|
Post by 2uq2i8w on Jul 6, 2006 5:19:08 GMT -5
I'm interested in hearing others' opinions on this topic. When it comes to ANY subject that's addressed in scripture it's important to make sure that we're talking about apples and apples. That's why I use the original languages in my Bible study. Sometimes the word used in our current language has a different meaning in today's culture than it actually meant when the scripture was written. And responsible Bible study also requires us to take into account what type of literature we're reading, why it was written, who it was written for, etc. in order to get the fullest understanding.
The topic of homosexuality has always been a fuzzy one for me. It was a Levitical law, listed as an abomination right up there with eating shell fish. But Paul mentioned it in a couple of his letters. The thing is, when Paul was talking about homosexuality, was he talking about homosexuality the way we understand it in modern culture? I don't believe he was. In Paul's day, homosexuality went hand in hand with idol worship. It was part of pagan practice. I'm coming to believe that monogamous, loving relationships between two people of the same sex weren't addressed in scripture.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 6, 2006 6:06:43 GMT -5
Hi, "monogamous, loving relationships between two people of the same sex weren't addressed in scripture." Monogamous and loving don't mean a lot in the scripture because many relationships were not monogamous (Solomon had 900 wives - by the time he kissed them all it was time to get up!) and you could certainly love the person you were having an affair with. Paul, like most Jews, was shocked by Roman-Grecian attitudes towards homosexuality. There was no such word at that time, but like child sex, infidelity etc it was all considered to be forms of fornication. Trouble is this - our society decriminalized homosexuality, then it normalized homosexuality, then it promoted homosexuality. Do we now take the next step in sexual liberation to include polygamy, pederastery and bestiality? Where we draw the line? The scripture certainly drew a line - sex was consecrated in a marriage between a man and woman. Bert
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2006 6:49:48 GMT -5
Then why is same-sex companionship such an important aspect in 2x2 leadership configurations? Why is the ordinary configuration of heterosexual companionship forbidden in this highest class of 2x2ers?
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 6, 2006 7:01:53 GMT -5
Good question Edgar. Jesus sent out the 12 in all men configurations, but that was for a different reason (ie male leadership and the 12 tribe reference in Revelation.) It seems that some of the preachers in the NT went out as same sex (ie Paul and Timothy.) I guess there are more prosaic reasons why workers go out as same sex pairs. Including - to emphasise their non-marital status, to make sharing accommodation easier and reducing relationship complications.
|
|
|
Post by Think it through on Jul 6, 2006 8:32:29 GMT -5
....reducing relationship complications. In light of this discussion regarding homosexuality, how does this help??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2006 9:30:42 GMT -5
....reducing relationship complications. In light of this discussion regarding homosexuality, how does this help?? And how does it reduce relationship complications? -- Or make accomodation easier?
|
|
Maggie
Senior Member
Posts: 347
|
Post by Maggie on Jul 6, 2006 11:13:52 GMT -5
.......... Where we draw the line?....... I guess the most obvious and Godly place to draw the line would be to treat everyone with love, kindness and respect. Care for one another just as Jesus taught, not damning anyone to hell nor castigating their perceived failures which are not in your purview of responsibility. There is no need for you to accept something with which you disagree, think is wrong or don't understand (which is usually the case) but neither is there any reason to compare something you are ignorant about to child sexual abuse and bestiality. By the same token I could be concerned that those who are obsessed with vilifying homosexuality will slip over the line and start abusing children. You can see how silly and unreasoned that is. Why is this such a difficult concept for some to comprehend?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 6, 2006 14:24:10 GMT -5
.....Trouble is this - our society decriminalized homosexuality, then it normalized homosexuality, then it promoted homosexuality. Do we now take the next step in sexual liberation to include polygamy, pederastery and bestiality? Where we draw the line?..... Bert I find it interesting that so often the argument against homosexuality devolves to an argument against bestiality or other -ities. Bert, it kind of sounds like you're saying that homosexuality is okay, but you're afraid it might lead to bestiality and that would not be okay. Honest questions for the logicians out there (Rob, Cherie, Clay....others) -- If the topic is A, (homosexuality in this case), is it really helpful to the analysis to talk about B, C, and D (polygamy, pederasty, and bestiality in this case)? It seems to me like it's taking the discussion off topic, but I'm open to understanding how such a technique might be helpful....
