Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[David in NJ]

They were trying to trap Jesus. The woman was Jewish? So, where's the trap?
A Jewish woman judged by the law of Moses. Seems straight forward.

/

SEE post 1,667

The Jews wanted JESUS to submit to their supposed 'ownership' of the Law.
Therefore, anything within the Law that they could pin on JESUS would suffice them, no matter how inaccurate it was.

If they could get JESUS to condemn the woman and cause a riot out of it AND/OR bring accusation to Roman authority = so be it!

And in Post 1,667 we see just that

 

[Arthur81]

The problem is one of over-complication. The objections to calls for revival and reformation we hear today barely existed 50 years ago. It is greatly puzzling to me. It is very much like I woke up one day and suddenly the Christian world had lost its mind. Questions that were previously answered so simply suddenly had Christians stumped.

The vast majority of the churches, in fact, do not have an answer for such men.

But the Bible does:

1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Matthew 5
29If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Matthew 19
11But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

.

Barney, I stay with the older understanding of effeminate as just that, not sexual acts. Also, the older Bibles (KJV, RV, ASV, YLT) translate "abusers" by sodomite (if you use the 1828 Webster's) so they were sodomizing others but now they are washed, sanctified... I take "washed" to mean by the blood of Christ, not baptism. I take sanctified as "set apart" and progressive sanctification would continue to the last day, and the believer is declared righteous in justification, based solely on the life and death of Jesus.

I don't know how you would apply Matthew 5 to a gay man? Are you suggested he do as legend says Origen did, castrate himself? From what I've read that does not change a homosexual orientation.

On Matthew 19 are you continuing with the idea of castration, by making themselves "eunuchs"? I do not understand that verse to be understood as literal eunuchs. Therefore I take the verse as follows:

"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)

I do believe the ONLY biblical "marriage" is man to woman; regardless of what SCOTUS ruled, so a gay is "incapable of marriage".

Barney, depending on how you interpreted and suggested application of these passages to a male of homosexual orientation; I can only see the man leaving you in a very depressed state of mind, with no workable answer. That is if you are suggesting what I hear from very fundamentalistic types.

 

[Arthur81]

Only if lesser sins pay in wages other than death.

When are we going to stop encouraging moral equivocation?

It really should take place before God comes to judge.



Yes, especially the "Go, and sin no more" part.

.

The quote you gave from my post was based on the idea that a male to male relationship sinful just because it is same-sex; but that is not MY position because I do not find the Bible to teach that anywhere, even Leviticus. I take it that you teach sinless perfection, which I find completely baseless in the Bible. Men sin every day, and I'd suggest maybe even in the sexual realm. We do confess our sins for sure. Of course homosexual orientation is not sin because the Bible says God created the gay man that way; he surely did not choose it himself:

"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21 REB)

I take it the gay man is to be "treasured", because he is the "uncommon" one.

 

[David in NJ]

The quote you gave from my post was based on the idea that a male to male relationship sinful just because it is same-sex; but that is not MY position because I do not find the Bible to teach that anywhere, even Leviticus. I take it that you teach sinless perfection, which I find completely baseless in the Bible. Men sin every day, and I'd suggest maybe even in the sexual realm. We do confess our sins for sure. Of course homosexual orientation is not sin because the Bible says God created the gay man that way; he surely did not choose it himself:

"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21 REB)

I take it the gay man is to be "treasured", because he is the "uncommon" one.

Correct yourself.

It is not that you cannot find in scripture God's clear condemnation of homosexuality, but rather that you are unwilling to submit to God's Authority and Judgment on the subject matter.

Which is the root cause of ALL sin(s).

Serpent in your garden: "Did God really say....?"

 

[Triumph1300]

My question is aimed at the the historic churches coming out of the Protestant Reformation such as the Presbyterians and the Particular or Reformed Baptist Churches, along with Lutherans and Anglicans, etc. I have no interest in the TV evangelist follower, faith healer types in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches

The answer is in God's Word, not in denominations.

 

[GracePeace]

What answers does the conservative church give to the male of fully homosexual orientation, who does not have the "gift" of abstinence? My question is aimed at the the historic churches coming out of the Protestant Reformation such as the Presbyterians and the Particular or Reformed Baptist Churches, along with Lutherans and Anglicans, etc. I have no interest in the TV evangelist follower, faith healer types in Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches, my question is just to those of orthodox Christian doctrine. Do the historic churches of Christ have workable answers for such men? I have not heard or read them so far.

The "workable solution" has always been "repent" and "deny yourself taken up your cross and follow Christ". Christianity never changed, only the ideas/demands of unbelievers like yourself have changed. Men who lay with men can and must repent just as all sinners. It's not complicated. Either you love the Lord, and you're satisfied with knowing the Lord, or else you don't know the Lord, and you're unsatisfied because you don't know the Lord, so you reject the Lord's ways and seek to satisfy the flesh (eg, by demanding to have sex).

 

[St. SteVen]

The Jews wanted JESUS to submit to their supposed 'ownership' of the Law.
Therefore, anything within the Law that they could pin on JESUS would suffice them, no matter how inaccurate it was.

