The Bible and Homosexuality

Dear Maize,

Normally, I don't find it difficult to express myself in English, although I am not a native speaker. But when it comes to tell you how much I appreciate your tolerant, well-informed, love-filled and compassionate post, words fail me. I agree with you, wholeheartedly. What counts is love between people (and towards nature), be your fellow persons white, green, tall, short or whatever way Nature has made them. And that is the core message of the New Testament.

Lightkeeper said:

A-maize-ing post, Maize. You are a healer and exemplify the love we are all seeking.

Click to expand...

And this is but one of the many reasons she has my heart, my love.

I have no time for anyone who calls that perverted (which is why I've stayed right out of this thread after the other one was locked). It's as natural as breathing to love this woman.

Bastet said:

Lightkeeper said:

A-maize-ing post, Maize. You are a healer and exemplify the love we are all seeking.

Click to expand...

And this is but one of the many reasons she has my heart, my love.

I have no time for anyone who calls that perverted (which is why I've stayed right out of this thread after the other one was locked). It's as natural as breathing to love this woman.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Homosexuality is not a disease. Scientists cannot prove it neither can they show it exists naturally in nature. While many of the previous posts zero in on the law of God against homosexuality, they fail to combine both law and gospel. The law of God expressed infallibly through His Word, expressly states that homosexuality is wrong and that those who partake in it will be damned. However, people seem to lose sight of the Gospel of God that He sent His only begotten son to this world for the sins of all. The Gospel does save these sinners just as it can save all of us. Jesus died for everyone no matter their religious backgrounds or beliefs. Faith apprehends the gift of salvation and those who are saved would not take part in homosexuality. This forum is not about are homosexuals going to heaven, but if homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. The simple answer is yes.

LCMS Sprecher said:

...Scientists cannot prove it neither can they show it exists naturally in nature. ....

Click to expand...

http://www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?t=826

The cited thread does indeed show that homosexuality is found in nature. There are also many studies that explore the topic with the human animal.

Perhaps I misunderstand your statement?

There is a scripture that has nothing to do with Saint Mathew. A roman eunich meets a christian he says to the christian where can I find jesus. The christian says to him that he's down there and to go and see him. The roman eunich thanks the christian. The christain says to him to go in peace.

Lightkeeper said:

Firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, not out there someplace. If we are going to follow the Bible word for word, then I hope none of us eat pork or in the same room as a woman who is menstruating.

Click to expand...

The ceremonial law of the Old Testament has been fulfilled in Christ, which is why we today can eat pork, do not need to be circumsized, do not offer animal sacrifices, may stay in the same room with a menstruating woman, etc. The Ultimate Sacrfice has been made. This is commonly understood among Christian circles, but many non-believers and those Christians who are not as well informed do dredge up such passages and misinterpret them.

The moral law of the Old Testament is still our standard, and provides the high standard to which no man can adhere and points us to our need for grace and forgiveness, as all men have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.

As far as homsexuality goes, I find some of these interesting re-interpretations of the Bible to be quite intriguing--and probably wrong.

All sexuality is a choice--not that which causes you stimulation, but the extent to which you act on that stimulation.

For example, if I am married, I may see a SYT and get all horny and frothing at the mouth, but it is my choice as to whether I succumb to my lust and commit adultery.

Even assuming homosexuals are born (for the sake of argument), they each and every one can choose whether to act upon their lust; therefore they have no more excuse to expect us to condome their behavior legally, socially and morally than does a child molester, a bestialist or a necrophiliac who may choose to succumb to their lust and may claim some congenital predilection for their condition.

quick said:

Lightkeeper said:

Firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, not out there someplace. If we are going to follow the Bible word for word, then I hope none of us eat pork or in the same room as a woman who is menstruating.

Click to expand...

The ceremonial law of the Old Testament has been fulfilled in Christ, which is why we today can eat pork, do not need to be circumsized, do not offer animal sacrifices, may stay in the same room with a menstruating woman, etc. The Ultimate Sacrfice has been made. This is commonly understood among Christian circles, but many non-believers and those Christians who are not as well informed do dredge up such passages and misinterpret them.

The moral law of the Old Testament is still our standard, and provides the high standard to which no man can adhere and points us to our need for grace and forgiveness, as all men have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.

As far as homsexuality goes, I find some of these interesting re-interpretations of the Bible to be quite intriguing--and probably wrong.

All sexuality is a choice--not that which causes you stimulation, but the extent to which you act on that stimulation.

For example, if I am married, I may see a SYT and get all horny and frothing at the mouth, but it is my choice as to whether I succumb to my lust and commit adultery.

Even assuming homosexuals are born (for the sake of argument), they each and every one can choose whether to act upon their lust; therefore they have no more excuse to expect us to condome their behavior legally, socially and morally than does a child molester, a bestialist or a necrophiliac who may choose to succumb to their lust and may claim some congenital predilection for their condition.