|
|
|
Post by understanding on Jul 6, 2006 14:33:32 GMT -5
.....Trouble is this - our society decriminalized homosexuality, then it normalized homosexuality, then it promoted homosexuality. Do we now take the next step in sexual liberation to include polygamy, pederastery and bestiality? Where we draw the line?..... Bert let me me try and clarify.. you are quite the right.. the topic always does seem to wander. the reason why is because the bible is clear that homosexuality is not tolerated. however there are pple who say that god accepts homosexuality. well the bible is also clear that adultry, fornication, murder, beastiality, orgies are not ok. so if you make the aurgument that homosexuality is ok, then you are making the aurgument that adultry, fornication, murder, beastialaity, orgies and anything else the bible speaks out agains is ok. I find it interesting that so often the argument against homosexuality devolves to an argument against bestiality or other -ities. Bert, it kind of sounds like you're saying that homosexuality is okay, but you're afraid it might lead to bestiality and that would not be okay. Honest questions for the logicians out there (Rob, Cherie, Clay....others) -- If the topic is A, (homosexuality in this case), is it really helpful to the analysis to talk about B, C, and D (polygamy, pederasty, and bestiality in this case)? It seems to me like it's taking the discussion off topic, but I'm open to understanding how such a technique might be helpful....
|
|
|
Post by understanding on Jul 6, 2006 14:34:18 GMT -5
.....Trouble is this - our society decriminalized homosexuality, then it normalized homosexuality, then it promoted homosexuality. Do we now take the next step in sexual liberation to include polygamy, pederastery and bestiality? Where we draw the line?..... Bert let me me try and clarify.. you are quite the right.. the topic always does seem to wander. the reason why is because the bible is clear that homosexuality is not tolerated. however there are pple who say that god accepts homosexuality. well the bible is also clear that adultry, fornication, murder, beastiality, orgies are not ok. so if you make the aurgument that homosexuality is ok, then you are making the aurgument that adultry, fornication, murder, beastialaity, orgies and anything else the bible speaks out agains is ok. I find it interesting that so often the argument against homosexuality devolves to an argument against bestiality or other -ities. Bert, it kind of sounds like you're saying that homosexuality is okay, but you're afraid it might lead to bestiality and that would not be okay. Honest questions for the logicians out there (Rob, Cherie, Clay....others) -- If the topic is A, (homosexuality in this case), is it really helpful to the analysis to talk about B, C, and D (polygamy, pederasty, and bestiality in this case)? It seems to me like it's taking the discussion off topic, but I'm open to understanding how such a technique might be helpful....
|
|
|
Post by understanding on Jul 6, 2006 14:35:10 GMT -5
.....Trouble is this - our society decriminalized homosexuality, then it normalized homosexuality, then it promoted homosexuality. Do we now take the next step in sexual liberation to include polygamy, pederastery and bestiality? Where we draw the line?..... Bert I find it interesting that so often the argument against homosexuality devolves to an argument against bestiality or other -ities. Bert, it kind of sounds like you're saying that homosexuality is okay, but you're afraid it might lead to bestiality and that would not be okay. Honest questions for the logicians out there (Rob, Cherie, Clay....others) -- If the topic is A, (homosexuality in this case), is it really helpful to the analysis to talk about B, C, and D (polygamy, pederasty, and bestiality in this case)? It seems to me like it's taking the discussion off topic, but I'm open to understanding how such a technique might be helpful.... oops.. i am having problems. third try.. let me me try and clarify.. you are quite the right.. the topic always does seem to wander. the reason why is because the bible is clear that homosexuality is not tolerated. however there are pple who say that god accepts homosexuality. well the bible is also clear that adultry, fornication, murder, beastiality, orgies are not ok. so if you make the aurgument that homosexuality is ok, then you are making the aurgument that adultry, fornication, murder, beastialaity, orgies and anything else the bible speaks out agains is ok.