They were specifically questioning Jesus about the law of Moses,
not their own laws that were an extension of the law. Right?

/

 

[Behold]

IMO - There is a strong possibility that the 'man' could of been a Roman and/or Gentile.

The "man" also could have been one of the religious leaders.

See, these Religious Jews were wolves in sheep's clothing.
They were a "brood of vipers'.

With the Devil, their father as the Head Snake.

Its possible that this woman was a whore, and she just "serviced" one of these very "leaders" and that makes it very convenient to have "found her".

These were not good people.
They were not holy.
They accused the SON OF GOD of doing His Miracles by "Satan's power".
They were DRESSED as if they were Holy, and nothing more.
See the 'POPE" regarding an update on that trick.
They played a religious GAME.., and fooled the kiddies., and that is why Jesus was sometimes quite angry with them, as he hated their "fake".

These were fakirs, trying to keep the people smothered by LAW.

You have the same thing today on Forums, and in Pulpits.
You have religious, water baptized, or not, people, pretending to be a "Teacher". '"Preacher" "Pope".
They talk about works and self righteousness and commandment keeping..

They know NOTHING about The Cross of Christ..Its a foreign object to them... and Nothing more then that....nothing,

 

[St. SteVen]

It is not that you cannot find in scripture God's clear condemnation of homosexuality, but rather that you are unwilling to submit to God's Authority and Judgment on the subject matter.

The issue is more complex than that. With Bible in hand, we are left to get "God's view" on the subject
through the lens of human translators, each with their own doctrinal bias and agendas. And traditional views
have "held the fort" in this regard. Conservative Christians won't budge an inch on this. We are so stigmatized by
our own modern social construct as to be blind to any other possibility.

In other threads we are discussing how the church got the grounds for divorce completely wrong.
We used to be completely wrong about women's role in spiritual leadership in the church.
And we aren't completely out of the woods on that one yet. This is next on the list.
Consumption of alcoholic beverages, dancing, playing cards, movies... all changed with time.
Even sporting events on Sunday was out of the question at one time. Why?

/ cc: @Arthur81

 

[Arthur81]

Correct yourself.

It is not that you cannot find in scripture God's clear condemnation of homosexuality, but rather that you are unwilling to submit to God's Authority and Judgment on the subject matter.

Which is the root cause of ALL sin(s).

Serpent in your garden: "Did God really say....?"

You've made the claim, now produce the verse that condemns male to male loving, intimate relationship for the New Covenant believer, a Christian. Even if you quote from Leviticus, even for the Jews it did not mean what fundamentalists try to say, and it was to Jews, not Christians.

 

[Arthur81]

The answer is in God's Word, not in denominations.

My suggested denominations are those coming out of the Protestant Reformation holding to Christian orthodoxy, not these new movements that began popping up in the latter 19th century with their various heresies. It is their Biblical, Christian orthodoxy that is the point, not the denominational name.

 

[David in NJ]

The "man" also could have been one of the religious leaders.

See, these Religious Jews were wolves in sheep's clothing.
They were a "brood of vipers'.

With the Devil, their father as the Head Snake.

Its possible that this woman was a whore, and she just "serviced" one of these very "leaders" and that makes it very convenient to have "found her".

These were not good people.
They were not holy.
They accused the SON OF GOD of doing His Miracles by "Satan's power".
They were DRESSED as if they were Holy, and nothing more.
See the 'POPE" regarding an update on that trick.
They played a religious GAME.., and fooled the kiddies., and that is why Jesus was sometimes quite angry with them, as he hated their "fake".

These were fakirs, trying to keep the people smothered by LAW.

You have the same thing today on Forums, and in Pulpits.
You have religious, water baptized, or not, people, pretending to be a "Teacher". '"Preacher" "Pope".
They talk about works and self righteousness and commandment keeping..

They know NOTHING about The Cross of Christ..Its a foreign object to them... and Nothing more then that....nothing,

YES, and thank you for your insight.

 

[David in NJ]

The issue is more complex than that. With Bible in hand, we are left to get "God's view" on the subject
through the lens of human translators, each with their own doctrinal bias and agendas. And traditional views
have "held the fort" in this regard. Conservative Christians won't budge an inch on this. We are so stigmatized by
our own modern social construct as to be blind to any other possibility.

In other threads we are discussing how the church got the grounds for divorce completely wrong.
We used to be completely wrong about women's role in spiritual leadership in the church.
And we aren't completely out of the woods on that one yet. This is next on the list.
Consumption of alcoholic beverages, dancing, playing cards, movies... all changed with time.
Even sporting events on Sunday was out of the question at one time. Why?

/ cc: @Arthur81

My Brother @St. SteVen,

i have to step out now and will return

Please review the Gospel of John specifically chapter 4 and Apostle Peter and Pauls' admonition of Scripture in it's
Authority to every man and woman.

