Split from "Question to Christians on homosexual Christians and the fate of their 'soul''

[Todd Hardy]

The Mod Team considers that Todd holds to the Heresy of Universalism and, as such, may not post in Christianity 201. I'm going to split off all related posts into Unorthodox Theology. Note: As the OP was addressed to Christians (i.e 'orthodox' Christians) and concerns the question of Salvation, comments made by Universalists must needs be viewed in context that they consider that "Hey, everyone's going to be saved, it doesn't really matter what they believe or how they live".

I'm going to get a lot of flack for this; especially being new but here goes...

If the guy is saved, it doesn't matter if he's having sex with another guy or the horse - he's saved. Period.

Your Dad doesn't make a up a list of rules and then says to you "if you follow these rules, THEN I will love you." He says, "I love you and would like for you to follow these rules."

-Todd

[RBerman]

If the guy is saved, it doesn't matter if he's having sex with another guy or the horse - he's saved. Period. Your Dad doesn't make a up a list of rules and then says to you "if you follow these rules, THEN I will love you." He says, "I love you and would like for you to follow these rules."
While that's true, the Bible says a lot (Matthew 25, John 15, the whole books of 1 John and James, to name a few places) about looking at the fruit of your life (aka behavior) to discover whether or not you should have any confidence that you are a child of God. If you're not, then the whole love thing is moot.

[Little Shepherd]

Not to mention being unsaved is not the same as being unloved. Your dad might say "You broke the rules, but I still love you," but he's also going to say "You broke the rules, and I'm going to punish you." :shrug:

[Todd Hardy]

Good points and I agree completely.

I also think the homosexuals, even while participating in an unnatural behavior, are children of God and saved, if they are Christians.

[RBerman]

I also think the homosexuals, even while participating in an unnatural behavior, are children of God and saved, if they are Christians.
Who can argue whether Christians are children of God and are saved? That's true by definition. But our question is whether someone whose life is characterized by unrepentant sin of any sort (whether homosexuality or laziness or bitterness or gossip etc.) should consider himself a Christian in the first place.

[Todd Hardy]

"Mark" is a Christian and a philanthropist. They both are. He is very knowledgeable of the NT and quite honestly, one of the nicest and most compassionate souls I've ever met. He loves Christ and is very vocal about it.

I was basing the being a Christian and being saved on the above quote. And I think it was JC, Himself, that said in loving God and loving your neighbor you were keeping all the commandments or fulfilling all the law (depending on which version you read). The Jesus I know isn't sending anyone to Hell just for being a homosexual, repentant of that fact or not.

[Little Shepherd]

I was basing the being a Christian and being saved on the above quote. And I think it was JC, Himself, that said in loving God and loving your neighbor you were keeping all the commandments or fulfilling all the law (depending on which version you read).
That's not what it says. It says those are the two greatest commandments, and that all other commandments hang on those two. As in, the other commandments are specifications on just how you are to go about loving God and neighbors.
The Jesus I know isn't sending anyone to Hell just for being a homosexual, repentant of that fact or not.
Nobody said He was. Not to mention there's nothing to repent of in merely being homosexual. It's acts, not inclinations, we are to repent of.

[RBerman]

I was basing the being a Christian and being saved on the above quote. And I think it was JC, Himself, that said in loving God and loving your neighbor you were keeping all the commandments or fulfilling all the law (depending on which version you read). The Jesus I know isn't sending anyone to Hell just for being a homosexual, repentant of that fact or not.
I hope the Jesus you know also said "If you love me, keep my commandments." Because that's the Jesus of the Bible, the one who said that if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off to avoid hellfire. As far as the "Two Great Commandments," Jesus wasn't making up something new; He was quoting part of the OT Law, the rest of which contained mountains of case examples to help you see what it looks like to love your neighbor and love God. The laws against homosexuality are part of that case law.

[Todd Hardy]

Ah, you made me actually work. :p It was Paul who said what I was thinking of. Romans 13:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:10;&version=31;), love is the fulfillment of the law.

And let me rephrase my last statement; The Jesus I know isn't sending anyone to Hell just for actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle while unrepentant of said lifestyle.

I'm familiar with the cut off your hand passage as well. He also said it would be easier to put a camel through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into Heaven (He has a sense of humor; I love it). As we all know, Jesus spoke in parables so they we could interpret what he was saying for ourselves.

[Little Shepherd]

Ah, you made me actually work. :p It was Paul who said what I was thinking of. Romans 13:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:10;&version=31;), love is the fulfillment of the law.
That all well and good, but a couple questions for your own benefit. First, which specific Greek word is it that was translated as "love" in those verses? Second, what nuances are contained in that Greek word that aren't fully conveyed by the catch-all word "love," especially when viewed from a modern English speaker's perspective? Hint: English translations of the Bible translate no fewer than 3 different Greek words as "love," and the differences between those Greek words is very important.
And let me rephrase my last statement; The Jesus I know isn't sending anyone to Hell just for actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle while unrepentant of said lifestyle.
He's willing to send people to hell for unrepentant sin -- we know this is true -- but . . . this one gets a special exception? Um, why exactly?
I'm familiar with the cut off your hand passage as well. He also said it would be easier to put a camel through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into Heaven (He has a sense of humor; I love it). As we all know, Jesus spoke in parables so they we could interpret what he was saying for ourselves.
That's actually not why He spoke in parables at all. He spoke in parables because stories are easy to remember, but each of His stories had a definite and understood(by the audience at the time) message. We may have to do a little research into ANE culture, especially that of first-century Israel, in order to fully grasp the meaning of a parable for ourselves, but you don't just get to choose the meaning for yourself. That's not how it works if you're being honest about your studies.

[RBerman]

Ah, you made me actually work. :p It was Paul who said what I was thinking of. Romans 13:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:10;&version=31;), love is the fulfillment of the law.

And let me rephrase my last statement; The Jesus I know isn't sending anyone to Hell just for actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle while unrepentant of said lifestyle.

I'm familiar with the cut off your hand passage as well. He also said it would be easier to put a camel through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into Heaven (He has a sense of humor; I love it). As we all know, Jesus spoke in parables so they we could interpret what he was saying for ourselves.
Jesus spoke in parables so that he could speak, publicly while being understood only by his disciples. It wasn't so that we can make up our own interpretations of what he meant.
33With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

It's true that love fulfills the law, because if you're always acting in a loving way, then you're always doing what the law says to do. But how do you know if you're really loving? You're really loving if you're keeping both the letter and spirit of the law. If you're violating the law, you're obviously not loving in a godly way. "I think I'm being loving" is not a blanket excuse to do whatever you want, because you don't get to define "loving" for yourself. If God says "X is wrong" then X is not loving, no matter what you personally might want to be true.

[phase]

Ah, you made me actually work. :p It was Paul who said what I was thinking of. Romans 13:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:10;&version=31;), love is the fulfillment of the law.

And let me rephrase my last statement; The Jesus I know isn't sending anyone to Hell just for actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle while unrepentant of said lifestyle.

I'm familiar with the cut off your hand passage as well. He also said it would be easier to put a camel through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into Heaven (He has a sense of humor; I love it). As we all know, Jesus spoke in parables so they we could interpret what he was saying for ourselves.

Is not the eye of the needle a small door that was left open after dark when the main city gates were closed. A rich man would have to unload the camel, get the camel on his knees to walk threw the gate, and then carry everything inside to repack the camels' load. That's a lot of hard work, but not impossible.

[Todd Hardy]

That all well and good, but a couple questions for your own benefit. First, which specific Greek word is it that was translated as "love" in those verses? Second, what nuances are contained in that Greek word that aren't fully conveyed by the catch-all word "love," especially when viewed from a modern English speaker's perspective? Hint: English translations of the Bible translate no fewer than 3 different Greek words as "love," and the differences between those Greek words is very important.

Honestly, I have no clue. I cold search it out online but I would, no doubt, find numerous answers so I would (seriously) like you to inform me of your interpretation and understanding. That said, in all 20 English language translations listed on BibleGateway, the word love is used. My NIV Study Bible (still my go-to Bible) was translated "by over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts." Most all the other translations (excluding KJV) seem to have gone through a process like this as well. Therefore, I'm still going to hold to my belief that the word love is what was meant in that verse until the Lord tells me otherwise.

He's willing to send people to hell for unrepentant sin -- we know this is true -- but . . . this one gets a special exception? Um, why exactly?