|
|
|
Post by also on Jul 6, 2006 14:38:52 GMT -5
.....Trouble is this - our society decriminalized homosexuality, then it normalized homosexuality, then it promoted homosexuality. Do we now take the next step in sexual liberation to include polygamy, pederastery and bestiality? Where we draw the line?..... Bert I find it interesting that so often the argument against homosexuality devolves to an argument against bestiality or other -ities. Bert, it kind of sounds like you're saying that homosexuality is okay, but you're afraid it might lead to bestiality and that would not be okay. Honest questions for the logicians out there (Rob, Cherie, Clay....others) -- If the topic is A, (homosexuality in this case), is it really helpful to the analysis to talk about B, C, and D (polygamy, pederasty, and bestiality in this case)? It seems to me like it's taking the discussion off topic, but I'm open to understanding how such a technique might be helpful.... also gene nelson, i will say to you what i told to justamom. you are being rude by going out of your way to show that you are homosexual. no one else on this board besides gay couples put pics up of them and there are partner. that clearly demonstrates an attempt to go out of your to show you are gay. why? this is a christian board where your lifestyle goes directly aganst what is taught in the bible. if this was a gay and lesbian board, fine. but its not. again i equate it to myself going onto a gay and lesbian bored with a picture of a swastica.. my right, but inflammentory. and just be clear, while i think homosexuality is wrong, its just as wrong as adulty, fornication, and any other sin. no better, no worse. so even if you were just living with a women i would feel the same way.
|
|
|
Post by To Understanding on Jul 6, 2006 14:53:57 GMT -5
Dear "Understanding", Your posts are extremely offensive! You've intentionally limited your understanding of the issue to some obscure verses in the Bible. You insist that this is an exclusively christian forum. If you are so hung up on scripture, please pay heed to one other verse........do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
|
|
|
Post by haha on Jul 6, 2006 15:04:31 GMT -5
Dear "Understanding", Your posts are extremely offensive! You've intentionally limited your understanding of the issue to some obscure verses in the Bible. You insist that this is an exclusively christian forum. If you are so hung up on scripture, please pay heed to one other verse........do onto others as you would have them do onto you. haha.. that is a pretty funny line "You've intentionally limited your understanding of the issue". i suppose everyone could use that when discussing scripture of each other. that should become the mantra of the board. no my friend.. i am afraid it is you who does not understand. sorry.
|
|
Maggie
Senior Member
Posts: 347
|
Post by Maggie on Jul 6, 2006 15:19:47 GMT -5
........so if you make the aurgument that homosexuality is ok, then you are making the aurgument that adultry, fornication, murder, beastialaity, orgies and anything else the bible speaks out agains is ok. So if you make the argument that eating shell fish is okay, or if your suit is a wool/linen blend (or maybe a polyester/cotton shirt), or you live in a house with no railing on the roof.......or "anything else the bible speaks out against is ok."........yikes, you're digging yourself in a hole here "understanding".......I don't think you do, understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2006 15:38:17 GMT -5
There are many things that are enough in the grey zone that different opinions are understandable, however one of the things that Jesus clearly spoke against was contempt for others - Another sin he often spoke about was in the religious tendency to regard our own spiritual status to be superior to all others arround us.
Wonder why the expression was coined 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel'!! The Pharisees could accept hypocracy, deceit, self-righteousness and dishonesty ---- but at the same time drag in a poor woman before others to be stoned to death.
|
|
|
Post by news flash on Jul 6, 2006 15:40:24 GMT -5
There are many things that are enough in the grey zone that different opinions are understandable, however one of the things that Jesus clearly spoke against was contempt for others - Another sin he often spoke about was in the religious tendency to regard our own spiritual status to be superior to all others arround us. Wonder why the expression was coined 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel'!! The Pharisees could accept hypocracy, deceit, self-righteousness and dishonesty ---- but at the same time drag in a poor woman before others to be stoned to death. there are several things that are black in white in the bible. and homosexuality, adultry and fornication are some of them yes.. contempt is also. however just because i bring this up does not mean i have contempt. so edgar.. why do you point to the black in white of contempt in your defense of homosexuality? not as smart as you think you are..
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 6, 2006 15:41:53 GMT -5
........so if you make the aurgument that homosexuality is ok, then you are making the aurgument that adultry, fornication, murder, beastialaity, orgies and anything else the bible speaks out agains is ok. So if you make the argument that eating shell fish is okay, or if your suit is a wool/linen blend (or maybe a polyester/cotton shirt), or you live in a house with no railing on the roof.......or "anything else the bible speaks out against is ok."........yikes, you're digging yourself in a hole here "understanding".......I don't think you do, understand. you are a very confused person. just trying to muddle the water. you are like the person who asked jesus who his neighbor was. you can try and try.. but truth will always be truth. adultry, fornication, and homosexuality will always be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 15:48:13 GMT -5
Almost nothing is black and white in the Bible except the commandment to love God and your neighbor. Adultery and fornication can, depending on the interpretation, apply to those who divorce and remarry while their former spouse is still living...not so black and white, and neither is homosexuality.
