Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

[CS1]

Perhaps when I'm aware of my own sinfulness, I'll be a little less harsh with another's. I encounter far too much anti-anyone rhetoric online and far too little, "love your neighbor as yourself," and "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

you are just parroting those things you perceive as unloving. No different than those who say we are intolerant. it is a lie. You perceive love as not even saying what one does is a sin because it makes one feel uncomfortable. FYI it is not rhetoric it's called telling the truth. which most gay people appreciate.

 

[Oblio]

you are just parroting those things you perceive as unloving. No different than those who say we are intolerant. it is a lie. You perceive love as not even saying what one does is a sin because it makes one feel uncomfortable. FYI it is not rhetoric it's called telling the truth. which most gay people appreciate.

You're putting words into my mouth and you know it, troll. You are going on ignore, you ignoramus.

 

[BroTan]

What does the God of the creation think about homosexuality? He is very clear on identifying the act of homosexuality as a sin. If an individual sows iniquity, they will reap corruption. Those of us that believe and know the Truth are not careful to say…“There is a pestilence in the land because of ‘homosexual’ activity.” There has been an increase in the acceptance of homosexuality in our country as indicated by the figures collected by the U.S. Census. FEB. 24, 2021 – The U.S. Census Bureau announced the release of a new report that examines characteristics and geographic distribution of the nation’s estimated 980,000 same-sex couple households. The report, “Same-Sex Couple Households: 2019,” is based on 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates. The ACS is the leading source for community and local-level data. About 58% of couples in the nation’s 980,000 same-sex households were married and about 42% were unmarried partners.

Even though the masses may accept this let’s see what the Most High God thinks about this subject. We will take a look at the Law first. Once we have established homosexuality as being a sin, then we will look at the Lord’s wrath being poured out because of this abomination.

Let’s go into Leviticus the 20th chapter and read the 13th verse. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

“….they shall surely be put to death...” Being that we are under the new covenant, which are the same laws that were given to Moses, no man is clean enough to put anyone to death, the Lord will take care of that Judgment.

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses (Hebrews 10:28.)

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).

For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrews 10:26-27)

 

[CS1]

You're putting words into my mouth and you know it, troll. You are going on ignore, you ignoramus.

thank for the name-calling God bless you

 

[CS1]

Perhaps when I'm aware of my own sinfulness, I'll be a little less harsh with another's. I encounter far too much anti-anyone rhetoric online and far too little, "love your neighbor as yourself," and "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

clearly taking the word out of context here

 

[Duckybill]

I had a family member who was gay nearly all his life. A few years before he died he got saved. He was truly a Christian.

Acts 16:31 (NKJV)
31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

 

[presidente]

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

You seemed to be comparing the commentary going on in this forum against the pro-homosexual lust stance to throwing stones.

 

[Jon-E]

Thank you for sharing your research concerning a topic about which you obviously care very deeply, all the while knowing that unnecessary personal insult and disdain would result for doing so. It is sad that the church has too often responded out of hate to these issues instead of with love. So, in love, I ask you to consider the following carefully.

In post #21 of this thread, you quote Lev 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” It is true that this is a law of the old covenant, and, as you rightly state, “Leviticus chapter 18 must be seen in its full context.”

While you list some other verses in the chapter, vv. 24-25 weren’t mentioned. Here they are in the ERV: “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.”

I first heard the following point, based on the above verses, made by Mike Winger at the beginning of the video at the end of this post. As he correctly conveys, the “nations” in v. 24 were not under the Law of Moses, yet their actions, committed before the Law of Moses was given, defiled the land. God therefore caused the land to vomit them out.

The behavior addressed in v. 22, of course, is one of those ways the nations defiled the land and incurred God’s wrath. As is clear from vv. 27-28, if Israel committed those same sins that are being listed in Leviticus 18, they, too, would defile the land and be vomited out of it.

In short, it is no different today concerning these sins than it was before the Law of Moses was given. It is clear, for instance, that Leviticus 18 factored into the Acts 15 decision reached by the Holy Spirit and the elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile converts to abstain from sexual immorality. James’s statement in v. 21 of Acts 15 regarding Moses being read in the synagogues is why Leviticus 18 is in view, as Leviticus is one of the five books of Moses, and therefore indicates how sexual immorality is to be defined.

It is also no surprise that Leviticus 18:6-8 is Paul’s basis for determining that a man who had his father’s wife was guilty of sexual immorality. He therefore judges in 1 Corinthians 5 that the man be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and reprimands the church for associating with someone who is called a brother while being sexually immoral.