No, not just this one; many. People these days think of Christianity as some sort of legalistic mantra that one must follow or otherwise be condemned to an eternal damnation of fire and brimstone. I'm saying... not so much. If I'm wrong (and I'm not arrogant enough to say that I couldn't be) then I'm going to be in Hell with a WHOLE LOT of other people who thought they were saved too! Confused yet? :p What I mean is, I can't tell you how many people (pastors, ministers, etc.) go around quoting Romans 10:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:9;&version=31;) (That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.) and then tell the people that they're saved and won't go to Hell. My point is, I believe that a person can drink, do drugs, party at the strip club, listen to Wiccan music, cuss like a sailor, get tattoos, have sex while unmarried (with multiple partners), and otherwise live in sin, and still be saved. If they have a relationship with Christ, they are saved. They can be repentant and say "Lord, I know you want me to live my life different but I keep failing; I'm sorry." I'm guessing you're saying different? But you ask why about homosexuality (and that's what this post is about) so let me address that with a direct answer. Answer 1: For the same reason I feel people can ignore Leviticus 19:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:19;&version=31;) and 1 Timothy 2:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12;&version=31;); I don't want to get into a huge debate over why I feel this way so I'll just cover it by saying the Lord leads me to feel this way. Answer 2: Because not allowing them the same freedoms as others is not loving them. Plain and simple. Hell, while we're at it, let's bring back slavery. That's Biblical too ya know. [yes, I know the indentured servant, life was better that way argument] /respectful sarcasm

That's actually not why He spoke in parables at all. He spoke in parables because stories are easy to remember, but each of His stories had a definite and understood(by the audience at the time) message. We may have to do a little research into ANE culture, especially that of first-century Israel, in order to fully grasp the meaning of a parable for ourselves, but you don't just get to choose the meaning for yourself. That's not how it works if you're being honest about your studies.

Ok, maybe not. But for the average John and Jane, that's what will happen. They will interpret the parables as they see fit. Surely God would have seen this coming and planned for it. No?



It's true that love fulfills the law, because if you're always acting in a loving way, then you're always doing what the law says to do. But how do you know if you're really loving? You're really loving if you're keeping both the letter and spirit of the law. If you're violating the law, you're obviously not loving in a godly way. "I think I'm being loving" is not a blanket excuse to do whatever you want, because you don't get to define "loving" for yourself. If God says "X is wrong" then X is not loving, no matter what you personally might want to be true.

I agree completely. The Lord leads me to feel the way I do. Therefore it is not me that is defining, it is He.



And phase, I've heard that story before. Research has shown it to be just that though, a story. No validity. Have a look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHLlHLhinPA). Go 8 minutes and 45 seconds into the video to get you right to the point we're discussing.

-Todd

[phase]

And phase, I've heard that story before. Research has shown it to be just that though, a story. No validity. Have a look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHLlHLhinPA). Go 8 minutes and 45 seconds into the video to get you right to the point we're discussing.

-Todd

After using an Interlinear Translating program and following a dozen or so web treads, came up with;
Camel, Camel rope, Anchor rope with the concept originating in the blah blah blah. Why could it not just be left with the love of money being evil? Am so,(insert primal roar), so disgusted with erroneous extras. A correct foundation with a questionable house is not a thrilling experience.

[Todd Hardy]

I'm with ya man.

[RBerman]

The Lord leads me to feel the way I do. Therefore it is not me that is defining, it is He.
I think you have confused the Lord with some other influence, since the Lord never leads people contrary to his revealed Word. "God told me to ignore the Bible" is about the most ignorant thing a professing Christian can say. Repent.

[Todd Hardy]

No, not confused but I appreciate the concern. And yes, somebody making that statement would seem ignorant; glad I didn't do that! But no worries, I know you're trying to be cute with your post by your one word closing sentence. It was kind of funny though; I chuckled. :pray: :tongue:

[RBerman]

Was that you, dodging the point I was making? I think so. Let's review:

You: God would not damn someone for being homosexual.
Me: According to the Bible, God damns all unrepentant sinners, and homosexuality is a sin.
You: Love is always permissible.
Me: OK, but the Bible defines what true love is and is not.
You: God told me what true love is.
Me: God would not tell you something different than the Bible does.
You: (Insert irrelevant joke)

[Todd Hardy]

No, I was absolutely not dodging you. However, you're playing semantics.

I'm saying that according to the Bible homosexuality is not a sin.

By the way, who told you the Bible was the only way to know what God says and that your interpretation of that Bible was the only view permissible?

That is the very definition of arrogance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance).

Next?

[phase]

I'm with ya man.

Thanks. This irritation is not with the Christian faith but rather that with misinformed instructors.

Concerning the origins of this post, a homosexual who gets saved will repent and struggle for the remainder of their days not to yield to their impulse and do everything they can to live correctly.

[RBerman]

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. How do you understand these passages:

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Even gay rights activists are generally honest enough to admit that these passages forbid homosexual behavior, even though those same people don't accept the Bible as a rule for their lives.

[quote=Todd]By the way, who told you the Bible was the only way to know what God says and that your interpretation of that Bible was the only view permissible?
If God says X in the Bible, then anyone who says "God said (not X)" is mistaken at best. God does not contradict himself. Satan is the one who says, "Oh, did God really say....?"

[Todd Hardy]

Sure, I'll play.

Romans: Pertaining to those who aren't worshiping God.

Corinthians: Pertaining to the unrighteous.

Timothy: Says the law isn't for the righteous.

Leviticus: Seriously?

Also, man wrote the Bible. The Holy Spirit talks to us.


Now, will you pay me the same respects? I mentioned Timothy and Leviticus in my previous post yet you seemed to have skipped over that. Please revisit. Ever worn a poly/cotton blend? Repent.


And one last question; Do you think that Jesus will deny a (practicing) homosexual entry into Heaven if he spent his life otherwise as a Christian in a committed relationship with another Christian homosexual? <<<------ ONE word answer, YES or NO

[Little Shepherd]

Honestly, I have no clue. I cold search it out online but I would, no doubt, find numerous answers so I would (seriously) like you to inform me of your interpretation and understanding.
The word translated as love in that verse you quoted is agape. Agape is treating people correctly, and it takes situational and relational factors into account. You love your wife differently than you love your neighbor. And for a more extreme example, you can actually kill someone in self defense or defense of others without violating agape. The situation dictates what action is the most loving of the options present.
That said, in all 20 English language translations listed on BibleGateway, the word love is used . . . . Therefore, I'm still going to hold to my belief that the word love is what was meant in that verse until the Lord tells me otherwise.
I never said that translating it as "love" was wrong. I said that the English word "love" is the only word for love we have, and it doesn't by itself convey certain nuances that are present in the various Greek words for love. For example:
Eros - erotic/romantic love.
Philia - friendly/brotherly love.
Storge - generally familial love.
Thelema - strong desire, occasionally used interchangeably with eros but it can cover a broader range of desire than eros.
Agape - I don't know a single adjective that conveys the nuance of agape, but I described it above so it should be clear. I might just call it relational/situational love.
No, not just this one; many. People these days think of Christianity as some sort of legalistic mantra that one must follow or otherwise be condemned to an eternal damnation of fire and brimstone. I'm saying... not so much.
Well, there are certain basic facts about Christianity that cannot be ignored. And there's the words of Jesus Himself on the importance of faith and repentance. Faith is translated from another important word, pistis. It's not so much belief . . . well, it would be more accurate to say that it's not merely belief. Rather, it is loyalty pledged to a patron because of a belief in that patron's promises based on past performance and evidence.
If I'm wrong (and I'm not arrogant enough to say that I couldn't be) then I'm going to be in Hell with a WHOLE LOT of other people who thought they were saved too! Confused yet? :p What I mean is, I can't tell you how many people (pastors, ministers, etc.) go around quoting Romans 10:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:9;&version=31;) (That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.) and then tell the people that they're saved and won't go to Hell.
Yes, it's a pity that the pastor doesn't go into detail on what all that belief entails. And that he chucks historical doctrines such as "perseverance of the saints" for a psychological band-aid that can easily provide false comfort in an uncommitted, unrepentant, unchanged life.
My point is, I believe that a person can drink, do drugs, party at the strip club, listen to Wiccan music, cuss like a sailor, get tattoos, have sex while unmarried (with multiple partners), and otherwise live in sin, and still be saved. If they have a relationship with Christ, they are saved.
My point is that the Bible is clear about the effects of a salvational relationship with Christ in the believer's life. While abstaining from bad works and doing good works are not responsible for salvation, progression in both is an expected, Biblically-guaranteed result of salvation. One may not be perfect, but will get better in this regard once saved throughout his lifetime, and will not wholeheartedly embrace and make excuses for things the Bible clearly states is wrong.
They can be repentant and say "Lord, I know you want me to live my life different but I keep failing; I'm sorry." I'm guessing you're saying different?
Saying you're sorry isn't repentance. You may not be perfect in a certain regard, but if you are truly repentant you will put forth some effort to not do what you know is wrong. Yes, you may fail, but you will try. The OP isn't about this situation anyway -- it is clearly about someone who has wholly embraced a homosexual lifestyle and shows no signs of repentance.
But you ask why about homosexuality (and that's what this post is about) so let me address that with a direct answer. Answer 1: For the same reason I feel people can ignore Leviticus 19:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:19;&version=31;) and 1 Timothy 2:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:12;&version=31;);
This just shows that you haven't studied Old Testament law very much. The Old Testament contains various types of laws. The ones you linked to are ritual laws, designed to remind Israel of certain properties of God(in the case of the animals and crops, His one-ness; I do hope you understand the importance of the Shema to Israel and to Christians to this day), and to communicate those properties to surrounding nations. A foreigner traveling in ancient Israel would have been able to understand a lot about Yahweh and how He differed from their gods by observing Israel's clothing, place of worship, diet, cleaning rituals, etc. These properties of God are actually good things for Christians to know today even if we're not required to follow the ritual practices that served as a constant reminder to Israel.

Other laws were moral in nature, and were things God expected even of foreigners who didn't have the Mosaic law. Read Leviticus 18 sometime; it's quite clear about this. Homosexual acts are mentioned in that passage, and the message is again reiterated in the New Testament in Romans 1. The Old Testament laws were written as case law for the purpose of running the nation of Israel itself; the New Testament reiterates the moral principles in a non-legal format so that Christians -- who would end up living in many nations with many different legal codes -- would know what is moral and immoral regardless of what their respective nations said.
I don't want to get into a huge debate over why I feel this way so I'll just cover it by saying the Lord leads me to feel this way.
I don't believe you. You're voicing feelings that are clearly contradictory to His written word. Scripture tells us to test everything and hold on to that which is good. And a test requires a standard, which we have -- the Bible. So when you have a feeling or inclination, you use the Bible to judge if it's in line with God's will or not. If God was giving you contradictory feelings to His Word, that would make him a liar, and I find that unacceptable.
Answer 2: Because not allowing them the same freedoms as others is not loving them. Plain and simple. Hell, while we're at it, let's bring back slavery. That's Biblical too ya know. [yes, I know the indentured servant, life was better that way argument] /respectful sarcasm
But they do have the same freedoms as others, so that point is moot. And you're right that slavery in the southern US was nothing like slavery in ancient Israel. Almost always voluntary, except for war prisoners. Lasts only 7 years, except for war prisoners. Guaranteed food and shelter. Release from slavery with a portion of your master's wealth if he mistreated you. Safe havens for runaway slaves and strict legal orders not to send them back to their masters. It was the promise of future work/payment for a hand up now -- in other words, ancient credit cards.
Ok, maybe not. But for the average John and Jane, that's what will happen. They will interpret the parables as they see fit. Surely God would have seen this coming and planned for it. No?
Considering the absolute glut of resources available to even the poorest of people nowadays, I'd say He has. If John and Jane are going to be lazy in their studies, that's not God's fault.
I agree completely. The Lord leads me to feel the way I do. Therefore it is not me that is defining, it is He.
The Lords leads me to feel the way I do, too! And on top of that, I can confirm my feelings with Scripture. They are actually in agreement. I don't get to eisegete my own desires on to Scripture. I have to exegete the meaning of the text and change my own desires and beliefs accordingly. Funny how that works.
I'm saying that according to the Bible homosexuality is not a sin.
Given the textual evidence of Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, among other passages, you have quite a burden of proof. Your say-so and feelings are not enough to overrule the evidence, sorry. You need to bring something else to the table.
By the way, who told you the Bible was the only way to know what God says and that your interpretation of that Bible was the only view permissible?

That is the very definition of arrogance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance).
Epic fail, but nice try. :wink:

See, the interpretation of the Bible that leads those such as RB and myself to believe that homosexual acts are wrong is not just our view of the Bible. We understand something you don't -- Christians do not exist in a vacuum; we have nearly 2,000 years of Christian scholarship to draw from. In addition to that, there is upwards of 1500 years of pre-Christian Jewish writings/scholarship that is also in agreement with the fact that homosexual acts are wrong. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Talmud, the Mishna, and various other extra-Biblical writings are in agreement on this.

We see the Bible, the unanimous historical beliefs on the issue, the thousands of years of scholarship on the issue, and we find it compelling and submit. You're the one putting forth an opinion that is contrary to nearly 3500 years of writings and scholarship, and you're doing it based on . . . a feeling that God led you in a manner blatantly contradictory to His written Word.

You go against the Bible itself.
You go against ancient Israel and the Church universal.
You go against the historic scholarship on the issue.

And you call us arrogant.

[Todd Hardy]

You didn't answer my last question. The yes or no, one word answer question.

And as far as Biblical proof for what I believe, Jesus said you didn't even have to believe in Him to get to Heaven. You see, your Jesus is like a Secret Service agent at the White House only letting a select few gain entry. Mine is like a greeter at Wal-Mart; letting most everyone enter except for the obvious evil ones with no good intentions.

Also, don't forget, You didn't answer my last question. The yes or no, one word answer question.

And thank you for all the other information. Some I have heard before, some I will learn more about.

[RBerman]

Sure, I'll play.

Romans: Pertaining to those who aren't worshiping God.

Corinthians: Pertaining to the unrighteous.

Timothy: Says the law isn't for the righteous.

Leviticus: Seriously?

Also, man wrote the Bible. The Holy Spirit talks to us.


Now, will you pay me the same respects? I mentioned Timothy and Leviticus in my previous post yet you seemed to have skipped over that. Please revisit. Ever worn a poly/cotton blend? Repent.


And one last question; Do you think that Jesus will deny a (practicing) homosexual entry into Heaven if he spent his life otherwise as a Christian in a committed relationship with another Christian homosexual? <<<------ ONE word answer, YES or NO
God wrote the Bible through man. Big difference. As far as your exegesis of those Scriptures, those passages are defining what it means to be unrighteous, to rebel against God, to not worship God, by giving concrete examples which include homosexuality. Again, even pro-homosexual folks have no trouble reading that as the clear meaning of the Biblical text. Why would I not be serious about Leviticus?

Your previous answer about Leviticus and 1 Timothy was just, "God told me not to take that passage seriously." How can I respond substantively to such a non-answer? If you don't accept the authority of the Bible, just say so, and we can agree to disagree on those grounds. Just don't pretend that your belief is grounded in the Bible.

As for the purity laws like Leviticus 19:19, they fall under the ceremonial heading which the NT specifically teaches has been fulfilled in the work of Christ. Peter deals with this in Acts 10-11, and the book of Hebrews discusses it at length as well. We know that the laws about homosexuality do not fall under that heading because the NT says even more against homosexuality than the OT does.

As for your last question, the answer is "Yes, such a person should not have any confidence that he will inherit eternal life, because he lives a life of unrepentant sin, despising the Savior who said, 'If you love me, keep my commands.'" What other answer could there be that would not make God a liar?

[Todd Hardy]

I think agreeing to disagree would be best.

My Biblical foundation is rooted in the Good Samaritan parable. - Go and do likewise. There is no sense delving into it any further as we will no doubt disagree.

And to answer my own question, no, such a person should have every confidence that he will inherit eternal life, because he lives a life of compassion and humility, loving the Savior who said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." [Matthew 7:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12&version=31)] What other answer could there be that would not make God a liar?

Unfortunately, it was people who believed as you that kept me away from the Lord for so long. I may not be a homosexual but I've committed pretty much every other sin in the book. Some things just didn't add for the Jesus I was taught about as a child. Then I met someone who was human and not a robot with a stiff pointer finger and a Bible. Then I learned about a relationship with Christ which is what I have now. I don't need the Bible to tell me what is right and wrong. But yeah, we'll agree to disagree. Please keep in mind that you could be losing souls for the Kingdom instead of gaining them. Talk about pissing off Jesus! Compassion. Regardless, we'll agree to disagree. I'm unsubscribing from this thread now. Thank you for your input, information, and opinions.

***If any unsaved people out there, homosexual or not, should stumble across this thread through Google or whatever and have questions about salvation and compassion, no matter how old this may be when you're reading it, feel free to go to my profile and contact me via email. Believe it or not, the Lord will accept you just the way you are.***

[Shadow Phoenix]

The Geek is right on love. Take a passage like John 21 and the dialogue between Jesus and Peter.

What's being asked?

[RBerman]

I think agreeing to disagree would be best.

My Biblical foundation is rooted in the Good Samaritan parable. - Go and do likewise. There is no sense delving into it any further as we will no doubt disagree.

And to answer my own question, no, such a person should have every confidence that he will inherit eternal life, because he lives a life of compassion and humility, loving the Savior who said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." [Matthew 7:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12&version=31)] What other answer could there be that would not make God a liar?

Unfortunately, it was people who believed as you that kept me away from the Lord for so long. I may not be a homosexual but I've committed pretty much every other sin in the book. Some things just didn't add for the Jesus I was taught about as a child. Then I met someone who was human and not a robot with a stiff pointer finger and a Bible. Then I learned about a relationship with Christ which is what I have now. I don't need the Bible to tell me what is right and wrong. But yeah, we'll agree to disagree. Please keep in mind that you could be losing souls for the Kingdom instead of gaining them. Talk about pissing off Jesus! Compassion. Regardless, we'll agree to disagree. I'm unsubscribing from this thread now. Thank you for your input, information, and opinions.

***If any unsaved people out there, homosexual or not, should stumble across this thread through Google or whatever and have questions about salvation and compassion, no matter how old this may be when you're reading it, feel free to go to my profile and contact me via email. Believe it or not, the Lord will accept you just the way you are.***
Todd, the gospel is not, "Jesus accepts you the way you are, so it's OK to stay that way." The gospel is that Jesus meets you where you are and takes you where you need to go: not just eternally, but during this life as well. If you want to endorse people wallowing in their sins, you're not saving them at all; you're losing them while assuring them that everything is fine. "I don't need the Bible to tell me right and wrong" is about the most toxic thing a person can say, because God wrote the Bible, in part, to tell us what duty he requires of man. You've cut loose your ship of morality from the means God has appointed for informing our morality. Matthew 7:12 is not an announcement that the rest of the Bible is obsolete. It's a summary of the details of the rest of the Bible. To deny the details is to deny the summary. What basis do you even have for saying who Jesus is, apart from Scripture? How do you expect people to believe in Jesus when you tell them not to trust the Book that tells us about Jesus?

[Zguy28]

And as far as Biblical proof for what I believe, Jesus said you didn't even have to believe in Him to get to Heaven. O RLY?

I'm wondering if you have ever actually read the gospels? Or maybe are just going on what somebody else told you about them.

31So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33They answered him, "We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?"

34Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

]"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me...I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me...If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Jesus is the truth. He sets you free. There can be no forgiveness of sin, no justification, sanctification, or glorification without Him.

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

You see, your Jesus is like a Secret Service agent at the White House only letting a select few gain entry. Mine is like a greeter at Wal-Mart; letting most everyone enter except for the obvious evil ones with no good intentions.Salvation is by faith, not works.

Your statements are heresy.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

To deny the details is to deny the summary. What basis do you even have for saying who Jesus is, apart from Scripture? How do you expect people to believe in Jesus when you tell them not to trust the Book that tells us about Jesus?
I did not go back and read the entire thread but I do have a question. The question is not specifically to you but rather to all. Would you prefer to be of the house of David or the house of Paul?

41And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

42And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
And Jesus was of the seed of David. Paul's lineage is another matter entirely.

Start with--->

1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

[RBerman]

I did not go back and read the entire thread but I do have a question. The question is not specifically to you but rather to all. Would you prefer to be of the house of David or the house of Paul?
Your flawed question appears to contain the assumption that there's a divide between Jesus and Paul. There isn't. If I do what Paul said, I am of the house of Jesus, in your terms. It's the same house.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Originally posted by 1 Samuel 18:1-3
1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

[Rayado]

And as far as Biblical proof for what I believe, Jesus said you didn't even have to believe in Him to get to Heaven.

:shifty: Where? I'd think if you were going to quote Him saying this, that you'd provide a reference?

[RBerman]

Originally posted by 1 Samuel 18:1-3
1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
And what do you believe this passage describes? What did it mean in ANE cultures?

[Todd Hardy]

Wow, I never said I believed in universalism, only that thought some of the views towards homosexuals in the original post seemed to go against Jesus' teachings.

It's a shame that when when one person doesn't agree that they get kicked out. And we wonder why Christians get such a bad rap these days. The moron who moderated this post is a prime example. See ya in Heaven pal!

-T
From the Forum Guidelines (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq): “Under no circumstance will a dispute with any Moderating decision or forum policy be made in the open forum. If a public dispute must be made, it must be made in the Psychotherapy Room” IOW, please don’t debate moderation in the thread

[RumTumTugger]

If you dont' believe in universalism. Care to explain what you mean by this?

Orginally posted by Todd Hardy (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2597821#post2597821)

And as far as Biblical proof for what I believe, Jesus said you didn't even have to believe in Him to get to Heaven.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Originally posted by 1 Samuel 18:1-3
1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.


And what do you believe this passage describes? What did it mean in ANE cultures?
What does it describe? Gee do you mean you don't believe the words as written? Are you going to enlighten me with a fancy interpretation? Interpret "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." for me so I can be educated. I admire ever so much having God's word explained to me by people far superior to me in knowledge and comprehension.

You asked so I'll tell you as simply as I can. Jonathan and David loved each other. It was a deep love. It was an enduring love. They made a covenant. Nowhere will you find that David rejected Jonathon's love in any way. It was love between 2 men and if it had not exceeded the concept of friendship it would have been described differently. These were both 2 young vibrant men when they fell in love. These are not words of simple affiliation or companionship. That is my understanding. What is yours?

[RBerman]

What does it describe? Gee do you mean you don't believe the words as written? Are you going to enlighten me with a fancy interpretation? Interpret "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." for me so I can be educated. I admire ever so much having God's word explained to me by people far superior to me in knowledge and comprehension.

You asked so I'll tell you as simply as I can. Jonathan and David loved each other. It was a deep love. It was an enduring love. They made a covenant. Nowhere will you find that David rejected Jonathon's love in any way. It was love between 2 men and if it had not exceeded the concept of friendship it would have been described differently. These were both 2 young vibrant men when they fell in love. These are not words of simple affiliation or companionship. That is my understanding. What is yours?
Well, yes, David loved Jonathan deeply, but not in a way relevant to a thread about homosexuality. "David loved Jonathan" and "David fell in love with Jonathan" are not the same thing. In 20th-21st Century Western culture, "fell in love with" means romantic attachment. That's not the only kind of love, of course, even among people who aren't related by blood or marriage. Anyone who's been on a sports team, or in the army, or in a travelling theater troupe can testify to the intense but non-sexual relationship between what used to be called "brothers in arms." It's a sad commentary on modern society that this concept has been lost, so that when people see Sam gently cradling Frodo's head on the slopes of Mount Doom, the only category they can use to identify this scene is "gay hobbits." We've lost something really important about male-male relationships in our sex-saturated culture, and your post is an example of the problem.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I knew you would be able to spin it. Yes two young men pledging undying love and making a covenant between them is certainly very sportsmen like.

[RBerman]

I knew you would be able to spin it. Yes two young men pledging undying love and making a covenant between them is certainly very sportsmen like.
You need to do some more reading about the Ancient Near Eastern culture.

[Tercel]

Rberman, Geek Eclectic,

Since you guys are interested in serious study of the bible in it’s original language and ANE context, I’ll explain why I don’t think the bible has anything to say against homosexuality.

Fundamental to ANE societies was honor and shame. Honor related to men – women did not count. In particular, honor was tied to the male sex organs – an eunuch, like a women, was deemed to be outside the honor system. Woman of course, by their behaviour could affect the honor of the man responsible for them. Thus, for example if a man could commit adultery with another man’s wife he would be taking what belonged to that man, proving himself a strong and powerful man capable of using what belonged to others, and thereby gaining honor while the other lost it. The way to most completely dishonour another man however was considered to be penetrating him with the male sex organ, thereby treating him sexually as if he were a woman. Such an act struck at the very maleness and essence of the honor of the other party, and was considered to dishonour him completely and feminise him. The Egyptian tale of the gods Seth and Horus depicts each trying to gain mastery over the other in this manner. A far more brutal use of this idea was the use to which many ANE armies put it: Captured soldiers were anally raped to be feminised – it was widely believed that a man was incapable of being a soldier or a king (ie to give orders to other men) once he had had his honor stolen in this regard. In the ANE, of course, manliness was a quality prized beyond almost any other. The war-like environment meant that a culture of enduring hardship pain and suffering while fighting bravely meant that ‘manly’ traits were a good thing. In Arab countries today that still hold to honor and shame cultures, it is common to find men who admit to having penetrated another man in sexual intercourse, but no one admits to having been themselves penetrated since that would be shameful. Such views seem to pervade all honor-shame cultures – even the Vikings held identical views. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayvik.html) The concern that a penetrative homosexual act was a stealing of honor and a feminizing one of the participants pervades ANE concerns. It is often paired with adultery - the stealing of a man’s honor by penetrating his woman. The story of the Levite in Judges is illustrative – the men of the town attempt to steal his honor by raping him, but settle for stealing it by raping and killing his woman instead. The first century Jewish writer Philo when commenting on the Levitical law, says the reason the men deserve stoning for homosexual penetration is that the man has been feminized, and that manliness is important enough to defend with capital punishment. Such interpretations and understandings were typical – the concern with homosexuality was always that it was a stealing of honor by rape which feminized the man and destroyed his manliness.

Given that ANE background, what does the bible have to say on the issue? Leviticus says that a man is not to have sex with a man as a woman. The strange phrasing Leviticus uses to speak of lying with a man as a woman has confused many commentators, but is quite clear once we understand the ANE background: Leviticus is forbidding the common ANE practice of feminizing men by anal rape to steal honor. In 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:8 Paul condemns a behaviour he calls arsenokoites – a survey of the context of surviving instances of this word is instructive: It appears in a list of economic crimes such as stealing; It is contrasted with adultery (male-female) as male-male adultery. All the evidence of usage is completely consistent with it meaning the ANE male-rape honor-stealing practice, and furthermore no other single meaning can explain all the surviving usages of the word. It is not surprising Paul had to deal with this sort of behaviour from the Corinthians – for it was typical of the young men to attempt to out-do one another in seeking honour so Paul places great emphasis throughout the letter on treating fellow Christians with love and not seeking honor for oneself at the expense of others.

