Thread: Homosexuality in the bible

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 !

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 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

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

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?

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

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-----

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

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?

Lee, you would do well to put ideas that are not your own in quotes, otherwise I might think that you're advocating whatever it is that has been possibly said by someone else. If these "responses" of clergy above are none of yours please put them in [ quote ] [/ quote ] brackets.

There is little to discuss with these clergy's twisted views of the Scriptures. A man lying with a man as he does with a woman is unqualifiedly sinful, whether it be to one or many. It is a total manipulation and ripping-out-of-context of Scripture to try to make Scripture say anything else.

Edward T. Welch has an excellent little pamphlet (by P&R Publishing) on the subject that is very good and helpful, IMHO.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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-----

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

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.

Originally Posted by 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:

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

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.

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

... 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.

And none of that is any excuse, just as our inability to come to faith in Christ is an excuse for us to not go to heaven.

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.

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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).

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?

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).

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?

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.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by 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:

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

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.

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by 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:

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

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?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

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:

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

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 - 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.

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

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

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?

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.

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

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 - well have you read the story?

Are you going to answer my question?

What is the difference between rape and sodomy?

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.

Here is a quote from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology about arsenokoitai.

Paul's Epistles: Two brief references in Paul's letters, where same-gender sex is mentioned in lists of prohibited activities, are important especially for their link to the Old Testament. In 1st Corinthians 6:9 and 1st Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai are condemned. The word, a compound of "male" and "coitus" or "intercourse, " does not occur prior to the New Testament. Some modern writers have attempted to narrow its meaning from homosexual acts in general to male prostitution, solicitation of male prostitutes, or (coupled in 1 Cor 6:9; with malakoi, another obscure word possibly meaning "the effeminate" ) the active partners in homosexual relationships. These suggestions, however, ignore the Greek Old Testament (LXX) versions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use both arsenos and koiten, the latter passage placing them side-by-side; literally, "whoever lies with a male, having intercourse (as with) a female." This is the obvious source of the compound word. Perhaps Paul himself, who knew and used the Septuagint extensively, or some other Hellenistic Jew not long before Paul's time, derived from the passages in Leviticus a compound word that described homosexual acts in general. This drawing in of Leviticus to Paul's letters is also significant in that it provides further demonstration that he perceived a moral and not merely purity-based prohibition of homosexual acts in the Old Testament.

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

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.

Lee, perhaps everyone needs a breather on this thread: a quick suggestion is that telling people to calm down isn't usually much of a technique for getting them to calm down.

It is undeniable that some eunuchs were used for purposes of homosexuality, and that not merely in ancient times but into the Middle Ages. The peculiar misery of the lifestyle of castrati not on the level of Farinelli is rather heart-wrenching to think about.

A few months ago (enough that I don't remember the exact number) I saw a study which indicated that a surprisingly high percentage of Americans indicated having zero sexual desire. No doubt some of them were lying; but no doubt some of them were not. That is a more logical and a more charitable reference to the concept of being born a eunuch. You see, Christ says that there are three categories that can be covered by the concept of eunuch: those who are properly so called, the castrated; those who are born without the functioning of sexual desire; and those who have overcome sexual desire for the kingdom of God. Whatever references can be found in literature contemporaneous with the NT that refers to a homosexual as being a born eunuch, I would suspect that, like with Juvenal's references, it is despective and derogatory. Used as an insult, it makes sense: used as a literal description, it's incoherent, because homosexual does not equal celibate. So that Christ's words, in the nature of the case, can't be saying that "some people are just born gay". Even if that's true, it would be an irrelevant remark at that point. The context is about divorce, and the disciples are impressed with how marriage is not always convenient: Christ admits that point, but remarks further that not everyone is fit to be unmarried. Saying that some people are naturally homosexuals is not at all to the point, but saying that some people naturally have no difficulty with celibacy fits right in.

I don't think you can have read me very carefully if you think I said that it was filthy, blasphemous and dangerous to look into these issues: I said that the arguments used in support of the church sanctioning homosexuality are blasphemous (arguing that Christ approved sin), filthy and dangerous. Homophobia is a topic for another time, but if you search my posts I think you'll see that I'm probably more frightened of materialists and gluttons.

Lee, the question is not whether the truth of God can stand firm; God's word has been forever settled in heaven. The question is whether we, faltering recipients of God's word, need to be careful. If I read Paul correctly, we do:
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf; but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil." (Romans 16:17-18).

