Monday, May 18, 2009

Is it too much to ask for?

This is a work in progress which I will be fleshing out more soon--maybe.

So I'm talking with my good friend who is a girl from back home, and she's in one of her sort of discontent, restless moods and she has to say, "I just want a relationship! Is that too much to ask for?"

Unfortunately, the conversation got changed very quickly, but if I could have responded, I would have said:

Well, honey, actually, according to some, for me, yes, it IS too much to ask for a relationship! There are plenty of arrogant bastards who would say to me that I am called to celibacy because of my homosexuality! My friends, this statement comes entirely out of our cultural captivity and it has NOTHING to do with the Bible or spirituality!

Where does scripture say that homosexuality equals celibacy? Yes, it says some are called to celibacy. No, it does not say that all who are homosexual are called to that! So, perhaps there are homosexuals called to celibacy just as there are heterosexuals called to celibacy.

I see no spiritual grounds to equate homosexuality with celibacy! If there are, I would gladly hear them.

Actually, as I have posted about more extensively before, the Apostle Paul calls everyone to celibacy. Obviously, every Christian did not heed that, so it must be assumed that the vast majority of believers who are in committed relationships are validated in their doing so. So, perhaps it is presumptuous for us to suggest that the few verses on homosexuality mean that we are to be single forever, when the "standard" Paul sets for straights seems to be glossed over and spiritualized.

When are Christians going to wake up and realize that their biases have everything to do with a culture that has told them to reject us and nothing to do with scripture or spiritual insight. When are Christians going to realize that what we are dealing with here is not the abusive, bizarre, negative sorts of relationships with which the few verses that seem to mention homosexuality are about.

I think it's time to say that what we think scripture says about homosexuality quite honestly is absolutely useless and to be ignored as far as determining what is right for individuals who love each other and who are forbidden their full expression in the context of the society or church. There are plenty of scriptures to consider when talking about how to treat loving relationships. Perhaps the scriptures about homosexuality would be more appropriate in preaching against abuse--even that of straight men towards their wives. Perhaps the kinds of things scripture mentions that we think are about homosexuality are really about the people who refuse to live honestly and hurt the women they marry because of the gay relationships they are a part of behind the wife's back. Perhaps it is an abomination to forbid another person from loving in a way that is natural and most beneficial for society--which really is the main thrust of Levitcal law, from what I understand!

Let's not ignore these clinchers verses. Let's get to the root of what they mean for us today and let's proclaim it! It's time for us to define ourselves and not those preaching against us, and it's time for us to be the prophetic voice towards those who hate and harm.

30 comments:

feetxxxl said...

im sorry. ive been studying scripture for 20 years. i see no where in scripture where it says homosexuality is a sin or not of god. what i do see is a whole lot of assigning meaning to particular verses in spite of their words. i also see a whole lot of believers adding their own strokes to validate there own interpretation.


Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

so what scriptures are you talking about not looking at..............."all scripture is god breathed"1tim


matthew 19:11 specifically speaks to those because of the way they are born are not given the word to marry the opposite sex. jesus does not clarify the use of the word "euneuche". how can being born without testes be the understanding of this verse when there have been those who were born without testes that married because of the devotion(thru grace) between themselves and their spouse.

paul says that believers of the new covenant are to be led by and serve of the spirit(romans). how can affirming old laws, in an attempt to be put others under them, concerning physicality be any part of this.......such as whether to be married or unmarried or about gender and procreation concerning marriage. particularly when paul says specifically, we are no longer under the law.

the tearing of the curtain during the crucifiction identified that we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28 but instead directly to the spirit to the one who lives in each believer.


scripture says that the only thing that COUNTS is expressing faith thru love.

naturgesetz said...

"Where does scripture say that homosexuality equals celibacy?" You know (and allude to) the passages which seem to say that homosexual conduct is sinful. If that is the correct interpretation of those passages, then celibacy is the only moral choice for a homosexual (unless he chooses to marry a woman — which I don't recommend).

So I disagree with you about the teachings on homosexuality having nothing to do with the Bible. I think they have everything to do with a correct understanding of the Bible — starting with the creation accounts which Jesus cited as excluding divorce, which tell us that God created humanity in his likeness as male and female so that they could be his image by becoming one flesh and being fruitful and multiplying, and concluding with the passages in which Paul confirms the implicit message of Genesis that homosexual sexual activity is not part of God's loving creative plan for us from the beginning.