Romans 1 again confirms such an interpretation. The dialogue in Romans 1 describes humans dishonouring God. In an honor society God is thereby socially obligated to respond publicly to fix the damage done to his honor by taking honor back from those who have stolen it (ie ‘wrath’). Romans 1 explains that God does this by letting people dishonour themselves. God lets them behave in self-dishonoring behaviours, one of the greatest of which is mentioned to be male homosexual sex. Given ANE culture, it is unsurprising to see this, one of the worst possible destruction of male honor, listed as one of the things that God lets men do to dishonour themselves. Also, I would argue that Romans is written in a dialogue format, with discussions occurring between Paul and a Jew. The discussion begins in 1:18-32 with the Jew setting forth their position with a paraphrase from Wisdom of Solomon 12-14. Paul responds to that Jewish position, rejecting its too-eager condemnation of gentiles, in Romans 2. Thus Paul’s opponent is the one making the remarks about homosexuality being dishonourable, not Paul. (Of course, that is merely my view as a scholar of Paul and Romans, others disagree)

We are left then, to interpret what this means for us today. I think it can be safely asserted that ancient views of honor and shame are entirely independent of what we today would call morality. Just because ANE cultures saw a behaviour as un-manly or feminine has no bearing on whether we should regard it as moral. We can all agree, I am sure, with the idea that to rape men is wrong and that to attempt to gain dominance over others or to take from others what is rightfully theirs is wrong. The biblical texts would seem however to have no bearing on today’s issues of committed and equal homosexual relationships.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

You need to do some more reading about the Ancient Near Eastern culture.I find that very interesting. It provides me with insight into your perception of understanding. Evidently you believe understanding can come from reading. It can not. Knowledge is not understanding. Knowledge is the accumulation and assimilation of information from which conclusions (often wrong) can be drawn. Understanding is experiential. If knowledge alone were sufficient then why would God incarnate? Why would Jesus walk this earth in human body? What beyond knowing all things was necessary to fulfill the law? I know I am probably expressing this poorly but I am trying to focus on understanding which is from experience as opposed to academic or even encyclopedic information accumulation. Read? Sure I have read a lot. But have you lived in and around that which you condemn? Lets take a very simple example. You probably "know" a great deal about long haul trucking. You could probably tell me within reasonable accuracy how big an eighteen wheeler is and what kind of mileage it gets from a gallon of diesel. I'm sure what you do not already know would be obtainable from reading. But you would still have no real understanding of the life and reality of a long haul trucker. If you do not comprehend what I am saying go ahead and assemble your facts and information then go to a truck stop at 3 or 4 in the morning and sit down with a long haul trucker and see if you can get him to accept your knowledge as understanding.

We - yes we as in you and I - err when we think we understand something through knowledge of the subject. It is a very human mistake. Jesus points that out when he asks if his disciple can drink of the same cup. He never told his disciples to understand others but to love them. There is a huge difference. Neither you nor I have lived in an ancient near east society. For you to pontificate about what that was falls far short of knowledge. That is why we disagree on David's love for Jonathon. Neither of us was there. You think they were buddies. I read the words as 2 young men in love who made a sacred pledge or covenant between themselves based on that relationship. The very word covenant and the description of souls being knit together is startlingly vivid. But we shall disagree on that - probably forever.

Now let me ask you another question or several. Have you ever lived around or associated with homosexual couples? I know more than a few. Do you? Do you think your understanding might be increased on the topic with more direct experience or is your heart so hardened that you view them as something akin to lepers? Do you think Jesus would sit with and dine with a homosexual couple? Do you think Jesus would heal a homosexual couple of their terrible love for each other? Would he lay hands on them and instantly turn them into heterosexuals? Would you if you could? Or would Jesus speak rather of whoever exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted. Would he say "blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel". Maybe he would say to many of today's religious leaders "you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and uncleanness".

Go in peace and do the will of our Father. :flowers:

[Adrift]

Rberman, Geek Eclectic,

Since you guys are interested in serious study of the bible in it’s original language and ANE context, I’ll explain why I don’t think the bible has anything to say against homosexuality.

Fundamental to ANE societies was honor and shame. Honor related to men – women did not count. In particular, honor was tied to the male sex organs – an eunuch, like a women, was deemed to be outside the honor system. Woman of course, by their behaviour could affect the honor of the man responsible for them. Thus, for example if a man could commit adultery with another man’s wife he would be taking what belonged to that man, proving himself a strong and powerful man capable of using what belonged to others, and thereby gaining honor while the other lost it. The way to most completely dishonour another man however was considered to be penetrating him with the male sex organ, thereby treating him sexually as if he were a woman. Such an act struck at the very maleness and essence of the honor of the other party, and was considered to dishonour him completely and feminise him. The Egyptian tale of the gods Seth and Horus depicts each trying to gain mastery over the other in this manner. A far more brutal use of this idea was the use to which many ANE armies put it: Captured soldiers were anally raped to be feminised – it was widely believed that a man was incapable of being a soldier or a king (ie to give orders to other men) once he had had his honor stolen in this regard. In the ANE, of course, manliness was a quality prized beyond almost any other. The war-like environment meant that a culture of enduring hardship pain and suffering while fighting bravely meant that ‘manly’ traits were a good thing. In Arab countries today that still hold to honor and shame cultures, it is common to find men who admit to having penetrated another man in sexual intercourse, but no one admits to having been themselves penetrated since that would be shameful. Such views seem to pervade all honor-shame cultures – even the Vikings held identical views. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayvik.html) The concern that a penetrative homosexual act was a stealing of honor and a feminizing one of the participants pervades ANE concerns. It is often paired with adultery - the stealing of a man’s honor by penetrating his woman. The story of the Levite in Judges is illustrative – the men of the town attempt to steal his honor by raping him, but settle for stealing it by raping and killing his woman instead. The first century Jewish writer Philo when commenting on the Levitical law, says the reason the men deserve stoning for homosexual penetration is that the man has been feminized, and that manliness is important enough to defend with capital punishment. Such interpretations and understandings were typical – the concern with homosexuality was always that it was a stealing of honor by rape which feminized the man and destroyed his manliness.

Given that ANE background, what does the bible have to say on the issue? Leviticus says that a man is not to have sex with a man as a woman. The strange phrasing Leviticus uses to speak of lying with a man as a woman has confused many commentators, but is quite clear once we understand the ANE background: Leviticus is forbidding the common ANE practice of feminizing men by anal rape to steal honor. In 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:8 Paul condemns a behaviour he calls arsenokoites – a survey of the context of surviving instances of this word is instructive: It appears in a list of economic crimes such as stealing; It is contrasted with adultery (male-female) as male-male adultery. All the evidence of usage is completely consistent with it meaning the ANE male-rape honor-stealing practice, and furthermore no other single meaning can explain all the surviving usages of the word. It is not surprising Paul had to deal with this sort of behaviour from the Corinthians – for it was typical of the young men to attempt to out-do one another in seeking honour so Paul places great emphasis throughout the letter on treating fellow Christians with love and not seeking honor for oneself at the expense of others.

Romans 1 again confirms such an interpretation. The dialogue in Romans 1 describes humans dishonouring God. In an honor society God is thereby socially obligated to respond publicly to fix the damage done to his honor by taking honor back from those who have stolen it (ie ‘wrath’). Romans 1 explains that God does this by letting people dishonour themselves. God lets them behave in self-dishonoring behaviours, one of the greatest of which is mentioned to be male homosexual sex. Given ANE culture, it is unsurprising to see this, one of the worst possible destruction of male honor, listed as one of the things that God lets men do to dishonour themselves. Also, I would argue that Romans is written in a dialogue format, with discussions occurring between Paul and a Jew. The discussion begins in 1:18-32 with the Jew setting forth their position with a paraphrase from Wisdom of Solomon 12-14. Paul responds to that Jewish position, rejecting its too-eager condemnation of gentiles, in Romans 2. Thus Paul’s opponent is the one making the remarks about homosexuality being dishonourable, not Paul. (Of course, that is merely my view as a scholar of Paul and Romans, others disagree)

We are left then, to interpret what this means for us today. I think it can be safely asserted that ancient views of honor and shame are entirely independent of what we today would call morality. Just because ANE cultures saw a behaviour as un-manly or feminine has no bearing on whether we should regard it as moral. We can all agree, I am sure, with the idea that to rape men is wrong and that to attempt to gain dominance over others or to take from others what is rightfully theirs is wrong. The biblical texts would seem however to have no bearing on today’s issues of committed and equal homosexual relationships.

Good read. I'm sure there's some nuggets of truth there. Thankfully scripture tells us exactly why homosexuality is wrong. Paul tells us plainly, and it has little to do with robbing man's honor, but, as even you noted, with robbing God's honor.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and 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.

28And 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. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

That one section of scripture pretty much blows away your whole theory, or at least, it seems so to me. Women were doing it as well, and men were consumed with passion one for another (not just rape).