Our Lord has taught us to look back to God's design in creation to answers about sexual relationships: and there we see that the woman was created as the complement to the man. In that broader context, which I think was Todd's point, when you see "unnatural desires" and "sexual immorality" there is no reason to limit it to homosexual gang rape: it would include heterosexual gang rape; it would include sex outside the bounds of a marriage covenant; it would include long-term, committed relationships of one man to another. It is also in that context that you can understand the use of the word perversion. God created man and woman to have a sexual interest in one another; if someone responds sexually only to someone of the same sex, that aspect of them is not functioning properly, it has been perverted from its original purpose. They are not more depraved than others (we believe in total depravity, after all), though it is possible in any given case that there has been less restraining grace in that situation (which is what Paul describes in Romans 1).

And just in general, about the biblical condemnations of homosexuality, it is fairly standard procedure in dodging the applicability of something to say, "Well, that was a peculiar circumstance". With the same line of reasoning, we could say that Paul doesn't argue for church discipline for all fornicators, only for incestuous fornicators. Usually, there is an agenda lurking behind such restrictions of the Biblical text - the agenda being to throw up enough dust that it isn't clear to everyone that the Bible condemns something that someone wants to do. But the time is too short to spend it all watering down the dust cloud of everyone who wants to obscure the clear law of God: so to me it seems wiser to leave them with the words of John, "Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3:20).

[quote=LeeJUk;677065][quote=toddpedlar;676871]

Originally Posted by LeeJUk

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.

I was basing my response on what you had already said. There is a minute minority of sodomites, but they are seeking to dictate to us. This is pervasive throughout society, and unfortunately a big problem in churches that are no longer true churches (like the ECLA, the PCUSA, and others). This is not the time to waffle on such an important issue, particularly when the Marxists are trying to indoctrinate even young children into this perverse lifestyle. When you make statements that question that sodomy is even a sin, that is questioning what the Bible has to say on the issue.

Blindly accepting the majority view on the issue...

That is the problem. Too many people today are too afraid to take a stand on this issue, because of the influence of the liberal media and the education establishment, which pushes the sodomite agenda. To suggest that they are a "persecuted" people is not only erroneous, but also dangerous. In today's times, we cannot afford to accept what anti-Christian groups (like the media and various other liberal groups) want us to believe. We must take a firm stand on Biblical issues, especially when the world is against us.

...or blindly accepting a reformed view is also absolutely wrong.

Of course, this isn't a problem when the reformed view is the correct one, and is in accordance with the Bible. I personally don't "blindly accept" anything said by man, and there are reformers who I may disagree with on certain issues. However, when the Bible speaks, we should listen, and not make excuses for not listening.

You really shouldn't get so angry over discussing and questioning of your interpretations.

I'm not angry. I'm just making my position on this issue clear.

Our interpretations really are not infallible. Not everyone who disagree's with the reformers, or the majority is a heretic.

Again, what man says is not the issue. It is when the Bible speaks on an issue, and it is a clear prohibition against a specific kind of behavior. Going against the clear wording of the Bible is heretical. It's not an issue of agreeing with or disagreeing with any specific reformer. I didn't get into agreeing with any specific reformer. However, when the Bible speaks on an issue, how can we ignore it? Just because we don't want to "offend" anyone? That's what the world tells us to do. And we're not to be conformed to the world.

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?

The Bible does not condemn slavery in and of itself. The slave trade would certainly be condemned, as would mistreatment of slaves. However, the Bible is clear on the issue of sodomy. It's not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of reading the Bible and following its clear commands. Sodomy is condemned numerous times in the Bible, in both the OT and NT. This is simply a fact.

As to the issue of not being charitable to sodomites, I think it is far worse to pretend that they are not committing sins, and let them continue to live in a sinful state just because we don't want to offend them. That's not loving. That would be analogous to telling a drug addict that what they are doing is okay, just because you don't want to offend them, and watching them destroy their life, or eventually die of a drug overdose. It is much more kind to identify sin where we see it, and not enable bad behavior.

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.

Lee
You said yourself in post #28 Sex outside of marriage is sin. Jesus Christ defines marriage as one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6), therefore all homosexual intercourse is committed outside of marriage and is sin.

As far as the celibate homosexual. In Mathew 5:28 Jesus tells us to look at someone with lust is adultery of the heart. Now certainly every heterosexual man has committed this sin of lust, but we are repentant of it. If there were a man seeking to be pastor who was unrepentant of his lust he would be no more qualified than the homosexual. By defining oneself as "homosexual" they are labeling themselves with a term that is defines them as lusting after their own sexual orientation. So even if I were to grant all 6 of the arguments made in your original post (which I do not) then I would still say that homosexuality is a sin because;
1.) Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. And all sex outside of marriage is sin.
2.) Lust (sexual desire) is a sin. The term "homosexual" is used to label the person as one who sexually desires a person of their same sex. A repentant person does not label themselves by their sin, but labels themselves by their Saviour who takes away their sin.