As for the reasoning that God outlawed the behaviors of Lev. 18:22-23 because of idolatrous practices as you have also proposed in post #21, this, too, is problematic. Can one then say, for example, that sex with goats is permissible outside of a religious context? The imposition of idolatry on vv. 22-23 because they follow immediately after a verse that mentions a false god is simply an attempt to limit the text to religious rituals and disregard the plain understanding of what is written.

I want you to know that I have prayed for you. I hope you take up Jesus’ offer in Luke 9:23: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” He is our only hope to have peace with God (Romans 5:1).

Mike Winger has an abundance of material to help people engaging in sexual behavior with members of the same sex. I encourage you to devote yourself to those resources and perhaps contact him with subsequent questions. Here’s a link for you to begin exploring more of his content.

https://biblethinker.org/homosexuality/

Hello Eternal Fire, I'll reply to several of your points by using the Scriptures themselves as best I can, and then demonstrate that this is NOT some LGBTQ modern theology.

You wrote:
"As he correctly conveys, the “nations” in v. 24 were not under the Law of Moses, yet their actions, committed before the Law of Moses was given, defiled the land. God therefore caused the land to vomit them out."

My answer is that God's law existed prior to Moses and most of the Ten Commandments can be seen or alluded to prior to the Law of Moses.

You wrote:
"It is clear, for instance, that Leviticus 18 factored into the Acts 15 decision reached by the Holy Spirit and the elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile converts to abstain from sexual immorality. James’s statement in v. 21 of Acts 15 regarding Moses being read in the synagogues is why Leviticus 18 is in view, as Leviticus is one of the five books of Moses, and therefore indicates how sexual immorality is to be defined."

But the passage reads in full:
"but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath." (Acts 15:20-21, ERV)

First, I note your use of the phrase "sexual immorality", which is totally meaningless as to God's word even if it is found in many modern translations! Once you make a general statement like that, "sexual immorality" is whatever anyone wishes to say it is. Maybe "sexual immorality" to some is any sexual action between man and wife other than the union of female genitalia to male genitalia for procreation; and any other sex between man and wife is "sexual immorality". I'll stay with the older translations, "fornication", and when used in the Bible about sexual sin it refers to male to female sin outside of biblical marriage.
Second, the phrase "what is strangled, and from blood" refers back to the ceremonial law: "And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:13, ERV) Gentile believers were NEVER under the Law of Moses, and specifically NOT put under that law because the law on unclean foods, etc. are done away with, as with ALL the Law of Moses annulled and abolished at the cross.

This instruction to the Gentile believers is in the same frame of thought as written: "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth." (Rom 14:21, ERV) When Paul mentions that Moses is preached in the synagogues every Sabbath; he is telling the Judaizers, that if they wish to continue in salvation by works of law, there it is in the synagogues, go to it.

You wrote:
"It is also no surprise that Leviticus 18:6-8 is Paul’s basis for determining that a man who had his father’s wife was guilty of sexual immorality."

My reply is that you have again used the useless and indefinite meaning phrase "sexual immorality". The passage reads properly:

"It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father's wife." (1Cor 5:1, ERV)
Paul states that not even the Gentiles take their father's wife to commit fornication, so he is not referring back to Leviticus.

You have written:
"As for the reasoning that God outlawed the behaviors of Lev. 18:22-23 because of idolatrous practices as you have also proposed in post #21, this, too, is problematic. Can one then say, for example, that sex with goats is permissible outside of a religious context? The imposition of idolatry on vv. 22-23 because they follow immediately after a verse that mentions a false god is simply an attempt to limit the text to religious rituals and disregard the plain understanding of what is written."

My answer is that you must compare Scripture to Scripture and notice the Hebrew words used, as follows:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"(H8441 תּוֹעֵבַה tow`ebah). (Lev 18:22, ERV)
*The Hebrew word associated with religious ritual is used here, tow ebah.

"And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion(H8397 תֶּבֶל tebel)." (Lev 18:23, ERV)
*A completely different word Hebrew and English is used here: tebel, rendered confusion.

Also, sex with beasts is condemned elsewhere outside of a religious ritual context:

"Cursed(H779 אָרַר 'arar) be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Deut 27:21, ERV)

This is NOT some LGBTQ revisionist theology because in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series, Leviticus, by Professor R. K. Harrison, the commentary on v22 reads:
"The regulations of Leviticus condemn certain aberrations found among the Egyptians and Canaanites, who went far towards deifying sexual activity, and assigned the title 'holy ones' to cultic prostitutes. Sacro-homosexual practices and female prostitution within the context of the cultus was probably well established throughout the ancient Near East long before the Israelites occupied Canaan. Homosexuality of a non-religious variety is poorly documented in Mesopotamian texts..." page 191

Dr. Harrison is surely NOT LGBTQ friendly for on the last page of the commentary he states: "
On the last page of the commentary, page 252 he states: "For a person to think of himself or herself as a 'Christian homosexual' or a 'Christian lesbian' is a complete contradiction in terms..."