If you insist on interpreting the scriptures differently or calling scripture useless, that's one thing. But don't say that there is nothing in scripture about it. If you want to draw additional lessons from those passages, fine, but that does not necessarily mean that the apparent primary meaning is not there too.

If there were only Leviticus on the subject, it might seem doubtful, apart from the Spirit-guided tradition of interpretation within the church. But with what Paul has to say and what we read in Genesis, I don't think it will ever be possible to convince all the churches that the traditional teaching on homosexuality is a misreading.

feetxxxl said...

as soon as you use the word "teachings" you are speaking of assignment of meaning to a particular verse inspite of the words to support a cultural bias.

case and point: check out romans 10 and 11 and then try to explain believer antisemetism for 2000 years culminating in the halocaust. germany was a christian country. it was the first country to get bible in their own language(1500's), luther was their national hero, and the catholic and lutheran were the national churches for its 30 million inhabitants. in addition, it was worldwide antisemetism that enabled germany's. if you doubt this, check out the movie "a gentleman's agreement" made in the 50's. yet romans 10 and 11 had always been there.

1thess 5:21 test everything, keep the good.

everything includes teachings.

my in entreaty to you is show me how the WORDS of the verses used in any teachings that would proclaim homosexuality is a sin actually says it is one.

in regards to lev not every prohibition of itself was a sin.

num15: 32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

under the new covenant household chores are not a sin nor household chores on the sabbath.

feetxxxl said...

before we can agree to disagree we have have an understanding about what we are disagreeing about.

would that be about that under the new covenant we are led by and serve of the spirit. romans

that this is an entreaty for believers to live by 1john1 witness "that which we heard, which we have looked at, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched" in a fellowship of walking in the light as to where the spirit rests and who is filled with the fruit of the spirit.(romans and galatians)

that the 3 commandments of love god , ones neighbor and self, and one another as christ loved us is the essence of the new covenant.(romans and john)



many thought that when christ came that there was an immediate leaving the old covenant and embracing of the new.

history shows otherwise. the practice ethnic slavery for 1700 years, burning witches at the stake for 1500 years, and the practice of endulgences for 1400 years. it appears that the holy spirit is gradually weaning christendom off what was deemed OLD and THEREFORE is obsolete and will soon pass away. (hebrews)

it appears that dealing with this issue about homosexuality is a major stepping stone in christendom more fully embracing the new covenant.

because the teachings about it could never have been tested while it was deemed by society as illegal.

in english society it had been deemed illegal for 700 years.

naturgesetz said...

@ feetxxxl — "my in entreaty to you is show me how the WORDS of the verses used in any teachings that would proclaim homosexuality is a sin actually says it is one."
This is not a reasonable request, because frequently — I believe most of the time, but I haven't counted every instance where the scripture says some conduct is wrong — the actual word "sin" is not in the translation. For example: Matthew 5:22, 32; 7:1; 10:37; 19:17-18; Romans 8:9, 13-14, 13:8-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-12; Colossians 3:5-9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; 2 Timothy 3:2-5; Titus 3:2-3. In all of these passages, many having nothing to do with homosexuality, wrongful behavior is denounced, but the word "sin" is not used. Are we to say that none of this conduct is sinful because the word "sin" does not appear? I would say that the conduct referred to is all sinful. The task is not to play word games but to understand what is being talked about and to admit that it is sinful.

"would that be about that under the new covenant we are led by and serve of the spirit. romans"
"that the 3 commandments of love god , ones neighbor and self, and one another as christ loved us is the essence of the new covenant.(romans and john)"
But you can't use this to set aside the specific moral teachings of the New Testament in favor of some vague doctrine of "love" which is empty of all the specifics. As Paul says, love contains the specific commandments. (Romans 13:8-9) And John says the same. (1 John 2:3-4, 5:2-3; 2 John 6).

naturgesetz said...

In other words, we can't say, "The specifics of my conduct don't matter as long as I feel all warm and fuzzy toward other people. I love them and nothing else matters." What Jesus and Paul and John (and James) are telling us is that if you really and truly love God and neighbor your specific conduct will be what they say you should do and will NOT be what they say you should not do.