Click to expand...

I think you will get strong reaction to this, because it appears you are putting homosexuals in the category of deviant behavior. If you were in a society where heterosexuality were looked down upon, then we would expect you to never have a mate and to live a celibate lonely life. I doubt you would do that. Homosexuals have less choice than you think.

Lightkeeper,

I don't consider it worthwhile to answer that post. It contains so much (the words that come to my mind would be censored). And what about "The moral law of the Old Testament is still our standard"? When did you last hear of naughty children or adulterers or witches being stoned?

Lightkeeper said:

I think you will get strong reaction to this, because it appears you are putting homosexuals in the category of deviant behavior. If you were in a society where heterosexuality were looked down upon, then we would expect you to never have a mate and to live a celibate lonely life. I doubt you would do that. Homosexuals have less choice than you think.

Click to expand...

That's fine. But your conundrum is clearly a red herring--as heterosexuality is necessary for reproduction, it will never be "looked down upon" for long, or the society you suggest would cease to exist within a generation.

Furhter, you never address my heterosexual example--why am I not to act upon my lust for a lady and cheat on my wife. Are those urges not as strong as those of a homosexual? Just because urges are strong does not mean we should give in to them, now does it.

As far as how much choice homosexuals have, read the psychological literature on the topic from the 20th century until about the mid-1970s, when the "movement" got so strong. The scientific community had a very good understanding of why people become homosexual, but of late we have chosen to ignore this work, much like we are trying now to say we get fat because of genetic issues rather than overeating. Again, if for the sake of argument we accept that there is a "fat" gene, I maintain that anyone can stay within a normal weight range if they eat less than the calorific expenditure of their basal metabolism plus the work that they do. It is a mathematical certainty.

Homoseuxals need to be helped, not woven into an institutional eddy.

anders said:

Lightkeeper,

I don't consider it worthwhile to answer that post. It contains so much (the words that come to my mind would be censored). And what about "The moral law of the Old Testament is still our standard"? When did you last hear of naughty children or adulterers or witches being stoned?

Click to expand...

I'll answer you. First, you quote no verses, so you are out of context at the very least. But, of course, I can say with certainty that adultery is still wrong, children who disobey their parents are still wrong, and witchcraft is still wrong. In fact, as a disturbing number of our youngsters are shooting up their teachers and classmates, you will find that they may not be stoned, which is not necessarily fatal (Paul was stoned several times), but they may die by lethal injection as a result of their capital crimes.

I know many homosexuals, several quite well. Most of them are not of the activist mentality, and I doubt one of them would claim to be born homosexuals. In fact, my wife's former business partner was quite the heterosexual ladies man until his late 20s.

Again, I have no hatred for them; I do know that institutionalizing homosexuality does them no favors.

I'll ask you this--if homosexuals are born, why shouldn't we legalize incest, child sex, bestiality, S&M, or any other kind of deviance? Are these kinds of lusts not born, too? I mean, why shouldn't you be able to have sex with your lovely daughter if you are attracted to her? Where do you draw your lines, if any?

I draw mine with the Word.

quick said:

Lightkeeper said:

Firstly, the Kingdom of Heaven is within us, not out there someplace. If we are going to follow the Bible word for word, then I hope none of us eat pork or in the same room as a woman who is menstruating.

Click to expand...

The ceremonial law of the Old Testament has been fulfilled in Christ, which is why we today can eat pork, do not need to be circumsized, do not offer animal sacrifices, may stay in the same room with a menstruating woman, etc. The Ultimate Sacrfice has been made. This is commonly understood among Christian circles, but many non-believers and those Christians who are not as well informed do dredge up such passages and misinterpret them.

Click to expand...

Does that also include the Levitiacal (18:22) injunction against a man lying with a man as with a woman? That commandment is "smack-dab" in the middle of the sexual activity list just below the prohibition of have sex during menses

The moral law of the Old Testament is still our standard, and provides the high standard to which no man can adhere and points us to our need for grace and forgiveness, as all men have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.

Click to expand...

The moral standard you are espousing is one of several interpretations that man has derived. While it may come from the Bible, it is not God's Word you follow but your interpretation of it. In your "falling short" you are more likely to have a reading that "falls short" as getting it "right".

As far as homsexuality goes, I find some of these interesting re-interpretations of the Bible to be quite intriguing--and probably wrong.

Click to expand...

What wiould lead you to think that your interpreation is correct?

All sexuality is a choice--not that which causes you stimulation, but the extent to which you act on that stimulation.

Click to expand...

As this definition leaves room for science, it should be noted again that sexuality is diversely present in God's creation. As God has given man lust, it would seem that Paul's advice to marry would be applicable to homosexual marriage.

For example, if I am married, I may see a SYT and get all horny and frothing at the mouth, but it is my choice as to whether I succumb to my lust and commit adultery.

Click to expand...