 

[Jon-E]

This kind of stuff? Why would anyone believe this is what Paul meant? The overall context is a Jewish man who believed in Jesus, with the whole background of God's revelation through the law, commenting on the sin of Gentiles. Why would mean people to interpret what he wrote with this LGBT 'spin' on it that you are trying to read into it? You quoted other sources about first century people not having the modern concept of sexual orientation. But now you want Paul to be talking about what amounts to sexual orientation. You can't have your gay wedding cake and eat it, too.



God created them male and female. There is corruption in creation due to the fall. That may extend to the animals you referred to. Some animals might eat a human dead body. Would you recommend that humans do the same? The Torah does not command Israelites to put female swans to death for hanging out together. It commanded men to be put to death for male with male sexual relations, though.


The middle sentence is gay propaganda. It has nothing to do with what Paul wrote. No reasonable person would think Paul, a first century Jew and Christian preacher, intended such a thing. The verse does not say it. The acts are unseemly. Desiring to do evil is not a good thing, and we are not to make provision for the flesh to fulfill it's lusts. Those who find themselves with such lusts should not fulfill them.



The creation was also subject to corruption. Your animal studies here have nothing to do with what Paul was saying. Paul wrote before those studies were written in 1997 or 1999, so he was not referring to them when he wrote about individuals doing what was against nature.

This is the same boring, tired junk LGBT apologists try to shovel to promote their viewpoints. It comes off as disingenuous as if you care nothing at all for the scriptures you are commenting on.



You are really grasping at straws. You are taking a verse about 'their natural use' and making it about their own instincts, rather than about their use which is natural. You should read the whole paragraph there in Romans. It does not say what you are trying to twist it to make it say. You can throw out dozens of citations and sources, and it still does not change the meaning.

Again, I want to ask you, do you care about being right with God, walking right with God, walking in the Spirit, and pleasing God, or is your motive here just to use religious texts to promote acceptance for homosexuality? Do you care about God at all? Do you care about the Christian faith at all? Or is the Bible and whatever quotes you can put together a tool to promote a sexual and social agenda you really care about?

I'll leave it to the readers to decide if my statements on Paul's use of "nature" in Rom. 1:26 makes more sense, or your rebuttal or my entire exposition of Rom. 1:26, 27. But, I do wish to refute your often stated idea that I am giving forth: "LGBT 'spin'" and "This is the same boring, tired junk LGBT apologists"

In my signature I list the verse forbidding "private interpretation". I take that in the context to mean my interpretation should not vary far from what has been understood in the body of Christ through the centuries. I'll not pridefully put my sense of God's Holy Spirit illumination above that of the Holy Spirit indwelt body of Christ through the centuries. It has been understood through the centuries that Rom. 1:26, 27 refers to what we'd call "heterosexuals" so eaten up or consumed with lust that they engaged in what we'd term homosexual behaviors. These were clearly perverts as seen in Nero. You cannot leave, give up and forsake that which you did not possess in the first place, and a male of same-sex orientation has not had the relationship to/for a woman from which to leave.

This has been observed in the church as early as St. John Chrysostom (349-407AD) when he wrote in his homily on Romans:

"...he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that 'they changed the natural use.' For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, 'They changed the truth of God for a lie.' And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, 'Leaving the natural use of the woman.' And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

In 1878 the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary was published, and on Rom. 1:27 it states in part:
"Observe how, in the retributive judgment of God, vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices."

It takes very little imagination to know what words today would be used in place of "natural" and "unnatural and monstrous".

In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

If I am spouting LGBTQ revisionist theology, apparently it started with Chrysostom!

 

[Jon-E]

You seemed to be comparing the commentary going on in this forum against the pro-homosexual lust stance to throwing stones.

Your phrase "pro-homosexual lust" is your mischaracterization of what I've written. It is as false as your claim I'm teaching LGBTQ revisionist theology.

 

[Jon-E]

I believe it was Presidente who asked me in a previous reply if I was a believer in the "double predestination" teaching of Calvin, or words to that effect. I did not see the connection with the topic of this thread, so I tried to post an answer as a different topic in the Bible discussion; but apparently it was rejected. So I'll post my answer here. I do indeed believe in double predestination, but I do not attach Calvin's name to it for it comes from the Bible as recognized by others as I'll show:

Martin Luther clearly taught double predestination as he refuted the Roman Catholic Erasmus.

From Martin Luther's 'Bondage of the Will' -
"And it is this very state of the truth, that of necessity proves "Free-will" to be nothing at all; seeing that, the love and hatred of God towards men is immutable and eternal; existing, not only before there was any merit or work of "Free-will," but before the worlds were made; and that, all things take place in us from necessity, accordingly as He loved or loved not from all eternity. So that, not the love of God only, but even the manner of His love imposes on us necessity. Here then it may be seen, how much its invented ways of escape profit the Diatribe; for the more it attempts to get away from the truth, the more it runs upon it; with so little success does it fight against it!" Sect. 101
https://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html#pt2

The first Baptists taught it. I mean "Baptist", not General Baptists, Freewill Baptists nor Fundamentalist Baptists. The 1646 First London Confession is the first to describe baptism as immersion, therefore it is considered the first Baptist Confession.

The 1646 First London Confession of Faith (Baptist)
"God had decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things, whether necessary, accidental or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory: (Yet without being the [chargeable]* author of sin, or having fellowship with any therein) in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: And God hath before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; [having foreordained and]* leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice."
http://www.sgapologetics.com/resources/1646LondonConfession.pdf
*The brackets show clarification or revision from the 1644 edition. Also, the above website lists the source texts in full.

Calvin and the Presbyterians believe and teach double predestination.

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian)
"III.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (Acts 15:18, 1 Sam. 23:11–12, Matt. 11:21, 23) yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18)

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (1 Tim. 5:21, Matt. 25:41) are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Rom. 9:22–23, Eph. 1:5–6, Prov. 16:4)

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (2 Tim. 2:19, John 13:18)"
https://westminsterstandards.org/westminster-confession-of-faith/

So, I am in very company in my belief in the doctrine of double predestination. I find it a matter of clear logic. Just as the Trinity is based on logic forced upon us by the Bible teaching there is only one God, yet three Persons are the One God. The word "Trinity" or the detailed explanation from it comes from logic as it is not stated in the Scriptures. The Ecumenical Creeds are logic based upon Scripture statements.

If the Bible teaches unconditional election, or unmerited election by God, and it surely does; logic demands that those not elected are also as surely foreordained or predestinated to be passed over. The key to the mystery is that we mere mortals are not told whose name has been written in the Lamb's book of life from before the creation:

"and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain." (Rev 13:8, RSV)

 

[Gardenias]

@Jon-E .
Two questions if I may and please answer. Thank you.

1, Have you been born again by the shed blood of Jesus for sins according to the word of God?

2. Are you in love with another of the same sex and continue to consummate that love?

 

[Jon-E]

@Jon-E .
Two questions if I may and please answer. Thank you.

1, Have you been born again by the shed blood of Jesus for sins according to the word of God?

2. Are you in love with another of the same sex and continue to consummate that love?

In question one, I am always offended when asked that because invariably it is asked by a fundamentalist type who thinks if I answer "No", they will give me the formula to be "born again", which is to believe. That is contrary to Scripture which teaches that we have faith and believe because we have been born again, better "born anew" or "born from above".

On question two, at age 80 consummating love of any kind has been long gone! Also, according to fundamentalists, if I were gay I'd be dead now.... from AIDS. Regardless, if I were queer as a three dollar bill, does it effect the truth of what I've taken from the pertinent Scriptures? Address the Scripture exposition or exegesis, instead of trying to side track.

 

[Gardenias]

There was no side tracking.

I merely wanted to know your position.
Not to be preachy towards you.
I can see you know scripture you wish to present towards your thoughts on your thread.

Whatever sin a person is engaging in I cannot afford spiritually to judge. ALL sin seperates from God!

Every soul including believers are in the hands of a just God,it will be he whom judges ALL.

 

[CS1]

Your phrase "pro-homosexual lust" is your mischaracterization of what I've written. It is as false as your claim I'm teaching LGBTQ revisionist theology.

You are most definitely teaching gay theology which is a revisionist ideology.

God gave the Law to man so man could not come back say we did not know.

God has been and always will be offended by SIN that includes homosexuality which God Destroyed nations because of sin which was noted prior to the Ten Commandments.


Just like the man who seeks to justify their sin tries to place blame on others Adam did it, Eve did it. God was not having it.

Those who teach others to sin will have the greater Judgement as Jesus said.
You are perverting the word of God. It is that simple.

