scripture and homosexuality

[peary]

the exlanation of biology is to show possibility. where does swscripture say this possibility is a sin.

**If you are discussing pure biology, there are variations in the normal behaviors of all species with regard to what could be termed homo-dominance, which is not the same as homosexuality. **

because some choose to have children while others do not where in scripture does it say its a sin surely not in matt 19

Show me where it says that. I don’t find it.

-without any explanation as to how sex outside of marriage (premarital)comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself, then it is sin according to regulation and that is not our relationship to the written code under the new covenant.

Again, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it. You want the Law abolished; that is and was not Christ’s intention.
?

 

[feetxxxl]

This response is still your opinion. I would ask again, how do you justify this position or can you not make any justification outside yourself?

romans1 says they are motivated by shamebased lust. what is your understanding of lust?

it also said men abandoned relationships with their women. same sex attraction for more than a majority gays starts in early childhood, how do they have women. “their women” gives an indication of property, that being the relationship of women to men in rome at the time. anything shame based causes self hatred and self loathing. since their women were indulging in the same thing as the men, does this make it a family affair?

 

[Bwsherman]

I didnt say that it was unclear, the accusation was very clear, I said that it was vague brcause there was no mention of where I did this other than “throughout this thread”.

I really dont know how else I could explain it, I have explained it several times already and to me it seemed quite clear.

Perhaps you could explain what you dont understand with what I said.

Im not really sure what to say. When I said it was a translation of a translation I meant that it was translated from a Latin document rather than the original which was not in Latin but Hebrew and Greek.

Here is a couple of links to check out:

religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

truthsetsfree.net/study.html

Elric,

I sense a bit of hostility and let me upfront apologize if I have been rude to you in any of my posts. I do strive to dialogue in the spirit of charity that St. Peter talks to us about in his letter.

I do not understand what is meant by the difference between mistranslation and assumption. If you have already explained, I again apologize. Would you please re-explain it and I will try and pay better attention this time?

I do understand what was meant by a translation of a translation. I know that it is not translated from the original text, but would you contend that there are original documents still available? If there are not, then even the text which is read in the original language would be a translation from the Latin back at least into the Greek or in the case of the Gospel of Matthew from the Latin back to the Hebrew and Greek. I believe the Old Testament would have been kept together by the Jewish community, however, to be frank I am not certain of this fact. What I am certain of is that the New Testament was kept intact by St. Jerome’s work of almost twenty years, and those of countless monks in the following centuries.

I read the links that you sent me, and while the arguments made are reasonable…one is still forced to put it to the test of time as the Church does in her looking back to the early Church for guidance. One can read scripture and make it say anything. The truths that hold up are ones that can validate their claims in not just the present, but also throughout the history of the Church. So, can you find me an Early Church Father that held this view or rather anyone before the twentieth century?

 

[Bwsherman]

romans1 says they are motivated by shamebased lust. what is your understanding of lust?

it also said men abandoned relationships with their women. same sex attraction for more than a majority gays starts in early childhood, how do they have women. “their women” gives an indication of property, that being the relationship of women to men in rome at the time. anything shame based causes self hatred and self loathing. since their women were indulging in the same thing as the men, does this make it a family affair?

I suppose there is an a priori misunderstanding between what we consider to be important in the interpretation of Scripture. Your asking me what my understanding of lust is demonstrates this difference. I can answer your question easy enough. Lust in my opinion is the zealous desire of any person and the consequence of that lust could be some form of sexual act. However, what is more important when I put that in the context of the scriptures is not just what I think about what the text states, but what have others to say about it. Because if it only matters what I have to say, then we run into scriptural relativism and no truth can be found. Or rather no objective truth can be found.

The rest of your post I am not sure what to say about it because it all stems from your interpretation of the text. I am still waiting for you to show me how you justify your interpretation, but I feel I may be left wanting.

 

[jay29]

*:nope: ! *
They are finding out so much more in terms of it being against nature!
Homosexual Acts Defy Design of the Body,
Immunological Journal Finds
The author notes that from "an immunological point of view, the body itself considers homosexual acts to be disordered. For instance, there are substances in seminal fluid called ‘immuno-regulatory macromolecule’ that send out ‘signals’ that are only understood by the female body, which will then permit the ‘two in one flesh’ intimacy required for human reproduction. When **deposited **elsewhere, these signals are not only misunderstood, but cause sperm to fuse with whatever somatic body cell they encounter. This fusing is what often results in the development of cancerous malignancies. (See **“Sexual Behavior **and Increased Anal Cancer,” Immunology and Cell Biology 75 (1977); 181-183.)
http://www.narth.com/docs/defy.html
.

Like I have said: Homosexual acts are against nature and God.

 

[Elric]

Elric,

I sense a bit of hostility and let me upfront apologize if I have been rude to you in any of my posts. I do strive to dialogue in the spirit of charity that St. Peter talks to us about in his letter.

If you are going to accuse me of something, please show me where I have done this. Its frustrating when someone says you did something, but wont elaborate on it. It could very well be a misunderstanding.

Other than that, dont worry about it.

I do not understand what is meant by the difference between mistranslation and assumption. If you have already explained, I again apologize. Would you please re-explain it and I will try and pay better attention this time?

Difference?

I do understand what was meant by a translation of a translation. I know that it is not translated from the original text, but would you contend that there are original documents still available? If there are not, then even the text which is read in the original language would be a translation from the Latin back at least into the Greek or in the case of the Gospel of Matthew from the Latin back to the Hebrew and Greek. I believe the Old Testament would have been kept together by the Jewish community, however, to be frank I am not certain of this fact. What I am certain of is that the New Testament was kept intact by St. Jerome’s work of almost twenty years, and those of countless monks in the following centuries.

The originals still exist. The old testament is held in Israel and is on display, although I think the viewing is limited.

The original new testament is still being used by different versions of the bible as its translation source (such as the NIV I believe). Googling the different versions of the bible can help with what they were translated from.

I read the links that you sent me, and while the arguments made are reasonable…one is still forced to put it to the test of time as the Church does in her looking back to the early Church for guidance. One can read scripture and make it say anything.

???

I dont follow.

The truths that hold up are ones that can validate their claims in not just the present, but also throughout the history of the Church. So, can you find me an Early Church Father that held this view or rather anyone before the twentieth century?

Again I dont follow.

 

[Bwsherman]

You also seem to misunderstand what is meant by mistranslation and assumption.

You told me this yesterday and I responded by saying that you are correct. That I do not understand. Please explain it to me, and again if you have already done this then please do it again.

I will respond to the rest of your post in just a bit…

 

[Bwsherman]

The original new testament is still being used by different versions of the bible as its translation source (such as the NIV I believe). Googling the different versions of the bible can help with what they were translated from.

You believe that the papyrus that the New Testament was written on is still around after two-thousand years or are you referring to the Vulgate prepared in the fourth century?

There is a book by Henry G. Graham Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church, and I think you would enjoy this read based on the links you sent to me. He uses primarily Protestant resources to make his claims and was himself a convert to the faith.

My point in bringing up Church history in context with the interpretation of scripture is because it is very easy to take scripture out of context. I think you would be willing to agree with me on this point. Maybe Church history is a bit confusing. I am referring to the way the Church has interpreted scripture. That is why I asked you if you could cite any of the Early Church Fathers to give your opinion credence.

 

[Bwsherman]

No answer…Hopefully this means there is some serious contemplation about the stance you hold. In any case, God bless. I will say a rosary for both of you this afternoon.

Pax

 

[Elric]

No answer…Hopefully this means there is some serious contemplation about the stance you hold. In any case, God bless. I will say a rosary for both of you this afternoon.

Pax

What exactly is the stance that I hold?

The only real contemplation that I have done is about why you have not addressed the points brought up about mistranslations and why you seem to evade them.

I am left thinking that there has been some dishonesty and I am reluctant to continue any debate under such circumstances.

Take that as you will, but I would prefer you not to say a rosary for me.

 

[Bwsherman]

First, I take great offense at being called dishonest. What have I been dishonest about? And what mistranslations are you referring to? Furthermore, how do you know they are mistranslations in the first place? Are you a Greek scholar or perhaps study Hebrew with a Rabbi? You still haven’t told me whether you believe the original papyrus used in the Old and New Testaments are still around.

And as far as your not interpreting scripture…here is every time in this thread you have done so…in order that I might not seem evasive in my answer:

*“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.” *
This is an interpretation

*“Quote:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” - Leviticus 18:22
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.” *
This is an interpretation. Just because you say that it makes little sense to you…does not mean it makes little sense.

*“Those verses are not clear in the slightest, they are quite ambigous because for the most part nobody actually knows 100% what they mean. It appears that the only people who have twisted what they mean are the religious groups themselves, since they are the ones that are asserting what these passages mean.

Scripture shows nothing about homosexuality, its quite unclear on the issue.

Aside from the adultry part, you have nothing that proves that it is actually a sin.” *
An interpretation of scripture and again… just because it is unclear to you does not make it unclear.

*“Actually what you are doing is twisting scripture, nobody knows for certain what those passages translate to.

They could speak against homosexuality, although with some they could have used a far less ambigous term.

Or they could mean something else completly.”*
Again, an interpretation

“Have another read of that passage, its not actually about homosexuality. Its more to do with gang rape and humiliation as well as arguably beastiality (although the last one is weak).”
Yet another interpretation.

“Oh and the bible makes no statement on same sex marriages, so it is neither condoned or condemned.”
An interpretation.

*“Where do I get it from?

From reading Romans.”*
An interpretation of Romans.

“Well it is quite easy to argue with, especally when you try to take it out of context like you are doing.”
If this verse is taken out of context, that implies you know the correct context. Again interpretation

“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?”
And this is where we look back to those people who lived in a closer proximity to the Biblical era then we do now in order to see what was understood in that time frame.

Please do not sink to calling me names such as dishonest implies. If you want to attack my argument, then attack my logic and not my character.

 

[Elric]

First, I take great offense at being called dishonest. What have I been dishonest about?

The whole way that you have approached this; being evasive, trying to change the subject, not responding to certain points.

And what mistranslations are you referring to?

You said that you read the links that I provided, it was quite clear in them. I have also explained it several times, you know exactly where I have done that as you have shown below.

Furthermore, how do you know they are mistranslations in the first place? Are you a Greek scholar or perhaps study Hebrew with a Rabbi? You still haven’t told me whether you believe the original papyrus used in the Old and New Testaments are still around.

LoL, thats not the way to go about things. Especally after reading the links provided.

And as far as your not interpreting scripture…here is every time in this thread you have done so…in order that I might not seem evasive in my answer:

About time, I did ask you to do this a while ago.

*“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.” *
This is an interpretation

Yep and I already admitted that. Your point?

*“Quote:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” - Leviticus 18:22
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.” *
This is an interpretation. Just because you say that it makes little sense to you…does not mean it makes little sense.

No that is not an interperation, that is actually showing an example of a mistranslation.

Even saying that it makes little sense isnt an intertation. But from your comments you seem to suggest that it does make sense, so what does it mean and can you be 100% sure of that?

*“Those verses are not clear in the slightest, they are quite ambigous because for the most part nobody actually knows 100% what they mean. It appears that the only people who have twisted what they mean are the religious groups themselves, since they are the ones that are asserting what these passages mean.

Scripture shows nothing about homosexuality, its quite unclear on the issue.

Aside from the adultry part, you have nothing that proves that it is actually a sin.” *
An interpretation of scripture and again… just because it is unclear to you does not make it unclear.

I dont think that you understand what interpretatin means. That isnt it.

*“Actually what you are doing is twisting scripture, nobody knows for certain what those passages translate to.

They could speak against homosexuality, although with some they could have used a far less ambigous term.

Or they could mean something else completly.”*
Again, an interpretation

Again, no it isnt. But what exactly do you think that my “interpretation” is?

“Have another read of that passage, its not actually about homosexuality. Its more to do with gang rape and humiliation as well as arguably beastiality (although the last one is weak).”
Yet another interpretation.

Yes that one is, it is also one that I have already admitted to as well.

“Oh and the bible makes no statement on same sex marriages, so it is neither condoned or condemned.”
An interpretation.

Actually that would be more of an observation, but not an interpretation.

*“Where do I get it from?

From reading Romans.”*
An interpretation of Romans.

No, that is answering a question. Although it is about a verse that I have admitted to “interpretating”.

“Well it is quite easy to argue with, especally when you try to take it out of context like you are doing.”
If this verse is taken out of context, that implies you know the correct context. Again interpretation

Oh, it was about that Romans verse (the one I admit to “interpretating”). Although that statement isnt actually an interpretation, its a suggestion that someone is taking things out of context. So not an interpretation.

“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?”
And this is where we look back to those people who lived in a closer proximity to the Biblical era then we do now in order to see what was understood in that time frame.

Im sorry, but was that another accusation of interpretation?

Please do not sink to calling me names such as dishonest implies.

I have already given my reasons for stating the allegation. Instead of refuting them or clearing up any misunderstanding (which it could very well be), you chose to have a few, frankly, petty shots at me (ie: the whole “interpretation” bit and the whole scolar bit).

That doesnt help matters and suggests that you want to get into a petty “tit for tat” name calling match.

If you want to attack my argument, then attack my logic and not my character.

What argument?

Besides it was you who chose to “attack” my argument, which entailed making (baseless) accusations.

The allegation of dishonesty was made because of your “arguments”, not because of your character (I dont even know you).

 

[jay29]

When did the Lord LIFT the ban on homosexuality? When was it?

 

[feetxxxl]

it appears that the discussion about what scripture says about homosexuality is almost over. the discussion was centered on the actual words in scripture. did they specifically denote homosexuality to be a sin? homosexuality the bonding of 2 of the same sex motivated in the same spirit as that of the bonding of heterosexuals. there were also challenges about leviticus, that not all the prohibitions of themselves were sins. there were challenges to whether “malebed” the greek word in 1tim and 1cor could be legitimately transposed by the word “homosexual” thru our understanding of both languages. and because the way the 2 scriptures were written, sin was being depicted by regulation. there was no explanation of spirit about why homosexuality was a sin or what was the spirit essence of homosexuality that made it a sin.

however we under the new covenant, no longer have this same relationship to the written code as in the old. that the understanding of sin is no longer guided and directed by regulation, but instead under the new covenant, by understanding the essence of loving ones neighbor as oneself, being led by and serving of the spirit. the law is now for making us conscious of how we were living the love commandment.

and about romans 1. what lie was exchanged for what truth and how was what entity of creation worshipped and served so that certain individuals might be given over to homosexulity? that question was never answered. nor questions about the phrase “their women”, “shamebased lust”, or “abandonment.”…this is a test of reasoning of the scriptures.

there are 2 other possible tests.

the second is out of romans.

it is for believers and non believers. romans1:20 it allows excuse for no one.
it is to look at homosexuality thru what has already been created. that homosexuals have never been found wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a doctor, lawyer, father,friend,neighbor, counselor, soldier,sister, brother. we know this is is not true for those who have been given over to the sin nature of gal5(depicted also in romans1) compared to those who have not.

the third is more for believers.

it is out of 1john. it is a test of witness in the spirit of christ. it is embracing the spirit of unity that christ calls all believers, who share the same inheritance. it is also the witness to our neighbors(everyone) in living out the commandment of loving our neighbors as ourselves.

it is witness thru fellowship. “that which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched”. it is an act of fellowship thru the CHRIST THAT LIVES IN US , trusting that the one who lives inside us will show us in fellowship thru our hearts what is and is not, of him.

john:1 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all** sin.

it is a witness is thru fellowship… honoring another’s life experiences, thru the sermon on the mount… carrying anothers their burdens, and thru following 3rd commandment… loving another in the way christ loved us, by being his servant. “The greatest among you will be your servant.”

then our witness is either"having witnessed in christ, i have found nothing in the essence of homosexuality that comes against christ,", or "having witnessed in christ i have detected in the essence of homosexuality a __________ spirt that comes against christ.

having personally done this myself, my witness is that there is nothing in the essence of homosexulity that comes against the spirit of christ. that in actuality i find the different perspective a positive, and nothing more than another form of being, in god’s diverse creation.**

 

[feetxxxl]

peary:
under the new covennant "loving your neighbor as yourself " is the summation of all the law, and the fulfillment of the law is love. under the new covenant rather than just following the law which can be done in any spirit, now instead we fulfill the law in living the out the commandment. the law to make us concious of our life of love.

all sin is now, that which comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself.

withholding fellowship for the sake of our theology.

“if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship…”

 

[jay29]

When did the Lord LIFT the ban on homosexuality? When was it?

 

[mercygate]

When did the Lord LIFT the ban on homosexuality? When was it?

I think the point of the thread is to demonstrate that the ban is NOT there; not in scripture; never existed. Translation: I don’t like it. Therefore I do not see it. Therefore it is not there. Therefore anybody who thinks it is there is a) deprived of grace and b) failing to love his neighbor as himself.

Now, isn’t that easy?

 

[jay29]

I think the point of the thread is to demonstrate that the ban is NOT there; not in scripture; never existed. Translation: I don’t like it. Therefore I do not see it. Therefore it is not there. Therefore anybody who thinks it is there is a) deprived of grace and 2) failing to love his neighbor as himself.

Now, isn’t that easy?

Logical fallacy hahahaha. The Lord never lifted the ban. Homosexual acts have always been banned by the Jewish and Christian faiths, except for these modern day liberal factions of each.

In terms of Ancient Christian beliefs, committing homosexual acts with your neighbor is not loving thy neighbor, but in fact, trying to condemn him/her.

 

[peacelight]

Can anyone explain this verses? (eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven I know this refer to Priests, Nuns etc does the other two refers to gay, lesbian etc. Thank you. Correct me if I am wrong? God bless!

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

 

[Rocky]

**Feetxxxl **says: it appears that the discussion about what scripture says about homosexuality is almost over. the discussion was centered on the actual words in scripture. did they specifically denote homosexuality to be a sin? homosexuality the bonding of 2 of the same sex motivated in the same spirit as that of the bonding of heterosexuals. there were also challenges about leviticus, that not all the prohibitions of themselves were sins. there were challenges to whether “malebed” the greek word in 1tim and 1cor could belegitimately transposed by the word “homosexual” thru our understanding of both languages. and because the way the 2 scriptures were written, sin was being depicted by regulation. there was no explanation of spirit about why homosexuality was a sin or what was the spirit essence of homosexuality that made it a sin."

We are supposed to bond in love with one another, but I think you would agree that love is not supposed to be expressed in the same way with everyone. To express love in a genital way is a sacred type of love—one that expresses the love of God in His Unity. The Father loves the Son and gives all to the Son holding nothing back. The Son returns the love of the Father completely, holding nothing back. And this Love is so complete that it is fruitful and is itself a Person that goes out into the world.

A human father can love his child, but to do so genitally is not fruitful, but harmful both to him and his child (and if the child is of the opposite sex, it is also harmful to any child that is born of the union).

For two women to love each other or two men to love one another genitally, it is impossible to be fruitful, and impossible to fully offer one another all of who they are. Their act of love is impossible to be creative.

Even if it may seem that a man and a woman are unable to conceive together because of age or health reasons, the possibility of conception is always there. So in giving themselves to one another and being fully open to new life, they still are offering all of themselves in love, and holding nothing back in the act of love that is also possible to be creative.

That is why all genital acts that do not mirror the life of the Trinity are shams of what God has made us for. So sin abounds not just in those who practice homsexuality, but also in heterosexuals who will deny Love by practicing contraception, or use their partners for selfish reasons.

But I believe somewhere in one of Paul’s letters it says that where sin abounds, grace abounds even more. So those who love God need to go to Him for His grace constantly in order to live chaste lives and to help others to live in chastity also.