homosexuality is wrong ..BUT

[Alithis]

The topic appears to be "shall we seek to punish folk who are gay or lesbian or transgendered or hermaphrodite because we hold in high regard the holy scriptures which appear to condemn having sex with somebody else outside of marriage"?

actually the topic is about adultery....

 

[tango]

Actually, stating my beliefs if they dont know is more about taking a stand for what the bible says is right or wrong as sayoing nothing condones the lifestyle. Iwill interact and be a friend but will also try to talk to them about their lifestyle leading to hell

Unless you explain how your beliefs are derived from the Bible says it's nothing of the sort.

If you merely say to someone "what you're doing is sinful" why would you expect them to listen to you? If all you've got is "it's in the Bible" then don't be surprised if people who care about the Bible ask you for chapter and verse, and also don't be surprised if people who don't care about the Bible disregard what you have to say, in much the same way as I imagine you would disregard the warnings from Muslims that eating pork is forbidden because "it's in the Qu'ran".

Since you obviously believe that a homosexual lifestyle leads to hell, on what do you base your belief? Would you lean heavily on verses like Lev 20:13, or put together an argument that includes the NT as well? It's all very well saying you know something to be true but if you want to persuade someone else then you need a lot more than "I believe this, I know it to be true, end of".

 

[tango]

Bill, respectfully, may I recommend you re-read what you quoted? I never even so much as mentioned "condone" or "silence" Not once.

IMO, the Bible consistently condemns "judging."

The Bible condemns hypocritical judgment.

A verse often misused to try and stop judgment is Matt 7:1 where Jesus says "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" but if we look at the next few verses to get some context it paints a different picture. We shouldn't be judging people while we still have issues ourselves, but if we look forward to 7:5 we see Jesus say "First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (italics mine). How can we remove the speck from our brother's eye unless we judge that it shouldn't be there?

Then in Galatians we see Paul write "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted." (Gal 6:1) - we cannot "restore such a one" unless we have determined them to be overtaken in trespass and we cannot make such a determination without judging their actions and concluding them to be sinful.

 

[tango]

No problem with that at all but yet we to preach the truth Paul made that clear when he called out the brother sleeping with his father s wife. There is a difference between judging and pointing out error. I have had friends who are gay and they know how I stand and my hands are clean because i cared enough to point out to them that they were hellbound on their present course. I didnt beaty them over the head with it but I also was not silent either.

I hope in your caring enough you explained why you believe what you do. It's a tall order to expect someone to change their life around based on "Bill says it's in the Bible" without anything more than that. I certainly wouldn't change my life around based on someone's understanding of what the Bible said without looking at it for myself. Otherwise how would I know if they had correctly quoted and applied the Bible, quoted something out of context, or thought it said something it didn't say at all?

 

[psalms 91]

I hope in your caring enough you explained why you believe what you do. It's a tall order to expect someone to change their life around based on "Bill says it's in the Bible" without anything more than that. I certainly wouldn't change my life around based on someone's understanding of what the Bible said without looking at it for myself. Otherwise how would I know if they had correctly quoted and applied the Bible, quoted something out of context, or thought it said something it didn't say at all?

Of course but like a lot of other things the word has become controversial because of these religious lawyers. Some claim the bible doesnt speak against it and some even go so far as to say that Jesu was one,unbelievanble but true. They even have churchs built on these fallicies and while I commend them for going to church they are in error and will go to hell if they dont change

 

[Full O Beans]

Of course but like a lot of other things the word has become controversial because of these religious lawyers. Some claim the bible doesnt speak against it and some even go so far as to say that Jesu was one,unbelievanble but true. They even have churchs built on these fallicies and while I commend them for going to church they are in error and will go to hell if they dont change

Homosexuals and those who support them cannot change anything without receiving salvation in the Person of Jesus Christ. As for church-going, they are wasting their time attending churches that are no more than moral sewers, but are social clubs for the spiritually bereft and compromised. There is no truth in them. Jesus isn't there.

They won't receive truth there. It is up to us who have the truth to live it before them, and to teach them the truth---with love, as Jesus would do. Only when they have the revelation about God's great love and gift of grace will they have the understanding that their lives are based in sin and that it is an offense to the God who loves them and created them to worship Him---and they will repent and begin to seek His righteousness.