The point is, if you fail to keep even one tiny part of the law you have failed, period...and so who then can claim to not be a failure?
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 6, 2006 16:37:18 GMT -5
The Bible seems to treated like our Constitution-Those who have an agenda find a way to interpret the words to support their argument and discredit those who oppose the agenda.Usually these folks want to change what has been written so that their opinion or actions are 'justified' or accepted by society. Those trying to take it word for word and with the originators intent and context in mind are challenged by the former group who usually either claims the context and intent are unclear,out of date or'misinterpreted',or just plain unfair. In the case of the Constitution,we have ways to ammend and make changes-many times for the better,sometimes not. In the case of the Bible,God's Word cannot be changed or ammended by anyone,but we all have the option to challenge,interpret or disregard what he has said. In both cases sometimes it is at our own cost and there are rewards for good decisions and consequences for bad decisions. God has warned us not to change his Word and has promised that He is not mocked-we will reap what we sow,in this life and eternity.He has given us His Holy Spirit to guide and a free will to obey Him or not. For some,the Bible and the Constitution are "living documents" that can be manipulated for their own desires and purposes. I believe God was clear in His Word and has clearly stated His opinion on the topics that are being discussed on this thread. He has not communicated a change of policy
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 16:45:55 GMT -5
But, bowhunter, how do you know God is clear in his word on these topics unless you also have interpreted what it says about them? Do you claim to have no agenda?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2006 16:48:36 GMT -5
The Bible seems to treated like our Constitution-Those who have an agenda find a way to interpret the words to support their argument and discredit those who oppose the agenda.Usually these folks want to change what has been written so that their opinion or actions are 'justified' or accepted by society. Those trying to take it word for word and with the originators intent and context in mind are challenged by the former group who usually either claims the context and intent are unclear,out of date or'misinterpreted',or just plain unfair. In the case of the Constitution,we have ways to ammend and make changes-many times for the better,sometimes not. In the case of the Bible,God's Word cannot be changed or ammended by anyone,but we all have the option to challenge,interpret or disregard what he has said. In both cases sometimes it is at our own cost and there are rewards for good decisions and consequences for bad decisions. God has warned us not to change his Word and has promised that He is not mocked-we will reap what we sow,in this life and eternity.He has given us His Holy Spirit to guide and a free will to obey Him or not. For some,the Bible and the Constitution are "living documents" that can be manipulated for their own desires and purposes. I believe God was clear in His Word and has clearly stated His opinion on the topics that are being discussed on this thread. He has not communicated a change of policy Are there exemptions from 'loving thy neighbor as thyself'? (For example if it happens to be two men living together in the same house)? Or should a person shift into 'self-righteous gear' and do research on their intimate relationship in a frantic effort to escape the responsibility to apply this 'most important commandment'?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 6, 2006 18:08:38 GMT -5
The Bible seems to treated like our Constitution-Those who have an agenda find a way to interpret the words to support their argument and discredit those who oppose the agenda.Usually these folks want to change what has been written so that their opinion or actions are 'justified' or accepted by society. Those trying to take it word for word and with the originators intent and context in mind are challenged by the former group who usually either claims the context and intent are unclear,out of date or'misinterpreted',or just plain unfair. In the case of the Constitution,we have ways to ammend and make changes-many times for the better,sometimes not. In the case of the Bible,God's Word cannot be changed or ammended by anyone,but we all have the option to challenge,interpret or disregard what he has said. In both cases sometimes it is at our own cost and there are rewards for good decisions and consequences for bad decisions. God has warned us not to change his Word and has promised that He is not mocked-we will reap what we sow,in this life and eternity.He has given us His Holy Spirit to guide and a free will to obey Him or not. For some,the Bible and the Constitution are "living documents" that can be manipulated for their own desires and purposes. I believe God was clear in His Word and has clearly stated His opinion on the topics that are being discussed on this thread. He has not communicated a change of policy Are there exemptions from 'loving thy neighbor as thyself'? (For example if it happens to be two men living together in the same house)? Or should a person shift into 'self-righteous gear' and do research on their intimate relationship in a frantic effort to escape the responsibility to apply this 'most important commandment'? dude, you are a dumb@ss. get a life
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 6, 2006 18:14:55 GMT -5
But, bowhunter, how do you know God is clear in his word on these topics unless you also have interpreted what it says about them? Do you claim to have no agenda? Re-read my post without trying to find an agenda,please-I am merelyexpressing my opinion,just as you and others are. Yes, I like others,have interpreted Gods Word,using the best translation available to me and the H.S.'s guidance. It is clear to me and makes sense to me and I am comfortable with what I know and understand about the topic we are discussing. Yes I have no agenda:) Too bad others are so easily ruffled to the point of self defense,isn't it?My original post wasn't a response to you,mrleo, but to the originator! A forum is an interesting beast,is it not?
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 6, 2006 18:20:11 GMT -5
The Bible seems to treated like our Constitution-Those who have an agenda find a way to interpret the words to support their argument and discredit those who oppose the agenda.Usually these folks want to change what has been written so that their opinion or actions are 'justified' or accepted by society. Those trying to take it word for word and with the originators intent and context in mind are challenged by the former group who usually either claims the context and intent are unclear,out of date or'misinterpreted',or just plain unfair. In the case of the Constitution,we have ways to ammend and make changes-many times for the better,sometimes not. In the case of the Bible,God's Word cannot be changed or ammended by anyone,but we all have the option to challenge,interpret or disregard what he has said. In both cases sometimes it is at our own cost and there are rewards for good decisions and consequences for bad decisions. God has warned us not to change his Word and has promised that He is not mocked-we will reap what we sow,in this life and eternity.He has given us His Holy Spirit to guide and a free will to obey Him or not. For some,the Bible and the Constitution are "living documents" that can be manipulated for their own desires and purposes. I believe God was clear in His Word and has clearly stated His opinion on the topics that are being discussed on this thread. He has not communicated a change of policy Are there exemptions from 'loving thy neighbor as thyself'? (For example if it happens to be two men living together in the same house)? Or should a person shift into 'self-righteous gear' and do research on their intimate relationship in a frantic effort to escape the responsibility to apply this 'most important commandment'? No,I don't see any exception to the Great commandment,Edgar. Where did I address escaping this responsibility?Where did I demonstrate an un loving attitude?Hopefully there is no angst in my post! I like the notion that it is a responsiblity to love others.I see other responsibilities besides love. What about our responsibility to live a Christ like life in other ways-for example reminding fellow Christians what God has said on topics other than love ie:morality issues?Being steadfast in faith?Keeping ourselves unspotted from the world?
|
|
|
Post by mary beth on Jul 6, 2006 18:25:15 GMT -5
Then God spoke all these words: saying: (2)"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: ”I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) For six days you shall labour and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (12) Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (17) You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. Exodus 20:1-17
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 6, 2006 18:54:22 GMT -5
Physician, heal thyself. I read and re-read the original post in this thread, and I didn't/don't conclude that the writer has a self-interested agenda or is looking for self-justification. Looks to me like a thoughtful person who is probably as interested in studying the Bible as carefully as you do and who left the question open for discussion. When I read your post about those who interpret the Bible/Constitution with an agenda, it seemed you were talking about people other than yourself...or people who have a different view than your own, so I didn't take what you said personally, but I felt it was worth responding to for the purpose of pointing out that we all have an agenda. I suppose it is too bad that people get easily ruffled about certain topics, especially if it prevents them from having a good discussion, but as you said--this forum is an interesting beast. It has a way of exposing our tender spots.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 6, 2006 19:07:55 GMT -5
Physician, heal thyself. I read and re-read the original post in this thread, and I didn't/don't conclude that the writer has a self-interested agenda or is looking for self-justification. Looks to me like a thoughtful person who is probably as interested in studying the Bible as carefully as you do and who left the question open for discussion. When I read your post about those who interpret the Bible/Constitution with an agenda, it seemed you were talking about people other than yourself...or people who have a different view than your own, so I didn't take what you said personally, but I felt it was worth responding to for the purpose of pointing out that we all have an agenda. I suppose it is too bad that people get easily ruffled about certain topics, especially if it prevents them from having a good discussion, but as you said--this forum is an interesting beast. It has a way of exposing our tender spots. Thanks for understanding the context of my post-guess I mis understood your reply! I value a lively,civil debate(as you know from the worldly board;) so I was hoping for some feedback on my analogy-I will wait and watch.
|
|