I admire and follow your fidelity. However, God's creation in the form of the evolution process, sees advantage in "extra-marital" affairs. In nature, monogamy is not the dominate mode of a family unit.

Even assuming homosexuals are born (for the sake of argument), they each and every one can choose whether to act upon their lust; therefore they have no more excuse to expect us to condome their behavior legally, socially and morally than does a child molester, a bestialist or a necrophiliac who may choose to succumb to their lust and may claim some congenital predilection for their condition.

Click to expand...

You have equated homosexuality with criminal offenses - which it is not.

I'll further state that sex is not just for procreation - its larger purpose is for pleasure and maintenance of the social sturture in which sex takes place. Acting out the impluses of lust while avoiding the excesses is normal and healthy.

Give me the details of scientific evidence for homosexuality and perhaps I could believe it actually occurs in nature. However, I do not see homosexuality practiced by any other creatures other than humans. We should look at what this thread is really trying to address. Is homosexuality actually condemned in Holy Scripture. The simple answer is yes.

[quote="pah

You have equated homosexuality with criminal offenses - which it is not.

[/quote]

It isn't criminal today, in some states, but sodomy still is criminal in a many others, and not too long ago, it was criminal in all 50 states. In England only 90 or so years ago, playwright Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for his homosexual behavior.

My point is simple--where do you draw the line? Either we have a Lawgiver, or we do not. If we do not, then whom do you propose we have determine these rules. Majority vote? Majority vote by scientists? Incest is good breeding, just like in racehorses? Homosexual activism is opening some interesting Pandora's Boxes in our social fabric, and I hear the sound of nylon shredding. How do you propose to put some "rip stop" in your nylon?

This all gets back to the entire debate concering cultural relativism that has been raging for decades, and is probably beyond the scope of this thread; however, we need to understand the implication of what is happening today, and the modern homosexual movement is a bellwether

LCMS Sprecher said:

We should look at what this thread is really trying to address. Is homosexuality actually condemned in Holy Scripture. The simple answer is yes.

Click to expand...

It is not so simple if this issue is still being debated on today.

It is only being debated because people love to try to explain sin.

quick said:

--as heterosexuality is necessary for reproduction, it will never be "looked down upon" for long, or the society you suggest would cease to exist within a generation.

Click to expand...

Procreation is but one part of continuing the species - nuture is the other. The bighorn sheep have two groups of animals in thier society. One is a purely homosexual male group and the the other is a femal group with "effeminate", non-reproducing males. The females join the homosexual males for a brief time in the rutting season and then retire to thier own grouping. The new sheep are raised by the females with the help of the "effeminate" males. Homosexual humans raise children too!

The fecundity rate for both human male and female homosexuals is about 50% of the heterosexual population. There is no chance that a 100% population of homosexuals will occur.

Furhter, you never address my heterosexual example--why am I not to act upon my lust for a lady and cheat on my wife. Are those urges not as strong as those of a homosexual? Just because urges are strong does not mean we should give in to them, now does it.

Click to expand...

There is evoultionary evidence to do quite the opposite of a monogomous relationship. Natural selection favors the choice of a female for a provider and for a "macho" coupling.

As far as how much choice homosexuals have, read the psychological literature on the topic from the 20th century until about the mid-1970s, when the "movement" got so strong. The scientific community had a very good understanding of why people become homosexual, but of late we have chosen to ignore this work, much like we are trying now to say we get fat because of genetic issues rather than overeating. Again, if for the sake of argument we accept that there is a "fat" gene, I maintain that anyone can stay within a normal weight range if they eat less than the calorific expenditure of their basal metabolism plus the work that they do. It is a mathematical certainty.

Click to expand...

Psychology has given up that concept of homosexuality as a disease - it is not just ignored but outdated. Biology has come to the fore in the study of homosexuality. There is very strong indication in many studies that homosexuality has a gentic basis as well as indications in other studies that nurture plays a role. There is no "certain" cause.

Homoseuxals need to be helped, not woven into an institutional eddy.

Click to expand...

Some can be "helped" and some reparative therapy utterly fails. Unforutnetly, no scientific studies affirm or deny the that this therapy "solves" the problem - all results remain anecdotal.

Given that homosexuality is natural in human beings, it is wrong to preclude that group from the secular enjoyment and protection of all the rights of our (American) citizens.

QUOTE Does that also include the Levitiacal (18:22) injunction against a man lying with a man as with a woman? That commandment is "smack-dab" in the middle of the sexual activity list just below the prohibition of have sex during menses. END QUOTE

Many of the verses you refer to have to do with ceremonial uncleanliness:

Leviticus 15:32

32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who lies with a woman who is ceremonially unclean.

The key word is "ceremonially".

I refer you to this verse from Romans 14:

14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[2] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.


Again, Christ freed us from the strictures of the cerermonial law. That is not to say the law is wrong, but not necessary--a major distinction.

Romans 14 in its entirety is illustrative:


1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[1] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[2] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.