 

[tango]

Of course but like a lot of other things the word has become controversial because of these religious lawyers. Some claim the bible doesnt speak against it and some even go so far as to say that Jesu was one,unbelievanble but true. They even have churchs built on these fallicies and while I commend them for going to church they are in error and will go to hell if they dont change

Some people do have different views on whether the prohibition on homosexual acts laid down in Leviticus is still relevant today. It's a perfectly reasonable discussion to have, with those for and against making suitable appeals to Scripture. Clearly some people believe that the OT prohibitions are still relevant today while others believe they are not. With any disagreement over just what Scripture means the only real solution is for both sides to look at the whole of Scripture. It's often interesting if each side is willing to try and make the opposing case using Scripture, even if only to figure where the other side is coming from. Sadly there are many times when "discussion" ends up being little than one side thumping the table and preaching hellfire and the other side wringing their hands because their brother/sister/son/daughter/friend is doing whatever is under discussion and they can't bring themselves to accept it's wrong. I recently read an article written by a woman who describes herself as a "lesbian Christian" about some of the acceptance and rejection she has experienced - she had some interesting points to make (including accepting that "love" doesn't just mean soothing words that whatever you want to do is just fine) but still focused on the notion that her girlfriend was her "primary relationship". This is all well and good but had her "primary relationship" been with someone else's husband she should expect to face Scripture-based arguments that her actions were unacceptable, so getting similarly Scripture-based arguments that her lesbian relationship was unacceptable is really no different (and even in keeping with the topic of the thread, for bonus points!).

The key thing with presenting a coherent case is that if you don't present a clear and well reasoned case the chances are those with a different viewpoint will walk all over it.

 

[tango]

Homosexuals and those who support them cannot change anything without receiving salvation in the Person of Jesus Christ. As for church-going, they are wasting their time attending churches that are no more than moral sewers, but are social clubs for the spiritually bereft and compromised. There is no truth in them. Jesus isn't there.

... and another post making bold statements without a single verse from Scripture to support them.

 

[Full O Beans]

... and another post making bold statements without a single verse from Scripture to support them.

Bold statements based on the truth of the word! Yet you state whatever you wish without a shred of scripture. Is there a double standard here?

Everyone here knows that God hates all sin and that homosexuality is detestable to Him. Are you in need of knowing what the actual scriptures are that tell you this? What I have said is what the bible teaches. If you want to parse it, I am game. What is your reason for it, though? Are you born again?

 

[Full O Beans]

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[Brighten04]

I don't see the argument here. Sin is sin. Sexual sin is sexual sin whether homosexual or heterosexual. Maybe the question should be What is sin? Why does God hate sin? Oh, that is two questions. Silly me. Sin destroys spirit, soul, and body. That is why our Father in Heaven hates it. When we can explain sin, and why our Father hates it, people understand that you are not condemning them, but the sin nature that all are born with. And sometimes, they even repent and see sin for what it is in the flesh and receive the salvation that Lord Jesus has provided.

 

[tango]

Bold statements based on the truth of the word! Yet you state whatever you wish without a shred of scripture. Is there a double standard here?

I don't need to cite Scripture to demonstrate that you are not citing Scripture. I think in this thread at least it's safe to say that the posts I have made either refer to Scripture or look at ways of reasoning and how it's better to cite Scripture than to say little more than "I know this is right, end of".

If you can point me at examples of where I make theological points without either citing Scripture or making it clear it's a personal opinion or my interpretation of Scripture please do. In all honesty I wouldn't want to be doing things while calling out others for doing the same.

Everyone here knows that God hates all sin and that homosexuality is detestable to Him.

If "everyone here knows" then it should be easy enough to cite Scripture, no? The fact remains some people question whether a monogamous homosexual relationship is detestable to God. I'm personally not one of them - I've seen a few arguments with varying levels of thought put into them that do question whether such relationships are sinful or not and personally only found one of them to be worthy of looking into any further (something I have yet to do, although I found the arguments presented sufficiently interesting to at least consider whether they had merit). Honestly, beyond the table thumping and hand wringing presented as if they had any merit at all, most of the discussion of any depth I've seen essentially boils down to the meaning of the tail end of Romans 1.

Are you in need of knowing what the actual scriptures are that tell you this? What I have said is what the bible teaches. If you want to parse it, I am game. What is your reason for it, though? Are you born again?

Never mind what I may be in need of. If you want to make a case, especially to the world or to people who have a different view to your own, you'll need something more than "everybody knows it's sinful" because quite clearly not everybody agrees with that perspective.

You can also save the questions of whether I'm born again. The Bible calls us to test all things, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to test things with a little more vigor than accepting someone on the internet saying "everybody knows this is true". For a time everybody knew that the earth was flat, for a time everybody knew that the sun orbited the earth. Personally I find a good way to test what I believe in is to look for merit in the opposing viewpoint - it's certainly a more enlightening process than patting myself on the back and claiming that "everybody knows" my position is correct.

 

[tango]

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Yay, some Scripture to support the case!

The only real challenge I've seen to the translation of this verse (specifically the Greek ἀρσενοκοίτης) is whether it refers to a homosexual or "someone effeminate". I'm not entirely convinced of the "effeminate" argument - for me the combination of Romans 1 and the indications in verses like this that homosexuality isn't Scripturally acceptable seem more persuasive than what looks like semantic gymnastics to explain away one verse after another. The key question, at least from the perspective of those looking to justify monogamous homosexual relationships, is how that Greek term is best translated. Where the rest of the text refers to "sexual sin" or "sexual immorality" or similar, those who believe that a monogamous homosexual relationship is acceptable would simply argue that it isn't "sexual immorality" if they are faithful to one partner in the same way a heterosexual married couple would be expected to be. And there's at least some merit in the question, at least insofar as it's faulty reasoning to say "homosexuality is immoral, immorality is sinful, therefore homosexuality is sinful" without first establishing whether or not homosexuality is, in fact, immoral.

Where this verse refers to the Greek ἀρσενοκοίτης, that term does appear to relate more to men lying with men than with any female behaviors. Looking at Strong's dictionary it appears to be derived from αρσην which appears to refer to men. That, too, is in keeping with the laws of Leviticus that refer to "a man lying with a man as with a woman" but don't seem to discuss women lying with women.

It's interesting to see that the KJV translates 1Co 6:9 as: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ", and the NKJV translates it as "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,"

The transition from "effeminate" to "homosexuals" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" to "sodomites" makes me wonder whether the NKJV has merely tweaked the language to make the meaning clearer to people in this day and age (the 17th century was way before my birth so I honestly don't know if "abusers of themselves with mankind" was a 17th-century euphemism for homosexuals that has simply been updated).

This kind of question over the exact meaning of the text (and I make no secret of the fact that the arguments are those presented by those who do not believe that monogamous homosexuality is an abomination, and most of the people I've heard presenting such arguments are homosexual themselves) shows why I believe it's best to study what the text says and look at what the words mean with a view to finding out which side is actually supported. If we teach people that the Bible prohibits homosexuality and quote a couple of verses to support our case, how will our case stand up when a homosexual who appears to have undertaken a more detailed study then casts questions on the precise meaning of the Greek and how it may have related to the culture then compared to how it might relate to the culture now? To someone uncertain, especially someone who may be struggling with homosexual desires of their own, if they hear one argument that quotes a verse from Scripture as if it were the beginning and the ending of the discussion, and then another argument that analyses that verse in considerable detail, which will they find more persuasive? If they have homosexual desires of their own that they are desperately trying to reconcile with the message of Scripture that will simply push them in the direction of the teachings that it is permissible.

On the other hand, if we can look at the arguments presented by those who do not accept what might be called the traditional viewpoint that homosexual acts are detestable to God and look at them in detail we can address them in detail. If nothing else we can make it clear that we've done more than picked a verse from Scripture and not considered anything more than the form of words our preferred translation happened to use.

(Only tangentially related but it shows how different translations can give a different spin on things. If we look at Is 7:14 the pattern between translations is clear - a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son. But if we look at the GNB the meaning shifts significantly - the GNB says "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son". I'm sure few would argue that a virgin conceiving is a very unusual thing to happen. But there's absolutely nothing special about a young woman who is pregnant having a son - it happens to approximately 50% of young woman who are pregnant. If we only looked at the GNB this passage wouldn't give any indication that something unusual was going on, or that there was anything out of the ordinary about the birth of this child named Immanuel.)

 

[Full O Beans]

I don't need to cite Scripture to demonstrate that you are not citing Scripture. I think in this thread at least it's safe to say that the posts I have made either refer to Scripture or look at ways of reasoning and how it's better to cite Scripture than to say little more than "I know this is right, end of".

Scripture speaks of homosexuality as a detestable sin to God. There is no getting around it.

If "everyone here knows" then it should be easy enough to cite Scripture, no? The fact remains some people question whether a monogamous homosexual relationship is detestable to God.

Monogamous? As in married? Whether one is monogamous or promiscuous, it is all perverse and fornication.

Never mind what I may be in need of. If you want to make a case, especially to the world or to people who have a different view to your own, you'll need something more than "everybody knows it's sinful" because quite clearly not everybody agrees with that perspective.

People who know Jesus and believe the word of God know it is sinful

You can also save the questions of whether I'm born again. The Bible calls us to test all things, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to test things with a little more vigor than accepting someone on the internet saying "everybody knows this is true". For a time everybody knew that the earth was flat, for a time everybody knew that the sun orbited the earth. Personally I find a good way to test what I believe in is to look for merit in the opposing viewpoint - it's certainly a more enlightening process than patting myself on the back and claiming that "everybody knows" my position is correct.

If one is an unbeliever, then one may have the opposite view about these things.

 

[Alithis]

So, here we have the rising of the overtly anti gay stance... but unless we balance it againt all other "sin" we merely slide over into the realm of the judgment seat .

we have established that an unsaved unredeemed person is in fact a prisoner to sin. they have no more free will to leave in that state then any other prisoner .
and we ourselves were such prisoners until we were set free (if we have indeed been set free ,some have some claim to have been )
so upon what grounds do we judge the sinner ? none .thats Gods job .
we however have been told by the lord jesus to go out into all the world and judge it and tell them how rotten they are ..ouhh Waaait . no we are not . interesting isn't it.

in all the face of all this worlds sin the one message we are given to deliver to the world is -JEsus .
good news ! that we can have freedom from our sin .. and be set free ,let out of prison and escape the judgement of God that is coming by walking in that freedom and no longer serving that master .
sure the lord declares two men laying together& sodomy as detestable . but he does not declare any other sin as "not detestable "- he does not say if you commit adultery you can not be forgiven (though there is no forgivness without repentance (turning from ceasing and going another way ) and just the same he does not say if you practice sodomy you cannot be forgiven . so we see that sin is sin . one is not worse then the other in that respect . rebellion againt God is rebellion againt God ..(but some in the world have no idea why they are in rebellion againt God they are "lost " in thier sin .

when we find a little lost boy in a mall.. do we say to him .. "you horrid evil boy for being lost " .. he did not intend to be lost .. he became lost .do we declare him horrid for becoming lost ? no we help him get found again . the church is rife with the sin of adultery and judgment begins in the house of God all through out christendom so called christians are divorcing and remarrying all over the place .. yet the word of god states very clearly ..if you leave your married partner you may do so if they were unrepentant in sexual immorality .. it does not expressly say your free to remarry ,only that your free to divorce them . but sexual immorality is not that common a reason for chrsitian divorce .. and in the midst of this hashmash of sin .. we (generalized church) lift up our pointy finger and harshly declare the wickedness of the sodomites . .. shal not the lord according to his own word use that same measure againt us ? we will indeed .

and if we so desire to hold up one sin as somehow worse then another then i offer you the greatest sin of all .. unforgiveness -which in truth is the number one cause of chrsitian divorce -for if you forgive one another as God forgives you ,Then divorce can NEVER occur . -interesting is it not ?

 

[Full O Beans]

We need to bring correction to people who claim Christ and at the same time uphold sin. We cannot judge the sinner who is not saved, and that is biblical. They haven't the standard of righteousness that God calls us to live out. We as believers do, and when we see believers being compromised by sin and approving of it, then we are to discern/judge that for what it is: hypocrisy, and rebuke it.

 

[Alithis]

We need to bring correction to people who claim Christ and at the same time uphold sin. We cannot judge the sinner who is not saved, and that is biblical. They haven't the standard of righteousness that God calls us to live out. We as believers do, and when we see believers being compromised by sin and approving of it, then we are to discern/judge that for what it is: hypocrisy, and rebuke it.

yup . we are to judge within the church .

 

[MoreCoffee]

actually the topic is about adultery....

Yes, that is what the first post says yet it was introduced with a controversial topic title and it appears to be written on the assumption that both sodomites and adulterers ought to be 'punished' within one's meeting - perhaps by being excluded in some way from full communion.

 

[Brighten04]

Yes, that is what the first post says yet it was introduced with a controversial topic title and it appears to be written on the assumption that both sodomites and adulterers ought to be 'punished' within one's meeting - perhaps by being excluded in some way from full communion.

No, it was not. If you read it with any understanding, the thread was started for personal reasons. The homosexual part was the click bait ( I borrowed that phrase from Tango:rotfl: )

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, it was not. If you read it with any understanding, the thread was started for personal reasons. The homosexual part was the click bait ( I borrowed that phrase from Tango:rotfl: )

Okay, I'll un-subscribe then.