 

[presidente]

But the passage reads in full:
"but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath." (Acts 15:20-21, ERV)

First, I note your use of the phrase "sexual immorality", which is totally meaningless as to God's word even if it is found in many modern translations! Once you make a general statement like that, "sexual immorality" is whatever anyone wishes to say it is. Maybe "sexual immorality" to some is any sexual action between man and wife other than the union of female genitalia to male genitalia for procreation; and any other sex between man and wife is "sexual immorality". I'll stay with the older translations, "fornication", and when used in the Bible about sexual sin it refers to male to female sin outside of biblical marriage.
Second, the phrase "what is strangled, and from blood" refers back to the ceremonial law: "And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, which taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:13, ERV) Gentile believers were NEVER under the Law of Moses, and specifically NOT put under that law because the law on unclean foods, etc. are done away with, as with ALL the Law of Moses annulled and abolished at the cross.

I agree with the idea that 'sexual immorality' is a very sloppy translation. One translation just says 'immorality' for 'porneia', which is even worse. I read an argument that one may divorce a spouse who shuts off sex because it is 'sexual immorality'. It might be, but it is not porneia.

But as far as your commentary on Leviticus goes, I think you are missing the larger picture here. If you look at the Mishneh (I am pretty sure this bit is in the Mishneh, if not the Talmud), various Jewish commentators (who their followers call 'rabbis', using a title that should be reserved for the Messiah) determined that there were several things that Gentiles, as descendants of Noah and partakers of the covenant, should do to be righteous. Gamaliel II was one of these scholars who spoke about this about a generation after Acts 15, whose words were recorded some time later.

The idea is that the Torah teaches certain things that Gentiles could do to be righteous under the covenant with Noah, without being circumcised and coming under the covenant through Moses. These things can be deduced from the Torah. The seven Noachide principles include abstaining from fornication. The Torah teaches that there are various forms of sexual sin for which Gentiles were driven out of the land in Leviticus 18. Another point had to do wish not eating the meat with the blood in it. This goes back to Genesis when God gave man creeping things to eat. Man was not given the blood to eat. Talmudic Jewish interpretation ranges from not eating blood to not eating a part cut from a live animal. Acts 15 says to abstain from fornication and from blood. God made man, and Gentiles should abstain from idolatry as well. Judaism has a few other requirements, like courts of law, seven in all.

The conversation in the Mishneh may be from a generation or two after the events Acts 15. But it shows some of the type of thinking in Judaism about Gentiles during that era.

There was already reason from the Torah to believe that Gentiles could do right before God without being circumcised. Peter commented on the idea of Gentiles being acceptable before God before preaching to Cornelius. James, in Acts 15, quoted and interpreted a passage in Amos to refer to Gentiles on whom the LORD's name would be called. This supported the idea that Gentiles did not have to relate to God through circumcision and taking upon themselves the obligation to keep the law of Moses. But James referred to certain moral provisions that were required of Gentiles. If we dig through the Torah, we can see that the Leviticus 18 sexual sins were sins for Gentiles, and there was a restriction on eating life blood from the time meat was given to Gentiles.

Paul does not say that the fornicator in I Corinthians 5 was not If fornication is zanuth in Paul's mind, then even if the fornicator took his father's late wife to wife, that could qualify.

This instruction to the Gentile believers is in the same frame of thought as written: "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth." (Rom 14:21, ERV) When Paul mentions that Moses is preached in the synagogues every Sabbath; he is telling the Judaizers, that if they wish to continue in salvation by works of law, there it is in the synagogues, go to it.

James said that. And you have a strange way of interpreting texts. Paul was one of the apostles in Acts 15 and the letter was written by the apostles and elders. Paul delivered the letters from the Jerusalem council to the churches at Galatia and elsewhere.

My answer is that you must compare Scripture to Scripture and notice the Hebrew words used, as follows:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"(H8441 תּוֹעֵבַה tow`ebah). (Lev 18:22, ERV)
*The Hebrew word associated with religious ritual is used here, tow ebah.

This is a tired old pro-LGBT bit of sophistry that might work on gullible people who do not bother to look up the word. I have also read that it had to do with idolatry. It would be like if someone 1000 years from now was debating about the meaning of the word 'table' and argued that it had to do with shoes, since there was a fragment that said something about shoes on the table. You try to make some aspect of the usage of the word in one context inhere in other contexts.

It was an abomination to Egyptians to eat with Hebrews. It was disgusting and repulsive to them. If תּוֹעֵבַה had referred specifically to religious or moral repugnance in the Hebrew mind at the time...well that fits quite perfectly. Same sex sexual relations should be morally and religiously repugnant, just like various idolatrous practices should be.

It is rather simple to see contexts in which the word is used in the OT. The LGBT propagandist sophistry does not stand up to a simple word study. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/toevah_8441.htm

This is NOT some LGBTQ revisionist theology because in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series, Leviticus, by Professor R. K. Harrison, the commentary on v22 reads:
"The regulations of Leviticus condemn certain aberrations found among the Egyptians and Canaanites, who went far towards deifying sexual activity, and assigned the title 'holy ones' to cultic prostitutes. Sacro-homosexual practices and female prostitution within the context of the cultus was probably well established throughout the ancient Near East long before the Israelites occupied Canaan. Homosexuality of a non-religious variety is poorly documented in Mesopotamian texts..." page 191

So what? Where is the argument for your point in this quote? And how is the point about Mesopotamian texts proof of anything? The Torah forbids it without limiting the restriction to religious contexts. The argument for 'abomination' does not limit it.

Why are you grasping at straws to try to make male on male gay sex okay? What is your motivation?

Dr. Harrison is surely NOT LGBTQ friendly for on the last page of the commentary he states: "
On the last page of the commentary, page 252 he states: "For a person to think of himself or herself as a 'Christian homosexual' or a 'Christian lesbian' is a complete contradiction in terms..."

He did not offer any support for your position, either.

 

[CS1]

In question one, I am always offended when asked that because invariably it is asked by a fundamentalist type who thinks if I answer "No", they will give me the formula to be "born again", which is to believe. That is contrary to Scripture which teaches that we have faith and believe because we have been born again, better "born anew" or "born from above".

On question two, at age 80 consummating love of any kind has been long gone! Also, according to fundamentalists, if I were gay I'd be dead now.... from AIDS. Regardless, if I were queer as a three dollar bill, does it effect the truth of what I've taken from the pertinent Scriptures? Address the Scripture exposition or exegesis, instead of trying to side track.

a person claiming to be 80 you are most definitely dishonest or unlearned. Most who are asked are you Born again, a simple yes would do. I am not saying you are not saved. I am saying from your post on this topic it is unbiblical and not found in the word of God as you see it.

FYI not all gays die from HIV, very ignorant comment who suggest others are homophobes.

 

[presidente]

I'll leave it to the readers to decide if my statements on Paul's use of "nature" in Rom. 1:26 makes more sense, or your rebuttal or my entire exposition of Rom. 1:26, 27. But, I do wish to refute your often stated idea that I am giving forth: "LGBT 'spin'" and "This is the same boring, tired junk LGBT apologists"

In my signature I list the verse forbidding "private interpretation". I take that in the context to mean my interpretation should not vary far from what has been understood in the body of Christ through the centuries.

So you say. But can you show anyone who interpreted Chrysostom or any of the other quotes through the lens of 'homosexual orientation' being normal for the individual like you do. Your quotes do not offer any evidence for your interpretation.

I'll not pridefully put my sense of God's Holy Spirit illumination above that of the Holy Spirit indwelt body of Christ through the centuries.

Really? what about putting the ideas of the LGBT/gay rights advocates that started around the 1980's above the historical teachings of the church?

It has been understood through the centuries that Rom. 1:26, 27 refers to what we'd call "heterosexuals" so eaten up or consumed with lust that they engaged in what we'd term homosexual behaviors.

Again, you want to have your gay wedding cake and eat it, too. On the one had, you quote a source arguing that first century authors did not have a modern concept of 'homosexuality', and now you are trying to argue that ancient sources interpreted Paul to refer to 'heterosexuals' consumed with lust.

The idea that 'gay is okay' or normal for anyone is just not found in the Bible. It is not consistent with the Bible. II Peter 1:14 speaks of, "...the corruption that is in the world through lust." Romans 8 says the creation was made subject to vanity. There are people with warped desires.

You also overlook the fact that Romans 1 is about 'men.' Paul does not specify that one individual became idolatrous, then burned with lust, then started doing same-sex acts. You are trying to squeeze that argument into the passage and then read the idea of gay sexual orientation as normal into the passage. That is not what Paul said.

Look at Romans 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.

If you accept the LGBT 'sexual orientation' philosophy, would you agree that heterosexual men 'burn in their lust one toward another.' Whether you have an interest in women or not, if you leave their natural use-- forgo marriage, marital affection, possibly having children, family life, etc., not to be celibate and serve the Lord-- but to have sex with a man, that fits the description here. If you were married and stopped paying attention to your wife at home to have sex with a man in a bathroom somewhere, that also fits the description.

These were clearly perverts as seen in Nero.

The way Nero is described, he sure sounds like a pervert, but doesn't he sound like the B in LGBT, bisexual? Why wouldn't you defend him in his perversion, minus the violence and abuse of power?

You cannot leave, give up and forsake that which you did not possess in the first place, and a male of same-sex orientation has not had the relationship to/for a woman from which to leave.

The passage says 'leaving the natural use of the woman.' It is natural for men and women to be together. You should not read your personal feelings about a man being with a woman into Romans 1. Romans 1 was not intended to be read through a 'gay is normal' lens. You are really grasping at straws to twist this passage-- not that your twists are necessarily original. Parroting twisted interpretations that justify sin is not good either, and God holds people responsible for that. Jesus did not say he would just kill that woman Jezebel. He said that He would kill her children with death.

This has been observed in the church as early as St. John Chrysostom (349-407AD) when he wrote in his homily on Romans:

"...he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that 'they changed the natural use.' For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness.

And again, no evidence at all for your position. You must be reading the idea that Chrysostom thinks like modern LGBT advocates that lesbians can't have satisfaction unless they have female sex partners. But, if your sources you like to site point out that Paul in the first century did not have a modern idea of 'sexual orientation', you should accept the idea that Chrysostom, a few centuries later, wasn't interpreting Paul through the idea that some people have lesbian orientation.

There are people who desire wicked things. That does not detract what Chrysostom said. Paul offers two options, let every woman have her own husband and let every man have his own wife, or else celibacy.

For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, 'They changed the truth of God for a lie.'

Read earlier in the passage to understand his commentary. That which may be known of God was manifest in them.

And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, 'Leaving the natural use of the woman.' And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature."

No support for your position. He considers these acts to be dishonoring that which is natural.

You are eisegeting LGBT philosophy back into Chrysostom's writings as you try to do with the Bible.

If you really care about youth with same sex attraction, you should not try to promote this stuff. You should exhort them to repent and not go down a bad path.

In 1878 the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary was published, and on Rom. 1:27 it states in part:
"Observe how, in the retributive judgment of God, vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices."

The commentator considers male-male sex to be unnatural. So did Paul. So did Christians historically. So do 'fundamentalists' that you do not seem to care for very much.

In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

Doesn't this sound stereotypically 'fundamentalist'-- considering gays to choose what they do.

Homosexuals who have sex with the same sex do chose to do so unless they are forced to do so. That's a fact.

If I am spouting LGBTQ revisionist theology, apparently it started with Chrysostom!

You have not shown any evidence of that. Chrysostom considered 'gay sex' to be against nature, also.

 

[presidente]

In question one, I am always offended when asked that because invariably it is asked by a fundamentalist type who thinks if I answer "No", they will give me the formula to be "born again", which is to believe. That is contrary to Scripture which teaches that we have faith and believe because we have been born again, better "born anew" or "born from above".

That sounds similar to what fundamentalist primitive Baptists say.

On question two, at age 80 consummating love of any kind has been long gone! Also, according to fundamentalists, if I were gay I'd be dead now.... from AIDS.

I don't think I've ever heard a fundamentalist say all gays die of AIDS. There are some adulterers and other fornicators who live to an old age. If I am not mistaken, professing homosexuals have a high suicide rate compared to non homosexuals, and transexual males ('mtf') have a very high suicide rate and high rates of attempted suicide. But these are higher rates. It doesn't mean everyone who meets a certain description dies from one thing.

Regardless, if I were queer as a three dollar bill, does it effect the truth of what I've taken from the pertinent Scriptures? Address the Scripture exposition or exegesis, instead of trying to side track.

It would explain the motivation behind accepting the scripture twisting and sophistry.

 

[Jon-E]

So you say. But can you show anyone who interpreted Chrysostom or any of the other quotes through the lens of 'homosexual orientation' being normal for the individual like you do. Your quotes do not offer any evidence for your interpretation.



Really? what about putting the ideas of the LGBT/gay rights advocates that started around the 1980's above the historical teachings of the church?



Again, you want to have your gay wedding cake and eat it, too. On the one had, you quote a source arguing that first century authors did not have a modern concept of 'homosexuality', and now you are trying to argue that ancient sources interpreted Paul to refer to 'heterosexuals' consumed with lust.

The idea that 'gay is okay' or normal for anyone is just not found in the Bible. It is not consistent with the Bible. II Peter 1:14 speaks of, "...the corruption that is in the world through lust." Romans 8 says the creation was made subject to vanity. There are people with warped desires.

You also overlook the fact that Romans 1 is about 'men.' Paul does not specify that one individual became idolatrous, then burned with lust, then started doing same-sex acts. You are trying to squeeze that argument into the passage and then read the idea of gay sexual orientation as normal into the passage. That is not what Paul said.

Look at Romans 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.