We need God's grace if we are to become holy, and the atonement of Jesus' death on the cross makes forgiveness for of sin available to those who repent.

JX said...

Wow.

feetxxxl: Yes, I agree that homosexuality is not condemned as sin in scripture. Homosexuality as an orientation was not defined until the 19th century.

I never said I am not going to look at certain scriptures! I said these scriptures have nothing to say about what we understand as homosexual orientation, and I spent the rest of the post explaining just how indeed I DO deal with these scriptures. I realize to say "absolutely useless and to be ignored" is strong language, and i do not regret it. If God is offended, God can defend God's self!

I'm thinking we are agreeing, but I'm not terribly sure.

naturegesetz: you say "IF" it's correct that the Bible condemns homosexual conduct... so what if it's NOT correct and we've subjected countless people to celibacy because it's the "only moral choice"?

I understand the creation account is about males and females, but I don't see the link between the creation story and wether or not homosexual relationships are moral. Even if you make that connection, it's definitely not an "apparent primary meaning" that you say it is. That's simply connecting a few convenient dots that were not meant to be connected, and my argument all along about the "against nature" clause is that for a homosexual to marry one of the opposite gender IS AGAINST NATURE. Again, the scriptures do not just jump out and say this because there was no thought that such a relationship could be natural at the time.

feetxxxl said...

that's what i keep asking you. please show me how the words of those verses that moral teachings have been assigned say what you say they do?

i find no words in scripture that say homosexuality is a sin.

and merely quoting a verse does not explain how the words say what you believe they say.



and surely if it is a sin there must be some essence in being homosexual that shows it is a sin.

what is it?

romans says the 2nd commandment(love your neighbor.......) is the summation of all the law. that being the case, what is in the essence of being gay that comes against the 2nd commandment?

feetxxxl said...

jx

what scriptures do not deal with homosexuality properly?

did jesus not say we would recognize them by their fruit..........fruit of the spirit.

did he also say that good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

have you ever seen teachings that murder was good and should, be affirmed, supported, and celebrated produce good fruit, as opposed to teachings about homosexuality which in doing so, does.

A. Friend said...

If there were only Leviticus on the subject, it might seem doubtful, apart from the Spirit-guided tradition of interpretation within the church. But with what Paul has to say and what we read in Genesis, I don't think it will ever be possible to convince all the churches that the traditional teaching on homosexuality is a misreading.
--------------------------------

Precisely.

If I were to go around saying "we can't take that seriously anymore" about any part of the Bible I might as well be irreligious.

In my book it simply would not be worth it.

Sometimes I wish it all didn't matter. So increasingly I can't fault people who choose to do what they feel.

naturgesetz said...

Since A. Friend has revived this thread, I'll make another comment.

JX, you said, "I agree that homosexuality is not condemned as sin in scripture. Homosexuality as an orientation was not defined until the 19th century." You are right about the orientation bit. Scripture indeed does not condemn "homosexuality as an orientation." But that does not mean that it does not condemn homosexual conduct. Wherever homosexual conduct is mentioned in scripture, it is reprobated.

feetxxxl said...

if what i have already written does not answer your question, then consider going to http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-covenant-christian-living-at-its.html
where it is even(i am participating) more extensively discussed(with antigay baptist believers), and read the thread.

you are bringing up an issue of living in a relationship with god thru regulation as deut 28.

under the new covenant the only things that are sins regarding the law are those things that come against the second commandment.romans

everything is permissable but not everything is benefiticial.
permissable............. all those things that do not come against the second commandment.

benefical................all those things that are of the fruit of the spirit.gal5

the anus is an errogenous zone(wikipedia)anal orgasms are possible. did god make a mistake. considering the number sexually active heterosexual couples compared to homosexual couples. and considering the number of heterosexual couples who practice some form of anal stimulation including penetration, there are probably more heterosexuals(married or unmarried) engaging in anal sex than homosexuals, which they do without any recrimination(when was the last time you saw anything in the church or among believers that chastised heterosexuals for engaging in anal sex.)

what would be your regulation about sexual intimacy..........dont touch the backside of your pardner, dont touch any area an inch from the anus, all penetration acceptable accept with a human organ.

or are saying all this is acceptable for heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

for that position to be valid you will have to explain how homosexuality comes against the 2nd commandment.(love your neighbor..........)(the essence of all new covenant law)(romans)

there is no"only"in matthew 19. heterosexual bonding is but one possibility. the test is what is of the fruit of the spirit.gal5

naturgesetz said...