[Adrift]

I find that very interesting. It provides me with insight into your perception of understanding. Evidently you believe understanding can come from reading. It can not. Knowledge is not understanding. Knowledge is the accumulation and assimilation of information from which conclusions (often wrong) can be drawn. Understanding is experiential. If knowledge alone were sufficient then why would God incarnate? Why would Jesus walk this earth in human body? What beyond knowing all things was necessary to fulfill the law? I know I am probably expressing this poorly but I am trying to focus on understanding which is from experience as opposed to academic or even encyclopedic information accumulation. Read? Sure I have read a lot. But have you lived in and around that which you condemn? Lets take a very simple example. You probably "know" a great deal about long haul trucking. You could probably tell me within reasonable accuracy how big an eighteen wheeler is and what kind of mileage it gets from a gallon of diesel. I'm sure what you do not already know would be obtainable from reading. But you would still have no real understanding of the life and reality of a long haul trucker. If you do not comprehend what I am saying go ahead and assemble your facts and information then go to a truck stop at 3 or 4 in the morning and sit down with a long haul trucker and see if you can get him to accept your knowledge as understanding.

We - yes we as in you and I - err when we think we understand something through knowledge of the subject. It is a very human mistake. Jesus points that out when he asks if his disciple can drink of the same cup. He never told his disciples to understand others but to love them. There is a huge difference. Neither you nor I have lived in an ancient near east society. For you to pontificate about what that was falls far short of knowledge. That is why we disagree on David's love for Jonathon. Neither of us was there. You think they were buddies. I read the words as 2 young men in love who made a sacred pledge or covenant between themselves based on that relationship. The very word covenant and the description of souls being knit together is startlingly vivid. But we shall disagree on that - probably forever.

Now let me ask you another question or several. Have you ever lived around or associated with homosexual couples? I know more than a few. Do you? Do you think your understanding might be increased on the topic with more direct experience or is your heart so hardened that you view them as something akin to lepers? Do you think Jesus would sit with and dine with a homosexual couple? Do you think Jesus would heal a homosexual couple of their terrible love for each other? Would he lay hands on them and instantly turn them into heterosexuals? Would you if you could? Or would Jesus speak rather of whoever exalts himself will be humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted. Would he say "blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel". Maybe he would say to many of today's religious leaders "you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and uncleanness".

Go in peace and do the will of our Father. :flowers:

Eeset, you seem like you have a really good heart, but you sometimes have a way of using a lot of words to not really say a whole lot :lol:. Scripture tells us that God's people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. It tells us to consume his words; and Jesus says that Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Experiential knowledge is wonderful, but unless you have a standard based on truth, ultimately it doesn't matter how many experiences you've had. I personally know many gay people. I love those people. I'm related to some of those people by blood, I've even been the target of this attraction, but I also know that this attraction is unnatural and wrong. It isn't Godly. I know this because I have a standard of truth that tells me so. A few gay people I know even realize that their attractions are wrong, not natural, and not Godly. I think if there were a gospel passage about Jesus meeting a gay man or woman he would forgive them of their sin and tell them to "sin no more". But you talk as though Jesus were dead and doesn't have a say in it. Jesus is alive, and he works on the hearts of men and women who are guilty of unnatural attractions all the time. Some of those give up their lives and follow Jesus. Some don't and suffer the conflict between their will and His will for years.

[RBerman]

I find that very interesting. It provides me with insight into your perception of understanding. Evidently you believe understanding can come from reading. It can not.

Eeset, if you don't believe that you can learn about ancient near eastern culture by reading about near eastern culture, then we have so little in common that further conversation is pointless. The question at hand is, "What is being described by the few verses that summarize Jonathan's and David's mutual attitude?" Your experiences with contemporary homosexuals are not relevant to this question in the slightest. But the ancient near east culture's approach to male-male relationships is extremely relevant. So go do some reading and tell me what you come up with.

[RBerman]

Tercel, I don't see a hint in the Bible that the main issue is honor when the Bible prohbits homosexuality. The phrasing of Leviticus is not strange at all. No one in all church history thought it was strange until pro-gay elements in modern society started trying to retcon the clear Biblical witness against not only bestiality and gay sex, but also sex outside of marriage, defined between man and woman.

[Tercel]

Good read. I'm sure there's some nuggets of truth there. Thankfully scripture tells us exactly why homosexuality is wrong. Paul tells us plainly, and it has little to do with robbing man's honor, but, as even you noted, with robbing God's honor. ... That one section of scripture pretty much blows away your whole theory, or at least, it seems so to me.Romans 1 frames the discussion in terms of honor and dishonor. I'll highlight honor/shame terminology in the passage:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and 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.

28And 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. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

The passage repeatedly states that the sexual practices under discussion are dishonorable ones. God avenges the failure to give him honor by letting humans dishonor their bodies. The whole passage places the sexual deviancy within a honor-shame framework.

Women were doing it as well, and men were consumed with passion one for another (not just rape).Penetrative homosexual acts are considered dishonorable in honor/shame societies regardless of whether it was a rape situation or consensual, because a man is taking the role of a woman. Similarly wild behavior on the part of a woman reflects upon the honor of her man, and badly upon herself.


I don't see a hint in the Bible that the main issue is honor when the Bible prohbits homosexualityIt is not legitimate to read the bible through the lense of modern ideas about homosexuality, rather we have to immerse ourselves in ANE culture and understand their paradigms of sex as a background to the biblical text. In ANE cultures, and in honor-shame cultures throughout history, the idea of honor was the main issue when dealing with homosexuality. This is extremely well attested from a large number of different cultures. Jewish writers such as Philo attest that honor was the primary concern. The biblical examples of the Levite in Judges and the account of Sodom and Gomorrah depict attempts at homosexual rape in an honor-shame context. Romans 1 is quite clearly set within an honor/shame framework and speaks of homosexuality as a self-dishonoring act that God permits humans to engage in in order to avenge the honor they denied him. Once we have recognised how the ANE world universally understood homosexuality, we can attempt to understand the biblical text against that background.

The phrasing of Leviticus is not strange at all.I do not know Hebrew, but I have read many scholars who comment that the phrasing is a bit unusual. The particular way it is phrased about a male in a woman's place I find to be evocative of the overarching cultural background of the feminization of men caused by the taking of a woman's role through sexual penetration.

No one in all church history thought it was strange until pro-gay elements in modern society started trying to retcon the clear Biblical witness against not only bestiality and gay sex, but also sex outside of marriage, defined between man and woman.I am a scholar of church history myself, but I can do no better than quote the more-famous-than-me historian Henry Chadwick on the subject: "the thinkers church historians write about are neither as logical, as truthful or as edifying in their morals as the devout usually expect." Most people in church history were pretty stupid - they were certainly not in any position to do any detailed analysis of homosexuality in the bible as understood against the ANE cultural background. However, while the church may have officially maintained an anti-homosexual doctrine, it seems to have been generally ignored by all for most of church history. Certainly, plenty of surviving documents indicate uncensured occurances of homosexual practice. Historical analysis seems to reveal that it was only around the end of the 19th century that serious attempts at prohibiting homosexuality were undertaken.

I am highly skeptical of your claim that the bible has strong things to say about "sex outside of marriage, defined between a man and a woman". Marriage is very much a cultural construct, as anyone who has studied different cultures is well aware. Throughout the bible, concepts of marriage change dramatically, reflecting changes in the culture that occurred over the millennia. In the earliest biblical cultures, a man has sex with an unmarried virgin, and she is then his wife. While in later ones marriages were arranged by families far far in advance and so the two were officially pledged long before the marriage ceremony, meaning that sex in advance of the actual ceremony was not particularly worrisome. To attempt to defend the modern cultural construct of marriage as biblically endorsed strikes me as pretty much reading modern culture straight into the bible. The bible certainly has nothing to say on the subject of 'sex before marriage'. I'm sure strong biblical cases could be made regarding the importance of love and commitment. But the modern cultural construct of marriage itself? I think not.

[Adrift]

Romans 1 frames the discussion in terms of honor and dishonor. I'll highlight honor/shame terminology in the passage:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and 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.

28And 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. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

The passage repeatedly states that the sexual practices under discussion are dishonorable ones. God avenges the failure to give him honor by letting humans dishonor their bodies. The whole passage places the sexual deviancy within a honor-shame framework.

Those who were committing these acts didn't think their actions were dishonorable, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools... The acts were dishonorable because they were unnatural and because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie.

Penetrative homosexual acts are considered dishonorable in honor/shame societies regardless of whether it was a rape situation or consensual, because a man is taking the role of a woman.

It apparently wasn't considered dishonorable in all ANE cultures if some practiced it without compunction. These are exactly the people that Paul is referring to. Unless you want to take this further and say that the same people Paul is referring to thought idolatry was dishonorable but practiced it anyways. Of course the Jewish honor/shame culture that Paul was a part of thought it was dishonorable. We don't have to guess why it was dishonorable to the Jews, we know: Mark 10:6 "From the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh."

Similarly wild behavior on the part of a woman reflects upon the honor of her man, and badly upon herself.

I'm not buying it. Paul compares two forms of sexual perversion, both concerning homosexuality, and calls it unnatural. Its obvious, based on the context, that those who are committing these acts do not find these things dishonorable even if Paul's culture does. I don't doubt that feminizing another man played some factor in why Paul's culture thought homosexuality was dishonorable, but that's reading more into the text than what the text offers and doesn't paint a full picture.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I agree. We share little. I say to you that 2 women went shopping an the first had wealth and bought whatever satisfied her worldly needs. The second bought nothing for she had little money. While the second woman was working in a second hand store serving the poor the perfect dress arrived clean and still bearing its original store tags. The manager gave it to her for it fit perfectly and he also gave her free tickets to the charity ball. When she arrived at the ball a hush fell over the room as she entered unobtrusively. The first woman who was also there snidely whispered in the ear of a companion that she had given that dress away because it didn't suit her fancy.

Let those with ears hear and those with eyes see.

[Hamster]

Paul seems to be talking about specific people in this passage. He says that the reason they are performing these acts is because:

"they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things"

In other words, they were participating in the idolatry and cultic worship surrounding the church.

In his time and place it was tradition for people to perform homosexual acts as part of their worship. This includes men living as women to represent the goddess. IIRC priestesses would also penetrate males.

This seems like a different thing than what we refer to as "homosexuals" today. We know that homosexuality isn't caused by idolatry and we know that it's caused by biological factors (in many if not most cases)

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Eeset, you seem like you have a really good heart, but you sometimes have a way of using a lot of words to not really say a whole lot :lol:.

.....words removed here to focus on what remains, Eeset....

But you talk as though Jesus were dead and doesn't have a say in it. Jesus is alive, and he works on the hearts of men and women who are guilty of unnatural attractions all the time. Some of those give up their lives and follow Jesus. Some don't and suffer the conflict between their will and His will for years.

Adrift Jesus is alive. He will actually speak in human voice when the harvest is ripened in a person. Until the will of the Father is being done the harvest is not ripe. A heart divided between love and hate is diseased. Scripture applied to condemn is simply hate papered over like the pretty wrapping on a box whose hidden contents reek with a horrible stench. Beware lest you undo the ribbon and find your anticipation of a splendid prize is overwhelmed by revealing the actual contents.

[RBerman]

Romans 1 frames the discussion in terms of honor and dishonor. I'll highlight honor/shame terminology in the passage...The passage repeatedly states that the sexual practices under discussion are dishonorable ones. God avenges the failure to give him honor by letting humans dishonor their bodies. The whole passage places the sexual deviancy within a honor-shame framework.
Tercel, the only honor that the Bible cares about is God's honor, as your passages from Romans 1 show. The Bible does not support your idea that homosexuality is wrong only when it involves shaming someone through rape. You're totally begging the question of whether homosexuality is inherently wrong.

Me: The Bible says homosexual sex is sinful.
You: The Bible says that sinful homosexual sex is siniful.
Me: Whenever the Bible talks about homosexual sex, it talks about it being sinful.
You: ...

[RBerman]

I agree. We share little. I say to you that 2 women went shopping an the first had wealth and bought whatever satisfied her worldly needs. The second bought nothing for she had little money. While the second woman was working in a second hand store serving the poor the perfect dress arrived clean and still bearing its original store tags. The manager gave it to her for it fit perfectly and he also gave her free tickets to the charity ball. When she arrived at the ball a hush fell over the room as she entered unobtrusively. The first woman who was also there snidely whispered in the ear of a companion that she had given that dress away because it didn't suit her fancy.

Let those with ears hear and those with eyes see.
I understand your parable as some sort of attempt to obliquely claim the moral high ground rather than simply admit that you're reading something into the story of David and Jonathan that isn't there, that wasn't been seen there by its ancient audience, that hasn't been seen there by centuries of Christian scholarship until our modern gay-infatuated times.

[Adrift]

Paul seems to be talking about specific people in this passage. He says that the reason they are performing these acts is because:

"they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things"

In other words, they were participating in the idolatry and cultic worship surrounding the church.

In his time and place it was tradition for people to perform homosexual acts as part of their worship. This includes men living as women to represent the goddess. IIRC priestesses would also penetrate males.

This seems like a different thing than what we refer to as "homosexuals" today. We know that homosexuality isn't caused by idolatry and we know that it's caused by biological factors (in many if not most cases)

Let's suppose for a moment that's the case Hamster (this is actually the main argument I hear when the topic comes up). what are we to make of Paul's use of the word "natural" and "nature"?

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women

[Adrift]

Adrift Jesus is alive. He will actually speak in human voice when the harvest is ripened in a person. Until the will of the Father is being done the harvest is not ripe. A heart divided between love and hate is diseased. Scripture applied to condemn is simply hate papered over like the pretty wrapping on a box whose hidden contents reek with a horrible stench. Beware lest you undo the ribbon and find your anticipation of a splendid prize is overwhelmed by revealing the actual contents.

There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and not after the flesh. If one feels condemned by scripture, then maybe that person needs to reevaluate who's will they follow.

[Hamster]

Let's suppose for a moment that's the case Hamster (this is actually the main argument I hear when the topic comes up). what are we to make of Paul's use of the word "natural" and "nature"?

For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women

Paul also uses that terminology ("natural") to discuss whether men should have long hair and women should keep their hair covered, doesn't he?

But an actual homosexual (as opposed to someone who adopts the practice for the sake of idolatry) doesn't go contrary to his or her nature. Heterosexuality would be against their nature - hence the need to get into lifelong therapy (with incredibly low success rates) to change what has come natural to them since puberty. The males and females need not be what we now know are "natural" homosexuals. You don't have to be an actual homosexual to engage in homosexual sex. An example of this would be refusing to get married and have children for the sake of idolatrous worship.

[Adrift]

Paul also uses that terminology ("natural") to discuss whether men should have long hair and women should keep their hair covered, doesn't he?

He does, and it makes for a good biblical argument against TG. Also note verse 16 on the subject.

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Thomas Schreiner has a wonderful essay on this subject (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter5.html).


What is the meaning of the word nature (physis) here? Is Paul simply saying that human tradition and customs have made a distinction between the hair length of men and women? The use of the word practice (sunetheia) in 11:16 could support this interpretation. But Paul's use of nature elsewhere and the use of teach suggest that he is referring to the natural and instinctive sense of right and wrong that God has planted in us, especially with respect to sexuality. This sense of what is appropriate or fitting has been implanted in human beings from creation. Romans 1:26-27 is an illuminating parallel because the same word is used. Women and men involved in a homosexual relationship have exchanged the natural function of sexuality for what is contrary to nature, i.e., they have violated the God-given created order and natural instinct, and therefore are engaging in sexual relations with others of the same sex.

Nature teaches, then, in the sense that the natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine. So, too, females have a natural inclination to dress like women rather than men. Paul's point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated-what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture

But an actual homosexual (as opposed to someone who adopts the practice for the sake of idolatry) doesn't go contrary to his or her nature. Heterosexuality would be against their nature - hence the need to get into lifelong therapy (with incredibly low success rates) to change what has come natural to them since puberty. The males and females need not be what we now know are "natural" homosexuals. You don't have to be an actual homosexual to engage in homosexual sex. An example of this would be refusing to get married and have children for the sake of idolatrous worship.

Again, I don't buy it. I'm sure you're familiar with the study conducted by Dr. Robert Spitzer in 2001 where he found that highly motivated individuals had the ability to reorient their sexual orientation... Regardless, as Christians we are to take every thought captive to obey Christ.

[Hamster]

I don't really think this is a good argument against "transgenderism":


Nature teaches, then, in the sense that the natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine.


This assumes anyone born with male genitalia can't have parts of their body (that that have been feminized through a combination of genetic and hormonal circumstances that differ from the average 'male.' Sometimes this is very obvious, like when a person is born with both sets of genitalia (developed or undeveloped, except in the case of "true hermaphrodites").

But sexuality and gender aren't stationed entirely in the genitalia. I don't see why it's impossible for someone to be born with male genitalia only to find that their brain resembles that of a female brain in many respects.

This would lead them, hypothetically, to feel "female" even if their genitals and other bodily traits are male. And how do you decide which part of the self is giving the "real" information about the gender? Why is the brain less important than the body?

We know that it's not a matter of behaving a certain way because you happen to have a certain set of genitalia.

There have been children that have been born with ambiguous genitals. The parents decide which gender they want to raise the child, and the "extra" genitals are removed. Years later the child finds that they simply aren't the gender that they their parents tried to raise them to be.

Gender isn't simply a matter of "look in your underwear and see what kind of genitals you have."

I think it far likelier that Paul was adressing specific practices that were going on around him and the church. Because those literally are cases of apparently heterosexual men mutilating themselves in order to live like women for the purposes of cultic worship.


I'm sure you're familiar with the study conducted by Dr. Robert Spitzer in 2001 where he found that highly motivated individuals had the ability to reorient their sexual orientation...


I'm somewhat familliar with Spitzer's work. However, he derived his percentage of "motivated homosexuals that became heterosexuals" statistic from homosexuals that were chosen by ex-gay ministries. 70% of the "successful" changes came from individuals selected by these groups.

