Homosexuality in the bible

[LeeJUk]

Hey, well with the recent Evangelical Lutheran denomination accepting homosexuals I'd like to discuss the issue from the bible.

Here are some common arguments from the bible that are used by clergy who affirm homosexuality. I'm wondering if you could offer a response to each one. This is pretty much the interpretations my denomination uses to allow our first openly gay man to stay a pastor.

1) In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 we see the term "Pais" used instead of "doulos" for servant. Due to some things like

a) the fact the centurion cared so much
b) the common word for slave was not used, thus this word Pais often meant a sexual partner who was male.
c) He is called "Honoured Servant"


we have good reason to suspect that this roman centurion had a male sex slave and Jesus didn't condemn him for it, in fact Jesus was going to go to his house and Jesus really commended his faith and didn't say ok your gonna need to stop being a homosexual before you come to follow me. Therefore homosexuality is OK.


2) Matthew 19:11-12

Here Jesus refers to "eunuchs who have been so from birth." This terminology ("born eunuchs") was used in the ancient world to refer to homosexual men who looked after the kings wife and basically these people were either homosexual - because obviously a homosexual ain't gonna have sex with your Queen (in ancient literature) or they were castrated people. Jesus indicates that being a "born eunuch" is a gift from God.

We also see Phillip meeting that Ethiopian eunuch and he says if you believe in Jesus with all your heart you can be baptized, he was never told you need to repent of homosexuality or anything.

3) The Levitical laws have ceased, I mean we never take anything else literally in that passage, like wearing 2 different fabrics is an abomination or eating seafood is an abomination. - I would actually personally agree with this one.

4) Romans 1 - In these verses, Paul condemns idol worshippers and God haters. According to Paul, these “God haters” experiment with gay sex only as a way of seeking new thrills or in cultic worship. Clearly, he is not speaking about modern, innately gay and lesbian people, who love God and want to honor God while living with integrity as who they are.

5) Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be used for condemning homosexuals in general. That story was about gang rape and about lack of hospitality.

- I again would actually agree with this one. Calling gay people sodomites or using this story against them is disgusting.


6) Those 2 passages, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

They include in our english bibles "homosexuality" in our list.
However, theres some problems with how our english translators have translated this.

a) There was no greek or hebrew term in existance in the 1st century for homosexuals.
b) Malakoi as translated by many, meant morally weak and soft. Men who weren't taking responsibility for anything and getting involved in gluttony and banquets and such.

c) The second word is no where to be found really in ancient literature, and in the few places it is, it's not really consistent. Paul could be meaning the men who had sex with male prostitutes in the temple here, or he could be meaning those who use power to have sex.

Thus "abusers with themselves of mankind" translation of the KJV.


Martin Luther also translated this as Child Abusers if I remember correctly.


Some examples of this word in our english bibles "Arsenokoitai" that is translated Homosexual is in the literature of 2 ancient legends.

Both of them are concerning someone having sex with another by force.
For example in one "Arsenokoitai" is used to refer to zeus abducting and raping a young boy.






Discuss !

 

[Peairtach]

Dear Lee,

The liberals in the CofS and elsewhere have become adept and Satanic Scripture-twisters in this area as also other areas. Will they be using similar eisegesis to justify beastialism next ? It's a wonder their Liberal theology hasn't led to Liberal ethics sooner. Are people even temporarily suspended for fornication and adultery in liberal congregations with liberal ministers? If not, are they going to treat homosexuality any differently?

The evangelicals in the CofS should either leave or fight the errors of Liberalism until they're thrown out. It was bad enough that the evangelicals were unequally yoked to the antichrist of Liberalism for decades; now they are unequally yoked to perversion.

Some/most of these eisegetical games are answered in Greg Bahnsen's "Homosexuality: A Biblical View" (Published by Presbyterian and Reformed). There are no doubt other books by evangelicals that answer the homosexual Scripture-twisters.

Don't treat people who say they believe that Jesus sanctioned immorality as brothers in Christ in case you are infected by their leaven.

Yours,
Richard.

 

[dswatts]

a book recommendation...

I don't think you will find a better book than a small volume by Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel.

As someone delivered out of a homosexual lifestyle, he offers sound biblical interpretation of not only the Scriptures you reference in your post, but to a number of others that those attempting to forward a homosexual agenda attempt to twist to their purposes.

Grace,

Dwayne

 

[Hamalas]

This might also be a helpful read:

Amazon.com: Same Sex Controversy, The: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality (9780764225246): James R. White, Jeffrey D. Niell: Books

 

[TimV]

5) Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be used for condemning homosexuals in general. That story was about gang rape and about lack of hospitality.

- I again would actually agree with this one. Calling gay people sodomites or using this story against them is disgusting.

Discuss !

Sounds almost as if you've already made up your mind.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."

Sodomy was just a small detail that has nothing to do with the story?

 

[gene_mingo]

The bible says homosexuality is a sin. The leaders of our church are not to be living in open unrepentant sin. Paul in 1 Timothy I believe covers this.

 

[LeeJUk]

5) Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be used for condemning homosexuals in general. That story was about gang rape and about lack of hospitality.

- I again would actually agree with this one. Calling gay people sodomites or using this story against them is disgusting.

Discuss !

Sounds almost as if you've already made up your mind.

Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."

Sodomy was just a small detail that has nothing to do with the story?

Umm I don't know if you just ignored my post or what but I'm pointing out that "Sodomy" isn't a blanket statement for homosexual relations. The sin of sodom was homosexual gang rape and lack of hospitality.


As for making up my mind, well no really I haven't.

 

[gene_mingo]

Umm I don't know if you just ignored my post or what but I'm pointing out that "Sodomy" isn't a blanket statement for homosexual relations.

According to the dictionary, the word "sodomy" actually is a blanket statement for a particular type of intercourse. Is rape sodomy? What is the difference between the two sins?

 

[LeeJUk]

Dear Lee,

The liberals in the CofS and elsewhere have become adept and Satanic Scripture-twisters in this area as also other areas. Will they be using similar eisegesis to justify beastialism next ? It's a wonder their Liberal theology hasn't led to Liberal ethics sooner. Are people even temporarily suspended for fornication and adultery in liberal congregations with liberal ministers? If not, are they going to treat homosexuality any differently?

The evangelicals in the CofS should either leave or fight the errors of Liberalism until they're thrown out. It was bad enough that the evangelicals were unequally yoked to the antichrist of Liberalism for decades; now they are unequally yoked to perversion.

Some/most of these eisegetical games are answered in Greg Bahnsen's "Homosexuality: A Biblical View" (Published by Presbyterian and Reformed). There are no doubt other books by evangelicals that answer the homosexual Scripture-twisters.

Don't treat people who say they believe that Jesus sanctioned immorality as brothers in Christ in case you are infected by their leaven.

Yours,
Richard.

I absolutely agree there should be a battle, but the battle cannot be over higher criticism, or such anymore. I think that battle has long been lost.

I think whats needed is more of a system where evangelical ministers are encouraged and allowed to come into the church of Scotland ministry. Perhaps an evangelical college which is in a major city as opposed to the one we have in the highlands which is hard for a lot of people to get to, instead of the liberal universities that we are forced to attend, and an un-biased assessment process which allows those with evangelical views to get the same rights as liberals in the selection schools.

-----Added 8/22/2009 at 10:59:12 EST-----

Umm I don't know if you just ignored my post or what but I'm pointing out that "Sodomy" isn't a blanket statement for homosexual relations.

According to the dictionary, the word "sodomy" actually is a blanket statement for a particular type of intercourse. Is rape sodomy? What is the difference between the two sins?

According to the dictionary?


So what if its according to the dictionary?

I'm talking about the bible, not the way which the word has been used throughout history.

In the bible I believe that the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was not homosexuality, but homosexual gang rape.

Is there a difference between homosexual sex and gang rape? Do I really need to answer that?

 

[gene_mingo]

According to the dictionary?


So what if its according to the dictionary?

I'm talking about the bible, not the way which the word has been used throughout history.

In the bible I believe that the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was not homosexuality, but homosexual gang rape.

Is there a difference between homosexual sex and gang rape? Do I really need to answer that

Whether you like it or not, words have meanings and the word sodomy is a correct way to describe a particular type of intercourse.

Again, is there a distinction between rape and sodomy? Is all rape sodomy? What makes those two sins different?

 

[Peairtach]

Even without any analysis of these passages, Lee, you should have made up your mind that homosexuality is sinful. In the Bible sexual relations are sinful outwith marriage. Marriage is always between a man and woman. Ergo homosexuality is sinful.

I'll look at the first piece of nonsense that passes for biblical teaching among antichristian liberal ministers in the CofS.

Quote from Lee

1) In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 we see the term "Pais" used instead of "doulos" for servant. Due to some things like

a) the fact the centurion cared so much
b) the common word for slave was not used, thus this word Pais often meant a sexual partner who was male.
c) He is called "Honoured Servant"


we have good reason to suspect that this roman centurion had a male sex slave and Jesus didn't condemn him for it, in fact Jesus was going to go to his house and Jesus really commended his faith and didn't say ok your gonna need to stop being a homosexual before you come to follow me. Therefore homosexuality is OK.

a) Are they saying that centurions only cared for homosexual slave-partners of theirs and not good slaves/servants? Are they saying that all centurions were homosexual (sorry, or bisexual, I assume bisexuality is also allowed by liberal CofS ministers), especially this one that Jesus commends for his faith? Are they advocating paedophilia also by this precious and holy text? Are they saying that Jesus wasn't allowed to heal sinners without also commending their sin(s)? Are they blasphemously saying that Jesus was commending homosexuality and forced paedophilia ("sex-slave")?

b) Check a concordance and lexicon to see how the word pais is used in the NT. E.g. In Acts 4:25, David is called a pais of God. The interpretations of the liberals stray into blasphemy.

c) Irrelevant.

The eisegesis of the liberals on this subject is blasphemous nonsense. It starts in the pit and ends in the gutter. I feel tainted by it, Lee, just by trying to tackle such Satanic rubbish and therefore giving it the time of day.

I would advise you, Lee, to steer clear of those who teach such stuff, read the exegesis on it in the above books, and to find another suitable congregation/denomination to worship in. The Church of Scotland may have been listing badly because of so much antichristian theology within her, but at the last assembly she just took a nosedive.

 

[Blue Tick]

4) Romans 1 - In these verses, Paul condemns idol worshippers and God haters. According to Paul, these “God haters” experiment with gay sex only as a way of seeking new thrills or in cultic worship. Clearly, he is not speaking about modern, innately gay and lesbian people, who love God and want to honor God while living with integrity as who they are.

That's a contradiction that homosexuals seek to honor God (If i'm understanding your post correctly). The homosexual lifestyle is the height of rebellion against God. It's an attack on the family which is God ordained, a violation of the seventh commandment, destroys the nautral order which God instituted, and is a violation of God's law.

During times of apostasy and social decline homosexuality becomes prominent. The homosexual is not at peace with God but is at war with God. It's the culmination of hostility and rebellion toward God.

 

[LeeJUk]

According to the dictionary?


So what if its according to the dictionary?

I'm talking about the bible, not the way which the word has been used throughout history.

In the bible I believe that the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was not homosexuality, but homosexual gang rape.

Is there a difference between homosexual sex and gang rape? Do I really need to answer that

Whether you like it or not, words have meanings and the word sodomy is a correct way to describe a particular type of intercourse.

Again, is there a distinction between rape and sodomy? Is all rape sodomy? What makes those two sins different?

Well yeah but if the meaning is unfounded from scripture though it's not correct. If the sin of sodom and gommorah was lying, and I then made up a word called "sodomy" to describe fornication, would that be valid?


Well now I don't know what you mean by "is all rape sodomy". Are we speaking about my definition of sodomy as being homosexual gang rape as it is in scripture, or homosexual sex as a whole?

If were using your definition of the word, then i don't know what your getting at. Are you saying consensual homosexual sex is rape or as bad as rape?

-----Added 8/22/2009 at 11:31:47 EST-----

Even without any analysis of these passages, Lee, you should have made up your mind that homosexuality is sinful. In the Bible sexual relations are sinful outwith marriage. Marriage is always between a man and woman. Ergo homosexuality is sinful.

I'll look at the first piece of nonsense that passes for biblical teaching among antichristian liberal ministers in the CofS.

Quote from Lee

1) In Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 we see the term "Pais" used instead of "doulos" for servant. Due to some things like

a) the fact the centurion cared so much
b) the common word for slave was not used, thus this word Pais often meant a sexual partner who was male.
c) He is called "Honoured Servant"


we have good reason to suspect that this roman centurion had a male sex slave and Jesus didn't condemn him for it, in fact Jesus was going to go to his house and Jesus really commended his faith and didn't say ok your gonna need to stop being a homosexual before you come to follow me. Therefore homosexuality is OK.

a) Are they saying that centurions only cared for homosexual slave-partners of theirs and not good slaves/servants? Are they saying that all centurions were homosexual (sorry, or bisexual, I assume bisexuality is also allowed by liberal CofS ministers), especially this one that Jesus commends for his faith? Are they advocating paedophilia also by this precious and holy text? Are they saying that Jesus wasn't allowed to heal sinners without also commending their sin(s)? Are they blasphemously saying that Jesus was commending homosexuality and forced paedophilia ("sex-slave")?

b) Check a concordance and lexicon to see how the word pais is used in the NT. E.g. In Acts 4:25, David is called a pais of God. The interpretations of the liberals stray into blasphemy.

c) Irrelevant.

The eisegesis of the liberals on this subject is blasphemous nonsense. It starts in the pit and ends in the gutter. I feel tainted by it, Lee, just by trying to tackle such Satanic rubbish and therefore giving it the time of day.

I would advise you, Lee, to steer clear of those who teach such stuff, read the exegesis on it in the above books, and to find another suitable congregation/denomination to worship in. The Church of Scotland may have been listing badly because of so much antichristian theology within her, but at the last assembly she just took a nosedive.

Well I think you really need to calm down a bit to be honest.

I know your free church but theres no need to think that all liberal ministers are fire breathing people from the pit of hell. I used to think like that till I actually listened to some and started to look into how they got to that place. I don't agree with them by any means, but theres no need to have this hateful picture in your mind anytime you mention liberal.

I mean if you look at the background of how people become liberals I can't say that you can blame them. I mean they start out with a liberal parish minister hearing nothing of the gospel or maybe their father was one and they were a child of the manse. Eventually they decide to apply for the ministry, they then go on to say glasgow university where they are taught

1) higher criticism of both old and new testaments.
2) historical criticism of Jesus as taught by people who line up very close with the Jesus seminar.

3) A multi-faith class where they discuss and i have a feeling they get forced into this idea that muslims are in some way christian and people of other faith too are valid.

*all of what im writing is actual official curriculum as of today for the BD course for ministry of the church of Scotland.


I mean any faith they had would be destroyed by the end of that and they would have no doctrinal certainty about anything of the christian faith after it.

 

[toddpedlar]

In the bible I believe that the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was not homosexuality, but homosexual gang rape.

With all due respect, Lee, your interpretation is mistaken. Take a look at Jude 7, which clearly lays out the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah:

[bible]Jude 7[/bible]

Yes, as Ezekiel points out in Ezekiel 16:49, they were also guilty of pride and lacking in charity:

[bible] Ezekiel 16:49[/bible]

Sodom indeed had many sins - but let the Bible speak. Prideful sexual immorality was high on the list. Nobody can interpret the Biblical witness on Sodom as mere inhospitableness, or to limit the sexual immorality characteristic of the city as homosexual gang rape.

 

[toddpedlar]

If were using your definition of the word, then i don't know what your getting at. Are you saying consensual homosexual sex is rape or as bad as rape?

Each is punishable by death. Each is wicked perversion of God's creation of sex. Clearly rape is not the same as consensual homosexual sex, but that's not relevant. Each is wickedness and rebellion against God. They are equally evil.

 

[Romans 8 Verse 28]

5) Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be used for condemning homosexuals in general. That story was about gang rape and about lack of hospitality.

- I again would actually agree with this one. Calling gay people sodomites or using this story against them is disgusting.

So let me get this straight, you're actually saying it's "disgusting" for us to use Biblical terminology in reference to those who practice sodomy/sexual perversity?! Are you serious?

It would be more accurate to say that it's "disgusting" to see folks following the sodomite (oops, there I go using Biblical terminology!) movement in giving sodomy/sexual perversity a positive label (such as using the historically positive term "gay" in an Orwellian manner).

 

[gene_mingo]

Well yeah but if the meaning is unfounded from scripture though it's not correct. If the sin of sodom and gommorah was lying, and I then made up a word called "sodomy" to describe fornication, would that be valid?

Again words have meaning. In modern day we don't go around using ancient meaning for words. Meanings do change over time.

Here is what you said in response to TimV.

Umm I don't know if you just ignored my post or what but I'm pointing out that "Sodomy" isn't a blanket statement for homosexual relations.

When, in fact, the word sodomy is meant to describe male homosexual intercourse.

The word sodom in hebrew means to scorch or burnt. (according to strongs)

You have made an argument on a definition of a word and have provided no support other than your personal opinion of the word.

Well now I don't know what you mean by "is all rape sodomy". Are we speaking about my definition of sodomy as being homosexual gang rape as it is in scripture, or homosexual sex as a whole?

Is there a distinction between rape and sodomy? You still haven't made a scriptural argument that supports your definition of sodomy.

If were using your definition of the word, then i don't know what your getting at. Are you saying consensual homosexual sex is rape or as bad as rape?

Its not my definition of sodomy thats in question. I have provided what is the normative or commonly agreed definition of the word. I am still waiting for you to answer my question about rape and sodomy. Is there a difference?

 

[py3ak]

Lee, I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but I would like to respond quickly to your post #14.

All reprobates have a backstory: that backstory is often interesting, unique, sad and engaging. That is one of the benefits of reading good fiction, is that it reminds us of the fact that even those who are irremediably headed to hell were made in the image of God, and the working out of His decree of reprobation functions through means just as much as election does.
It is good to feel compassion towards liberals, to understand that in some ways there is a measure of real religious vigor in some of their ideas, and to hope for their illumination and salvation. Of course, they will have to repent of their blasphemy, scripture-twisting, and intellectual idolatry; but God can bring them to that repentance.

That all being said, however, it is also important to bear in mind that Satan appears as an angel of light, and his ministers make themselves out to be ministers of righteousness. Satan is a liar and a murderer. His ministers are also. But that means that most of them are not running through the streets with guns and grenades, blood dripping from their past slaughters and hollering threats of extreme violence against all who will not agree with them; no, they are nice men in respectable clothing, who have some learning, some wit, some charm, some humor, and who peddle poison under the guise of love and scholarship. Satan can read: he knows what the fruits of the Spirit are, and you can be sure that he will attempt to imitate them.

So the danger Richard identifies is real. While having compassion on liberals and praying for them is appropriate, you do need to be very careful, as you value your own soul, that their evil communications do not corrupt your good manners. Paul is quite clear: if someone claims to be a brother and practices fornication, etc., we should not eat with him. So there is a real question: do Paul's words not apply to you in your situation? Is there no danger that you will be leavened with destructive nonsense? "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall."

Also, any understanding of the incident of Sodom and Gommorha that does not take Jude 7 into account is woefully inadequate.

I think it is dreadfully uncharitable to assume that eunuchs are homosexual. Are we going to accuse Ebed-Melech (Jeremiah 38:7-13) of practicing what God called abomination (and whatever pathetic dodge they may want to use about that being OT, Ebed-Melech was in the OT), when God commends him (Jeremiah 39:15-18)?

A eunuch is a castrated person. If castrated before puberty, he is typically incapable of normal sexual responses. So if someone becomes a eunuch for the kingdom of God, like Paul, he is devoted to perpetual celibacy. It would be an amazingly vivid illustration of calling good evil, to say that someone became a homosexual for the kingdom of God.

The reason people are not replying in detail to the arguments you've listed is that they start from wrong presuppositions, they contain blasphemous suggestions, and they are deceitful and filthy. Most people don't find enjoyment in straightening those errors out, because they are disgusting, as well as dangerous (just like working at a recycling plant or in a waste treatment plant is not the most popular job available).

 

[Peairtach]

I know, Lee, this stirs me up a bit.

And, I know the Free Church is far from perfect, consisting of sinners as it does. Denominations are just temporary tools in God's hands which can all become less than useful, or even harmful.

I know that Liberal ministers are deceived as well as deceivers, but until evangelical and Reformed people in the CofS realise how wicked Liberalism is, and that two cannot and should not walk together unless they be agreed, the evangelicals and Reformed will not be willing to take a stand against Liberalism; a stand that either sees them ejected from the CofS or the Liberals ejected for heresy.

The CofS lacks proper discipline and a coherent subscription to the WCF. Ministers sign up to the "substance of the Reformed faith" and that is a wax nose that can mean whatever.

Otherwise you will see the CofS follow ungodly society wherever it goes. Until forty years ago homosexuality wasn't allowed by society as acceptable behaviour, because of Christian influence on society. Now, in order to follow the crowd, Holy Scripture is being twisted to mean that homosexual behaviour is not to be disciplined. Is fornication and adultery disciplined in CofS liberal congregations? Is anything disciplined at all? This is the root of all the CofS's problems.

Is the CofS too much of a holy cow to the evangelicals, so that constant adjustments and compromises have to be made - in church discipline, and in presbytery, until the church turns into a poisonous jelly.

I'm not being hyper-critical of you or other evangelicals - which again is a wax-nose of a word - in the CofS. What are you planning to do about this mess?

I would just echo what Ruben, says.
Maybe after you’ve read the above books, it would be better to start a thread on what truly Reformed and evangelical people should do when they’re in denominations like the CofS. I’ve seen a number of cases of people who’ve abandoned evangelicalism/the Reformed faith, by mixing indiscriminately with Liberals in mixed denominations as if the Liberals were true brothers in Christ. Lines become blurred or invisible. I know that isn’t the case with all. Inspite of all this there are godly Reformed men and evangelical congregations in the CofS. But are you strong enough spiritually, and should you test your strength?

Is it even biblical to be unequally yoked to liberals? I know you may be in an evangelical congregation, with an evangelical (and Reformed) minister, but where does e.g. your money go? Is succour given to the liberal liars by the presence of evangelicals in the CofS?

 

[ReformedTarheel]

It is definitely telling of the times in which we live that there are people, supposedly even Reformed Protestants, who not only refuse to follow the Bible, but also actively go against absolute and clear prohibitions outlined in the Bible.

To suggest that the OT laws against sodomy have "expired" ignores that these same sinful practices were also condemned at various times in the New Testament, such as Romans 1:26-27, where we have the following:

Rom 1:26: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature;
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

It is clear that "vile" is synonymous with "sin", and it is troubling to me that there are "churches" today that teach all manner of heresies--even to the point of having sodomites in the pulpit. How could a man, who is actively engaged in a sin clearly called an "abomination" in the Bible, be qualified to preach in anything, much less matters of sin?

The Bible's meaning has not changed over time, and the Reformers were not afraid to point out what the Bible identified was sin. Why should we hesitate to do our duty today? While we are in the world, we should certainly not be conformed to it. God will not honor such intentional misrepresentation of His Holy Word.

 

[LeeJUk]

In the bible I believe that the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was not homosexuality, but homosexual gang rape.

With all due respect, Lee, your interpretation is mistaken. Take a look at Jude 7, which clearly lays out the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah:

[bible]Jude 7[/bible]

Yes, as Ezekiel points out in Ezekiel 16:49, they were also guilty of pride and lacking in charity:

[bible] Ezekiel 16:49[/bible]

Sodom indeed had many sins - but let the Bible speak. Prideful sexual immorality was high on the list. Nobody can interpret the Biblical witness on Sodom as mere inhospitableness, or to limit the sexual immorality characteristic of the city as homosexual gang rape.

True, all true, but "un-natural desires" and "sexual immorality" I think covers absolutely homosexual rape.



Joshua - By the way, there was a post before Richard's telling you to do something to your original post. You need to do that now.

Well calm down there, I find discussion very fruitful. I love discussing things, I'm not sitting here arguing or even commiting to anything. I do have a position on the sin of sodom and gommora but forcefully and rudely telling me to "you need to do that now." you need to take a step back and calm down. A lot of problems and rage and anger that we so get tied up in could be solved if we could just come and respectfully discuss things.


As for you romans 8 verse 28, so are you calling them homosexual rapists, unhospitable or just homosexuals when you call them sodomites? I also see nowhere in the bible where we are supposed to call people with such derogatory terms, it's not respectful, it's not nice, it's not done in love and its certainly not the message of hope the bible gives us and it's caused many young gay and lesbian people to commit suicide in your country because the church constantly churns out this hateful rhetoric when it comes to homosexuality, yet it seems that the church doesn't preach so strongly against other sins, like fornication or lying or religious hypocracy.


gene - rape and sodomy - is there a difference?

Well I think that rape can be included in the idea of "sodomy" but I'm even so sure you can go up to people and say your a "sodomite".

1) they would have to be unhospitable
2) they would have to be involved in homosexual gang rape - lets be honest that's what was in the story, that was the main point in the story.


py3ak - well I didn't mean that eunuch always meant homosexual. But it's undeniable really from ancient sources that a lot of the time it did mean that. Also we see that I wasn't talking about single people, you will see that Jesus I think mentions 3 groups of "eunuchs". Some castrated, some "born that way". Which again according to ancient literature and the 1st century meaning could be taken as homosexuals. I don't know why people see it perhaps as dangerous or heresy or unspeakable to go into ancient history and 1st century context.

As for me associating with liberals, I practically have no real contact with liberals. Do I read materials? Do I listen to what they have to say? Sure I do. I'm not nervous that the truth of God can stand up against liberalism.
So far I see nothing in scholarship or their bad ancient history that would make me fear in the slightest I'm wrong.

As for your idea of it being "blasphemous", "dangerous" and "filthy" to look into these issues which I've raised. Well I don't know, I mean would you feel the same way if we were talking about another doctrine? if not then maybe you need to question if your homophobic or not. It seems people have no problem looking into other scriptural issues on this board.

Richard Tallach - Is the CofS too much of a holy cow to the evangelicals, so that constant adjustments and compromises have to be made - in church discipline, and in presbytery, until the church turns into a poisonous jelly.


Well to be honest where else do you want evangelicals within the CofS to go? The free church? I mean first of all would the free church have the capacity to deal with hundreds of congregations and ministers coming over, second of all think of the disagreements over your ultra-traditional services and ways that would arise and thirdly not everyone in the CofS evangelical wing is reformed, many are arminian and we even have a charismatic wing and modern worship churches kitted out with technology and bands.


As far as I'm concerned evangelicals in the church of Scotland are in a really really hard place. It's either the free church or start a new denomination and I really don't think they'res any real leaders capable of leading evangelicals in the CofS in the direction of a split much less starting a denomination. I mean you look at what happened at the general assembly, the liberals absolutely dominated us with the courts system and such. It was also rumoured that many evangelicals werent sent to the GA by their presbyteries to get the liberals the voting win.


Whats my game plan? Become a minister, survive glasgow universities liberalism and get involved as much as I can with the rest of my life to fight against liberalism in the CofS on every level of influence the Lord gives me.

We already have 2 or 3 split off presbyterian denominations, we don't really need a 4th.



ReformedTalheel- "It is definitely telling of the times in which we live that there are people, supposedly even Reformed Protestants, who not only refuse to follow the Bible, but also actively go against absolute and clear prohibitions outlined in the Bible."

I hope you aren't talking about me there because that would be assuming I refuse to follow the bible and that I support homosexuality. I don't support homosexuality but I think it's an issue that should be discussed and an issue i'm still trying to work my way through.

Blindly accepting the majority view on the issue, or blindly accepting a reformed view is also absolutely wrong. You really shouldn't get so angry over discussing and questioning of your interpretations. Our interpretations really are not infallible. Not everyone who disagree's with the reformers, or the majority is a heretic. I mean the bible was used for a long while even by true born again Christians to support slavery, am I to blindly accept that interpretation? I think not, I'd rather wrestle and struggle through issues in their full depth, instead of just looking at face value and looking through my own lense of the reformers ,or my own evangelical presuppositions when I read this bible. That's what cults do, they never go outside their little box when reading these scriptures or coming up with doctrines.

 

[toddpedlar]

In the bible I believe that the sin of Sodom and Gommorah was not homosexuality, but homosexual gang rape.

With all due respect, Lee, your interpretation is mistaken. Take a look at Jude 7, which clearly lays out the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah:

[bible]Jude 7[/bible]

Yes, as Ezekiel points out in Ezekiel 16:49, they were also guilty of pride and lacking in charity:

[bible] Ezekiel 16:49[/bible]

Sodom indeed had many sins - but let the Bible speak. Prideful sexual immorality was high on the list. Nobody can interpret the Biblical witness on Sodom as mere inhospitableness, or to limit the sexual immorality characteristic of the city as homosexual gang rape.

True, all true, but "un-natural desires" and "sexual immorality" I think covers absolutely homosexual rape.

Sure.. and adultery, and incest, and homosexuality, and a host of other things. If Paul had meant to single out homosexual rape as the one and only sin of Sodom, he could have. He didn't. He said they were guilty of unnatural desires and sexual immorality. That's a broad program of sin.

What is wrong with accepting the plain reading of Scripture here and in SO
many other places? Homosexual practice is plain and simple SIN and Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of it, among other things.

You really should consider whether you want to be led to your convictions by those (like the CoS) who have scuttled the innerancy and infallibility of the Word and do not accept the Westminster Standards. Those issues lead them to accept humanistic and liberal teaching concerning homosexuality, for instance. Don't you see where it has led them?

 

[LeeJUk]

With all due respect, Lee, your interpretation is mistaken. Take a look at Jude 7, which clearly lays out the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah:

[bible]Jude 7[/bible]

Yes, as Ezekiel points out in Ezekiel 16:49, they were also guilty of pride and lacking in charity:

[bible] Ezekiel 16:49[/bible]

Sodom indeed had many sins - but let the Bible speak. Prideful sexual immorality was high on the list. Nobody can interpret the Biblical witness on Sodom as mere inhospitableness, or to limit the sexual immorality characteristic of the city as homosexual gang rape.

True, all true, but "un-natural desires" and "sexual immorality" I think covers absolutely homosexual rape.

Sure.. and adultery, and incest, and homosexuality, and a host of other things. If Paul had meant to single out homosexual rape as the one and only sin of Sodom, he could have. He didn't. He said they were guilty of unnatural desires and sexual immorality. That's a broad program of sin.

What is wrong with accepting the plain reading of Scripture here and in SO
many other places? Homosexual practice is plain and simple SIN and Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of it, among other things.

You really should consider whether you want to be led to your convictions by those (like the CoS) who have scuttled the innerancy and infallibility of the Word and do not accept the Westminster Standards. Those issues lead them to accept humanistic and liberal teaching concerning homosexuality, for instance. Don't you see where it has led them?

On your first point todd, that there is a broad program of sin there. Do you think it's likely that they were ingaging in a meaningful, one man another another man relationship? If they were willing to rape people, it seems to me that truly un-natural affection and sexual immorality was the main problem, but do I think God killed them for the kind of homosexual relationships we see today, no I simply don't. I don't see that anywhere in the text(s).


On this idea of simple reading of scripture. Well for example who was right on those 2 greek words, Martin Luther or today's translators? We also need to look at ancient history to see what Paul meant. I didn't mean I'm going to reject plain reading of scripture, I meant that we need to look at what Paul and other writers meant historically instead of imposing what we think the verses mean on it. Also we need to look at the whole bible.

Well first of all I'm not letting anyone lead me, which is exactly why I'm going to these efforts. Second of all, the sources I've been looking at to my knowledge, aren't rejectors of scripture. In fact a lot of their arguementation is from history and scripture. I don't accept humanistic teaching or trying to "Improve on the justice" of God.

 

[gene_mingo]

gene - rape and sodomy - is there a difference?

Well I think that rape can be included in the idea of "sodomy" but I'm even so sure you can go up to people and say your a "sodomite".

1) they would have to be unhospitable
2) they would have to be involved in homosexual gang rape - lets be honest that's what was in the story, that was the main point in the story.

What is the difference between rape and sodomy?

Lets be honest. You still haven't provided any scriptural support for your definition of sodomy.

 

[toddpedlar]

True, all true, but "un-natural desires" and "sexual immorality" I think covers absolutely homosexual rape.

Sure.. and adultery, and incest, and homosexuality, and a host of other things. If Paul had meant to single out homosexual rape as the one and only sin of Sodom, he could have. He didn't. He said they were guilty of unnatural desires and sexual immorality. That's a broad program of sin.

What is wrong with accepting the plain reading of Scripture here and in SO
many other places? Homosexual practice is plain and simple SIN and Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of it, among other things.

You really should consider whether you want to be led to your convictions by those (like the CoS) who have scuttled the innerancy and infallibility of the Word and do not accept the Westminster Standards. Those issues lead them to accept humanistic and liberal teaching concerning homosexuality, for instance. Don't you see where it has led them?

On your first point todd, that there is a broad program of sin there. Do you think it's likely that they were ingaging in a meaningful, one man another another man relationship? If they were willing to rape people, it seems to me that truly un-natural affection and sexual immorality was the main problem, but do I think God killed them for the kind of homosexual relationships we see today, no I simply don't. I don't see that anywhere in the text(s).


On this idea of simple reading of scripture. Well for example who was right on those 2 greek words, Martin Luther or today's translators? We also need to look at ancient history to see what Paul meant. I didn't mean I'm going to reject plain reading of scripture, I meant that we need to look at what Paul and other writers meant historically instead of imposing what we think the verses mean on it. Also we need to look at the whole bible.

Well first of all I'm not letting anyone lead me, which is exactly why I'm going to these efforts. Second of all, the sources I've been looking at to my knowledge, aren't rejectors of scripture. In fact a lot of their arguementation is from history and scripture. I don't accept humanistic teaching or trying to "Improve on the justice" of God.

Lee -

Read Romans 1, and see if what you see there tells you something about unnatural desires, and sexual relationships between men. Go back to Leviticus and see what was said there about men lying with men. There is no implication of rape at all in those discussions... just homosexual sex.

It's sin. Period.

I also would ask you to consider whether you might not be properly understanding the positions of those whom you're reading who argue that it is only rape that is forbidden. Is it possible you're not discerning something?

Todd

 

[LeeJUk]

Gene - well have you read the story? How the men came to the door and basically said come out so we can sexually know them?

So do you want me to take "un-natural affections" and then ignore the story of how sodom and gommorah came to get destroyed.


Todd -

Well I didn't mean that the ONLY sin was homosexual rape, obviously the environment probably included incest too due to the fact that lots daughters ended up sleeping with him and such. Obviously sex outside of marriage is also sin and adultery, so those 2 were probably involved there as well.

The danger I think that others on this thread are doing and many evangelicals is specifically saying OK, the sin of sodom and gommora is predominantly homosexuality as we see it today, therefore, your sodomites. It's almost like saying your foreign, you don't belong your someone we absolutely despise if your a homosexual.


I have of course read romans 1 and if you look at the historical context in which it was written there is the very credable position, since he mentions idolatry, that these idolaters, started having sex that was unnatural to them in these environments that had both male and female prostitutes.


Would you take the position that homosexuals aren't born that way but are instead conditioned to become homosexuals?

 

[Scottish Lass]

Lee, I believe the recommendation is in post 11--to put the words of others (the teaching you summarize) in quotes so it's visually easier to determine your view from theirs.

 

[toddpedlar]

Would you take the position that homosexuals aren't born that way but are instead conditioned to become homosexuals?

It makes no difference. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is sin, and therefore to engage in it is sinful. Whether a person has a particular propensity to this sin or not is irrelevant.

Some have been found to have a propensity to thievery. Should they be excused because of that?

Men are born into this world with all manner of sinful desires, and NONE has any excuse for acting out those desires. My position is that there are probably some who are born with a very strong and perverted desire to engage in intimate relationships with those of their own sex AND that those desires must be suppressed and that behavior rejected as sinful.

 

[gene_mingo]

Gene - well have you read the story?

Are you going to answer my question?

What is the difference between rape and sodomy?

 

[LeeJUk]

OK well were just going in a circle now Todd so I'll leave that. Though its very worrying when you kind of seperate them out and say well they're very perverted asif they're a bit more wicked than us straight people who are born wanting to fornicate with women.

As for you gene I did a few posts above. But anyway really it's just splitting hairs at that point, that really wasnt what I intended to have a discussion about. Sodomy can summarize many things, but a homosexual relationship between 2 people in a commited way, I dont think it can at all.

Scottish Lass - I noted which ones are my beliefs, but the rest are not mines. They are the standard gay evangelical or liberal view.