Condemnation of Homosexuality

[Chad]

I have yet to see the droves of gay-rights activists who's love for the Lord so eclipses their desires for their partner(s) that they are prepared to enter into a life of chastity

A very good point. That's something to ponder about.

 

[JA0522]

Bottom line

The bottom line is that even if their is some gene or predisposition to be more homosexual in thought than others... just like Alcoholism and anger issues(chemical imbalances) If the GOD the maker of all things-the inventor of the universal moral standard days that it is wrong (just like unjust anger) which it does state oh so many times in the new and old testament ( and has already been quoted here)... than it is wrong. Bottom line.

But here is the best part- God provided all who sin in any way (which is all) a way to put sin to death in your life and guarantee your eternal life with God in Heaven. Jesus Christ died so that all who believe will have Salvation. Bottom line.


Jared

 

[Raycol]

To assist Laudite and others in assessing the references to homosexuality in the Bible, I would like to suggest using the biblical “no-harm test” i.e. asking whether it causes harm. This test is based on Romans 13:9-10, summarized as “If you love (act for the welfare of) your neighbor, including not harming your neighbor, you then fulfill (meet all the requirements of) the Old Testament commandments”.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Your neighbor is any person you come into contact with. In a sexual relations context, “your neighbor” means the person you are having sex with and any third party, e.g. the partner of that person.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The no-harm test is validated by the Golden Rule, i.e. “Treat people the same way you want them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). If you do this, you will not harm others.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
It would appear that homosexuality meets the no-harm test in circumstances where no harm is caused, such as the circumstances of Laudite’s second friend. (The test can also be used to assess other Bible difficulties, e.g. the Bible’s acceptance of slavery in Lev 25:44-45, 1 Pet 2:18-19 and 1 Cor 7:20-24).

 

[Chad]

To assist Laudite and others in assessing the references to homosexuality in the Bible, I would like to suggest using the biblical “no-harm test” i.e. asking whether it causes harm. This test is based on Romans 13:9-10, summarized as “If you love (act for the welfare of) your neighbor, including not harming your neighbor, you then fulfill (meet all the requirements of) the Old Testament commandments”.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Your neighbor is any person you come into contact with. In a sexual relations context, “your neighbor” means the person you are having sex with and any third party, e.g. the partner of that person.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The no-harm test is validated by the Golden Rule, i.e. “Treat people the same way you want them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). If you do this, you will not harm others.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
It would appear that homosexuality meets the no-harm test in circumstances where no harm is caused, such as the circumstances of Laudite’s second friend. (The test can also be used to assess other Bible difficulties, e.g. the Bible’s acceptance of slavery in Lev 25:44-45, 1 Pet 2:18-19 and 1 Cor 7:20-24).

Let me get this straight. Your "no harm test" as you call it, you justify homosexuality because it does not cause "harm" to the neighbor? Is this what you are saying? Please clarify because it seems this is what you're trying to say - actually very obvious so.

What part of the OT and NT references do you not understand about homosexuality?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [high-light]nor homosexual offenders[/high-light] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers [high-light]will inherit the kingdom of God[/high-light]."

In regards to slavery, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

 

[iamamazed]

Hello fellow brothers and sisters of faith. I found the following scripture that may help. As a sinner, I do recognize my downfalls at the end of the day and do acknowlege my sin and repent. I think the problems arise when the sin is ignored or overlooked out of convenience.

Romans 1:27: "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of
the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing
what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of the
error which was due

(1 Timothy 1:10) fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching.

Is ignorance a tolerance in the eyes of the LORD?
Hopes this helps,

 

[Chad]

Excellent additional Scripture verses sister

Good research.

Here is for those that like to ignore Scripture selectively

Galatians 6:7
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

Here is a good commentary on the above verse as well:

Be not deceived. Stop being led astray into error. God is not mocked. God is not ignored, sneered at, ridiculed, treated with contempt by cynical gestures. There can be no double-dealing with God; He is not deceived by hypocrites. For whatsoever a man soweth. Keeps on sowing. That. Not something different. There is an identity of what is sown and what is harvested. Shall he also reap. Eventually there will be a harvest, and the immutable law of sowing and reaping applies (Mt 7:16-19).

 

[Lambchop]

Pray and ask God

In the name of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, I ask that he guide my and your hearts in peace and fellowship to better understand His word. Amen.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, this is a subject that has given me much unease. Knowing you to be knowledgeable in God's Word, I earnestly ask for your help in understanding. I put this here because I desire a close reading of the Bible to answer this question.

