thought about it biblically.
I can certainly understand the Christian who can't see M-M sexual relationships as anything other than sin. Maybe from that perspective, it is the residual manifestation of Original Sin found in the best of Christians and it just remains a struggle that brings about bitterness and constant sadness and depression. I do not believe simple M-M relationships with physical intimacy is necessarily sinful unless it entails promiscuity and abusiveness.
How ever the situation is dealt with by the body of Christ in individual churches, I do know that the conservative churches have really dropped the ball on this. I hear two answers: 1, it is not a sin to be gay, it is just a sin to behave gay; which of course is contradicted in principle by Christ in Matt. 5:17,18 where if the act is sin, the desire and lust for that sin is also sin. 2, the empty faith-healer approach or reparative therapy idea, both of which have no evidence of solving the problem at all.
Finally, I do believe that M-M sexual orientation is a defect, a deviation from the perfection of the creation, and anomaly if you will; but I do not see it any more as a sin than a physical birth defect. This is as clear as I know to present my understanding of this delicate, heart-rending situation. It has to be extremely difficult for it to cause those afflicted to often commit suicide.
It is true, for the elect of whatever nature and persuasion, if he is looking to Jesus Christ's payment for his sins on the cross; and looks solely to Jesus Christ as his righteousness, rather than his own perceived progress in sanctification; that person is justified, saved, and loved by God Almighty and rescued by God the Son in his mission into our world.
I went online with the Windows 95 and immediately began debating theology and the hot-button topics like homosexuality and abortion. In so doing, I did my best and most successful study when I was challenged. If my stirring up angers in some believers, maybe it will lead to more study also.