@ feetxxxl —
"you are bringing up an issue of living in a relationship with god thru regulation as deut 28." — you're obviously talking to someone else here, because I'm not doing it

"under the new covenant the only things that are sins regarding the law are those things that come against the second commandment.romans" There are also sins that are against the first commandment, things that constitute idolatry, and things that are against love of self. And Paul tells us many of the specific things which violate one of the commandments, just in case we can't figure them all out for ourselves and so that we will not be self-deceived by our desires of the flesh.

"the anus is an errogenous zone(wikipedia)anal orgasms are possible. did god make a mistake. considering the number sexually active heterosexual couples compared to homosexual couples. and considering the number of heterosexual couples who practice some form of anal stimulation including penetration, there are probably more heterosexuals(married or unmarried) engaging in anal sex than homosexuals, which they do without any recrimination(when was the last time you saw anything in the church or among believers that chastised heterosexuals for engaging in anal sex.)" Foreplay between husband and wife is legitimate. Ejaculation is to be into the wife's vagina.

"for that position to be valid you will have to explain how homosexuality comes against the 2nd commandment.(love your neighbor..........)(the essence of all new covenant law)(romans)" NO I don't have to explain *how* it comes against the 2nd commandment because Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy tells you and me *that* it is contrary to God's will. Whether it violates the first or the second commandment doesn't matter. Whether we can understand how it violates one of the commandments doesn't matter. What matters is that the same scripture that gives us the law of love tells us that these practices are unnatural and shameful and that those who engage in them will not inherit the kingdom of God. That's enough to tell every believer that homosexual activity is not truly loving in God's sight, regardless of the human emotions which lead people to it or which they experience during it.

"the test is what is of the fruit of the spirit.gal5" But do not deceive yourself into thinking that any emotion you feel is truly the fruit of the Spirit if it is based on actions Paul warns you against.

feetxxxl said...

IS IT that the fruit of the spirit is merely warm fuzzies of an emotional tenor, so as to be either the same as the fruit of the spirit of powers and principalities or to be so inconsequential so as to be trumped by an interpretation of the law?


if the greatest of these is love compared to faith......faith, thru which we are saved, and 1cor13 says anything without love is nothing and gains nothing. and one of the fruit of the spirit is love, how do you come to your conclusion?

that means under the new covenant, old covenant obedience means nothing if it is not done in love.

are you aware of the number of other parts of scripture that you are forced to ignore in order to stand on your interpretation of scripture about homosexuals?


" NO I don't have to explain *how* it comes against the 2nd commandment because Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy tells you and me *that* it is contrary to God's will."

what you are describing is a relationship to god thru regulation, most definitiely as in deut. 28. god says it..........we obey. that's the old covenant.

the new covenant we are led by and serve of the spirit(we are not under the law)(romans and ephesians) thru relationship to the one who lives within us.(romans)

you are not speaking for god, god's word is a euphemism for your interpretation of scripture. no one knows the mind of god but the spirit of god.(1cor)

jesus says he has withheld nothing from us, but given us everything the father has given him.(john)

1 thess 5:21 test everything keep the good.

we are expected to test everything to see what is and what is not of the spirit of christ(all authority and judgement).



AGAIN: IN REGARDS TO NEW COVENANT LAW............ LAW........LAW, SIN IS ANYTHING THAT COMES AGAINST THE 2ND COMMANDMENT(romans)


how does homosexuality come against the 2nd commandment?


you cannot love god who you cant see, if you dont love your brother who you do see?(1john4:20)

in other words you cant do the 1st unless you do the 2nd as well.

naturgesetz said...

If you are right, a whole lot of what the Spirit inspired St. Paul to write is useless — a complete waste of pen, ink, paper. That would be absurd. It would mean that a whole lot of Spirit-breathed scripture can *only* deceive the reader. Why would God do that?

naturgesetz said...

@feetxxxl — "IS IT that the fruit of the spirit is merely warm fuzzies of an emotional tenor, so as to be either the same as the fruit of the spirit of powers and principalities or to be so inconsequential so as to be trumped by an interpretation of the law?" No, it is none of that. But it is possible for fallible, imperfect, humans to mistake something that is merely human for the gift of the Spirit.


"if the greatest of these is love compared to faith......faith, thru which we are saved, and 1cor13 says anything without love is nothing and gains nothing. and one of the fruit of the spirit is love, how do you come to your conclusion?

that means under the new covenant, old covenant obedience means nothing if it is not done in love." Obedience must be done in love.

"are you aware of the number of other parts of scripture that you are forced to ignore in order to stand on your interpretation of scripture about homosexuals?" No, I am not aware of any such. Please cite CHAPTER AND VERSE of the parts of scripture you have in mind and explain how they have any bearing specifically on homosexuality.


" NO I don't have to explain *how* it comes against the 2nd commandment because Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy tells you and me *that* it is contrary to God's will."

"what you are describing is a relationship to god thru regulation, most definitiely as in deut. 28. god says it..........we obey. that's the old covenant." So we are free to disobey God under the new covenant?

"the new covenant we are led by and serve of the spirit(we are not under the law)(romans and ephesians) thru relationship to the one who lives within us.(romans)" YOur references to entire books are too vague to be meaningful. Give chapter and verse, please. Furthermore, you cite Romans, but Romans says that homosexual activity is unnatural and shameful. So the authority you cite tells us you are wrongly interpreting it.

"you are not speaking for god," Neither are you. "god's word is a euphemism for your interpretation of scripture. no one knows the mind of god but the spirit of god.(1cor)" So why do you presume to tell me anything?

"jesus says he has withheld nothing from us, but given us everything the father has given him.(john)

1 thess 5:21 test everything keep the good.

we are expected to test everything to see what is and what is not of the spirit of christ(all authority and judgement)." True. Please explain what the connection is between that and our topic.



"AGAIN: IN REGARDS TO NEW COVENANT LAW............ LAW........LAW, SIN IS ANYTHING THAT COMES AGAINST THE 2ND COMMANDMENT(romans)" or the first, or proper love of self


"how does homosexuality come against the 2nd commandment?" It is not loving to help or induce someone to do something which is unnatural and shameful, and which will result in his not inheriting the kingdom of God. Beyond which it can be against the commandment to love God above all if you set your dealings with a human being ahead of the will of God as revealed to us in the scriptures.


"you cannot love god who you cant see, if you dont love your brother who you do see?(1john4:20)

in other words you cant do the 1st unless you do the 2nd as well." True, but beside the point.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, it is way past time for you to explain why you set aside the word of God in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 so that you can satisfy the desires of your flesh with a false conscience.

feetxxxl said...

lev .....where many prohibitions of themselves were not sins.

num 15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

gen .........which is about gang rape

romans 1........they worshipped and served powers and principalities(created) and were given over to the spirit that served those powers and principalities.......shameful lust, and thus abandoned what was of their natural inclination that gave them peace(fruit of the spirit) for that whichwas not and without peace. homosexuals never having women not since their first sexual memory, not being able to abandon something they never had.

under the new covenant neither household chores or household chores on the sabbath is a sin.
why............... because it is a regulation that does not come against the 2nd commandment.

itim icor............the transposition of the word “homosexual” took place in victorian england(no seperation between church and state…the queen was head of the church) the victorian era is credited with a number of sexually repressive attitudes.(wikipedia) the word “homosexual” was transposed for the phrase”defiling themselves with mankind” without ANY WRITTEN EXPLANATION. at the time the transposition took place, a king henry enacted law had been on the books for 400 hundred years that punished homosexual sex with hanging. king henry another head of the church.

english settlers coming to this country upon arriving made laws about this same issue with different punishnments. the transposition and cultural stigma are what kept homosexuality illegal in this country until the 1990’s.

you attempt to make regulation out of paul’s teaching when he said that we are no longer UNDER the law in romans and ephesians, “Everything is permissiable but not everything is beneficial”, “we are LED by the spirit, which we serve of” none of paul’s teachings were thru the law, even when a man took his father’s wife.

feetxxxl said...

"the new covenant we are led by(romans 8:14) and serve of the spirit(romans7:6)(we are not under the law)(romans 3:18-20) thru relationship to the one who lives within us.(1john 3:24)"

naturgesetz said...

@ feetxxxl — Your latest posts do not explain the verses from Corinthians and Timothy which I cited. The Old Testament passages you refer to have nothing to do with my position. English history is irrelevant to the matter at hand. And as I explained earlier, the KJV translation you cite is actually a paraphrase. "Homosexuals" is a loose translation. Corinthians and Timothy actually speak of men who lie with men and Corinthians also makes specific reference to what are called in current slang "bottoms." It is clear that in all three epistles St. Paul is talking about homosexual conduct. You can try to explain away the Romans passage with the argument about what is a homosexual's nature. I think you are misinterpreting the verses, but even if you are right, there is still no way around Corinthians and Timothy, which simply say that those who engage in homosexual conduct will not inherit the kingdom of God, and that the law is meant for them because they are unrighteous.

feetxxxl said...

the transposition of the word homosexual corrupts the original translation (1cor and 1tim) of a broad description of sin,"defiling oneself with mankind"(halocaust)(anytime one sins they are defiling themselves)(if the sin is in collusion with others then its with mankind) to a specific act. the act of specificity was done without any written explanation. there is no inference of sex in the original translation,(kjv) that comes from the culture of england at that particular time.

arsenkotai.....because it was never used before gives no clear understanding. anyone can make it mean whatever they chose.

regardless paul never taught thru the law even about the man who took his father's wife. to make a regulatiion to put believers under, to be led by as in deut 28, contradicts paul's teaching that we are not under the law (we are under grace which is spirit), and we are led by the spirit.

again .............romans 3:18-20


"sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers."

"lust, not loving god, violating vows,sexual promiscuity,thievery,greed,debauchery, slandering all come against the love of the three commandments.

believing homosexuals bond out of the fruit of the spirit, and their marriages are filled with fruit of the spirit in the same way as those of heterosexuals. if any marriage was CENTERED on any one of the above violations the marriages would be filled with anything but the fruit of the spirit.

IF ANY MARRIAGE CELEBRATED, AFFIRMED, OR SUPPORTED ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS IT WOULD BE FILLED WITH ANYTHING BUT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT.

believing homosexual marriages celebrate, support, and affirm their orientation.

naturgesetz said...

"the transposition of the word homosexual corrupts the original translation (1cor and 1tim) of a broad description of sin,"defiling oneself with mankind"(halocaust)(anytime one sins they are defiling themselves)(if the sin is in collusion with others then its with mankind) to a specific act. the act of specificity was done without any written explanation." The "original translation" is obviously euphemistic language, since there is nothing in the true original, the Greek, about "defiling." Your continued appeal to a word which is not in the original indicates that you are not interested in the true meaning of scripture, but are grasping at straws to support a position contrary to its plain meaning.

"there is no inference of sex in the original translation,(kjv) that comes from the culture of england at that particular time." The translators were living, speaking, and writing within "the culture of the time." So if they translated a word in a way which those of the culture of the time would understand as referring to sex, then clearly, they understood it to mean sex and intended the readers to infer sex. Beyond that, the "original translation" is not the scripture, so an appeal to it is useless. Furthermore, you are wrong and are displaying your ignorance when you call it the "original translation." I quote from my Encyclop√¶dia Britannica. "The first complete English version of the Bible dates from 1382 and was credited to John Wycliffe and his followers.… But it was the work of William Tyndale, a reformer and scholar, that was the model for a series of subsequent English translations. From 1525 to 1535 he translated the New Testament and part of the Old Testament. Subsequent English translations translaions, including the Coverdale Version (1535), the Matthew's (1537), the Great (1539), the Geneva (1560), and the Bishops' (1568, revised 1562) Bibles, were to some degree dependent on Tyndale's work." It then describes the King James Version (1611) as "[a]voiding strict literalism in favor of extensive use of synonym." Furthermore, the Rheims version (1582), not mentioned in Britannica, also predates the KJV. So the KJV is neither the "original translation" nor one that should be used when one is looking for a precise English rendering of the meaning. Certainly, one cannot credibly rely on a particular word found in the KJV to claim that another translation is inaccurate. And the lack of a "written explanation" of a differing translation is irrelevant. The KJV is not canonical, and translators are under no obligation to provide any explanation for how they translate anything, much less to explain differences in translation from the KJV. So your argument from the words of the KJV translation argument is worthless.

naturgesetz said...

"arsenkotai.....because it was never used before gives no clear understanding. anyone can make it mean whatever they chose." FALSE!!! As Raymond F. Collins notes in his commentary on Corinthians, "The neologism may derive from the prohibitions cited in Lev 18:22 and 20:13. It came to denote male homosexual activity." What Collins is talking about in his first sentence is the fact that the Septuagint, which Paul would have known, and used with Greek-speaking people, contain the two words from which arsenokoitai is compounded: arsenos and koiten. No honest person could "make it mean whatever they choose." Clearly it means people who do what is written of in those two verses of Leviticus. No other interpretation is reasonable or honest. In his commentary on Timothy, Benjamin Fiore, S.J. translates it both literally and clearly, "men who lie with men." His explanation makes it clear that this means sexual activity.

"regardless paul never taught thru the law even about the man who took his father's wife." Then his teachings about sexual morality are in the Spirit.

"to make a regulatiion to put believers under, to be led by as in deut 28, contradicts paul's teaching that we are not under the law (we are under grace which is spirit), and we are led by the spirit." The word "regulation" is not scriptural. Scripture does not forbid regulation. It does not use the word. More importantly, to claim that one is being led by the Spirit when one engages in behavior which Paul says is of the flesh, when one has not been washed of such behavior (1 Cor 6:11) is to be grievously self-deceived or to be a liar. Paul says in Galatians 5:18, "If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." He then goes on to list works of the flesh. Those who do the works of the flesh are not being led by the Spirit, however much thay may claim to be. In Paul's terminology, they are still under the law they are. "IF ye be led of the Spirit" is a mighty big "if." Galatians gives no support to arsenokoitai.

"again .............romans 3:18-20" Thus the law makes the practicing homosexual aware of his sin.


"'sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers.'

'lust, not loving god, violating vows,sexual promiscuity,thievery,greed,debauchery, slandering all come against the love of the three commandments." right

"believing homosexuals bond out of the fruit of the spirit, and their marriages are filled with fruit of the spirit in the same way as those of heterosexuals." This is only true of a "marriage" of homosexuals in which there is no sexual activity, because any sexual activity proves that the marriage is a work of the flesh, rather than of the Spirit.
"if any marriage was CENTERED on any one of the above violations the marriages would be filled with anything but the fruit of the spirit." his is your own, self-justifying spin on the scripture. There is no reason to confine what you say to marriages "centered" on one of those violations. When any such violations are any part of a marriage, the marriage partners are living according to the flesh.

"IF ANY MARRIAGE CELEBRATED, AFFIRMED, OR SUPPORTED ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS IT WOULD BE FILLED WITH ANYTHING BUT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT." But it is possible that the participants could mistake purely human emotions and feelings for the fruit of the Spirit.

"believing homosexual marriages celebrate, support, and affirm their orientation." This is not stated in scripture, and from what we read in St. Paul a believing homosexual marriage in which sexual activity is expected is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. There are probably a lot of well-intentioned people like you who have been deceived or are self-deceiving. God may well be merciful in judging them because "they know not what they do," but it is clear from what St. Paul writes, that they are, however unwittingly, behaving sinfully in an important matter.

feetxxxl said...

believing homosexual marriages celebrate, support, and affirm their orientation." This is not stated in scripture, and from what we read in St. Paul a believing homosexual marriage in which sexual activity is expected is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing. There are probably a lot of well-intentioned people like you who have been deceived or are self-deceiving. God may well be merciful in judging them because "they know not what they do," but it is clear from what St. Paul writes, that they are, however unwittingly, behaving sinfully in an important matter.


your leglization is no substitute for the reality of the spirit. homosexuals who believe and accept him as their savior, do marry, amd their marriages are filled with the fruit of the spirit.

just like your legalization about arsenokoitai does not make it sin. under the new covenant gal5 paul says that it is the essence.....the spirit behind the act, by its very nature that makes it a sin. your legalization is no substitue for the reality of the spirit. legalization does not create the spirit. the spirit is what creates reality. believing homosexuals bond out of the fruit of the spirit, because they are under grace and christ lives in them.

and you would know this if you had your own 1john1 witness"that which we have heard, which we have looked at, which our eyes have seen, and our hands have touched"

thru the grace of the spirit of god, john's eyes were opened in his fellowship with jesus to see that he was the christ(" no one will come to the son unless led by the father")

its amazing that the same believers that say they believe in christ, have not a scintilla of trust that IN HIS LIVING in them, that they can trust that thru relationsjip in christ by grace they can witness what is of him.

instead they prefer to trust in in legalizations.

to stand on homosexuality being a sin means denying witness thru fellowship of walking in the light.(1john1)

feetxxxl said...

9 Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men,

wycliff

lecher..................someone who is lustfully obsessed with sexual gratification.

this has as much to do with homosexual bonding for a shared committed life together, as the incestal rape in 2samuel had to with heterosexual marriage.

naturgesetz said...

We're at an impasse. I insist that St. Paul is telling us that certain actions prove that one is living according to the flesh and is not led by the Spirit — that one who is led by the Spirit does not do these things. As I understand you, you are saying that for one who is led by the Spirit, nothing he does is a sin, and feeling joy is the fruit of the Spirit which proves that one is led by the Spirit.

Neither of us can convince the other that he is twisting the scripture. I could appeal to the constant understanding of the Church, which has the guidance of the Spirit, since the scriptures are to be read with the Church. The understanding which the whole Church has had for millennia must be correct rather than the innovating doctrines of men. But I expect you to insist that you and others are right while 2000 years of believers are wrong. So I think we are at impasse here, too.

feetxxxl said...

i was never trying to convince you. it is for the holy spirit to convict you as to what is of christ."i will send you the holy spirit and he will convict you of all truth"john

i never said there was no sin, the three commandments of love shows us, and the romans 1:18-32, paul gives us the basis of all sin.

the fact what you would call sin what is filled with fruit of the spirit, is something you are going to have to deal with. because where the spirit rests determines what is of god. it trumps interpretation of scripture, doctrine, or belief systems. our hearts witness thru grace thru the one who LIVES in us. christ was our example..... christ who was full of grace and truth(john),and said................ "follow me". in the future, consider, having 1john1 witnesses of your own......just to see what your heart sees thru the one who LIVES in you.

ive have appreciated all you have offered. peace and god's blessing

feetxxxl said...

that 1john1 witness is why huus willing allowed himself to be burned at the stake when all he had to do was rescind his words, the same is true for all the others who the church, and saul, and the first 300ad years of roman rule martyred.

feetxxxl said...

the martyrs, in their last moments of life their words held no hate for their executors, but instead only concern was that in dying they were doing the will of christ.

JX said...

Wow, quite a lot of activity here in the past few days.

A. Friend: Don't misrepresent what I said. I said, "what we *THINK* scripture says about homosexuality" is useless as far as I am concerned at this point after wrestling with it for my entire life. I never said I'm ignoring any part of scripture.

naturgesetz: Sexual conduct is inextricably tied to orientation. If only the conduct is sinful, then would it be appropriate for two gay persons to marry? Could they minister in the church? Could the conduct that is mentioned really be abuse, pedophilia, domination, etc... could "homosexual conduct" have been forbidden merely since there was no appropriate context for it?

The church has historically been slow, belligerent, and stifling concerning science, sexuality, race, gender roles, etc. I'm not ready to trust the status quo into condeming myself to hell.

feetxxxl said...

if you are talking about scripture, then without a doubt, scripture has never said homosexuality was a sin.
it is man saying that scripture said it. it is man(church) that said for 1700 years that scripture not only supported, but directed believers to embrace ethnic slavery to show they were lovers of god. they said for the same reasons, for 1600 years, to burn witches at the stake,and for the same reasons for 2000 years, to indulge antisemetism. the halocaust was the apex of world wide antisemetism. germany had been a christian country for 400 years, their 2 national churches were catholic and lutheran, martin luther who was the founder of lutherism, and responsible for worldwide understanding of the sanctification of christ, was their national hero. without the existence of worldwide antisemetism there would never have been a halocaust in germany.

under the new covenant of christ according to scripture, celebrating, affirming, and supporting homosexuality is christ. those believers who say otherwise attempt to so by keeping one foot in the old covenant("what is named old will become obsolete and soon pass away",(heb8) by maintaining an old covenant relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28. yet even under the old covenant, in spite of lev, the essence of being homosexual was still not declared by scripture to be a sin. there were many other probitions in lev that of themselves were never sins.