 

[BarneyFife]

The quote you gave from my post was based on the idea that a male to male relationship sinful just because it is same-sex; but that is not MY position because I do not find the Bible to teach that anywhere, even Leviticus. I take it that you teach sinless perfection, which I find completely baseless in the Bible. Men sin every day, and I'd suggest maybe even in the sexual realm. We do confess our sins for sure. Of course homosexual orientation is not sin because the Bible says God created the gay man that way; he surely did not choose it himself:

"Who do you think you are to answer God back? Can the pot say to the potter, ‘Why did you make me like this?’? Surely the potter can do what he likes with the clay. Is he not free to make two vessels out of the same lump, one to be treasured, the other for common use?" (Rom 9:20-21 REB)

I take it the gay man is to be "treasured", because he is the "uncommon" one.

You seem almost a different Arthur81 than I'm used to addressing. There is definitely room for us to talk when I can grab a free minute. Sorry for the delay to your thoughtful responses.

 

[David in NJ]

You've made the claim, now produce the verse that condemns male to male loving, intimate relationship for the New Covenant believer, a Christian. Even if you quote from Leviticus, even for the Jews it did not mean what fundamentalists try to say, and it was to Jews, not Christians.

i have to step out now = talk with ya later

 

[Arthur81]

The "workable solution" has always been "repent" and "deny yourself taken up your cross and follow Christ". Christianity never changed, only the ideas/demands of unbelievers like yourself have changed. Men who lay with men can and must repent just as all sinners. It's not complicated. Either you love the Lord, and you're satisfied with knowing the Lord, or else you don't know the Lord, and you're unsatisfied because you don't know the Lord, so you reject the Lord's ways and seek to satisfy the flesh (eg, by demanding to have sex).

Homosexual orientation is just like heterosexual orientation. Could you deny yourself (your heterosexual desires and behavior) for a lifetime?

Then as I challenged another, as you wrote "Men who lay with men" as a sin for the genders involved, produce that verse that applies to a Christian. Lev. 18:22; 20:13 was given for the Jews, and even for them it involved cult prostitution as condemned in Deut. 23:17,18.

I can only find abusive and promiscuous sex between males condemned in pre-law Sodom, and then in the New Covenant. Do all men have the "gift" of sexual abstinence even for a short period of time?

"Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9 ASV)
v26 indicates this was probably meant for a short period of time then existing, not a lifetime of sexual abstinence -
"I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is." (1Cor 7:26 ASV)

 

[Arthur81]

i have to step out now = talk with ya later

Actually, it is the same with me. Later...

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
The issue is more complex than that. With Bible in hand, we are left to get "God's view" on the subject
through the lens of human translators, each with their own doctrinal bias and agendas. And traditional views
have "held the fort" in this regard. Conservative Christians won't budge an inch on this. We are so stigmatized by
our own modern social construct as to be blind to any other possibility.

Please review the Gospel of John specifically chapter 4 and Apostle Peter and Pauls' admonition of Scripture in it's
Authority to every man and woman.

Thanks. See you soon, brother.

What the Bible says doesn't change the way it came to us.
Even Bible translators know the text was corrupted before it even got to them.
Do you want to bow to supposedly "infallible authority" when it arrives in that condition?
I'm taking a more realistic approach to these things.

/

 

[GracePeace]

Homosexual orientation is just like heterosexual orientation. Could you deny yourself (your heterosexual desires and behavior) for a lifetime?

Then as I challenged another, as you wrote "Men who lay with men" as a sin for the genders involved, produce that verse that applies to a Christian. Lev. 18:22; 20:13 was given for the Jews, and even for them it involved cult prostitution as condemned in Deut. 23:17,18.

I can only find abusive and promiscuous sex between males condemned in pre-law Sodom, and then in the New Covenant. Do all men have the "gift" of sexual abstinence even for a short period of time?

"Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9 ASV)
v26 indicates this was probably meant for a short period of time then existing, not a lifetime of sexual abstinence -
"I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is." (1Cor 7:26 ASV)

Christians don't accept that idea.
Many have been saved out of that sin, going back 2,000 years.
The world has changed its purport, invented evil, but the Bible hasn't changed.
God saves from sin.

"Let every man have his own wife" 1 Corinthians 7 says.
Nothing else has ever been accepted Scripturally.

 

[GracePeace]

Homosexual orientation is just like heterosexual orientation. Could you deny yourself (your heterosexual desires and behavior) for a lifetime?

Then as I challenged another, as you wrote "Men who lay with men" as a sin for the genders involved, produce that verse that applies to a Christian. Lev. 18:22; 20:13 was given for the Jews, and even for them it involved cult prostitution as condemned in Deut. 23:17,18.

I can only find abusive and promiscuous sex between males condemned in pre-law Sodom, and then in the New Covenant. Do all men have the "gift" of sexual abstinence even for a short period of time?

"Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9 ASV)
v26 indicates this was probably meant for a short period of time then existing, not a lifetime of sexual abstinence -
"I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is." (1Cor 7:26 ASV)

Conspicuously absent from Scripture is ANY SINGLE INSTANCE of homosexual relations being mentioned in a positive light or celebrated. EVERY SINGLE TIME homosexual relations are mentioned it is to condemn it.

If your understanding were correct, we'd expect to see many examples of homosexuality being celebrated in Scripture--it doesn't happen even ONCE.