scripture and homosexuality

[Eden]

in none of the quotings above was “arsenkoitai” was ever used to describe a relationship bonded out of mutual respect, devotion, trust, and love(agapi) along with attraction for a commited shared life together.

I’m not a man, but I don’t disagree with you that men can have a bond of mutual respect, devotion, trust and love, as in brotherly love. They just can’t have sexual intercourse together. Male on male sex is sinful. This is what these passages mean.

 

[LilyM]

We also find the word ARSENOKOITAI in classical Greek literature many years before and after the New Testament made use of the word. It appeared in the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus 6, 10, 25; Anthologia Palatina 9, 686, 5; and Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum viii, 4, p. 196, 6; 8; and the Sibylene Oracles 2, 73 and Polycarp to the Philippians 5:3.The pedigree is established, and thus, any claims to “homosexuality” surfacing as merely a “nineteenth century” classification is simply fallacious.

you are clinging to a regulation approach to sin…you are emphasizing the act. anyone can obey a regulation out of pride, fear, anxiety and a host of other spirits, rather than love,

however the three commandments emphasize love

jesus emphasized the heart. you are saying that paul reemphasized that sex between people of the same sex as sin. that’s impossible because their hearts are of the same spirit as when heterosexuals bond. paul emphasized being led by the spirit. your emphasis on act ignores the spirit.

in none of the quotings above was “arsenkoitai” was ever used to describe a relationship bonded out of mutual respect, devotion, trust, and love(agapi) along with attraction for a commited shared life together.

remember

Isaiah 1:

5Why should you be beaten anymore? Why do you persist in rebellion? Your whole head is injured, your whole heart afflicted.

11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the LORD.
"I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

FOR THIS THERE IS NO LAW

Jesus emphasised obedience to the commandments of God as well - remember what he told the rich young man that he needed to do to have eternal life? And remember Him saying ‘if you love me you will keep my commandments’? Which means THE commandments as well.

Of course Paul himself recognised that one can obey commandments for the wrong reasons and that to do so will gain you no merit - "And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. " (1 Cor 13:3)

But that does not mean the reverse holds true - one cannot disobey the commandments out of some mistaken notion of ‘love’. Jesus did disobey some of the Levitical law, but being God HE is ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ and all else, including Lord of the Commandments. I’m not God and neither are you, thus we cannot lightly disregards His commandments.

God is love, God is the source of the commandments, as revealed through Paul’s inspired writing, so the commandments are also based in love, although not in lust or warped versions of ‘love’ that many mistake for the real thing.

 

[peary]

**
you are clinging to a regulation approach to sin…you are emphasizing the act. anyone can obey a regulation out of pride, fear, anxiety and a host of other spirits, rather than love,

The ‘act’ IS the sin, and all the base emotions that go with it.**
however the three commandments emphasize love

Love is not anal intercourse (or sodomy, in case you get confused over the term)

jesus emphasized the heart. you are saying that paul reemphasized that sex between people of the same sex as sin. that’s impossible because their hearts are of the same spirit as when heterosexuals bond. paul emphasized being led by the spirit. your emphasis on act ignores the spirit.

You have failed to prove this hypothesis from Scripture. Go ahead, give it another shot.

in none of the quotings above was “arsenkoitai” was ever used to describe a relationship bonded out of mutual respect, devotion, trust, and love(agapi) along with attraction for a commited shared life together.

Because in homosexual activity, there is no mutual respect, devotion, trust or agape love…it is all about orgasm.

 

[feetxxxl]

“I’m not a man, but I don’t disagree with you that men can have a bond of mutual respect, devotion, trust and love, as in brotherly love. They just can’t have sexual intercourse together. Male on male sex is sinful. This is what these passages mean.”

why cant they…what is the sin. they bond out of the same spirit and as with heterosexual. bonded, committed, relationships the sexual intimacy in gay committed relationships is an affirmation and an expression of the devotion in the relationship. heterosexuals have been indulging in some form of anal stimaulation including intercourse without recrimination. why the double standard.

here again you are ignoring the spirit in you emphasis of the act. your theology does not coincide with romans, where paul says we are led by the spirit.

all vaginal or anal sex that can be consummated healthily, if safe practices are followed.

again what is the spirit of bonded committed homosexuals indulging in sexual intimacy that comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself…the summation of all the law.

if it is marriage. gay couples a my church marry.

 

[feetxxxl]

Jesus emphasised obedience to the commandments of God as well - remember what he told the rich young man that he needed to do to have eternal life? And remember Him saying ‘if you love me you will keep my commandments’? Which means THE commandments as well.

jesus’s commandment was love. jesus knew 1cor 13 anything done without love is nothing and gains nothing.

Of course Paul himself recognised that one can obey commandments for the wrong reasons and that to do so will gain you no merit - "And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. " (1 Cor 13:3)

again 1cor13 the emphasis on the importance pf love

But that does not mean the reverse holds true - one cannot disobey the commandments out of some mistaken notion of ‘love’. Jesus did disobey some of the Levitical law, but being God HE is ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ and all else, including Lord of the Commandments. I’m not God and neither are you, thus we cannot lightly disregards His commandments.

i think you are confusing devotion with love. where has someone embraced the love that is god and was led to sin?

God is love, God is the source of the commandments, as revealed through Paul’s inspired writing, so the commandments are also based in love, although not in lust or warped versions of ‘love’ that many mistake for the real thing.

 

[feetxxxl]

peary:
PEARY…THEN THAT IS YOUR WITNESS.

the problem is. your witness is without fellowship, and therefore without walking in the light.

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

 

[LilyM]

i think you are confusing devotion with love. where has someone embraced the love that is god and was led to sin?

No, you’re confused. You seem to think that, because God is love, that all expressions, licit and illicit, of love must necessarily be of God and cannot possibly be sinful.

God is goodness and gives us many good things, but He also gives us the free will to sinfully abuse each and every one of them.

Not all of our wrongful human expressions of love are of God - adulterous love is not of God, sexual love between adults and children is not of God, sexual love between close relatives is also not of God.

I’m sure people in all these situations would CLAIM to be acting with the same motives as a committed heterosexual couple, the same motives you ascribe to homosexual couples. The fact is that all the wishful thinking and good intentions in the world won’t make certain abuses of our sexual faculties OK.

St Paul makes abundantly clear that sexual relations between people of the same gender are wrong regardless of motive, just as adultery is wrong regardless of motive.

 

[feetxxxl]

No, you’re confused. You seem to think that, because God is love, that all expressions, licit and illicit, of love must necessarily be of God and cannot possibly be sinful.

God is goodness and gives us many good things, but He also gives us the free will to sinfully abuse each and every one of them.

Not all of our wrongful human expressions of love are of God - adulterous love is not of God, sexual love between adults and children is not of God, sexual love between close relatives is also not of God. Neither, as Paul makes abundantly clear, is sexual congress between people of the same gender.

then explain how the spirit of a gay couple that bonds in the same spirit of as a heterosexual couple, marries, expresses sexual intimacy in the same spirit as any heterosexual married couple comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself, the summation of all the law?

 

[LilyM]

then explain how the spirit of a gay couple that bonds in the same spirit of as a heterosexual couple, marries, expresses sexual intimacy in the same spirit as any heterosexual married couple comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself, the summation of all the law?

Why do you persist in equating love with sex? Am I either permitted or required to sleep with ALL my neighbours to prove that I love them as myself as Christ bid us do? Of course not, quite the contrary - sex is very clearly reserved for ONE type of ‘love’ relationship only - heterosexual monogamous lifelong marriage.

Homosexual ‘marriage’ goes against God’s design for marriage. It contravenes His command and goes against love of neighbou.

You understand, do you not, that a heterosexual couple who are each divorced from others can ALSO civilly (and in some denominations religiously) marry one another, express sexual intimacy etc etc - and still be contravening God’s will and committing bigamy and adultery in God’s eyes? Since God hates divorce as the Bible says in so many words? Such a pretense at a marital relationship is not a real expression of marital love as God intended that love to be expressed, ie monogamous and lasting until death.

Neither, as He makes abundantly clear in both old and New Testaments, did God intend marital love to be expressed in a homosexual context. So any purported homosexual marital commitment is, like the bigamous and adulterous heterosexual marriage above, a mere sham and not the real deal, and is not marital love as God intends love to be expressed.

 

[feetxxxl]

you are talking hypothetical not essence.

and you are defending position, not an understanding of the spirit.

 

[LilyM]

you are talking hypothetical not essence.

and you are defending position, not an understanding of the spirit.

You are talking nonsense and you are understanding and defending nothing, not even your own position, effectively.

And I’m talking reality - millions of couples are currently in such sinful heterosexual mock-marriages and offending God by them. Do you deny that this is the case?

 

[Eden]

why cant they…what is the sin. they bond out of the same spirit and as with heterosexual. bonded, committed, relationships the sexual intimacy in gay committed relationships is an affirmation and an expression of the devotion in the relationship. heterosexuals have been indulging in some form of anal stimaulation including intercourse without recrimination. why the double standard.

Your title for this thread is Scripture and Homosexuality, well, Scripture says sex between men (**ARSENOKOITAI) **is sinful. So, using the Bible, it is sinful because the Bible says so. This means that homosexual sex violates Divine Law. But, sexual acts between two men or two women is also sinful because it violates the Natural Law.

Natural Law asserts that people have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

We know from reason that a man’s reproductive organ was not intended to be inserted into another man’s organs intended for waste evacuation. It is obviously* unnatural *to do so. This is why homosexual acts violate, also, the Natural Law.

catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

 

[peary]

PEARY…THEN THAT IS YOUR WITNESS.

the problem is. your witness is without fellowship, and therefore without walking in the light.

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

This conversation, at least on my end, is finished. There is no reasoning with you. :yawn:

 

[Bwsherman]

Feetxxxl,

I think that the last few comments can summarize what my opinion of your stance is. You pervert scripture to say whatever it is you want it to say and not only do you do it, but then you do nothing to defend yourself outside of your own all-knowing opinion of things relating to scripture. I have asked you so many times on this thread to cite anyone other than some liberal twentieth-century theologian to defend yourself and you have not done this even one time. And here comes the reason that you have not done so…you can’t! That is the reality of the situation.

You do a disservice to the homosexual community in general by relaying this sort of non sequitir argumentation on its behalf. There are many that are in your situation that truly are attempting to understand the reality of God and what their sexual dispositions are telling them, and what that means for their daily lives. I pray for them that they might not be mislead by someone putting this sort of propaganda in their face.

 

[feetxxxl]

Your title for this thread is Scripture and Homosexuality, well, Scripture says sex between men (**ARSENOKOITAI) **is sinful. So, using the Bible, it is sinful because the Bible says so. This means that homosexual sex violates Divine Law. But, sexual acts between two men or two women is also sinful because it violates the Natural Law.

Natural Law asserts that people have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

We know from reason that a man’s reproductive organ was not intended to be inserted into another man’s organs intended for waste evacuation. It is obviously* unnatural *to do so. This is why homosexual acts violate, also, the Natural Law.

catholic.com/library/homosexuality.asp

everything you have said is about your understanding of the law, surely you would not say that this is the truth and spirit that we are to worship in john 4.

truth and spirit reveal each other. how can you believe you are spreaking the truth with no acknowledgement of spirit.

no one has yet been able to explain how the words of scripture say homosexuality is a sin. not from all the prohibitions of lev of themselves are sins, to the gang rape of gen., to the “shame based lust”, “abandonment”, “their women”, and "what truth was exchanged for what lie, and how was what entity of creation worshipped and served so that certain persons were given over to homosexuality? in romans, to the the “malebed” in in 1cor and 1tim the transposition of an animate person for an inanimate object. the greek word koite means bed, and what comes after does not change what comes before.

 

[feetxxxl]

You are talking nonsense and you are understanding and defending nothing, not even your own position, effectively.

And I’m talking reality - millions of couples are currently in such sinful heterosexual mock-marriages and offending God by them. Do you deny that this is the case?

my understanding about matthew 19 is based on 19:11-12. no one knows who has been given the word of the depth jesus calls us to in marriage, let alone a male female one flesh relationship.

even those who have been given it, if they cannot accept, then they shouldn’t.

my understanding is that jesus is explaining the possibilities of spirit when we take seriously our wedding vows, which means putting him in the center of the marriage.

to those who are unable, lose out in the fruit that would have come from that relationship, as well as spiritual growth and the possibility of knowing him in the relationship.

 

[Eden]

everything you have said is about your understanding of the law, surely you would not say that this is the truth and spirit that we are to worship in john 4.

truth and spirit reveal each other. how can you believe you are spreaking the truth with no acknowledgement of spirit.

When we are talking about Natural Law, it is not my law, but observable law of what is natural. The reproductive organs of a man and woman were made for each other. The reproductive organ of a man was not made for the evacuation organs of another man.

no one has yet been able to explain how the words of scripture say homosexuality is a sin. not from all the prohibitions of lev of themselves are sins, to the gang rape of gen., to the “shame based lust”, “abandonment”, “their women”, and "what truth was exchanged for what lie, and how was what entity of creation worshipped and served so that certain persons were given over to homosexuality? in romans, to the the “malebed” in in 1cor and 1tim the transposition of an animate person for an inanimate object. the greek word koite means bed, and what comes after does not change what comes before.

Of course it’s been explained. You choose to reject the obvious. Homosexual acts are sinful, both in Divine and Natural Law.

 

[LilyM]

my understanding about matthew 19 is based on 19:11-12. no one knows who has been given the word of the depth jesus calls us to in marriage, let alone a male female one flesh relationship.

even those who have been given it, if they cannot accept, then they shouldn’t.

my understanding is that jesus is explaining the possibilities of spirit when we take seriously our wedding vows, which means putting him in the center of the marriage.

to those who are unable, lose out in the fruit that would have come from that relationship, as well as spiritual growth and the possibility of knowing him in the relationship.

Please, you’re being ridiculously obscure. No wonder you can’t understand the plain words of scripture.

Do you accept God’s avowal in scripture that he literally hates divorce and thus that marriage - all marriage - is for life? Let your answer be yes or no, like Jesus bids us, and not twaddle like you’ve dished out above.

 

[revelations]

Look, you guys can do whatever you want and argue it with whatever twisted doctrines you want, but on the last day there is a final authority, and his name is Jesus Christ. Jesus entrusted his teaching authority to the catholic church, which does in fact teach many things that arent in the bible. Homosexuals can argue whatever they like, but on the last day there is a final authority and it will be worse for them because others tried to explain their errors but they persisted in their sin.

The truth of the matter is homosexuality is a sin, venial if you don’t know it’s a mortal matter. The day that i read the canadian episcopal conference got together to vote about whether homosexuality was ok or not, is the day i started praying for the episcopalians. I used to be one.

There is no way, no way at all that homosexuality can be justified. Just like free love and open air orgies. Bible doesnt say anything about those either.

Sorry, try again.

 

[feetxxxl]

Look, you guys can do whatever you want and argue it with whatever twisted doctrines you want, but on the last day there is a final authority, and his name is Jesus Christ. Jesus entrusted his teaching authority to the catholic church, which does in fact teach many things that arent in the bible. Homosexuals can argue whatever they like, but on the last day there is a final authority and it will be worse for them because others tried to explain their errors but they persisted in their sin.

The truth of the matter is homosexuality is a sin, venial if you don’t know it’s a mortal matter. The day that i read the canadian episcopal conference got together to vote about whether homosexuality was ok or not, is the day i started praying for the episcopalians. I used to be one.

There is no way, no way at all that homosexuality can be justified. Just like free love and open air orgies. Bible doesnt say anything about those either.

Sorry, try again.

and of course you are making this comment, without testing, witness, or fellowship

the triune god lives inside us. in fact jesus says that if he does not live inside us, we are not a part of him. in john,jesus says that he is sending part of the triune to teach us all truth. but rather than get this truth directly thru relationship, along with fellowship with the father, and turning to christ(JOHN5:39) we are instead without question are to accept the teachings of the church…meaning only the catholic church, and this, even though 1thess 5:21 says test everything , keep the good.

do you think the catholic church is better off with luther’s posting of his ninety five points?