• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ok... change my mind. It would be a relief.

It's asking a lot for Jesus to proactively prevent all people from giving their own interpretations of his unaddressed topics, especially the ones he never met, writing about him after his death; whether that's a canonical one from a saint, Westboro Baptist members, or users on a message board.

We're all just speculators, since he didn't openly address it.

Jesus is God, and he did address it in the Old Testament, etc.

What makes your socially conservative slant inherently more viable than its liberal counterpart?

The Word of God, as opposed to the failed doctrines of liberals.
 
It's asking a lot for Jesus to proactively prevent all people from giving their own interpretations of his unaddressed topics, especially the ones he never met, writing about him after his death; whether that's a canonical one from a saint, Westboro Baptist members, or users on a message board.

We're all just speculators, since he didn't openly address it.

Biblically, the Apostle Paul was chosen and converted by the Holy Spirit on the Damascus road, and accepted by the Apostles. That gives him a bit more authoritah than any of the other examples, right?
 
Jesus is God, and he did address it in the Old Testament, etc.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the majority of OT laws aren't considered worthy of observance.
J
The Word of God, as opposed to the failed doctrines of liberals.
:rolleyes:

I'll pass on your derailing what's been an otherwise respectful and intelligent conversation prior to your arrival
 
Biblically, the Apostle Paul was chosen and converted by the Holy Spirit on the Damascus road, and accepted by the Apostles. That gives him a bit more authoritah than any of the other examples, right?

I didn't mean to suggest that all of us are equals in regard to authority, but I believe we are equals in being speculators to a degree.
 
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the majority of OT laws aren't considered worthy of observance.

:rolleyes:

You err because you haven't studied the scriptures.

The moral laws have never changed. Adultery, thievery, idolatry, murder, gay sex, etc., are still sins in the New Testament, and still sins today.

I'll pass on your derailing what's been an otherwise respectful and intelligent conversation prior to your arrival

No derailing involved. You asked a question and I gave you an answer.
 
I didn't mean to suggest that all of us are equals in regard to authority, but I believe we are equals in being speculators to a degree.


Well, again I can't really agree that Paul is a much of a "speculator" on God's will as you or I, since he was chosen by God and was an Apostle.


I'll grant that we're all (Christians that is), at our best, trying to figure out how best to apply the Word to our lives in this modern age, and that our limited human understanding leaves us sometimes groping for the answer to "what is the right/proper/good/righteous to do in this situation?"

Some say 'if in doubt, don't'.

Some say it is better to err on the side of love, if things are otherwise unclear.


Me, I like clarity, whenever I can find it. :)
 
Well, I thought you might be on to something there. I did some research into Matthew 19 to be sure I remembered and understood it correctly.

From Thayer's Lexicon:

Yet it is widely considered that this state means the person is Celibate, and abstains from sex entirely. The Apostle Paul was noted as one such person, and he said in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

This implies the condition is one of celibacy, which would seem to exclude practicing homosexuals from eunounchos.

Then there is the matter of the first part of Matthew 19, vs 5-7, where Jesus defines marriage as between one man and one woman:

Fornication (or in the Greek, Porneia), refers to "sexual immorality" and apparently covers a lot of ground... but sex outside of marriage is generally considered fornication, and a sin.

If marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex outside of marriage is a sin, how can a homosexual have sex without it being a sin?

It seems like this line of inquiry comes to a dead end here, unless you have further thoughts on the matter I haven't yet considered.

Well, a couple things here.

First is that you're overlooking the first definition from Thayer's: the bed guard, as I mentioned. And WHY were these men trusted with the women...? Those people are not, by necessity, celibates. There is nothing in the definition saying they were. They are simply men who, for whatever reason, are trusted not to make sexual advances on women.

Second, while it is true there is no indication of permissiveness towards including homosexuals in marriage, the passage does at least beg the question of whether there was some degree of acceptance by Jesus of "natural eunuchs" -- who may have been homosexuals or asexuals. Keep in mind, Jesus was a radical for his time.

I am not the only one who thinks so. Here's a theological journal that also thinks homosexuals may have been included.

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/52578/41183

Dr. Robert Gagnon, who actually is none-the-less anti-gay, accepts this definition as well.

"Probably “born eunuchs” in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions…"

One does not come "from birth" as a religious celibate, and the natural eunuch is explicitly included.

Does this endorse expressing one's homosexuality? Well, given that there is nothing in the overarching definition of "eunuch" which indicates they are therefore celibate, it might. Jesus includes all the possible types of eunuchs, even those who may not be celibate. Jesus does talk about individual paths a fair amount, and shows a much more nuanced concept of humanity than most other writers. So this is possible.

If no bonding as one is ever possible in the first place for you as a gay person, do you still burn for not achieving the unattainable? Perhaps not. I mean, let's keep something in mind: God allowed concubines too, and people in that arrangement didn't burn because they're not married. You could be a man of God with a concubine (or 10). There is an argument that scripture allows this for exactly the same reason you gave for slavery: it was simply part of social structure at the time. If you get a pass on concubines, why is it not possible the "natural eunuch" might get one as well, according to a radical Jesus who clearly recognized the natural origins of attraction?

Evidently, not all sex outside marriage is sin. None of it is necessarily encouraged, but it is at least tolerated in some cases.

Yes, much of this is left a bit murky. Jesus evidently didn't care very much. He went to the trouble to talk about these things, but never issued any condemnation, unlike his rather sex-obsessed follower, Paul.

We do know that Jesus was likely much more accepting of it than society as a whole, Hellenistic Paul especially, and that this would be par for the course for his stances, really.

We do know some types of eunuchs were not labeled such because they were celibate, or impotent.

We do know not all sex outside marriage led to damnation.
 
The fact is Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman, and sex outside of that is immoral according to Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem and Paul .... Now one can try and criss cross and try and weasel their way out of that, but honest sound theology and biblical exegesis shows the issue clearly.

Where did he do that?? Let's look at the scripture, in context. That means, words that are attributed to him, discussing marriage. Is it just assuming man/woman, or is it directly prohibiting same gender???
 
Well, a couple things here.

First is that you're overlooking the first definition from Thayer's: the bed guard, as I mentioned. And WHY were these men trusted with the women...? Those people are not, by necessity, celibates. There is nothing in the definition saying they were. They are simply men who, for whatever reason, are trusted not to make sexual advances on women.

Second, while it is true there is no indication of permissiveness towards including homosexuals in marriage, the passage does at least beg the question of whether there was some degree of acceptance by Jesus of "natural eunuchs" -- who may have been homosexuals or asexuals. Keep in mind, Jesus was a radical for his time.

I am not the only one who thinks so. Here's a theological journal that also thinks homosexuals may have been included.

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/52578/41183

Dr. Robert Gagnon, who actually is none-the-less anti-gay, accepts this definition as well.

"Probably “born eunuchs” in the ancient world did include people homosexually inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex attractions…"

One does not come "from birth" as a religious celibate, and the natural eunuch is explicitly included.

Does this endorse expressing one's homosexuality? Well, given that there is nothing in the overarching definition of "eunuch" which indicates they are therefore celibate, it might. Jesus includes all the possible types of eunuchs, even those who may not be celibate. Jesus does talk about individual paths a fair amount, and shows a much more nuanced concept of humanity than most other writers. So this is possible.

If no bonding as one is ever possible in the first place for you as a gay person, do you still burn for not achieving the unattainable? Perhaps not. I mean, let's keep something in mind: God allowed concubines too, and people in that arrangement didn't burn because they're not married. You could be a man of God with a concubine (or 10). There is an argument that scripture allows this for exactly the same reason you gave for slavery: it was simply part of social structure at the time. If you get a pass on concubines, why is it not possible the "natural eunuch" might get one as well, according to a radical Jesus who clearly recognized the natural origins of attraction?

Evidently, not all sex outside marriage is sin. None of it is necessarily encouraged, but it is at least tolerated in some cases.

Yes, much of this is left a bit murky. Jesus evidently didn't care very much. He went to the trouble to talk about these things, but never issued any condemnation, unlike his rather sex-obsessed follower, Paul.

We do know that Jesus was likely much more accepting of it than society as a whole, Hellenistic Paul especially, and that this would be par for the course for his stances, really.

We do know some types of eunuchs were not labeled such because they were celibate, or impotent.

We do know not all sex outside marriage led to damnation.



Well that's a lot to think about and look into. It will take a while to figure out what to think or say about all that.

One thing though, from your link:
Men who eschew heterosexual marriage due to homosexual
inclinations are, of course, physically normal, without eunuchoid
aberrations, but may have been included in the group mentioned in

Matthew 19:12. However, a contemporary writer such as the Latin
author, Juvenal, distinguishes clearly in his satires between homosexual
men and eunuchs
.


That gives me pause in considering whether practicing homosexuals would be included in the category, and even if so, as you say whether this is some kind of "pass" is murky.
 
Well that's a lot to think about and look into. It will take a while to figure out what to think or say about all that.

One thing though, from your link:

That gives me pause in considering whether practicing homosexuals would be included in the category, and even if so, as you say whether this is some kind of "pass" is murky.

Well, if there's a literary purpose for doing so, it makes perfect sense. The Bible does this too. When necessary, it uses different words to specifically indicate men who are castrated, even though the umbrella of "eunuch" includes them. But they were talking specifically about only one type.

That doesn't mean castrated men are not eunuchs, does it?
 
Well, if there's a literary purpose for doing so, it makes perfect sense. The Bible does this too. When necessary, it uses different words to specifically indicate men who are castrated, even though the umbrella of "eunuch" includes them. But they were talking specifically about only one type.

That doesn't mean castrated men are not eunuchs, does it?



Goshin brain hurt now. Need nap. :mrgreen:


ICannotBrainToday-12424.jpg
 
I don't make exceptions.


Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

But do you treat those who engage in it in the same light as those who may be gay?

I don't eat blood, meat that was strangled, or meat from an animal that was sacrificed to a false idol (to my knowledge).

Do you eat....

Indian food?
Chinese food?
Sushi?
Thai?

I don't believe in divorce except for cause of fornication (matthew) or abandonment (paul), at least not in terms of being free to remarry for any other cause.

"fornication" is sex outside of marriage, no? I think you mean adultery. the bible doesn't make an exception as far as I know to divorce.



Many churches hold to the same standards.

In theory, but in practice


And it isn't just Leviticus, or I'd be ready to agree with the majority.... plenty of scripture in the NT also.


But there is plenty of scripture for alot of things you aren't supposed to do, my feeling is, why single out the gays?
 
The MORAL LAW has never passed away from Old Testament times.

Adultery, thievery, idolatry, murder, and gay sex relations, etc., were sins then (in both the Old and New Testaments) and they're still sins today.

Since the Pauline texts are the basis of the NT scripture which is used to argue that homosexuality is a sin, it is only fair to utilize ALL of the Pauline texts... including the below. The entire "covenant" was changed by the coming of Jesus. Not to say that nothing from the Old Testament was pertinent in the time of Jesus, or that some is not pertinent now. But it is clear that much of Old Testament law became unnecessary after the sacrifice of Jesus.

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. —Hebrews 7:18-19

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. — Galatians 3:23-25
 
I don't have a personal hatred of gays or homosexuality.


I have a belief that the practice of it is sinful, because the Bible says so in many different scriptures.


I've heard people try to explain why those scriptures don't really mean what they say, or don't apply to modern homosexual relationships.


I've yet to hear a sufficiently compelling argument to change my mind.... but I'm going to admit to you that if I did, it would be a RELIEF. I could say "yay gay" along with everyone else and stop drawing all the hate that flies in when I point out what the Bible says about it.


So, here's a thread for it.... lay it out. Give me a compelling dissertation on why I should disregard what the Bible, OT and NT, says about homosexual activity being a sin.

Now here's the catch.... it has to be Biblical, and theologically sound. This is about BIBLICAL truth and is a THEOLOGICAL question. Secular arguments will be disregarded. Psychology is not relevant. Biology is not relevant. Politics is not relevant.

It has to be based in Scripture and theologically sound. For instance, if someone asks me why I don't obey the OT prohibition on eating pig or shellfish, I can point to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and say "that's why; as a modern Gentile Christian I am not subject to most OT law, because God and the authority of the Apostles collectively says so."

Scriptural and theologically sound; have at it.


I'll be genuinely interested if anyone can come up with such an assertion, that will withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If you don't know the Bible quite well, I'd recommend you not even try: this is the big leagues, if you don't know what you're talking about it will be quickly pointed out.




Bear in mind this is the Religious Discussion Forum, and the rules regarding respectful discussion and no religion-bashing apply.

i have no idea what you are really asking?
if you think gay acts are a sin because of your religion i have ZERO issues with you thinking that
if you want to be told the bible doesnt judge gay acts, well it would seem it does

what do you want convinced of, you want a reason to disregard what you think the bible says? why? why does that matter?

I guess what i dont understand is, are you suggesting those things dont allow you to say "yay gay" or support equal rights? im confused please explain, maybe you answered this deep in the thread
 
But do you treat those who engage in it in the same light as those who may be gay?

If they persist in it long term without repentance, yes.


Do you eat....

Indian food?
Chinese food?
Sushi?
Thai?


Yes. To my knowledge their meats are not sacrificed to Kali, Buddha, or Charlie Chaplain prior to be served on my plate. You're taking it to mean any food prepared by a non-Christian? Wow, I never heard ANYONE take it that broadly.





"fornication" is sex outside of marriage, no? I think you mean adultery. the bible doesn't make an exception as far as I know to divorce.

Fornication, or Porneia, is the broad term for sexual sins. Adultery is a specific term for having sex with someone other than your spouse. There is an exception for divorce if one spouse commits fornication/adultery, see Matthew 19:9.











But there is plenty of scripture for alot of things you aren't supposed to do, my feeling is, why single out the gays?

-I- am not singling out anyone. I rarely ever bring the subject up.... this is probably the first thread I've started on anything to do with homosexuality in like.... ever. I started this thread in response to people (who are usually not Christians themselves) constantly telling me what a Christian ought to think/feel/say about homosexuality, to give them an opportunity to present a Scripturally sound case for why I should not regard homosexual activity as a sin.

You haven't come close yet.
 
If they persist in it long term without repentance, yes.

I know you can't speak for others, and you asked regarding youself. why a thread on this and not those who engage in pre-marital sex? specifically.


Yes. To my knowledge their meats are not sacrificed to Kali, Buddha, or Charlie Chaplain prior to be served on my plate. You're taking it to mean any food prepared by a non-Christian? Wow, I never heard ANYONE take it that broadly.


Fair point.


Fornication, or Porneia, is the broad term for sexual sins. Adultery is a specific term for having sex with someone other than your spouse. There is an exception for divorce if one spouse commits fornication/adultery, see Matthew 19:9.


But only for men:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."



-I- am not singling out anyone. I rarely ever bring the subject up.... this is probably the first thread I've started on anything to do with homosexuality in like.... ever. I started this thread in response to people (who are usually not Christians themselves) constantly telling me what a Christian ought to think/feel/say about homosexuality, to give them an opportunity to present a Scripturally sound case for why I should not regard homosexual activity as a sin.


I am not judging. Just talking here brother. My point is, that there are alot of things in scripture that can be read many ways, there are other things that are taken more seriously and literally than others.

The pre-marital sex, vs homosexuality is one of them. I have never seen any thread on those fornicating jezebels! from anyone and I think thats something you should consider. One is consider a far graver sin than the other.


What is your goal here? to accept gays as not sinners? I don't think that's possible in your beliefs and scripture. But can you honestly say you look at someone who is promiscuous as one who is gay?

if not, you have to ask yourself what is the difference and why.