These groups also have a weird definition of what constitutes a "cure." If you pledge to remain celibate, you are "cured." If you manage to copulate with a member of the opposite sex, you are cured. In both circumstances the homosexuality doesn't go away, it just gets supressed. At best all they add is some flexibility. But prison can do the same thing. Heterosexual men in jail can have sex with eachother under extreme duress. That doesn't make them homosexual.

Of course, that's only the small percentage of "successes." The majority of people going through these (very expensive, time-consuming) programs don't succeed.

You can say they didn't have enough faith or they didn't really want it enough, but I think that's just silly. People have hung themselves and blown their brains out when they find themselves in this situation. Unless they've been coerced (e.g. by parents if they're underage), they're investing a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of pain by going to these places.

[Adrift]

I don't really think this is a good argument against "transgenderism":



This assumes anyone born with male genitalia can't have parts of their body (that that have been feminized through a combination of genetic and hormonal circumstances that differ from the average 'male.' Sometimes this is very obvious, like when a person is born with both sets of genitalia (developed or undeveloped, except in the case of "true hermaphrodites").

But sexuality and gender aren't stationed entirely in the genitalia. I don't see why it's impossible for someone to be born with male genitalia only to find that their brain resembles that of a female brain in many respects.

This would lead them, hypothetically, to feel "female" even if their genitals and other bodily traits are male. And how do you decide which part of the self is giving the "real" information about the gender? Why is the brain less important than the body?

We know that it's not a matter of behaving a certain way because you happen to have a certain set of genitalia.

There have been children that have been born with ambiguous genitals. The parents decide which gender they want to raise the child, and the "extra" genitals are removed. Years later the child finds that they simply aren't the gender that they their parents tried to raise them to be.

Gender isn't simply a matter of "look in your underwear and see what kind of genitals you have."

I think it far likelier that Paul was adressing specific practices that were going on around him and the church. Because those literally are cases of apparently heterosexual men mutilating themselves in order to live like women for the purposes of cultic worship.

Hermaphroditism is an extremely rare physical deformity and using that as the rule to how you assess transsexualilty rather than using the foundation laid out in the scriptures doesn't seem the wisest course to me.

I'm somewhat familliar with Spitzer's work. However, he derived his percentage of "motivated homosexuals that became heterosexuals" statistic from homosexuals that were chosen by ex-gay ministries. 70% of the "successful" changes came from individuals selected by these groups.

These groups also have a weird definition of what constitutes a "cure." If you pledge to remain celibate, you are "cured." If you manage to copulate with a member of the opposite sex, you are cured. In both circumstances the homosexuality doesn't go away, it just gets supressed. At best all they add is some flexibility. But prison can do the same thing. Heterosexual men in jail can have sex with eachother under extreme duress. That doesn't make them homosexual.

Of course, that's only the small percentage of "successes." The majority of people going through these (very expensive, time-consuming) programs don't succeed.

You can say they didn't have enough faith or they didn't really want it enough, but I think that's just silly. People have hung themselves and blown their brains out when they find themselves in this situation. Unless they've been coerced (e.g. by parents if they're underage), they're investing a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of pain by going to these places.

As far as I understand, the 200 test subjects were not "chosen" by ex-gay ministries, but volunteered. Dr. Spitzer of course had to find test subjects to question and the only way to do that was to find organizations who had dealt with ex-gays. He did not use ex-gay ministries to come to the conclusions he did in his paper, but relied on questioneers given directly to the volunteers. Dr. Spitzer is not a Christian, did not work for an ex-gay ministry, and was actually one of the main proponents of having the ASA remove homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder in 1980. He really had nothing to gain from publishing his findings in a peer reviewed journal, which he was able to do 2003.

As for ex-gay ministries. I don't believe anyone needs to go through a program to start living a Christian lifestyle. There are programs out there to help. AA helps alcoholics. An eating disorder clinic may help someone from starving themselves. An ex-gay ministry may train someone to focus on Christ rather than on their sexual orientation, but none of these can make you free like Christ Jesus can. The scriptures say that we are new creations in Christ Jesus, and that we are to put off the old man. Its not a matter of "I gotta try harder, I gotta have more faith" and then desperately eeking out your existence in fear that you may be tempted at every turn, rather you should be standing tall with head raised high and recognizing that you are who God says you are. A son of God and more than a conqueror. You control your mind, your mind doesn't control you. You take your thoughts captive to Christ Jesus in obedience. And when you mess up, you get up, dust yourself off, and walk in faith. Do his will.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and not after the flesh. If one feels condemned by scripture, then maybe that person needs to reevaluate who's will they follow.
Those who condemn often seek to lay guilt on others. I follow Jesus directly as he speaks to me. You seem to confuse Paul with Jesus but perhaps I am not understanding your words. He has spoken to me as I have testified at length elsewhere on this site. I would be very pleased to read your testimony should you be willing to offer it.

[Adrift]

Those who condemn often seek to lay guilt on others.

Who do you claim is doing the condemning? Jesus, the light, has come into the world to save all those who would believe in him. If one feels exposed by the light, then they ought to asses the reason for that. It's not God's will that people perish for living in darkness, but that they repent and come into the truth.

I follow Jesus directly as he speaks to me.

Excellent. As long as he doesn't speak things to you that are contrary to what he's already spoken I see no issue.

You seem to confuse Paul with Jesus but perhaps I am not understanding your words.

Why would I confuse Paul with Jesus?

He has spoken to me as I have testified at length elsewhere on this site. I would be very pleased to read your testimony should you be willing to offer it.

I spent the first half of my life born and raised in a cult. Was humbled to find that everything I thought right was wrong. Spent a number of years frustrated, confused, and rebellious, and didn't find peace until I turned to Christ Jesus and submitted my will to his.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I spent the first half of my life born and raised in a cult. Was humbled to find that everything I thought right was wrong. Spent a number of years frustrated, confused, and rebellious, and didn't find peace until I turned to Christ Jesus and submitted my will to his.
I ind that to be wonderful. It in fact illustrates that people are not static. The path a person takes is unique. Our Father is infinite and there are no 2 paths which are identical. Jesus very clearly gave his commandment that we are to love God with all our heart, mind and soul and others as ourselves. Since there is no clause at the end which would remove any person from consideration I must accept that you do your best to love all people regardless of their faith, sexual preferences or any other attribute. And surely no matter what Paul is interpreted to have stated those words of Jesus require an obedient positive affirmation in words and deeds which flow from the heart.

Blessings to you :flowers:

[Adrift]

I ind that to be wonderful. It in fact illustrates that people are not static. The path a person takes is unique. Our Father is infinite and there are no 2 paths which are identical. Jesus very clearly gave his commandment that we are to love God with all our heart, mind and soul and others as ourselves. Since there is no clause at the end which would remove any person from consideration I must accept that you do your best to love all people regardless of their faith, sexual preferences or any other attribute.

I do. Inversely, if others claim to love God they will submit to his will regarding faith, sexual preferences, and other attributes.

And surely no matter what Paul is interpreted to have stated those words of Jesus require an obedient positive affirmation in words and deeds which flow from the heart.


Paul was commissioned personally by Jesus, and confirmed by the other Apostles. What Paul reveals in his Epistles is not his own opinion (unless plainly stated), but what the Holy Spirit has given him to say on matters of faith and doctrine.

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Blessings to you :flowers:

Blessings to you as well Eeset.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I do. Inversely, if others claim to love God they will submit to his will regarding faith, sexual preferences, and other attributes.


Paul was commissioned personally by Jesus, and confirmed by the other Apostles. What Paul reveals in his Epistles is not his own opinion (unless plainly stated), but what the Holy Spirit has given him to say on matters of faith and doctrine..

That is certainly what the new Testament states. Is it your opinion that Jesus has ended direct commissioning of people from the time of events recorded in the Bible or do you accept that he lives and others existed (were directly commissioned) and exist even today?

[Adrift]

That is certainly what the new Testament states. Is it your opinion that Jesus has ended direct commissioning of people from the time of events recorded in the Bible or do you accept that he lives and others existed (were directly commissioned) and exist even today?
I believe Jesus has revealed all he's going to reveal until his coming, and I'm watchful of those who preach another Gospel. I believe that Jesus still commissions people to spread the true Gospel.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

I believe Jesus has revealed all he's going to reveal until his coming, and I'm watchful of those who preach another Gospel. I believe that Jesus still commissions people to spread the true Gospel.
That is nice. Paul summed up things exactly as Jesus did. You will find it in Romans 13:8-10. The term Gospel is used by many in many different contexts and from many different focus points. Jesus lives. He speaks today just as vibrantly and just as vividly as he did to Paul on the road to Damascus. "Commissions"? I am not sure how you are using that word. I will tell you this...No one who has not directly spoken with Jesus can possibly provide the insight and understanding that is a precious gift of love found in directly hearing Jesus audibly. I accept and love those who seek to spread "the word" even though much of what they say falls short of love.

From my heart I wish you a wonderful day. :flowers: