Unethical treatment of LGBTQ humans / Understanding LGBTQ - 101

[St. SteVen]

I'm not saying LGBTQ are necessarily perverse, I'm saying the danger that they be perverse is real and asking people to validate them as if there is no danger is dangerous.

Exactly.
The same as a Covid 19 positive person. We don't ban them from health services, we take proper precautions, like wearing a mask. We validate their condition and seek to help them.

The church bans declared LGBTQ people from fellowship. Their condition is NOT validated and we do NOT seek to help them. All the church wants to know is whether they are repentant, or not. If so, come on in, if not, stay away!

I'm hoping that a little education might wake us up to an unreached people group. We are treating LGBTQ individuals as if they are lepers. (outcasts)

Matthew 10:8 NIV
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[a]
drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

]

 

[Spyder]

While there is ongoing debate and research on the origins of homosexual orientation, several studies suggest that there may be a biological component to sexual orientation. Twin studies and genetic studies have provided some evidence for a genetic link, but more research is needed to fully understand the complex interplay of biological and environmental factors that contribute to an individual’s sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs - PubMed

Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation. The results of these analyses should be interpreted in the context of low statistical power and the use of a single item to assess the complex phenotype of sexual orientation.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As with every other "may be" science projects, our society acts like it has been proved. This whole "global warming" charade is being acted upon, regulations written, laws passed, etc. to combat this threat - that is still not a fact. There are as many if not more honest scientists claiming that it is a hoax as there are claiming it is true. But, the side that hits the press is the one getting promoted.

This "may be" biology has been studied for a very long time - and it still is not found. But, using "may be," our society has normalized it and applauded those who have done terrible things to both their bodies and their mental health. Because of "may be?"

However, the covid vaccine was barely looked at but mandated by governments and organizations as if were the salvation of society around the world. The end, people died, were crippled, and suffered both health and economic failures for this scam. Also, companies became wealthy while others went bankrupt.

There is no "may be" that it is a sin, however.

 

[St. SteVen]

There is no "may be" that it is a sin, however.

As much as you want to make LGBTQ a black and white issue, it simply isn't. Each of those letters stand for something. Five different things under one heading. You want to make it all one sin.

Imagine going to the hospital and for your diagnosis the doctor ordered that you be thrown out back and run over with a bulldozer and then pushed into the pile with all the other dead bodies. Unthinkable, right? That is what the church is doing with LGBTQ.

1) Were LGBTQ humans created in the image of God?
2) Does God love LGBTQ humans?
3) Did Jesus die to pay the death penalty for LGBTQ humans?
4) Has the church recognized these factors?
5) Has the church acted accordingly?
6) What is your church, or fellowship, doing about this issue?
7) What can you do personally to grapple with this issue?

]

 

[Arthur81]

The problem is trying to use modern words and concepts and reading them back into the Bible. Even the words "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined around 1300 AD and have no linguistic basis in the Hebrew. The safest route on this topic is using the old standard, the KJV. Then use the old 1828 Webster's to define the key words "abusers" and "defile" as found in 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed] translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478 (I underlined for emphasis)

The question comes down to a matter of exactly what behavior or conduct is being condemned in the various pertinent passages. I wonder what God is going to say on the last day, to the two gays living in a faithful, monogamous relationship, and holding to the faith of Jesus Christ as their salvation? In contrast I wonder what God is going to say to the well-meaning Christians who condemn and give no workable solution to the two gay Christians? I admit I find it disturbing in such discussions having to use modern words like "gay" or LGBTQ+, etc.

 

[St. SteVen]

I wonder what God is going to say on the last day, to the two gays living in a faithful, monogamous relationship, and holding to the faith of Jesus Christ as their salvation? In contrast I wonder what God is going to say to the well-meaning Christians who condemn and give no workable solution to the two gay Christians?

That's a great question. Thanks!
Interestingly (or ironically), some argue that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

/

 

[Arthur81]

That's a great question. Thanks!
Interestingly (or ironically), some argue that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

/

The commentary on Sodom by "the Lord GOD" -

(Eze 16:48-50 NRSVAue) "As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it."

The following apocrypha indicate the Jewish views in the time between the OT and the NT -

(Sir 16:8 NRSVAue) "He did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance."

(Wis 19:14-17 NRSVAue) "Others had refused to receive strangers when they came to them, but these made slaves of guests who were their benefactors. 15 And not only so, but while punishment of some sort will come upon the former for having received strangers with hostility, 16 the latter, having first received them with festal celebrations, afterward afflicted with terrible sufferings those who had already shared the same rights. 17 They were stricken also with loss of sight— just as were those at the door of the righteous man— when, surrounded by yawning darkness, all of them tried to find the way through their own doors."

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, Copyright 2001, Baker Reference Library
"Traditionally homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed by divine judgment, hence the popular term 'sodomy.' This interpretation depends upon uncertain translation, while Ezekiel 16:48-50 and Sirach 16:8-9 give other reasons for the judgment. The assumption of homosexuality in Sodom dates from the Greek occupation of Palestine, when 'the Greek sin' seriously endangered Jewish youth and strong scriptural warning was necessary... It is usually assumed that the male cult prostitutes common in heathen shrines but forbidden in Israel (Deut. 23:17), though sometimes prevalent (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7), were homosexual." page 574

I underlined what seems to be an interesting comment. Did the switch to a homosexual understanding of Sodom happen during the Greek occupation? Are we allowed to twist our interpretation of scripture to fit current conditions? Does that not go further than a fitting application of biblical statements to current situations?

The KJV translators used the word "sodomite" to translate the male temple prostitutes in Deut.. 23:17-18. The margin note in the early KJV is interesting -

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore (whore: or, sodomitess), or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God." (Deut 23:17-18 KJV) *So the translation could read "sodomitesses" and "sodomites".

I've wondered if the KJV translators considered idolatrous cult prostitution at the heart of Sodom's attempt to rape the two angels they thought were men? The KJV in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, when checking the 1828 Webster's definitions, seems to describe in dynamic equivalence translation, what we call "sodomites" in our day; but used the word "sodomites" to represent the cult prostitutes in the OT? In this way tying cult prostitution to Sodom.

 

[The Learner]

That's a great question. Thanks!
Interestingly (or ironically), some argue that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

/

Ezekiel 16:49 New International Version (NIV)

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

 

[The Learner]

rth

 

[Arthur81]

I have found it a very difficult thing to make myself be neutral, objective, and open minded in evaluating over again, long held beliefs, and the verses upon which they were based. I'm talking about a broad range of topics. I've noticed we have two very troubling tendencies. We believe so easily, what we wish to be true. Then we also automatically, repetitively believe in knee-jerk fashion, what we've always been taught based on certain scriptures.

I'm not sure what agreement I'd have with Steven and The Learner on other topics, but it is encouraging to see substantive presentations on here. Even at my very much older age, I am still finding the need to continue learning, and I do keep refining various beliefs.

 

[Spyder]

Ezekiel 16:49 New International Version (NIV)

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 ESV
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

 

[Spyder]

1) Were LGBTQ humans created in the image of God?
2) Does God love LGBTQ humans?
3) Did Jesus die to pay the death penalty for LGBTQ humans?
4) Has the church recognized these factors?
5) Has the church acted accordingly?
6) What is your church, or fellowship, doing about this issue?
7) What can you do personally to grapple with this issue?

Well, sir, one can say that I make it "a black and white issue," but my point is that scripture appears to make it a black and white issue. However, as to your seven questions:

1. All humans follow the original "image of God" plan
2. "For God so loved the world"
3. Jesus died to enact the New Covenant. He lived to show us what a Godly life looks like.
4. Don't get me started on my views of the corrupted churches.
5. I have not seen what "all" churches do, but historically, I think they typically view passages about immoral sexual behavior as sin.
6. What is there to do with this issue. It is up to God to deal with this issue. I personally do not treat the LGBTQ people with disdain, but I certainly frown on their open sinful behavior.
7. I try, with Yahweh's help, to live my life as Yeshua lived His. That requires my keeping God in focus while dealing with everyone. That being said, it is not up to me to be anything other that loving others the way that Yeshua did. (lest we forget: Even the loving Yeshua became irate at the Temple money changers and the hypocritical Pharisees.)

Now that the public has seen the promotion of sexual deviation presented on "normal" or even "given by God," the move to change Christian views or scripture passages as in error regarding God's view of that deviation.

MATTHEW VINES Author of “God and the Gay Christian, a homosexual pastor, has "lawyerly" said:

"Paul is explicit that the same-sex behavior in this passage is motivated by lust. His description is similar to the common ancient idea that people “exchange” opposite-sex for same-sex relations because they are driven by out-of-control desire, not because they have a different sexual orientation. And while Paul labels same-sex behavior “unnatural,” he uses the same word to criticize long hair in men in 1 Corinthians 11:14, which most Christians read as a synonym for “unconventional.” Christians should continue to affirm with Paul that we shouldn’t engage in sexual behavior out of self-seeking lustfulness. But that’s very different than same-sex marriages that are based on self-giving love, and we shouldn’t conflate the two in how we interpret this text today."

and

"Jesus responds to a question about divorce by emphasizing the permanence of the marriage bond. He was asked about a man and his wife, and he responds accordingly, by referring to male and female. Same-sex marriage wasn’t on the radar screen in the biblical world, so it’s not surprising that neither Jesus nor any of the biblical writers addresses it. Therefore, Christians today have to ask whether gay relationships can fulfill the core principles of Scripture’s teachings about marriage. Based on Jesus’ teaching here and other texts like Ephesians 5, the essence of Christian marriage involves keeping covenant with one's spouse in order to reflect God’s covenant with us through Christ. That’s something same-sex couples can and do live out today."

I realize we can play the semantics game with words like "homosexuality," and we can play the same game with "trinity." I don't see any issue with using homosexuality and a one-word idea for:

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.

If we are going to say that Paul's writing were "God breathed," then should be not accept them as valid?

I also don't think that our immutable God has changed His views on His creation. It is true that the ancient people of Israel were a patriarchal society under the Covenant of Moses which changed, but I don't think a gay society was the later plan. I do think that this passage is still in effect:

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

But, such sin can be repented and forgiven. The repent action though prohibits engaging in it as a way of life.

The fact that I hold this as true does NOT mean I go about assaulting those who live that lifestyle with a Bible-club.

 

[St. SteVen]

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post.

I do think that this passage is still in effect:

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Two chapters earlier we find the similar scripture below.
Wouldn't this neighboring scripture also still be in effect?
Polygamy is only prohibited in one situation.

Leviticus 18:22 NIV
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 18:18 NIV
Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

Does the "husband of one wife" requirement mean that polygamy was common in the early church?

Why does the Apostle Paul require that church Elders be the "husband of one wife" if polygamy wasn't common in the church? Titus 1:5-6 ESV This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is...

www.christianityboard.com

]

 

[Spyder]

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed post.

Two chapters earlier we find the similar scripture below.
Wouldn't this neighboring scripture also still be in effect?
Polygamy is only prohibited in one situation.

Leviticus 18:22 NIV
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 18:18 NIV
Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

Does the "husband of one wife" requirement mean that polygamy was common in the early church?

Why does the Apostle Paul require that church Elders be the "husband of one wife" if polygamy wasn't common in the church? Titus 1:5-6 ESV This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is...

www.christianityboard.com

]

Brother, I must be missing something.

How am I to see your statement "Polygamy is only prohibited in one situation." It seems that the first verse you offer does not address polygamy at all, so I am confused.

If we are going to discuss the Patriarchal society of Israel, that is totally a different topic, I think.

 

[St. SteVen]

Brother, I must be missing something.

How am I to see your statement "Polygamy is only prohibited in one situation." It seems that the first verse you offer does not address polygamy at all, so I am confused.

If we are going to discuss the Patriarchal society of Israel, that is totally a different topic, I think.

Sorry for the confusion I caused. I will clarify.

You had quoted Leviticus 20:13 and stated: "I do think that this passage is still in effect:"
I cited Leviticus 18:22, which is a similar verse located two chapter earlier.

The verse about polygamy quoted is in the same chapter. It seems that we ignore the verse
about polygamy to focus rather on the verse about homosexual relations.

If verse 22 is in effect, shouldn't verse 18 also still be in effect? (only in Utah) - LOL
My earlier topic asked about whether Polygamy was common in the early church.
(requirement for elder was to be the husband of one wife)

Leviticus 18:22 NIV
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 18:18 NIV
Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

]

 

[Spyder]

The passages from both chapters of Leviticus are "still in effect," as I have not yet seen any command from Yahweh or His Son that negates them.

Polygamy is a different topic, and I can see its roots in how the Patriarchy operated. Remember Moses required a man who divorces his wife to provide a certificate of divorce - divorce that God hates - because of the hardness of man's hearts. Moses chose to protect the woman with providing proof that she was not married. In those days, not having someone to provide for her was serious stuff. The certificate enables the woman to remarry. The men who could afford more wives had a supporting role in those days when so many men were killed in battles, as it provided a living for those widows. We've already seen how God wants us to provide for the widows in our communities.

 

[St. SteVen]

The passages from both chapters of Leviticus are "still in effect," as I have not yet seen any command from Yahweh or His Son that negates them.

I find it interesting that polygamy is outlawed in America (and most of the west) except in Utah. It seems that this law was religiously motivated by Christianity.

It also begs the question about the "biblical" definition of marriage being between "one woman and one man".

]

 

[Arthur81]

The passages from both chapters of Leviticus are "still in effect," as I have not yet seen any command from Yahweh or His Son that negates them.

Polygamy is a different topic, and I can see its roots in how the Patriarchy operated. Remember Moses required a man who divorces his wife to provide a certificate of divorce - divorce that God hates - because of the hardness of man's hearts. Moses chose to protect the woman with providing proof that she was not married. In those days, not having someone to provide for her was serious stuff. The certificate enables the woman to remarry. The men who could afford more wives had a supporting role in those days when so many men were killed in battles, as it provided a living for those widows. We've already seen how God wants us to provide for the widows in our communities.

"These are the statutes and ordinances and laws that the LORD established between himself and the people of Israel on Mount Sinai through Moses." (Lev 26:46 NRSV)

"These are the commandments that the LORD gave to Moses for the people of Israel on Mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34 NRSV)

"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them" (Rom 2:14-15 NRSV)

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." (Lev 19:18 NRSV)

That is in effect for the New Covenant believer, the Christian, because it is quoted in the New Covenant, not because it is in the book of Leviticus. Paul quotes exactly from Leviticus several times, but never quotes Lev. 18:22.

"He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it." (Eph 2:15-16 NRSV)

 

[Arthur81]

There is a major problem with importing modern labels of sexuality into a biblical understanding. To use words like homosexual or homosexuality in a discussion of Bible-based doctrine becomes spiritually treacherous. I'll attempt to explain my thinking on this.

Beliefs concerning homosexuality can be confusing, and in a way unconsciously formed. For example, a man has at some time earlier in his life experienced some type of situational homosexuality in thought or in act, and this is not uncommon with the healthy red-blooded male. He may have shunned it or determined not ever to do it again, based on his religious beliefs, therefore he views this as a temptation, which he overcomes or determines not to commit again. He has made a choice, his decision; so why can't others?

Then comes the experience of psychological projection. The man projects his past or maybe present experience with homosexuality onto others and believes all men experience this in the same way he did or even still does. So, if he resisted the temptation and left it, so can all men, and it is a choice, that is to his way of thinking. This perspective may be emphasized even more in those with spiritual responsibility like a Pastor or Teacher.

It seems researchers are agreed that sexual orientation is a continuum, from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Add to this the social side of things, the pressure to marry and have a family that is brought to bear by family expectation, society, tradition and maybe most of all, the religion. Consider where a man may exist by his nature on the sexual orientation continuum, and then imagine the family, religious and social pressures. You end up with individual personal experiences that just will not fit a category or label because it is just far too complex.

This is how the respected, married church deacon is exposed as to have engaged in some sexual episode with a teenage boy, then legal problems and shame, with the embarrassment comes to the church family as well. This is also where much of the so-called "ex-gay" idea can come into play as well. A young man was in some type of situational homosexuality, but was by nature on the heterosexual side of the continuum, but for some spiritual reason he leaves the situational homosexuality, and decides he is an "ex-gay", and happily and sincerely gives testimony based on his understanding of his own individual, very personal experience.

It is for these reasons, a Bible study of sexual sins requires a close examination of exactly what the conduct is that is being condemned. To force modern labels into the biblical text becomes very misleading, and I believe can be to the point of religious treachery.

 

[Spyder]

Ok, for our bucket of worms opener, there was a change from the Old Testament times to the New.

As early as chapter in Genesis, there was polygamy. Throughout the O.T. there was polygamy, and God even blessed the marriage with children through wives and event servants (Gen 29).

The change seems to have happened as part of the New Covenant, though I have yet to attempt to find the cause other than the change of status of the woman.

 

[Behold]

That's a great question.
In general, the church rejects the idea that homosexuals could be born that way. (as God created them)

God did not create Homosexuality.

Also, its "Lady Gaga" who created "born this way"..

Its a song, not a gender science proof., tho a lot of people who are quite confused, are confused about that fact.