If you accept the LGBT 'sexual orientation' philosophy, would you agree that heterosexual men 'burn in their lust one toward another.' Whether you have an interest in women or not, if you leave their natural use-- forgo marriage, marital affection, possibly having children, family life, etc., not to be celibate and serve the Lord-- but to have sex with a man, that fits the description here. If you were married and stopped paying attention to your wife at home to have sex with a man in a bathroom somewhere, that also fits the description.



The way Nero is described, he sure sounds like a pervert, but doesn't he sound like the B in LGBT, bisexual? Why wouldn't you defend him in his perversion, minus the violence and abuse of power?



The passage says 'leaving the natural use of the woman.' It is natural for men and women to be together. You should not read your personal feelings about a man being with a woman into Romans 1. Romans 1 was not intended to be read through a 'gay is normal' lens. You are really grasping at straws to twist this passage-- not that your twists are necessarily original. Parroting twisted interpretations that justify sin is not good either, and God holds people responsible for that. Jesus did not say he would just kill that woman Jezebel. He said that He would kill her children with death.



And again, no evidence at all for your position. You must be reading the idea that Chrysostom thinks like modern LGBT advocates that lesbians can't have satisfaction unless they have female sex partners. But, if your sources you like to site point out that Paul in the first century did not have a modern idea of 'sexual orientation', you should accept the idea that Chrysostom, a few centuries later, wasn't interpreting Paul through the idea that some people have lesbian orientation.

There are people who desire wicked things. That does not detract what Chrysostom said. Paul offers two options, let every woman have her own husband and let every man have his own wife, or else celibacy.



Read earlier in the passage to understand his commentary. That which may be known of God was manifest in them.



No support for your position. He considers these acts to be dishonoring that which is natural.

You are eisegeting LGBT philosophy back into Chrysostom's writings as you try to do with the Bible.

If you really care about youth with same sex attraction, you should not try to promote this stuff. You should exhort them to repent and not go down a bad path.



The commentator considers male-male sex to be unnatural. So did Paul. So did Christians historically. So do 'fundamentalists' that you do not seem to care for very much.


Doesn't this sound stereotypically 'fundamentalist'-- considering gays to choose what they do.

Homosexuals who have sex with the same sex do chose to do so unless they are forced to do so. That's a fact.


You have not shown any evidence of that. Chrysostom considered 'gay sex' to be against nature, also.

Presidente, you are flailing about, disagreeing with me but more, disagreeing with any of the source authorities I quote; yet you do not attempt to in detail what a passage says. I'll quote one of your sentences to show how 'odd' your reasoning is.

You wrote:
"You also overlook the fact that Romans 1 is about 'men.' Paul does not specify that one individual became idolatrous, then burned with lust, then started doing same-sex acts."

You emphasize 'men' here and you've done it in the past when referencing some saying "boys" are involved. On that point, the passage is literally rendered by "males" with no definite age contrast. Yet, in the 3rd Greek for men in Rom. 1:27, there is a difference in the Greek, as stated in the BDAG -

"The Attic form ἄρρην appears in Ac 7:19 v.l.; Ro 1:27a v.l.; 1:27ab Tdf., S. [but the last reads ἄρσεσιν for the third occurrence]"

From Wikipedia: "Attic Greek is the Greek dialect of the ancient region of Attica, including the polis of Athens. Often called classical Greek,"

Your other argument in that sentence is that since it is 'men', it is plural and does not specify an individual person's behavior. You seem to think the idea is that a mass of men has done something but not individuals. That is really strange thinking! Masses of people are made up of individuals. The China-virus developed into a pandemic, a mass of people; but they are made up of individuals and I know, two of those dying from this Chinese virus were members of my family and they were individuals. Yet, not all translations stick to the plural "men".

"And likewise also the men left the naturall vse of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthinesse, and receiued in themselues such recompence of their errour, as was meete." (Rom 1:27, Geneva)

This translations indicates the mass of men in the first occurrence, but then switches it to "man with man". That lines up with a common sense understanding.

Also, the Peshitta translates in a similar manner -

"And likewise also their men have left the natural use of the women and have run wild with lust toward one another, male with male committing shameful acts, and receiving in themselves the due recompense of their error." (Rom 1:27, LBP (ES))

While it is true that Rom. 1:27 does not specify a man with a boy; an adult male with a male youth; it is interesting that a variation is used for the 3rd Greek for "male" in the verse. Then, also, Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 speaks of sodomites, and a sodomite involves abuse, so would involve an aggressive type of male lording it over another male in a lower position of power, a boy, youth or slave. That does match the history of that day as multiple commentaries have pointed out.