I will lay out my problem directly- I am an Episcopalian who in reading his bible has found that homosexuality might not be sinful in itself. I am trying to figure this out, so I'll lay out the train of thought that led me to this conclusion, and I'll ask you to discuss this with me on the basis of reading the scripture. I'll lay out scriptural bases for condemnation, and why I'm not sure that they're sufficent.

First, many people quote the old testament sources that claim homosexuality to be an abomination. I won't go into detail here because this is the weakest argument. Shellfish are also abomination, but Paul teaches that through Christ we are not accountable to this particular area because it is cultural in nature and Christ's covenant is spiritual. Thus 'I am convinced no food is bad' etc.

Second we several references (Timothy, Corinthians comes to mind) in passing to homosexuality in a list of sins. These certainly establish that Paul is condemning something, but does not describe in any fashion what that thing is. I am wary of accepting homosexuality as practiced in Paul's time as spiritually equivalent to modern homosexuality. I'll talk about this more below.

The longest explanation of Homosexuality is in Romans. I'll place the text here for convienence (chapter 1)

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And 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.

I see two things here. First, Paul is talking about the practices of the native Romans. When he talks about being given over to vile affectations, he's talking about orgies with lots of wine and promiscuous sex. Second, he clearly talks about a change in desires brought about by worshiping wisdom and worldliness.

First, orgies are not the practice of the homosexuality I confront today. As an example from my personal life, I have a friend who began to use drugs and drink to great excess often. The more he did this, he would find himself having sex with men while intoxicated and high. He would not have any desire to do this while sober, and described it to me as being more that sexual gratification was all that mattered when he was like that- that desires beyond basic gratification wasn't even possible when he was that drunk. This is what I hear Paul talking about. I also have a friend who is homosexual and has been living in a monogamous and committed relationship with the same man for 20 years. He tells me he has never felt attraction to women and has always and under every circumstance been attracted to men. To him, then, it is difficult for me to see how pride and materialism has anything to do with it. Furthermore, Paul's entire thrust in Romans 1 (not limited to homosexuality) is how worshiping the material world and not god perverts the soul. Since my second friend has always had these urges, they can't be the perversion talked about since perversion requires something pure being changed into something impure and nothing has ever changed for him. If I am right about this, then it seems that the passing mentions of homosexuality is talking about what Paul identifies in Romans.

I appreciate your help. All references are KJV.

The other posts here explain what you need to know. You must pray against those forces holding you back from the truth. Jesus Himself was and is a Jew and observed the Torah...the 5 Books of Moses. Jesus IS the Living Torah. None of these laws or commandments have been abolished...where does God say that He has changed? Quite the contrary,...God doesn't change..."He is the same yesterday, today, and forever". So, when you mention shellfish, it is unclean. Why? Shrimp, lobster, crabs, etc., are all bottom feeders in the sea...they eat GARBAGE...feces, vomit, and other bodily excrement from the sea creatures. God always has a reason for everything. As far as pork goes, pigs were used at the crucifiction sites to eat what was left of the dead bodies left there. You have to read the known history of the times to better understand why God does what He does. Remember...GOD MAKES SENSE!!! As far as homosexuality goes, it is a demonic spirit...that is why many gay people have similar looks and ways. They do! Why shouldn't you be homosexual? BECAUSE GOD SAYS NOT TO...read ROMANS ch:1 along with all the other mentioned Scriptures. Is it worth going to hell for? I truly say this in love. If you do not repent even of the doubts you have in your mind, you will die in your sin...that means that you will be in hell for eternity, my friend. I don't want to see you do this. God says that even the thoughts of such sin makes you guilty of that sin even if you didn't physically commit that sin; so, repent. It's all about knowledge and the repentence. Don't worry so much as Scripture being quoted in the KJV; worry about your soul! Sometimes loving a brother or sister sounds harsh, but, it's the truth.

 

[beam]

Greetings to you, the precious body of Christ,

I recently came across some really 'persuasive sounding' arguments that the Bible does not condemn the homosexual relationship. satan is a great deceiver and we need all the wisdom of God Himself to see through these lies and deceptions. Here are some incerpts that I kept and surely answer these 'persuasive sounding doctrines' that are trying to make homosexuality acceptable in God's eyes.

Richard Hays' “Moral Vision of the New Testament”


"it was my privilege to grow up around (before his eventual death of AIDS-related medical complications) a gay man who had become a Christian, realised that his orientation was inextricably homosexual but that he was called by God to give up acting upon his inclinations. It was my family’s and my Church’s great blessing to support him in that struggle and never did that make him in our eyes somehow less – instead like all the rest of us he was a sinner in constant need of repentance and grace as he struggled not to indulge the desires to sin that made up a part of his personality. No one could be more welcomed or affirmed than he was and there was no contradiction between loving him and believing that his sexuality was broken.

He also worried that the gay apologists encouraged homosexual believers to "draw their identity from their sexuality" and thus to shift the ground of their identity subtly and idolatrously away from God. For more than 20 years, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Gary</st1lace></st1:City> had grappled with his homosexuality, experiencing it as a compulsion and an affliction. Now, as he faced death, he wanted to talk it all through again from the beginning, because he knew my love for him and trusted me to speak without dissembling. For Gary, there was no time to dance around the hard questions.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
In particular, Gary wanted to discuss the biblical passages that deal with homosexual acts. Among Gary's many gifts was his skill as a reader of texts. After leaving Yale and helping to found a community-based Christian theater group in Toronto, he had eventually completed a master's degree in French literature. Though he was not trained as a biblical exegete, he was a careful and sensitive interpreter. He had read hopefully through the standard bibliography of the burgeoning movement advocating the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. In the end, he came away disappointed, believing that these authors, despite their good intentions, had imposed a wishful interpretation on the biblical passages. However much he wanted to believe that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality, he would not violate his own stubborn intellectual integrity by pretending to find their arguments persuasive.
In I Corinthians 6, Paul, exasperated with the Corinthians, some of whom apparently believe themselves to have entered a spiritually exalted state in which the moral rules of their old existence no longer apply to them (cf. I Cor. 4:8, 5:1-2, 8:1-9), confronts them with a blunt rhetorical question: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?" He then gives an illustrative list of the sorts of persons he means: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers."

I have left the terms pertinent to the present issue untranslated, because their translation has been disputed. The word malakoi is not a technical term meaning "homosexuals" (no such term existed either in Greek or in Hebrew), but it appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the "passive" partners-often young boys-in homosexual activity. The word, arsenokoitai., is not found in any extant Greek text earlier than I Corinthians. Some scholars have suggested that its meaning is uncertain, but Robin Scroggs has shown that the word is a translation of the Hebrew mishkav zakur ("lying with the male), derived directly from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and used in rabbinic texts to refer to homosexual intercourse. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) of Leviticus 20:13 reads, "Whoever lies with a man as with a woman [meta arsenos koiten gynaikos], they have both done an abomination." This is almost certainly the idiom from which the noun arsenokoitai was coined. Thus, Paul's use of the term presupposes and reaffirms the holiness code's condemnation of homosexual acts. This is not a controversial point in Paul's argument; the letter gives no evidence that anyone at Corinth was arguing for the acceptance of same-sex erotic activity. Paul simply assumes that his readers will share his conviction that those who indulge in homosexual activity are "wrongdoers" (adikoi, literally "unrighteous"), along with other sorts of offenders in his list.

In I Corinthians 6:11, Paul asserts that the sinful behaviors catalogued in the vice list were formerly practiced by some of the Corinthians. Now, however, since Paul's correspondents have been transferred into the sphere of Christ's lordship, they ought to have left these practices behind: "This is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." The remainder of the chapter, then (I Cor. 6:12-20), counsels the Corinthians to glorify God in their bodies, because they belong now to God and no longer to themselves.
The I Timothy passage includes arsenokoitai in a list of "the lawless and disobedient" whose behavior is specified in a vice list that includes everything from lying to slave-trading to murdering one's parent, under the rubric of actions "contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel."

<o>The most crucial text for Christian ethic concerning homosexuality remains Romans 1, because this is the only passage in the New Testament that explains the condemnation of homosexual behavior in an explicitly theological context. The substance of Paul's exposition begins with a programmatic declaration in 1:16-17: the gospel is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, `The one who is righteous will live by faith.'" The gospel is not merely a moral or philosophical teaching that hearers may accept or reject as they choose; it is rather the eschatological instrument which God is working out in the world.

Paul is undertaking in his own way to "justify the ways of God to men" by proclaiming that the righteousness of God (dikaiosyne theou) is now definitively manifest in the gospel. As a demonstration of his righteousness, God has "put forward" Jesus Christ, precisely in order "to prove at the present time that he himself (i.e. God) is righteous" (Rom. 3:25-26). For Paul, the gospel that proclaims God's justice is also a power, "the power of God for salvation" reaching out graciously to deliver humanity from bondage to sin and death.
The genius of Paul's analysis lies in his refusal to posit a catalog of sins as the cause of human alienation from God. Instead, he delves to the root: all other depravities follow from the radical rebellion of the creature against the Creator (1:24-31). In order to make his accusation stick, Paul has to claim that these human beings are actually in rebellion against God, not merely ignorant of him. The way in which the argument is framed here is crucial: ignorance is the consequence of humanity's primal rebellion. Because human beings did not acknowledge God, "they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened." The passage is not merely a polemical denunciation of selected pagan vices; it is a diagnosis of the human condition. The diseased behavior detailed in verses 24-31 is symptomatic of the one sickness of humanity as a whole. Because they have turned away from God, "all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin." The aim of Romans 1 is not to teach a code of sexual ethics; nor is the passage a warning of God's judgment against those who are guilty of particular sins. Rather, Paul is offering a diagnosis of the disordered human condition: he adduces the fact of widespread homosexual behavior as evidence that human beings are indeed in rebellion against their creator. Homosexuality, then, is not a provocation of "the wrath of God" (Rom. 1:18); rather, it is a consequence of God's decision to "give up" rebellious creatures to follow their own futile thinking and desires. "
</o>



<o>As always God loves ALL humans, He loved us enough to put every sin of the world on Jesus and punish Him for it. But if we do not choose to accept the atonement made through the blood of the Lamb and accept that Jesus' ressurection re-unites our originally intended perfect union and fellowship with God himself, well the Loving Father won't force anyone. And if we ask God for wisdom to know what's truly right and wrong He will give us that wisdom generously, because He desires us to know and walk in truth that we may be set free and stay free and inherit eternal peace with Him.</o>


<o>Hope this helps</o>
<o>Lotsa love</o>
<o>beam</o>

 

[Boanerges]

God calls it sin and rejects it and those who live such a lifestyle. Man as usual try to tap dance around that. There is only one way to make this fit with the Word of God. For the answer scroll down:

One would have to alter the truth of God's Word to make it (wishfully for some) fit man's corrupt reasoning. There is no other way to make what God call abomination agree with his Word.
To be clear- the Lord never rejects a soul honestly struggling to be free from sin. He esteems His Word higher than His Name though and will never accept anyone who deliberately lives a lifestyle of sin and rebellion against His Word.
Anyone who believes differently is deceiving their own self.

 

[Raycol]

I agree with Chad, Beam and Boanerges that the Bible definitely prohibits sex between men (homosexuality). But the Bible also clearly accepts the system of slavery, i.e. people owning other people (Lev 25:44-45, Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-25; 4:1; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-19, 1 Cor 7:20-24). The Bible never criticises the system of slavery.

To be consistent, one should agree with the Bible’s attitude to both topics, or disagree with the Bible’s attitude to both topics, or use a logical method of determining whether each Bible attitude (prohibition of sex between men or acceptance of slavery) applies to people today. In my post of March 13, I suggested the “no-harm test” as a way of making such a determination.

 

[Boanerges]

I agree with Chad, Beam and Boanerges that the Bible definitely prohibits sex between men (homosexuality). But the Bible also clearly accepts the system of slavery, i.e. people owning other people (Lev 25:44-45, Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-25; 4:1; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-19, 1 Cor 7:20-24). The Bible never criticises the system of slavery.

To be consistent, one should agree with the Bible’s attitude to both topics, or disagree with the Bible’s attitude to both topics, or use a logical method of determining whether each Bible attitude (prohibition of sex between men or acceptance of slavery) applies to people today. In my post of March 13, I suggested the “no-harm test” as a way of making such a determination.

Let's see, man's logic or God's Word? I believe God is much wiser than I so I will simply have to side with His Word.
Besides I haven't seen one slavery advocate here (that I know of) and regardless sin is never justified no matter how one might try.

 

[Lion_of_Judah]

To be consistent, one should agree with the Bible’s attitude to both topics, or disagree with the Bible’s attitude to both topics, or use a logical method of determining whether each Bible attitude (prohibition of sex between men or acceptance of slavery) applies to people today.

You bring up a valid point Raycol. Here's a question: Is slavery ..sin? Here's another:

Is it fair to say the abolition of slavery:
was a higher moral conscience of choice?
Or was it a higher moral choice of conscience?

Either way, the release from enslavement of another person is no doubt an act of unselfishness. Particuliarly in contrast
to someone holding a person in enslavement ..an act of control over another's life direction.

If we apply this arguement to homosexuality: Is it a..
higher moral conscience of choice?
or a higher moral choice of conscience?

It is niether. Because there is nothing gained in itself, except gratification of self. Emotionally & physically.

There is gain in the release of someone from slavery. Much gain. What gain is there in homosexuality?
Carried out to it's conclussion, human existence ..ceases' to exist.


I hope this helps bring some answers to your question on a logical level.
At the very least, I hope it generates more questions for you to ponder.



God bless, LoJ

 

[iamamazed]

Hello fellow brothers and sisters followers of Jesus. This scripture pretty much answeres anything that lays heavy on my heart.

Hebrews 15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds. Let us all pray that the Holy Spirit comes to the hearts of those in need. I know in my heart when I am falling backwards. Thats when I come here for confirmation from my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ for confirmation of my doubt. Also something to ponder, James 1:16 Amen

 

[iamamazed]

Sorry, Hebrews 10:15-16

 

[Laudite]

Cherry picking God's word is also an abmonation. We can not make the word fit our beliefs, needs nor desires, and that is exactly what is being done, when you say:



That which you take away from the word, so will God take away from you. God's word is God's word, and it is not to be rewritten to suit ones personal needs, as is exactly appears to be happening here. Talk about a week argument!

Lust in the mind is worse than the actual act. changing a few words here and there are merely an attempt to confusion, and trickery, which is also sin.

It looks as though I should have gone into detail. Indeed, Leviticus calls homosexuality an abomination. Leviticus likewise calls the eating of shellfish (and multiweave cloth, for that matter) the same abomination. I'm wearing a polyester blend shirt and I enjoy shrimp and crab. Does this make me an abomination? Well, St. Paul said
(Romans 14:14)
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

There's an excelent thread on this board regarding a close reading of Romans that can help explain why these cultural rules don't apply to the church. Rejecting the rule on shellfish (as Paul clearly does) but accepting the rule on homosexuality (on the grounds of Leviticus) seems to me to be the sort of cherry picking you condemn.

Also, in regard to earlier, I looked it up- leviticus condemns homosexuality in exactly the same terms as cotton blends.

 

[Laudite]

Is a cat a cat, or a dog a dog? Then homosexuality is homsexuality, and nothing in any man's mind can change that fact....nothing. It is nothing more than blowing smoke, inorder to cloud others minds, especially those of less knowledge or those with no knowledge. It advocates the tempations and lies of the devil...plain, simple, cut and dry. Time for a reality check IMHO.

The word homesexual clearly means homo (same) which means having sex with the same sex. BTW this is a .(period)

With respect, brother, I have to disagree. A cat is a cat, but consider whether, for example, democracy is democracy. What Lenin called democracy does not have much to do with what Americans practice. To assume that a thing is what it is called would leave a Muscovite very confused about how Americans live. It would be a shame were we to allow ourselves a similar misapprehension about the Word.

So, why do I think that what we translate as homosexuality is not what the modern world means by that term? Quite simply put, because the modern concept was completely unknown to the first century world. The Greek and Roman world did not see sexuality as with men or with women, but rather in a penetrating/penetrated paradigm. It was manly and meet to be the person doing the penetrating, and effeminate and immoral to be the penetrated. The concept of having relations solely with men was unheard of. For example, what some render as 'Male prostitutes' and others 'effeminate' refers to those who allow themselves to be penetrated for monetary gain. (the greek word itself only means one who is penetrated, but its usage was of male prostitues.)

Therefore we must examine what Paul said about Roman practices of man on man activity and compare it with modern homosexuality because a homosexual is, in fact, not a homosexual in this context.

 

[Laudite]

Read this:

: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I actually did read all of that. I'm fairly certain that we're all reading the same verses here in regards to homosexuality. Just asserting an interpretation isn't useful to me because I am trying to determine which interpretation is correct. The trouble I have with those interpretations is that they assume that what Paul calls homosexuality is what we call homosexuality today. I need a good reason to accept that, because the evidence seems to me to strongly point to the two being quite different. Second, it seems to gloss over the fact that Paul says the individuals change their affections. My post provides why drunken sexual debauchery is most likely what Paul is talking about and how that is immoral, spiritually deleterious, and can change one's affections from women to men or vice versa. Modern Homosexuality, however, does none of these things. I put this thread here so that we might compare the strengths of interpretations of scripture, because that's why my mind needs for peace.

 

[Laudite]

So.....

Premise: Coitus is required to create the state of marriage between two people. (umpteen references all over Scripture)

Restriction: Coitus between same-sex partners is strictly and completely forbidden. (Lev 18:22, 20:13 et. al.)

Result: Marriage between same-sex partners is *impossible*.

Sex between two men or two women is forbidden, punishable by death.

Therefore the vehicle by which one is to "cleave together and become one flesh" -- the very physical act which creates the spiritual bond of marriage -- is closed to any such couple.

God doesn't directly comment about homo-romantic relationships that are entirely chaste. I suspect that's because there's no need. A couple who had a deeply loving yet sexually undefiled relationship would forever stay "under the radar" for deviance whether or not either person ever married anyone else.

But...I have yet to see the droves of gay-rights activists who's love for the Lord so eclipses their desires for their partner(s) that they are prepared to enter into a life of chastity.

I've two things to point out-
First, on a strictly logical note, one of your premises is the same as the conclusion, so the conclusion is forgone.

Second, I think your view of marriage is impoverished and might benefit of reading St. Paul. Marriage has conditions and properties other than having sex. Your assertion lacks a stage for its own completion- if sex is the only thing that makes marriage, and sex before marriage is adultery, how then does one engage in sex without by the same act becoming married? And if your answer to that is that everyone who has sex for the first time is therefore married, I would ask you to consider whether the Hebrews actually lived that way.

 

[Laudite]

The other posts here explain what you need to know. You must pray against those forces holding you back from the truth. Jesus Himself was and is a Jew and observed the Torah...the 5 Books of Moses. Jesus IS the Living Torah. None of these laws or commandments have been abolished...where does God say that He has changed? Quite the contrary,...God doesn't change..."He is the same yesterday, today, and forever". So, when you mention shellfish, it is unclean. Why? Shrimp, lobster, crabs, etc., are all bottom feeders in the sea...they eat GARBAGE...feces, vomit, and other bodily excrement from the sea creatures. God always has a reason for everything. As far as pork goes, pigs were used at the crucifiction sites to eat what was left of the dead bodies left there. You have to read the known history of the times to better understand why God does what He does. Remember...GOD MAKES SENSE!!! As far as homosexuality goes, it is a demonic spirit...that is why many gay people have similar looks and ways. They do! Why shouldn't you be homosexual? BECAUSE GOD SAYS NOT TO...read ROMANS ch:1 along with all the other mentioned Scriptures. Is it worth going to hell for? I truly say this in love. If you do not repent even of the doubts you have in your mind, you will die in your sin...that means that you will be in hell for eternity, my friend. I don't want to see you do this. God says that even the thoughts of such sin makes you guilty of that sin even if you didn't physically commit that sin; so, repent. It's all about knowledge and the repentence. Don't worry so much as Scripture being quoted in the KJV; worry about your soul! Sometimes loving a brother or sister sounds harsh, but, it's the truth.

I need not fear for my soul because it is saved by the grace of Christ. I do honestly repent me of my sins, especially those I don't know I commit, and am confident that Christ has more than enough power to absolve them. I do find it a bit funny that you assume I have some certain sinful thoughts. Doubt, however, ought not be thought a sin. Doubting the power and glory and love of Christ is human fallibility, and a sin too. Doubting that what someone tells me is God's will is mandated by Christ Himself. For he did say (Matthew 7:15-16)

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

And on that account I will hold up every assertion about God as rigorously as I am able to His Word.

---------- Post added at 01:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 AM ----------

A very good point. That's something to ponder about.

I should think that they, like the heterosexuals whose love of God exceedes their love of their partners, have become monastics and celibates. You would likely find them in such monasteries and the like, or in church offices.

 

[Laudite]

Beam, thank you so much for talking about why to interpret scripture a certain way! That point about the hapax legomenon makes me want to go check it out. Anyway, this still assumes that homosexuality in context is any sex act between a man and a woman. The interpretation of the arsenokoitai seems to provide a reason to think Paul may have meant any man on man sex and not just the contemporary practice. It seems also possible that he is refering to his own earlier words as leviticus. I'll ponder this.

Let me ask you, then, how am I to make out the change in nature described in Romans in regards to people whose nature has not changed?