 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5050
Location: Missouri
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 3:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
summertime, I saw Fakes post & I edited the ones in your posts they work now.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nobby wrote: | | summertime, I saw Fakes post & I edited the ones in your posts they work now. |
Thanks much. You are appreciated!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gal 3:26-29
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
To me, this clearly indicates that if you are a believer of that Jesus is the Son of God, then a marriage between two who are in love, cannot be wrong, no matter /race/status/sexual orientation
Fake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5050
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fake, show me in the bible book, chapter & verse, where it reads that it is allright for man to have sex with man or woman to have sex woman or where they should marry. It does say that man shall not lie with man, nor woman shall not lie with woman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nobby wrote: | | Fake, show me in the bible book, chapter & verse, where it reads that it is allright for man to have sex with man or woman to have sex woman or where they should marry. It does say that man shall not lie with man, nor woman shall not lie with woman. |
Nobby, the bible says you should not lie with a man as you lie with a woman. If this is true, homosexuals live up to that, as they don't lie with each other as a man and a woman do. It does not tel lyou a man should not lie with a man, only that two men shouldn't lie as a man and a woman, and as this is a biological imposibility, I can't see how the bible condemn homosexual love.
Homosexuality might be wrong to me, as I cannot imagine how it would be to be attracted to another man, but my personal opinion cannot be injected into what I read in the bible.
The bible does not shun homosexual love, nor sexual gratification between a same sex couple, as long as it's within the boundaries of love. It does speak out on sex in regard to prostitution, and call it wrong, but not on sex based on true love.
Fake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nobby wrote: | | Fake, show me in the bible book, chapter & verse, where it reads that it is allright for man to have sex with man or woman to have sex woman or where they should marry. It does say that man shall not lie with man, nor woman shall not lie with woman. |
I think this is part of the misunderstanding in regards to this and other bible topics. Especially in regards to studying an issue as it relates to the bible. People, who I am assuming are fundamentalists or bible literalists, NEED to see chapter and verse where it SPECIFICALLY says this or that. The bible does not always specifically say everything. I mean, to be fair, it does not specifically say love between to same sex persons is not permissable in a relationship. That is a conclusion that some just arrive at based on what they do see in chapter and verse. It is my belief that you are reading "man shall not lie with man, nor woman shall not lie with woman" in a context that is familiar to you and to our current culture. This verse, and all other bible texts, deal with things in their original cultural context. And how they saw things is not always the same as how we see them. Today, a man can sleep with his wife while she is on her cycle. That was not the case back then. It would also seem ludicrous to us to have a slave nowadays, but that was seemingly okay in certain bible texts. Paul even tells slaves to stay slaves if they cannot be freed and not to worry about it. It is understandable to be a slave and be at peace with your situation and have a good relationship with your owner, but the issue of slavery in general, if a non-acceptable way of life, should have been, as I see it, condemned by Paul instead of him not saying anything against it as he did against all other things he deemed unacceptable. Why do christians today oppose slavery? Why do they accept interracial marriages? They've learned some things on their spiritual walk. One of those things being that some of what was acceptable in ancient times of the bible was cultural and some of what was not acceptable was cultural as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nobby wrote: | | Fake, show me in the bible book, chapter & verse, where it reads that it is allright for man to have sex with man or woman to have sex woman or where they should marry. It does say that man shall not lie with man, nor woman shall not lie with woman. |
I think this is part of the misunderstanding in regards to this and other bible topics. Especially in regards to studying an issue as it relates to the bible. People, who I am assuming are fundamentalists or bible literalists, NEED to see chapter and verse where it SPECIFICALLY says this or that. The bible does not always specifically say everything. I mean, to be fair, it does not specifically say love between to same sex persons is not permissable in a relationship. That is a conclusion that some just arrive at based on what they do see in chapter and verse. It is my belief that you are reading "man shall not lie with man, nor woman shall not lie with woman" in a context that is familiar to you and to our current culture. This verse, and all other bible texts, deal with things in their original cultural context. And how they saw things is not always the same as how we see them. Today, a man can sleep with his wife while she is on her cycle. That was not the case back then. It would also seem ludicrous to us to have a slave nowadays, but that was seemingly okay in certain bible texts. Paul even tells slaves to stay slaves if they cannot be freed and not to worry about it. It is understandable to be a slave and be at peace with your situation and have a good relationship with your owner, but the issue of slavery in general, if a non-acceptable way of life, should have been, as I see it, condemned by Paul instead of him not saying anything against it as he did against all other things he deemed unacceptable. Why do christians today oppose slavery? Why do they accept interracial marriages? They've learned some things on their spiritual walk. One of those things being that some of what was acceptable in ancient times of the bible was cultural and some of what was not acceptable was cultural as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It appears I have repeated this post three posts down, so I've deleted its contents and kept the post below. Sorry!
Last edited by summertime on Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:59 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| summertime wrote: | | I think this is part of the misunderstanding in regards to this and other bible topics. Especially in regards to studying an issue as it relates to the bible. People, who I am assuming are fundamentalists or bible literalists, NEED to see chapter and verse where it SPECIFICALLY says this or that. The bible does not always specifically say everything. |
This may be true in some cases, but this is not exactly the case when discussing homosexuality. We are not talking about someone needing to see specific verses which say that 'same-sex, loving relationships are okay'.
What is truly happening is that the scriptures give specific verses which say homosexuality (or homosexual activity - my preferred understanding) is a sin and the liberals are trying to explain it away by their own construction of human wisdom. If scriptures say this act is a sin, then for someone to say "it isn't a sin in this context' makes little sense, therefore we ask to see specific scripture which would alter the dictate of specific scripture.
Slavery again Summertime? Why do you insist on trying to compare the two? Has it not been discussed ad nauseum?
| Fake wrote: | | Nobby, the bible says you should not lie with a man as you lie with a woman. If this is true, homosexuals live up to that, as they don't lie with each other as a man and a woman do. It does not tel lyou a man should not lie with a man, only that two men shouldn't lie as a man and a woman, and as this is a biological imposibility, I can't see how the bible condemn homosexual love. |
An incredibly thin argument fake, incredibly thin.
| Summertime wrote: | | The bible does not shun homosexual love, nor sexual gratification between a same sex couple, as long as it's within the boundaries of love. |
I will agree that the bible does not shun homosexual love, but it definitely does speak against sexual gratification between a same sex couple. You throw in as long as it's within the boundaries of love. as if it is a magic wand which makes something okay - scripturally this is not the case.
| Summertime wrote: | | It does speak out on sex in regard to prostitution, and call it wrong, but not on sex based on true love. |
So if I fall in love, true love, with a young lady, other than my wife and have sex with her - that would be scripturally acceptable? How about if I am truely in love with a goat? How about if I am not married and truely in love? Can I then have sex or would that be fornication which is specifically listed as a sin? As is adultery, and homosexuality.
You cannot, I repeat, cannot, add qualifications to scripture in an effort to make a sin unsinful. You cannot commit sin and say it is not really a sin if it is done in love. Murder a man becasue he is a threat to someone you love? You did it out of love, does that make it okay? No, murder is murder. As is homosexual activity, adultery, lying, fornication, lust, etc. etc. etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fake
Tiger
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 862
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Fake wrote: | | Nobby, the bible says you should not lie with a man as you lie with a woman. If this is true, homosexuals live up to that, as they don't lie with each other as a man and a woman do. It does not tel lyou a man should not lie with a man, only that two men shouldn't lie as a man and a woman, and as this is a biological imposibility, I can't see how the bible condemn homosexual love. |
An incredibly thin argument fake, incredibly thin. |
Nevertheless an argument.
It is, to me quite amazing that it took close to 2.000 years for most of us to discover Paul was indeed right.
No matter who you are, if you're one in Christ, (believing in Him) you're a heir according to his promise.