God bless you and guide you as you study this topic.

Here is an interesting sermon on this;
SermonAudio.com - Trinity Baptist Church
Our Nation’s Sexual Sins (3)

God's Word To Our Nation · 3 of 4

7/6/1983 (WED)
Proverbs 14:34; Romans 1:18-32; Leviticus 18:1-30 3 comments

ID 6290383510 Category: Special Meeting

Upload Media


Does a sodomite relationship picture Christ and the Church as given in Eph.5?


Available FREE Media © All media is copyright.
Blog-This | Help

... stream. download. podcast. all free. all the time ...


Play Audio! (Streaming) 16kbps | 70 min. [3]


Download MP3 (8.4MB) Batch downloads • How?

Originally Posted by 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.

To a degree sin is sin - any sin is evil in the eyes of the Lord and punishable by eternal torment. That is not at issue.

With respect to the sin of homosexuality (which you seem to deny is a sin), there are two differences, Lee. First - the only legitimate sexual relationships are those between a man and a woman, and that only within the marriage relationship. There is NO legitimate male-male or female-female sexual relationship - ANY such relationship is porneia. Second - those of us born with a propensity toward the opposite sex understand that sexual relations outside the marriage bed are forbidden, and admit that our feelings towards others to whom we are not married are sinful. Homosexuals who claim to be Christian DENY that their sexual desires for people of the same sex are sinful, and that their relations while in such a homosexual relationship is sin. You can't compare one man who admits his sexual relationship with a woman not his wife is sinful with a man who REFUSES to admit that his sexual relationship with a man is sinful. The two are in STARK contrast.

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.

Can we get away from the word "sodomy" and get to the real issue?

How can you claim, that when the Bible clearly states that "to lie with a man as with a woman" is an abomination, that a monogamous long-term intimate homosexual relationship is not sinful?

Originally Posted by py3ak

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).

I think this post sums up the thread perfectly.

It should probably not amaze me how men will pervert the Scriptures to their destruction by seeking to import etymological definitions of words from antiquity while completely ignoring the context they are used.

When Mindy Irons started promoting the idea of homosexual civil unions, I distinctly remember a conversation with Chuck McIlhenny who was then the pastor of First Presbyterian in San Francisco and the father of the wife of my Pastor at the time.

He noted that her view of homosexual sin was terribly naive. Chuck lived among a city engrossed in acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and suffered through violent opposition to the Gospel. He wrote a book about his experiences when the Church fired its organist, who they learned was a practicing homosexual:

Amazon.com: When the Wicked Seize a City (9780595154326): Chuck McIlhenny, Donna McIlhenny, Frank York: Books

One of the members came to Chuck in repentance of homosexual sin. You see, true ministers of the Gospel do not relegate us to being defined by our sinful dispositions, even if those sinful dispositions have physiological roots from this fallen condition that has resulted from the Sin of Adam. Christ put Sin as power to death on the Cross and a Christian is not a homosexual or a liar or thief or a fornicator. A Christian is united to his Savior and He put to death the slavemaster that is Sin in our members.

This man repented and then let Chuck know that the organist was still very much a practicing homosexual. They approached the organist who refused to repent of his sin and, after a period of repeated calls for his repentance and a formal process, they terminated his employment.

A suit from the City of San Francisco ensued. The Church eventually won the legal battle but, during the whole ruckus, Chuck and his family and Church was under vicious attack. At one point, someone fire bombed the parsonage while Chuck and his wife and young children were sleeping inside.

Chuck is the nicest man you'll ever meet. He kept track of all the people who were at the fore of activism during that time. He regularly shared the Gospel with all.

The organist is now dead.

All the activists that plagued the Church are now dead.

The only one still living is the man who repented of his sin.

My former Pastor relates that when he met the man he is still a bit what we might say "less than manly". Freedom from the bondage of Sin does not mean that we never struggle but it does mean that we are Christ's and that He is our Lord and that we are His bondservants and Sin's no longer.

I chafe, at my core as a Christian, at any notion that a person is selling biological determinism to men and women in the guise of Christian theology. It is borne out of the pit of Hell in spite of anybody's sincere intentions to the contrary. This present fallen world was subjected to futility by God, Who submitted it in hope for the revealing of the sons of God. We, who are Christ's, are blessed immeasurably that we, who were once enemies, are now His friends and our glorification is as certain as our justification because God ordained, from eternity, to cast His love upon us. It is not that I find the man who sins as a homosexual to be beneath me but that I believe that, like my former walk in darkness, that he needs the light of the Gospel and not to be left in bondage to Sin.