You haven't come close yet.


Close to what? convincing you that homosexuality is not a sin? I think that may be an impossibility.
 
Note ALL "fornication" is as, if not more prevelantly [sic] spoken out against in the NT than homosexuality. therefore, why would any unmmarried [sic] sex not be looked at with the same Ire as homosexuality?

What makes you think it's not? Among homosexuality, fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality, and other forms of sexual immorality, what makes you think that we consider any of them to be better or worse than any others? They are all different facets of exactly the same evil.
 
What makes you think it's not? Among homosexuality, fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality, and other forms of sexual immorality, what makes you think that we consider any of them to be better or worse than any others? They are all different facets of exactly the same evil.



Easy, I haven't seen threads on adultery, fornication, promiscuity, incest, bestiality, etc.... ever.
 
Easy, I haven't seen threads on adultery, fornication, promiscuity, incest, bestiality, etc.... ever.

I would say that the reason for that is that we do not have prominent, loud movements in our culture demanding that adultery, fornication, promiscuity, incest, bestiality, etc. be accepted as normal and proper, and given equal treatment in our society and under our laws to proper marital relations between husband and wife. We don't have loud, obnoxious hangs seeking to intimate and bully anyone who dares to call these other sins for what they are, and in some cases, seeking to destroy the livelihoods of those who dare to say so.

It is not that homosexuality is any better or worse than other forms of sexual immorality; it is the belligerence with which those who adhere to this particular form of evil lash out against those who stand for decency and morality that has drawn so much attention.
 
Since the Pauline texts are the basis of the NT scripture which is used to argue that homosexuality is a sin, it is only fair to utilize ALL of the Pauline texts... including the below. The entire "covenant" was changed by the coming of Jesus. Not to say that nothing from the Old Testament was pertinent in the time of Jesus, or that some is not pertinent now. But it is clear that much of Old Testament law became unnecessary after the sacrifice of Jesus.

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. —Hebrews 7:18-19

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. — Galatians 3:23-25

The law above was spoken of as relating to salvation - that you cannot earn salvation by keeping the law. Salvation was by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).

But the fact remains that Jesus taught against adultery, murder, and other moral sins.

For AFTER Paul's epistles, Jesus is on record in the Book of Revelation (circa about 95 AD) stating:

Rev. 2:18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely

Clearly, sexual immorality remains a sin, and this is confirmed by no one less than the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, in Revelation 21 we read:

“It is done. I (Jesus) am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Clearly, sexual immorality - which includes fornication and gay sex relations - are deadly sins for which people are condemned to the Pit.
 
Easy, I haven't seen threads on adultery, fornication, promiscuity, incest, bestiality, etc.... ever.



I can't speak for anyone but me. My views on all those have been pretty consistent, joking aside, for a very long time.

As for who starts all the homosexuality threads, again I can't speak for anyone but me. This is the only one I've started in as long as I can remember.
 
The law above was spoken of as relating to salvation - that you cannot earn salvation by keeping the law. Salvation was by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).

But the fact remains that Jesus taught against adultery, murder, and other moral sins.

For AFTER Paul's epistles, Jesus is on record in the Book of Revelation (circa about 95 AD) stating:

Rev. 2:18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely

Clearly, sexual immorality remains a sin, and this is confirmed by no one less than the Lord Jesus Christ.

In addition, in Revelation 21 we read:

“It is done. I (Jesus) am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Clearly, sexual immorality - which includes fornication and gay sex relations - are deadly sins for which people are condemned to the Pit.

That's what your mama told you. And your mama's mama. Care to give evidence of the bolded above?
 
I know you can't speak for others, and you asked regarding youself. why a thread on this and not those who engage in pre-marital sex? specifically.


As I said, this is the first thread about homosexuality I've started in as long as I can remember, maybe the first ever. I can't speak for others.







But only for men:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."


In that time, only men could file for divorce as a matter of civil law.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Gentlemen.... remember where you are. Respectful discussion. Leave everybody's mama out of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom