scripture and homosexuality

[feetxxxl]

Who is this couple? Do they exist or are you making them up to prove a point?

Sex is a procreative act, it can be used as an expression of love between husband and wife but at all times they are called to be open to the possibility of conception.

heterosexuals who have vaginal sex are open to the possibility of sex. but if they chose oral sex or anal sex does that mean they are sinning because the sex is not open to procreation. or if the spouse of a quadrapolegic has sex with their spouse because the act has no possibilityof having children is that a sin also?

the problem of your entire approach to sin by regulation is that none of this thinking is of the new covenant of christ. sin by violation of regulation was of the old covenant. that was the old relationship to the written code.

in christ our understanding of sin is when there is a violation of spirit. because under the new covenant we are led and serve of the spirit. the three love commandments being directives of spirit.

 

[feetxxxl]

feet,

I am done with your bizarre interpretations. “One flesh” has nothing to do with orgasm. It has a lot to do with one flesh of genitals. Orgasms are just a nice side effect of sex that makes us want to have procreative sex. The anus is NOT a genital. Genitals refer to what make us male OR female. I didn’t think it was a news flash to you that both sexes have anuses. Besides, what you are talking about is rectal penetration, not the euphemism “anal sex.” Look on a biology chart and locate the anus. All skin on the human body is an erogenous zone. The anus does not hold a distinction.

where in the new covenant are there directives about sin according to form.

there are sins depicted in the commission of same sex relations as well as in opposite sex relations. the sins depicted in romans1 no more condemns homosexuality than the incestal rape in second samuel and the adulterous murder in one samuel condemn heterosexuality.

paul talked about a one flesh relationship with a prostitute. if something as falicious as sex with a prostitute is one flesh then surely sex among committed relationships bonded out of mutual,love, attraction, devotion and trust for a shared life together are of one flesh.

 

[Elric]

I know this thread is incredibily long, but I must ask those who are against the views put forth by the Church: For those of you who have attempted to use scripture to justify your position…what makes you so certain that your interpretation of the text is correct? Do you put it up against the early Church, the Church councils, or do you just read the text and make up your mind that your point of view is correct? Just curious…

Personally I dont really have an interperation of the text, aside from probably 2 verses.

I have been arguing that it is ambigous and/or unclear, I have not been arguing for or against scriptures condemnation of homosexuality/homosexual acts. People seem to think that I am not opposed to homosexuality and some keep shoving the same english translated verses at me stating how clear it is.

Yes the english translations are clear, but they dont reflect what the original text actually states in the original language that it was written in (no, that does not mean latin). So they are mistranslations and based on assumptions.

I am not suggesting that it was done with insidious motives, it was probably done with the best of intentions. Nor am I saying that they were definatly wrong with what they assumed the text meant, again they probably had the best of intentions.

What I am saying is that the original text is confusing/unclear and that there is no way to be 100% sure of what was meant. It could very well be that the assumption is what was intended, but what if it isnt and the assumption is wrong?

Personally I cant condemn for something that I am not 100% sure of and because of that, I cant/wont condemn monogomous homosexual relationships.

I may not agree with it and I may not accept it, but I cant condemn it.

 

[Delora]

Feet, what Deb means is that you put your words in her quote box.
It then appears that your replies that are in her quote box are her words. This is what she objects to. After all, she didn’t say your words.

 

[feetxxxl]

LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
I shall love my neighbor as I love myself.Since we are talking about love, in the meaning “making love” This can be restated as:

no i have always stated that whatever is not nothing(1cor13) and lasts is of the love that is god.

 

[Delora]

Before I respond to you this time, you are going to need to learn how to do the quotes properly. Deb has expressed her discontent, and I feel the same way.

Ask a moderator, if you need help

 

[Swan]

I always find it interesting that if Christians know any verse of the Torah, they know those few verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If they can quote the New Testament, they most assuradly quote the first chapter of Romans…but they also have no problem forgetting any other Levitical prohibition and they never continue after Romans 1:32 on to 2:1 and beyond…there were no chapter breaks in the original.

If homosexuality is a sin, then God will judge it. BUT if it is not, and every scriptural verse which seems to address it really addresses issues more cultural than moral. True, older men should not corrupt young boys…in that respect those older men take away a childs innocence.

If it was so cut and dry, there wouldn’t be this discussion. Fact is, it is not cut and dry. Those few 5-6 passages of scripture which on the surface appear to condemn gay people, in reality do not. The NIV translation that uses the word “homosexual offender” does so more for the translators religious beliefs than the literal translation. Fact, we don’t know exactly what word Paul was trying to convey…he made up a new word in this passage.

I would rather err on the side of love and compassion, than on the side of condemnation and fear…and hate…which we find so prevelant in the church when gay people are concerned…

In my Meeting we have decided as a body to accept those gay people who have come to us requesting we take their relationships under our care…we have offered to those who wish to make a lifetime commitment before God and the Meeting “after the manner of Friends” a place to do so…a community to live out the diverse love of God in our midst.

God created male and female…two extremes…two being so totally different from one another to show the infinite diversity of humanity…“In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek (race is of no distinction), male nor female (sexual expression, sexual differences are no difference), bond nor free (economic and societal status), but we are one in Christ Jesus.”…God’s call us to diverse community…to live out His life in our world…and He blesses His creation…His new Creation in Christ…male, female, gay, straight, Arab, Jew, Irish, Dutch…“red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight…Jesus love the little children of the world…”

Each of us will one day stand before the One who knows us best, and loves us most…He calls us to “love one another”…all too often we forget that the gay person is the “stranger in our midst”…

It’ getting repetitive, my thanking you for your articulate, patient, loving posts. But, thanks again.

 

[LDNCatholic]

heterosexuals who have vaginal sex are open to the possibility of sex. but if they chose oral sex or anal sex does that mean they are sinning because the sex is not open to procreation. or if the spouse of a quadrapolegic has sex with their spouse because the act has no possibilityof having children is that a sin also?

the problem of your entire approach to sin by regulation is that none of this thinking is of the new covenant of christ. sin by violation of regulation was of the old covenant. that was the old relationship to the written code.

in christ our understanding of sin is when there is a violation of spirit. because under the new covenant we are led and serve of the spirit. the three love commandments being directives of spirit.

A quadroplegic (heterosexual) couple, are permitted to have sex as long as they are open to the possibility of conception. As are elderly heterosexual couples, and any other heterosexual couplings of one husband and one wife, joined in marriage, that you can think of.

Now. Feetxxxl, I have asked three times, which love is commanded in the Bible? Agape, Philios or Eros? You have dodged my question time and again, answer it if you can please otherwise unfortunately I will be forced to assume that you are not as educated in scripture as you present yourself to be.

 

[peary]

in christ our understanding of sin is when there is a violation of spirit. because under the new covenant we are led and serve of the spirit. the three love commandments being directives of spirit.

**In *fulfillment *of the Old Testament law (Christ came to fulfill the Law, NOT abolish it), we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). If we do these two things, we will be fulfilling all that Christ wants for us to do, “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).

If we are loving God we won’t be worshipping other gods or worshipping idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we won’t be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them.

It’s applying the Law through a new perspective - the perspective of LOVE.**

 

[feetxxxl]

A quadroplegic (heterosexual) couple, are permitted to have sex as long as they are open to the possibility of conception. As are elderly heterosexual couples, and any other heterosexual couplings of one husband and one wife, joined in marriage, that you can think of.

Now. Feetxxxl, I have asked three times, which love is commanded in the Bible? Agape, Philios or Eros? You have dodged my question time and again, answer it if you can please otherwise unfortunately I will be forced to assume that you are not as educated in scripture as you present yourself to be.

god created all three. the love that lasts is agape. that is why all bonding initiated in in eros and agape, becomes more agape with time.

 

[Bwsherman]

This is actually having a go at hetrosexuals for performing unnatural acts and for turning their backs on God to go back to their old religion.

For hetrosexuals, homosexual acts are very unnatural. But for homosexuals however…

The actual translation for the first part is:

“And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman”

It makes little sense and can be taken to have many different meanings.

The second part could mean “ritually unclean” rather than “abomination” and is part of the same code that has eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles.

This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Elric,

I am sorry to say, but this entire response seems to me to be an interpretation of scripture. As far as a mistranslation is concerned…I use the Dourary-Rheims version of the Bible which is translated directly from the Vulgate as prepared by St. Jerome in the fourth century, and it states the passage closer to the person you were responding to then it does your version.

Also, throughout this thread you have stated that you cannot be certain of this thing or the other, but you are very quick to state it certainly does NOT MEAN**** whatever the person you are responding to is saying that it does. One cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you do not know what the text states and then say that it does not state something. Thanks and I look forward to reading your response. Blessings.

 

[jay29]

All you pro-homosexual acts people can say what ever you want. Homosexual acts are AGAINST NATURE itself: penis+penis and vagina + vagina results in ZERO. Nothing. Zip. It achieves nothing higher than sinful desires of the flesh and is not even in the same league as a heterosexual marriage. It is an abomination.

 

[feetxxxl]

**In *fulfillment ***of the Old Testament law (Christ came to fulfill the Law, NOT abolish it), we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37-40). If we do these two things, we will be fulfilling all that Christ wants for us to do, “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).

If we are loving God we won’t be worshipping other gods or worshipping idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we won’t be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them.

It’s applying the Law through a new perspective - the perspective of LOVE.

absolutely!!!

under the new covenant, romans, paul says that "loving ones neighbor as oneself is the summation of all the law. and that fulfillment of the law is love.

under the old covenant violation of regulation was sin…that was the old relationship to the written code, where one followed regulation. the point being that any regulation could be followed out of a million other spirits, other than love.

under the new covenant, the three commandments for living are love of god, because he loved us first, and we return the love we receive from god, to god; loving ones neighbor as ones self…now knowiing the love of god we extend that love to ourselves and our neighbor,( everybody being our neighbor) and by doing so now fulfill the law, in the way that christ did; and love one another as christ as christ loved us… we take on this love of god thru the grace of jesus christ, in the heart of a servant, serving one another…“the greatest among you is the one who serves you”

and that is why under the new covenant there is no sin of violation of regulation as was in the old covenant, instead in the new covenant all sin is about violation of spirit, in regards to the law, violation of loving ones neighbor as oneself.

icor and itim was where the translators attempted to carry over violation by regulation into the new covenant by transposing the term"homosexual " for the term “malebed”, an animate object for an inanimate object, having been influenced by 300 years of sodomy being punishable by hanging, and there being no seperation of church and state in england.

to make homosexuality a sin under the new covenant one MUST explain how it comes against the essence and spirit of loving ones neighbor as oneself.

in truth, homosexuality is merely a form of human bonding, and like heterosexuality it is not the essence of the bonding that is a sin, but the spirit in the relationship in the bonding process that is sin.

 

[feetxxxl]

Elric,

I am sorry to say, but this entire response seems to me to be an interpretation of scripture. As far as a mistranslation is concerned…I use the Dourary-Rheims version of the Bible which is translated directly from the Vulgate as prepared by St. Jerome in the fourth century, and it states the passage closer to the person you were responding to then it does your version.

Also, throughout this thread you have stated that you cannot be certain of this thing or the other, but you are very quick to state it certainly does NOT MEAN**** whatever the person you are responding to is saying that it does. One cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you do not know what the text states and then say that it does not state something. Thanks and I look forward to reading your response. Blessings.

i agree that i cannot chose my reasoning over anothers only that my reasoning is also a possibility. but i thought my proof was in the spirit of other scriptures.

 

[LDNCatholic]

god created all three. the love that lasts is agape. that is why all bonding initiated in in eros and agape, becomes more agape with time.

Ok, brilliant, so it is agapeic love. I.e not the love of a sexual relationship, thanks very much.

 

[jay29]

in truth, homosexuality is merely a form of human bonding, and like heterosexuality it is not the essence of the bonding that is a sin, but the spirit in the relationship in the bonding process that is sin.

Actually, it is the HOMOSEXUAL ACTS that are the sin. It VIOLATES God’s law of nature and how he created us.

He DID NOT create a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman sexually at all.

How hard is this to understand? Jeepers.

 

[Bwsherman]

i agree that i cannot chose my reasoning over anothers only that my reasoning is also a possibility. but i thought my proof was in the spirit of other scriptures.

Then I believe you just defeated your own argument. You are now saying that homosexuality could indeed be a sin. This whole thread you have been stating quite emphatically that it was not a sin. My understanding of biblical exegesis is that you must utilize all of scripture and follow the line of thought from beginning to end. There is no break in thought from Old to New Testament because the scriptures help reveal God to us and He is never changing. There is indeed a continuation of the understanding, nevertheless, just as all relation with God is fulfilled in the covenants layed out through scripture so too is the point of sacramental marriage. The marriage itself is a covenant between the couple and with God. The way this covenant is renewed is in the marital act (intercourse) which reaches its ultimate fulfillment in the conception of a baby. “The idea that the two indeed do become one and sometimes the two become so one that they are now indeed three.” I am paraphrasing Dr. Hahn here, but I think you get the point.

This understanding is indeed biblical and goes along the line of thought presented from the beginning of the Church up to the present day. This is why homosexuality is wrong because it cannot fulfill the covenant set forth which is meant to bring us closer to God and not just to the person we are being intimate with.

 

[feetxxxl]

Actually, it is the HOMOSEXUAL ACTS that are the sin. It VIOLATES God’s law of nature and how he created us.

He DID NOT create a man to be with a man and a woman to be with a woman sexually at all.

How hard is this to understand? Jeepers.

so god created the possibility for one man to be attracted to another. he also created the anus as an errogenous zone, and made anal orgasms possible, of such a nature of satisfaction that heterosexuals indulge in them. and he also created the possiblity of oral sexual and masterbation as well as mutual masterbation.

and he created the possibility that the above sex could be a satisfying possibility for having a fulfilled one flesh relationship between same sexes.

holy toledo!

 

[feetxxxl]

Then I believe you just defeated your own argument. You are now saying that homosexuality could indeed be a sin. This whole thread you have been stating quite emphatically that it was not a sin. My understanding of biblical exegesis is that you must utilize all of scripture and follow the line of thought from beginning to end. There is no break in thought from Old to New Testament because the scriptures help reveal God to us and He is never changing. There is indeed a continuation of the understanding, nevertheless, just as all relation with God is fulfilled in the covenants layed out through scripture so too is the point of sacramental marriage. The marriage itself is a covenant between the couple and with God. The way this covenant is renewed is in the marital act (intercourse) which reaches its ultimate fulfillment in the conception of a baby. “The idea that the two indeed do become one and sometimes the two become so one that they are now indeed three.” I am paraphrasing Dr. Hahn here, but I think you get the point.

This understanding is indeed biblical and goes along the line of thought presented from the beginning of the Church up to the present day. This is why homosexuality is wrong because it cannot fulfill the covenant set forth which is meant to bring us closer to God and not just to the person we are being intimate with.

i was merely saying that when scripture does not say something specifically, then what it does not say, does not mean it is untrue. scripture never said that slavery was an untolerable evil. that does mean that it is not true that it is an intolerable evil.

scripture makes references to sins commited in the midst of same sex relations, but makes no specific reference to homosexuality which is human bonding.

your comments about marriage are your opinions. this discussion is about scripture says. so you need to annotate.

 

[peary]

god created all three. the love that lasts is agape. that is why all bonding initiated in in eros and agape, becomes more agape with time.

If that is true, then how do you explain… divorce?