Fake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
fake: Nobby, the bible says you should not lie with a man as you lie with a woman. If this is true, homosexuals live up to that, as they don't lie with each other as a man and a woman do. It does not tel lyou a man should not lie with a man, only that two men shouldn't lie as a man and a woman, and as this is a biological imposibility, I can't see how the bible condemn homosexual love.
me: I see what you are trying to say here, fake, and, as a gay man, I appreciate you not using this text in Leviticus to condemn those like myself. Personally, I believe that this text Nobby referred to is talking about idolatrous practices that went on in Canaan and its surrounding areas. Chapter 18 begins with "after the doings of the land of Egypt...after the doings of the land Canaan...shall ye not do..neither shall ye walk in their ordinances..." Much of my reading has indicated that Canaan and Egypt were idol worshipping places and same sex acts were a part of those idolatrous rituals, as was hetero sex. Young males dressed as females, usually to resemble a female deity like Ashtoreth, and they would lie with the male worshippers who came to worship via sexual encounters. Fertility worshippers believed sex was a way to ensure blessings.
fake: Homosexuality might be wrong to me, as I cannot imagine how it would be to be attracted to another man, but my personal opinion cannot be injected into what I read in the bible.
me: Very good point. Some people simply have an issue with gays and it is personal. If there was no bible, they would still have an issue with it. As humans, we tend to put ourselves in the shoes of the other person (in this case, homosexuals) and imagining ourselves doing what the do causes us to feel disgusted and view it as something we could not do ourselves, so it must be wrong.
fake: The bible does not shun homosexual love, nor sexual gratification between a same sex couple, as long as it's within the boundaries of love. It does speak out on sex in regard to prostitution, and call it wrong, but not on sex based on true love.
me: Agreed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="RevJP"] | summertime wrote: | | I think this is part of the misunderstanding in regards to this and other bible topics. Especially in regards to studying an issue as it relates to the bible. People, who I am assuming are fundamentalists or bible literalists, NEED to see chapter and verse where it SPECIFICALLY says this or that. The bible does not always specifically say everything. |
rev: This may be true in some cases, but this is not exactly the case when discussing homosexuality. We are not talking about someone needing to see specific verses which say that 'same-sex, loving relationships are okay'.
me: I was addressing someone else who, indeed, wanted Fake to post chapter and verse that said it was okay.
rev: What is truly happening is that the scriptures give specific verses which say homosexuality (or homosexual activity - my preferred understanding) is a sin and the liberals are trying to explain it away by their own construction of human wisdom. If scriptures say this act is a sin, then for someone to say "it isn't a sin in this context' makes little sense, therefore we ask to see specific scripture which would alter the dictate of specific scripture.
me: Then you also must believe that women should be silent in churches and only ask questions of their husbands at home because the bible specifically says that, right?
rev: Slavery again Summertime? Why do you insist on trying to compare the two? Has it not been discussed ad nauseum?
me: Because my point seems to be missed all the time or ignored. The bible is full of attitudeds and beliefs that we have abandoned today. It is also full of prejudices that we today would not stand behind. Christianity today is, likewise, full of prejudices and such things. Slavery was not preached against by someone like Paul. Why? If it is an unacceptable way of life, as some believe, why did Paul not speak against it as he did against all others things he saw as unacceptable?
| Fake wrote: | | Nobby, the bible says you should not lie with a man as you lie with a woman. If this is true, homosexuals live up to that, as they don't lie with each other as a man and a woman do. It does not tel lyou a man should not lie with a man, only that two men shouldn't lie as a man and a woman, and as this is a biological imposibility, I can't see how the bible condemn homosexual love. |
rev: An incredibly thin argument fake, incredibly thin.
| Summertime wrote: | | The bible does not shun homosexual love, nor sexual gratification between a same sex couple, as long as it's within the boundaries of love. |
me: This is not my quote. This is Fake's quote!
rev: I will agree that the bible does not shun homosexual love, but it definitely does speak against sexual gratification between a same sex couple. You throw in as long as it's within the boundaries of love. as if it is a magic wand which makes something okay - scripturally this is not the case.
me: It also speaks against heterosexual sex for sexual gratification. Besides, it prohibits same sex acts that were within the context of idolatry, which, no matter what a person did,IF it was associated with the worship of a false god or goddess, it was prohibited. Hetero sex, if in idolatry, was prohibited.
| Summertime wrote: | | It does speak out on sex in regard to prostitution, and call it wrong, but not on sex based on true love. |
me: This is not my quote. It is Fake's!
rev: So if I fall in love, true love, with a young lady, other than my wife and have sex with her - that would be scripturally acceptable?
me: Although this is not my quote you are responding to, I will say balance. I may have said that to you previously, but your example is unbalanced. It's like applying "In Christ, I can do all things" and then jumping off a cliff with faith in Christ that you will fly like Superman and you don't. You have to apply things in balance. Your exaggerated example goes agains loving neighbor as self. In your case, that neighbor is your wife. You would be cheating on someone without any regards to them or her feelings. You would want this done to you. Cheating on your wife would not be an act of love. No doubt about it. As far as it being scripturally acceptable? Lots of christians say we need to go back to the bible. Well, the bible has males with more than one wife. This is an example of what is in the bible that we have abandoned today. So, literally speaking, if going back to the bible is what some christians want, they will have to be more specific in their literalism because, eventually, a literal reading of the bible will come back and bite them in the hand.
rev: How about if I am truely in love with a goat?
me: Again, not my quote and an unbalanced example.
rev: How about if I am not married and truely in love?
me: Not married yet in love and committed for life? That's a marriage! You may be surprised to know that marriages of the bible did not come to be because the two persons were in love first. Paper work verifying marriage does not make a marriage. Where were Adam and Eve's papers? What if you were married and NOT in love. Would that be a marriage? If you lost all documentation of your LEGAL marriage, would you still be married? Would you still consider yourself married if all documentation related to your legal marriage was lost and you had not physical paper proof? Marriage is innate. Spirit to spirit. You are married to Christ, are you not? You are male as well, but that's besides the point:)
rev: Can I then have sex or would that be fornication which is specifically listed as a sin? As is adultery, and homosexuality.
me: Define fornication. My guess is that we define it differently today as they did in the original languages. However, if you find it to mean sex outside of marriage, then same sex relationships are not outside of marriage, unless the two persons have not committed to one another.
rev: You cannot, I repeat, cannot, add qualifications to scripture in an effort to make a sin unsinful. You cannot commit sin and say it is not really a sin if it is done in love. Murder a man becasue he is a threat to someone you love? You did it out of love, does that make it okay? No, murder is murder. As is homosexual activity, adultery, lying, fornication, lust, etc. etc. etc.
me: Unbalanced and exaggerated!!! Again, murder is the opposite of loving neighbor as self. You are comparing killing an image of God to one person loving another. Saying homosexuality is homosexuality is like saying heterosexuality is heterosexuality. It's not! You are implying that homosexulity is homosexulaity and, thus, ALL forms of it is unacceptable. You wouldn't apply that about heterosexuality. If you did, you would have to either say ALL forms of heterosexual sex are unacceptable or that ALL forms of heterosexual sex are okay. At any rate, you cannot compare love and murder. Look up the fruits of the Spirit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
fake: It is, to me quite amazing that it took close to 2.000 years for most of us to discover Paul was indeed right. No matter who you are, if you're one in Christ, (believing in Him) you're a heir according to his promise.
me: According to traditional christian faith, I'd say this is true. If a christian believes that the only way to heaven is to place one's faith in Jesus, then why wouldn't a homosexual go to heaven if they have met that 'requirement' just as a heterosexual has? However, under this quote, it begs the question that if ANYONE is in Christ, then Paul must not have been speaking of homosexuals in Romans 1, as soooo many seem to think, right? Hmmmm. Maybe Paul was not speaking of homosexuals. Maybe he was referring to idolatrous practices which have nothing to do with love. Which also includes some forms of heterosexual sex. Maybe Paul was not aware of 'homosexual' or the term 'heterosexuals' for that matter. I think he believed all humans to be created heterosexuals and any homosexual behavior is a result of idolatry/the worship of another god. This would be a classic example of our generation knowing more today than the did then in regards to sexual orientation (inversion) vs. sexual perversion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Summertime, it would be helpful if you could use the quote function in your posts. It is really quite easy, just copy the portion you want to post into what you are typing, highlight that portion, and click on the quote box. It'll save you a lot of typing and make your posts easier to understand.
| summertime wrote: | | me: Then you also must believe that women should be silent in churches and only ask questions of their husbands at home because the bible specifically says that, right? |
Actually you are pretty close. That one passage out of context is not acceptable - as it is out of context, but when considered with the scriptural dictate that women should not have spiritual authority over men, I beleive that women should not be in positions of spiritual authority such as being the Pastor.
This, however, is a different discussion which has been thoroughly discussed on this board, you are free to review the threads addressing it if you would like to understand my position fully. BTW - nice attempt at distraction...
| Quote: | rev: Slavery again Summertime? Why do you insist on trying to compare the two? Has it not been discussed ad nauseum?
me: Because my point seems to be missed all the time or ignored. |
Not true Summertime. Not true at all. Your point and posts regarding slavery have been read and addressed quite thoroughly. Both by me and by Van, I find it interesting that you have posted little or no replies to our posts regarding the subject. If anything has been missed or ignored it is by you regarding our rebuttal of this failed argument.
| summertime wrote: | | me: It also speaks against heterosexual sex for sexual gratification. Besides, it prohibits same sex acts that were within the context of idolatry, which, no matter what a person did,IF it was associated with the worship of a false god or goddess, it was prohibited. Hetero sex, if in idolatry, was prohibited. |
Not all references to homosexual activity are in the context of idolatry, and the one passage that does refer to this does not limit the concept of homosexual acts only as participation of idolatrous worship, but includes that participation.
Any activity perpetrated in acts of idol worship would be sinful in that context, even those acts which are not normally considered sinful. That scripture specifically states homosexual acts as sinful indicates a condition of sin in the act itself, not in the reasons for it. Not all references to homosexuality in the scriptures are connected to the idea of idol worship, so it is untruthful to limit said acts as sinful if only perpetrated in the act of idol worship.
Loving your neighbor as yourself? I thought you said that homosexual love, committed homosexual relationships are okay becasue they are loving relationships. That then does not apply to other loving relationships if someone else does not approve of the relationship? Or if someone else is hurt or disturbed by that relationship?
You speak of balance, but it sounds more like qualification and excuses. You state one thing is okay in a certain context, but any other example presented in the same context is then riddled with qualification and exception... anything to maintain the illusion that what you support is acceptable to God, in spite of scripture which says it is not.
| Quote: | rev: How about if I am not married and truely in love?
me: Not married yet in love and committed for life? That's a marriage! You may be surprised to know that marriages of the bible did not come to be because the two persons were in love first. Paper work verifying marriage does not make a marriage. Where were Adam and Eve's papers? What if you were married and NOT in love. Would that be a marriage? If you lost all documentation of your LEGAL marriage, would you still be married? |
This is a shining example of qualification and exception. I said nothing about being committed for life. I simply said truely in love.
To further this, marriage is a union sanctified by God, the scriptures tell us that a man would leave his mother and cleave to his wife, becoming one, etc. etc. etc. This is a sanctified, lifelong, union - biblical marriage. This applies because sex outside of said union is referred to as fornication, which is a sin BTW. This leads into those 'committed, loving same sex relationships you keep on about. There is no scriptural provision for a man leaving his mother and cleaving to his buddy George. Hence, no scriptural dictate, mandate, or allusion, to the sanctity of same-sex marriage. In this case, said same-sex relationship involving sex would be fornication, and a perversion of the natural design for relations and a violation of scripture - sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5050
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Leviticus 18:22
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. |
| Quote: | Leviticus 20:13
"The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense. |
| Quote: | 1 Corinthians 6:9
Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, |
| Quote: | Romans 1:26
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. |
| Quote: | Romans 1:27
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. |
Just a few to make my point,
| Quote: | 1 Timothy 1:10
These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
