Unethical treatment of LGBTQ humans / Understanding LGBTQ - 101

[St. SteVen]

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.

Doesn't the Elder requirement of a husband of one wife indicate that polygamy was common in the early church? And there is no prohibition of it in the New Testament. Even so, remarried men are considered questionable candidates for Elder. ??? (due to having a previous wife) ???

]

 

[Arthur81]

I will copy/paste an article I posted on another thread -

For the edification of those willing, and striving for objectivity, here is a close look at Rom. 1:26, 27 with an English translation of today, along with the English dictionary definitions of today.

(Rom 1:26-27 NRSVue, 2021) "For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Literal Translation from Tyndale's NA28 Greek-English Interlinear, Copyright 2020
(Rom 1:26-27) "Because of this God handed over them to passions of dishonor for even the females of them changed the natural function into the(that) contrary to nature, 27 and likewise also the males having left the natural function of the female burned in the craving of them toward one another, males with males performing the indecent[act] and receiving back in themselves the retribution which was fitting of the error of them."

"sexual intercourse" American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Copyright 2016
"1. Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina. [coitus]
2. Sexual activity that includes insertion of the penis into the anus or mouth."

Unmistakable Observations:
1. There is NOTHING said about women having sex with women in v26
2. Coitus, penile-vaginal intercourse is the "natural intercourse", the design of creation from God
3. Females exchanged coitus, for intercourse likely involving penile-anal intercourse with men
4. Sexual intercourse involves the penis, therefore sex in v26 must be males with females
5. The males "left the natural function of the females", so they had originally been in M-F relationships, heterosexual
6. In the same way, or likewise, the males were "performing the indecent[act]" with other males
The "indecent [act]" was probably anal intercourse, M-F in v26, and M-M in v27.
5. Males "were consumed with their passionate desires for one another"
Merriam-Webster "consumed, 1: to do away with completely: destroy" [This is lust that destroys]
6. There is no hint of affection or love in this passage, NONE from v18 through v32
7. There is a progression in the depths of sin here:
a. v24 reveals heterosexual sins in general as fornication, adultery, promiscuous sexuality
b. v26 shows females engage in oral or more likely, anal intercourse with males
c. v27 indicates the oral or more likely, anal sexual intercourse was then practiced male with male
8. The underlying sin of this passage is exchanging the One True God for idols, vs23, 25, 28
9. The "error" of v27 is this failure to acknowledge God, and turning to idols
10. Since lesbianism is not in v26, there is not one verse in the Bible condemning lesbianism
11. There is nothing in this passage that condemns two males in a loving gay relationship!

The above is what I see from the grammatical interpretation, the following is the historical setting and interpretation given by a Greek philosopher living in Paul's day and it reads like a mirror image of what Paul wrote -

"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." *Use 'find on page' to locate these lines

Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-20 [Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta] ​

demonax.info

If the creation design of God in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 restricts the sex act to natural intercourse, coitus; it seems also to prescribe sexual intercourse solely for the purpose of procreation. If any variation or deviation from this created design is sin, birth control measures are sinful as well.

 

[MA2444]

Doesn't the Elder requirement of a husband of one wife indicate that polygamy was common in the early church? And there is no prohibition of it in the New Testament. Even so, remarried men are considered questionable candidates for Elder. ??? (due to having a previous wife) ???

]

Which one? Is it,

1 Timothy 3:12
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.../KJV

?? Why wouldnt that be a prohibition to polygamy? The husband of one wife. Are these special people born to that purpose? What about the people who aspire to be a deacon some day?

Oh, I better not marry more than one wife them, if I am to one day be a deacon! How is the conclusion not a prohibition to polygamy?

 

[MA2444]

From what I can tell, Lamech was the first polygamist in scripture and I dont think that was counted as sin at that point in time. That was in Genesis, so they had not received the Law yet. So it was not accounted to them as sin.

But once Moses brought the law, God outlined the entire marriage process and so forth. God was using Godly principles to urge us towards righteousness and correct behavior. He siad something like, no my children, that is now called Adultery and Fornication. So the people began learning to have honor and obey. But it did get out of hand, you know how women are, right? People's wives began cheating in their marriages and some of the men stood up and said, this aint right, I want to divorce her! (and rightly so in my mind). So the Lord gave them the power to divorce her, and it didnt have very many reasons that you could divorce her. But cheating was first on the list.

God said it later in scripture, that He gave Divorce to mankind as a concession for them, but it was not always so! Still God still tried to get mankind to slowly understand these biblical priciples through a concession and process of divorce. But divorce was not always so.

And these bibical principles...can they be carried over into the New Covenant?

WHy not? Their biblical principles and wisdom to live by. She dont want to get divorced? Then she wont cheat. Marriage to women is a type and shadow of how God expects our relationship to be with Him. We cheat on God when we go to church one day a week and live for the world the rest of the week.

It's cheating on God to study pray 6 days a week and live for the world one day a week.
It's the weekend, I'm going out now to the nightclub...God don't like that anymore than men do.

There's nothing wrong with carrying over old testament principles and wisdom into the new testament. So the "It doesnt say anything about polygamy in the NT" is moot.

 

[Grailhunter]

Doesn't the Elder requirement of a husband of one wife indicate that polygamy was common in the early church? And there is no prohibition of it in the New Testament. Even so, remarried men are considered questionable candidates for Elder. ??? (due to having a previous wife) ???

]

There ya go partner.

Can we count the ways we know that polygamy was practiced during and after the biblical period.

For one, the scriptures never put a stop to polygamy or concubinage.
So there was no reason to stop. The first Christians were Jewish-Christians and in there culture many wives and children were seen as a blessing of God….favor. So no reason for Jewish-Christians not to have multiple wives.

For two, it would be a sticky wicket to tell a Jew with multiple wives that he had to divorce all of them but one to convert to Christianity.

And of course you pointed out Paul made the stipulation that a church leader had to be married to one wife. Both of those requirements may have been there.

Polygamy was permitted in Judaism throughout the Talmudic period and until the 10th century. (My Jewish learning site and the Jewish Virtual Library)

 

[Grailhunter]

But once Moses brought the law, God outlined the entire marriage process and so forth. God was using Godly principles to urge us towards righteousness and correct behavior. He siad something like, no my children, that is now called Adultery and Fornication.

This would be wrong at no point did the Mosaic Law or scriptures condemn or stop polygamy and concubinage Old or New Testament. So it was in their culture that it was seen if a man had many wives and children it was seen as a blessing of God.

Now the scriptures did warn the kings not to have too many wives, not that David and Solomon paid attention to that….and ultimately God took credit for David’s wives

 

[Bob]

Mosaic law is largely silent on the importance, to a vibrant, stable society, of a life-long, monogamous covenant between a man and a woman. (It may have been taken for granted, being ingrained for so long.) We do have Commandments 5 and 7, but polygamy is not thereby excluded.

Re Same-Sex Sexual Relations, Here is what the United Methodist Church now says: “We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman. . . . . We support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

So far, great!

On the other hand: “United Methodist clergy are now free to preside at same-sex marriage or union ceremonies. . . . (T)he clergy sessions of annual conferences are no longer required to reject candidates on the basis of their sexual orientation or status as a person married to or in a domestic partnership with another person of the same sex.”

What if we apply the same squish to another Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Steal. “We affirm the 8th Commandment, but we are no longer required to reject clegy who steal in those cities where petty theft is no longer prosecuted.”

The alphabet activists have steadily eroded the importance of marriage over the last 40 years or so, first by asserting that what happened in the bedroom was strictly private, to public displays of same-sex passion, to legalized same-sex marriage, and now proselytization in schools and libraries. The end goal is complete destruction of the foundations of the Kingdom of God, and the establishment of a might-makes-right government by a cadre of immoral elitists.

 

[Bob]

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.

]

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

]

Good points.

However, Question: Deuteronomy 25:5 says, “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

Could this passage provide an exception to the Leviticus commandments, and sanction polygamy in a special case?

Peace and blessings.

 

[Grailhunter]

Good points.

However, Question: Deuteronomy 25:5 says, “If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

Could this passage provide an exception to the Leviticus commandments, and sanction polygamy in a special case?

Peace and blessings.

Polygamy started pretty early on in the Bible, even before the Mosaic Law. Sarah was Abraham’s half sister and Hagar was his concubine.

And the Mosaic Law regulated polygamous relationships and concubinage and never had anything negative to say about it.

The Bible Old or New Testament never puts an end to polygamy or concubinage.

The Levirate Marriage that you refered to was actually a Mosaic Law with the intent to carry on the dead brother’s bloodline.

The Mosaic Law does warn kings not to have too many wives…
Not that David and Solomon paid any attention to it….but then later God takes credit for King David’s wives.

It appears that the Jewish-Christians embraced polygamy but the Gentile-Christians eventually put an end to it.

The Gentile-Christians brought the custom of marriage ceremonies into Christianity after the 1st century and it was the Protestants that made church weddings mandatory to be married around 1550 AD.

 

[St. SteVen]

Could this passage provide an exception to the Leviticus commandments, and sanction polygamy in a special case?

The short answer would be, Yes. But it seems that polygamy was already a standard practice, so this would not be an allowance, but rather a duty to support the deceased brother by carrying on the family line from his wife.

]

 

[Spyder]

Doesn't the Elder requirement of a husband of one wife indicate that polygamy was common in the early church? And there is no prohibition of it in the New Testament. Even so, remarried men are considered questionable candidates for Elder. ??? (due to having a previous wife) ???

]

My opinion here:

Yes, it was. However, most churches today have interpreted that requirement to suggest that God never forgave a couple for getting a divorce so the man cannot be an elder or a deacon. (After all, as can be inferred by that man-made restriction, having been divorced in the past is yet another "unforgiveable sin."

In the time of the Apostle Paul, marriage would potentially consume a disciple's time which should be spent evangelizing and caring for the poor and those in prison. If they can control their passions, he said they should not marry. However, if their passions burn hotly and since caring for a family is so time consuming, at least have only ONE wife.

In an economy that depends on farming or raising livestock, having many sons and daughters is important.

Since paying money (as profit) to those who spread the message delivered by Yeshua was prohibited, there were none who made a living by beings a "shepherd." Even Paul would work to earn his own money unless a "church" provided him financial support to continue his mission.

Now, we pay salaries to professional preachers and church staff.

Another bucket of worms here: Does that salary by a specific denomination affect the message given by their preacher? I know of a couple that have altered their teachings to keep their jobs.

 

[St. SteVen]

In the time of the Apostle Paul, marriage would potentially consume a disciple's time which should be spent evangelizing and caring for the poor and those in prison. If they can control their passions, he said they should not marry. However, if their passions burn hotly and since caring for a family is so time consuming, at least have only ONE wife.

A team of two horses equally yoked can pull three times the weight of a single horse. Just sayin'.

Another bucket of worms here: Does that salary by a specific denomination affect the message given by their preacher? I know of a couple that have altered their teachings to keep their jobs.

Yes, denomination preachers are bound to the doctrine of their denomination. They sign an agreement to uphold the doctrines of the denomination, regardless of what God is telling them to preach.

]

 

[Arthur81]

A team of two horses equally yoked can pull three times the weight of a single horse. Just sayin'.


Yes, denomination preachers are bound to the doctrine of their denomination. They sign an agreement to uphold the doctrines of the denomination, regardless of what God is telling them to preach.

]

Steven, as a Particular Baptist, who does embrace the first Baptist Confession of 1644/1646, I'd like to offer another perspective on denominational confessions and Pastor's agreements with the Standards of the church. I know that just because a church has the name "Baptist" on it, I have no idea whatsoever what sort of heretical things may be taught. It seems to go merely by the whims of whoever is Pastor at the time. So, by actual experience, I had the opportunity to help a new believer choose a church. I was visiting and not a resident, so I ended up recommending to him a newly forming PCA church in his neighborhood because I knew the foundation doctrines of the faith would be more likely presented. So, as a Baptist, I still recommended the Presbyterian Church in America for their edification in the faith. I sometimes refer to myself as a "Confessional Baptist", even though that makes some Baptist's skin crawl to hear it. LOL

 

[St. SteVen]

Steven, as a Particular Baptist, who does embrace the first Baptist Confession of 1644/1646, I'd like to offer another perspective on denominational confessions and Pastor's agreements with the Standards of the church. I know that just because a church has the name "Baptist" on it, I have no idea whatsoever what sort of heretical things may be taught. It seems to go merely by the whims of whoever is Pastor at the time. So, by actual experience, I had the opportunity to help a new believer choose a church. I was visiting and not a resident, so I ended up recommending to him a newly forming PCA church in his neighborhood because I knew the foundation doctrines of the faith would be more likely presented. So, as a Baptist, I still recommended the Presbyterian Church in America for their edification in the faith. I sometimes refer to myself as a "Confessional Baptist", even though that makes some Baptist's skin crawl to hear it. LOL

Thanks. I always appreciate your perspective.
I imagine that some denominations are more strict than others about these things. And they would want to maintain some consistency across the denomination. McDonald's hamburgers does that same thing, brand consistency. You can go anywhere and the same products awaits you. Same with church. If it says Baptist on the sign, they better be baptizing. - LOL

]

 

[Spyder]

Thanks. I always appreciate your perspective.
I imagine that some denominations are more strict than others about these things. And they would want to maintain some consistency across the denomination. McDonald's hamburgers does that same thing, brand consistency. You can go anywhere and the same products awaits you. Same with church. If it says Baptist on the sign, they better be baptizing. - LOL

]

So Yahweh's input is limited by man's doctrines. I have witnessed this, and I think it is of the devil.

 

[Arthur81]

So Yahweh's input is limited by man's doctrines. I have witnessed this, and I think it is of the devil.

When I hear "NO creed but the Bible" proclaimed, I know I'm going to hear that individual's particular belief system, his alone! I prefer 'peer reviewed' doctrinal statements of many godly men in agreement from the past.

 

[Spyder]

When I hear "NO creed but the Bible" proclaimed, I know I'm going to hear that individual's particular belief system, his alone! I prefer 'peer reviewed' doctrinal statements of many godly men in agreement from the past.

For years, I enjoyed scripture studies within a group that was encouraged to share thoughts and understandings - but left belief up to Yahweh. We who follow Christ as our example on Earth do the same as Yeshua did - we listen for Yahweh to give conviction. Everything else is simply a personal understanding.

 

[Arthur81]

For years, I enjoyed scripture studies within a group that was encouraged to share thoughts and understandings - but left belief up to Yahweh. We who follow Christ as our example on Earth do the same as Yeshua did - we listen for Yahweh to give conviction. Everything else is simply a personal understanding.

Many Christians after years of study, choose a confession of faith that thousands of regenerated persons have embraced before them in the past. After many years of study, the 1646 First London Confession of Faith expresses my understanding of Scripture well. I do not embrace that confession in order to go into combat with Anglicans, Lutherans or the Reformed and Presbyterians; I openly confess my confession so others can know what I believe on the key issues of the faith of Jesus Christ.

 

[Sparrow77]

trivia question time .
if genitals does not define gender
then why does removing and altering them affirm gender . talk about delusion indeed .

Good point, another question, how is it gender is not given at birth but sexual orientation is?

 

[Spyder]

Many Christians after years of study, choose a confession of faith that thousands of regenerated persons have embraced before them in the past. After many years of study, the 1646 First London Confession of Faith expresses my understanding of Scripture well. I do not embrace that confession in order to go into combat with Anglicans, Lutherans or the Reformed and Presbyterians; I openly confess my confession so others can know what I believe on the key issues of the faith of Jesus Christ.

Since the changes that took place since the end of the first century A.D. strayed from the teachings of Yeshua and His apostles, I personally find that there is no existing creed that mirrors the teachings of Yeshua and those He sent to deliver His words.

I acknowledge that my learning comes from God after I have searched the scriptures (which requires examining manuscripts in Hebrew and Greek as well as English) to determine variations in translations. There are a large number of mistranslated words, but even they can be overcome by letting the rest of scripture provide understanding. Believing that scripture is "God-breathed" means that there are no contradictions, but in English translations; there are.

The phrase "know your bible" involves so much more than simply reading your chosen translation. The search for truth is something that a follower of Yeshua requires efforts that many never exert. We tend to be lazy and simply read commentaries as if that person writing them speaks for God.

So, I hold to no creed written by man. It makes me unpopular with those who do.