Struggling to come to terms with something I have read in the bible.

[Mr Cheese]

Sojourner told me, and I believe him. I apologize if I implied something more official.

this is true.... homosexual probitions are largely due to to transaltion.

Most biblical sexual inhibitions date from the middle ages.... not the bible

The bible has far more to say about sleeping around than homosexuality, if it actually has anythign to say about homosexuality,.... sleepign around is a clear no no, the homosexuality thing is ambigious... and less so when not in translation...

............

 

[Quagmire]

You have misunderstood my meaning; I love my self but I have no ticked on my self, it is an internal joy.

Sorry, I have no idea what "I have no ticked on myself" means. All I know is Tumble weed said, "All I see is relentless pride" and you answered "Yes, I do love myself".

So obviously you equate pride with love., which, as I pointed out, is about as anti-biblical as one can get.

 

[free spirit]

Sorry, I have no idea what "I have no ticked on myself" means. All I know is Tumble weed said, "All I see is relentless pride" and you answered "Yes, I do love myself".

Read post 333

So obviously you equate pride with love., which, as I pointed out, is about as anti-biblical as one can get.

If you do not love yourself you cannot love your brother, love has no pride if you love a person you would want to be his servant, so I would be proud to serve you. love is devoid of selfishness.

 

[Alceste]

Romantic love and lust! Sorry but I am not able to tell them apart for both of them lead to one conclusion, which is I scratch your back and you scratch my back if this is seen as love, you are missing the real thing; because men could have sex with any woman for after sun down there is no such thing as an ugly woman, but I felt loved by my woman when I went to get a change of clothes and I found them clean ironed folded and ready for me, in other words she cared for my mundane needs, even after we had an argument, yes also sex is one of my needs, so if I have both, then i have been deeply in love. But I have found that with the passing of time the sex drive diminishes and the caring increases, but that is me.

OK, so folded clothes and sex is romantic love for you. It's something else for me. As I said, it probably varies from one person to the next.

 

[strange]

Hello People


BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT, MAN AND WOMEN HAS THE DOMAINE OF THAT WORD SIMPLE. WHY DO YOU WANT DESCRIBE YOUSELVES SAME AS. YOUR RELATIONSHIP IS DIFFERENT FULL STOP. YES IT WOULD NOT CHANGE MY FEELINGS TOWARDS MY WIFE. BUT THE WORD MARRIEGE HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH A MAN AND A WOMEN FOR THE BEGINNING, IF YOU MAKE A NEW THING YOU GIVE IT A NEW NAME. WE CAN CALL IT A TRADEMARK AND GUY PEOPLE WANT TO USE MY TRADEMARK IT SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL. WOULD A DIFFERENT NAME MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOUR GAY RELATIONASHIP? Let say someone asks me who my son married now i say Mary Brown, but if the marriege word is also used for gay people gender specification become a must for you never know, you say that should not make any differece, yes it does. now empathise with me.


I PERSONALLY THINK THAT IT IS A SIN, BUT WE ARE SURREONDED BY ALL KINDS OF SINS SO I HAVE TO LIVE IN THE MIDST OF IT, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT, BUT IT BECOME AN ISSUE WHEN I SHOULD CONSIDER IT AS NORMAL AND SAME AS, YOU SHOULD BE FREE TO LIVE YOUR LIFE AS YOU WISH, TO MAKE IT AS SPECIAL AS YOU KNOW HOW BUT DO NOT CALL IT SAME AS, BECAUSE IT IS NOT. BUT I SUSPECT THAT GAYS WANT TO USE THAT WORD BECAUSE OF LEGITIMISING THE EVENT AS AN ACCEPTABLE RESPECTFULL ALTERNATIVE.

I'd say that half of all Christians don't see homosexuality as a sin. As arbitrary as that sounds most mainline denominations are split on this issue of homosexuality, gay marriage and gay ministers.

And if you ask why the split the answer is that their interpretation is different. I've posted on the differences if you missed them page through the posts. I've always stated that homosexuality is not a sin. And I can back that statement up with sound exegesis, translation and interpretation. The catalogue of vices and virtues demonstrates what is a vice and what is virtues. The catalogue is really a description of what is sin. Note that there is no degree of sin in the Bible. Note that all are sinners. If homosexuality was a sin it is no worse than any other sin. But homosexuality is not a sin.

As for legitimizing marriage for same-sex couples, there is nothing in the Bible that states what constitutes a marriage. Not in the Holiness Code, not in Genesis and certainly not in the New Testament. What is said in Genesis is again misinterpreted. There is such a thing as hermeneutics to use to interpret the Bible. And If you can't read Hebrew, archaic Hebrew or Greek then seek someone's exegesis on a passage that you are in conflict with. And avoid anybody that thinks as you do regarding your conflict so as to avoid similar interpretations.

What the Bible talks about concerning marriage is the relationship and symbolically the representation of the Kingdom of God. The Holiness Code deals with relationships within the Jewish community. The Code was to set Israel apart from all others. And the concern with marriage was to protect the rights of women, of children, etc.

The Talmud later picked up and established marriage as a legal contract. Do look that up. The Catholic Church sanctified marriage at the Council of Trent because the Bible did not say anything about what constituted marriage, circa 1400.

So, to everyone, there own. But know the facts.

 

[strange]

Ok then.

No I can not, because man makes it LEGAL or INLEGAL, like God makes it a sin or not, for we cannot change the way God is.


You say, false informations and flat out lies: No my informations agrees with what is normal and perfect, your information is trumpet up, you may fill good about it but it's not what nature intended. So my rant as you call it is about keeping whats normal separate from what is abnormal, simple, then do what you like.

So I have to ask, what did nature intend? I'll rebuff when you answer.

 

[strange]

The Bible clearly teaches homosexual acts are sins. (1 Cor.6:9,10).

This post is in two parts:

[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]​

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10: of 'softies' and 'male prostitutes' Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes (Gk. malakoi), sodomites
(Gk. arsenokoitai), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will
inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NRSV)
In interpreting 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, it is crucial to understand the meaning of the Koine Greek words, malakoi (sg. malakos) and arsenokoitai (sg. arsenokoites), used by Paul in this list. Apart from the Greek, literal connotations of 'softies' and 'men lying the bed', there is no agreement in opinion as to what the words mean. Difference in opinion exists, also, as to whether the words stand separately (as with the other words in the list) or are to be taken as a linked pair. In the first case, malakoi may be a general, derisive term for a class of "softies" and arsenokoitai may refer to ‘male prostitutes’, servicing either sex. There is no reason to assume that the two words are a linked pair because of their proximity in Paul’s list. To argue that they refer to ‘passive’ and ‘active’ partners in a pederastic or homosexual relationship, is problematic. With reference to the words as a pair, Eva Cantarella claims that they refer to the active and passive sexual partners in a homosexual relationship. (23) Thus she maintains that Paul, "condemned homosexuality on a global basis". (24) However, Cantarella uses the word, 'homosexual' in a particular way, in relation to pederasty, as the same-sex aspect of a bisexual phenomenon in ancient Graeco-Roman sexual practice .(25) Her consideration of a "global" (Catholic?) condemnation is thus specific in regard to location and time, within the ancient Graeco-Roman world, and it is not appropriate to make the semantic shift to any modern understanding of the term. Other modern interpreters project modern social prejudices back into the texts, taking the words to refer variously, to temple prostitutes, to 'heterosexual' persons only, to specific sexual practices such as pederasty or to 'homosexuality' generally. Choice of meaning is probably decided by the personal, communal or corporate bias of the translators, both in the ancient world and in modern times.
The adjective, malakos, is used as a plural noun, malakoi, by Paul. Malakos literally means 'soft' as when referring to inanimate objects such as clothes (see Lk. 7:25).(26) Matthew uses the word to designate soft or effeminate persons (see Matt. 11:8) and a related word, malakia, to mean 'sickness', or 'weakeness' (Matt.4:23; 9:35; 10:1).(27) In passing, it is notable that the English rendering "soft clothes / robes / raiment" (KJV, NRSV ASV), is not a direct translation of the Greek in Matt. 11:8, but an addition made by English translators to provide a gloss to the text. Thus a reference to ta malaka is removed from Jesus' mouth.
Early English translations rendered malakoi to denote a generalised, degenerate class of persons. Thus Wyclif (1380) renders malakoi as ‘lechouris ayens kynde’; Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535) and Cranmer (1539) give the rendering ‘weaklinges’; the Geneva Bible (1557) has ‘wantons’ and both the Douai-Rheims (1582) and the King James Version (1611) render malakoi as 'effeminate'. Later translations changed the rendering to ‘catamites’ (JB, 1966) and 'male prostitutes' (NIV, 1973; and NRSV, 1989) to give a specific sexual connotation. There is no philological or historical evidence to warrant this semantic shift. Malakos has various usage in ancient literature, contemporary to Paul, showing that it did not mean homosexuality in any way. Epictetus uses malakos to refer to 'soft-headed' persons, whom he regards as too dull to absorb true philosophy. (28) Dio Chrysostom uses malakos to refer to those made soft or demoralised by too much learning! (29) Other ancient writers use the word to refer to a 'soft' person who is in need of exercise or is lazy. Vettius Valens followed Aristotle's use of malakos to denote unrestrained indulgence in bodily pleasures, or licentiousness. (30) A similar viewpoint was held by of Stoic philosophy that one was "softened" by too much sexual activity or by licentious living or over indulgence. Josephus used malakos to denote moral condemnation in men who appeared ‘soft’ or ‘weak’ through lack of courage in battle, reluctance to commit suicide in defeat or the enjoyment of luxury. (31)

 

[strange]

Second part 2 of 2:


Paul could not have meant malakos in the literal sense of 'soft', other than to apply a critical stereotype such as "softies", perhaps with Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish influences in the background. What makes the persons "soft" is unclear and unspecified. Some interpreters have argued that it could refer to a man who undertakes a passive sexual role, thus resembling a woman in practice. (32). That interpretation relies heavily on reading Leviticus 18:22 into the text. The Greek nuance could be given as 'effeminate’, which may be close to the meaning, as the KJV and ASV render the word. However, we have another interpretative problem here, for the KJV, 17th C. Elizabethan meaning of 'effeminate' may not carry the same meaning that we apply today. What is clear is that the term is derogatory and appeals to prejudice. Paul most likely used the word in the same way within a broadly based social connotation of ridicule of the effeminate person. (33) Such ridicule appealed to sexist prejudices of the time, in which being soft, lazy, cowardly or enjoying a life of luxury and ease were characterisations of things feminine. This is the proper way to render Matthew 11:8, also, where malakoi and malaka designate effeminate, "soft" persons, as found in king's houses ("queens"?) . However, if effeminacy was the intended Pauline usage, Attic Greek had available two other words that Paul could have used. These are androgunos, from which we derive the modern word 'androgyny', and thelubrios. Neither word was used by Paul so his meaning may have had broader connotations, suggesting a class of persons such as that carried by the term "'queers" or "queens" today.
In Plutarch's Erotikos the similar word, malthakos, is used in relation to passive sexuality in men. (34) Similar usage by the imperial physician, Caelius Aurelianus, shows that the word related to heterosexual men. (35) Thus malakos does not mean 'homosexual' or 'male prostitute.' It could be taken as a reference to effeminacy or perhaps to the passive partner in a pederastic relationship. However, this latter interpretation may be reading more into the word than Paul intended, for 'malakos' is not one of the usual words used to describe pederastic partners. These are the words 'erastes', (the lover), 'eromenos', (the beloved), and 'paidika' (the beloved 'boy' or youth). (36) Thus 'malakos' appears to be used by Paul as a technical term and its meaning is unclear. (37) The most likely rendering is ‘effeminate’ or ‘softies’, with distinctly derogatory, misogynous connotations.
Malakoi is followed by the rare word, arsenokoitai, which is more difficult to translate than malakoi. Morphologically it is a compound word: arseno - 'man' + koitai - 'lying the bed', thus the transliteral meaning is, 'man lying the bed'. The etymology of the word is problematic, however, being ambiguous as to whether the word means 'a man who lies the bed (with anyone)', in which the first part of the word, arsen- is the subject, or whether it means 'one who lies with men', with arsen- taken as the object. John Boswell takes the former, subjective usage of arsen, and translates arsenokoitai to mean 'male sexual agents', that is, active male prostitutes. (38) In this case it is not a specific reference to homosexuality, as such persons may service either sex. Boswell bases this on comparisons with other compound words beginning with arsen, in which the meaning 'man' is applied as subject, pointing out that the form arreno- is used where an objective sense exists. This pattern is not always followed in Greek, however, so homoerotic association with the word is not removed, necessarily.
Arsenokoites could have been derived from the Septuagint as a new word (neologism) coined by Paul based on Leviticus 20:13, which reads: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos ... (and whoever lies with a man as with a woman... ) in which the words arsen and koite that come next to each other are joined to create a new word. In which case the objective sense of the arseno- compound may be used an the word rendered as 'one who lies with men'. In translating the word from the Greek LXX to the Latin Vulgate, Jerome followed this meaning and rendered it masculorum concubitores. Such usage does not of itself clear the ambiguity of the original Greek, however.
Looking behind the LXX, it has been argued that arsenokoites appears to be a compound of the translation of mishkav zakur ('lying of a male'), two Hebrew words that are used in Rabbinic literature to refer to same-sex, pederastic practice. (39) This is conjecture, since the Rabbinic term, mishkav zakur appears in written sources dating from well after Paul. Pederastic associations of the words certainly appear in Rabbinic and Early Christian writings that post-date Paul, also. (40) That does not mean that the words held that meaning for Paul. At best, the intentional meaning of the Greek words is unclear and three recent commentaries differ markedly in their interpretation of the words. (41) Lexicographically, it does not necessarily imply or deny that same-sex acts are involved. The word is therefore imprecise. However, it neither means 'sodomite,' as rendered in the NRSV, nor is the word properly to be translated as, 'a man who has intercourse with males', as rendered in some modern discussions of the usage in the Pauline texts. (42) To its shame, the revised version of Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon renders arsenokoites as, 'a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite'. Such renderings read more into the word than the Greek allows and perpetuate homophobic, heterosexist prejudices.
Arsenokoites is variously translated in English Bibles, following the objective sense discussed above. Thus, we read ‘thei that don leccherie with men’ (Wyclif); 'abusers of themselves with mankind' (Tyndale, Coverdale, Cranmer, Geneva Bible, KJV and ASV); and ‘the liers vvith mankinde’, (Douai-Rheims). Modern translations extend this view, rendering arsenokoites as 'male homosexual offenders, perverts' (NIV) and 'sodomites' (NRSV and JB). The "Good News Bible" (TEV) 1966, the Living Bible, 1971, and New English Bible, 1970, conflate malakoi and arsenokoites with the renderings as ‘homosexual perversion’ (TEV), 'homosexuals' (LB) and 'guilty... of homosexual perversion' (NEB). There is no evidence for such usage elsewhere in ancient Greek literature. To argue that the two words, malakos and arsenokoitai refer to passive and active partners in homosexual intercourse, belies the historical and lexicographical evidence and perpetuates a homophobic prejudice. (43) Either a grave error in mistranslation has occurred or a deliberate act of mistranslation has injected a bias into the texts. What once was a specific concern with justification through faith (Paul's concern in writing to Corinth), with certain rhetorical references that play on community prejudices of the time (Paul's series of reprobate lists- 1 Cor. 5:10; 5:11 and 6:9-10), has been accommodated to become a blanket condemnation of homosexuality. Graeco-Roman pederastic practices and/or prostitution may lay behind the text, but there is no reference to homosexuality generally or in a universal way that can be applied today.

 

[strange]

Yes at that point i wanted to be nasty, i am no perfect yet you know.
But you all were having a field day with me. But as a Christian i admit that was not the right response.

But then it was an honest response. You really need to get some help with your problem. Also, do some in depth Bible Study to get closer to the facts as modern exegesis have done.

 

[strange]

Fair enough, but our Christian friend has "signed up" under that particular deity - and is quoting what he truly believes are the rules to which we must abide.

As it happens, I would have disagreed with him not that long ago; I believed that God couldn't be so cruel as to make a group suffer the pain of having to sin in order to consumate their relationship. Since then, I have been forced to take a good look at what I believe; I have been having help reading the bible - I attend classes, and I am getting through what is all new to me.........

Unfortunately, though homosexuality is not a sin, the sexual act between homosexuals is..........Hard as it may sound, chastity is the only way "out".

I suggest that another group will show you a different way to interpret the Bible. If your Christian group chooses what rules to use to interpret the Bible then they are making the Bible say what they want it to. That makes their interpretation contrary to what they believe.

 

[strange]

Ok...I sorta understand but can you help me in the meaning of the story in Gen. 9:21-25?

The only thing the bible says Ham did was went out to tell his brothers and they walked in backward with a covering to cover their father and they did this not to gaze upon his naked body. The father woke up...but all the bible says is that he was made aware of what Ham had done (or had done unto him)....????.....If all he did was see his father's naked body and told others then why was he cursed.....unless he had thoughts about doing some thing....or maybe the bible is silent and he actually did do something.....ewwww......

I'd need to research this passage more but for now this is an interpretation to ponder. Keep questioning and seek others interpretation:

"III. Ham's impudence and impiety: He saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren, v. 22. To see it accidentally and involuntarily would not have been a crime; but, 1. He pleased himself with the sight, as the Edomites looked upon the day of their brother (Obad. 12), pleased, and insulting. Perhaps Ham had sometimes been himself drunk, and reproved for it by his good father, whom he was therefore pleased to see thus overcome. Note, It is common for those who walk in false ways themselves to rejoice at the false steps which they sometimes see others make. But charity rejoices not in iniquity, nor can true penitents that are sorry for their own sins rejoice in the sins of others. 2. He told his two brethren without (in the street, as the word is), in a scornful deriding manner, that his father might seem vile unto them. It is very wrong, (1.) To make a jest of sin (Prov. 14:9), and to be puffed up with that for which we should rather mourn, 1 Co. 5:2. And, (2.) To publish the faults of any, especially of parents, whom it is our duty to honour. Noah was not only a good man, but had been a good father to him; and this was a most base disingenuous requital to him for his tenderness. Ham is here called the father of Canaan, which intimates that he who was himself a father should have been more respectful to him that was his father."

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and

 

[strange]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Leviticus 18:22[/FONT]​

“‘[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Leviticus 20:13 [/FONT]​

“‘[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Since Jesus was a Jew he would have known and supported God's view of homosexuality.[/FONT]​

​

"In Leviticus 20:13, the death penalty is specified for both participants in male-male same-sex practice. These form part of a series of prohibitions of sexual conduct, including incest, intercourse during menstruation, adultery and coupling with animals. These laws stand within the so-called "Holiness Code" (Lev. 17-26) which is a collection of laws to regulate worship, ritual cleanliness and other behaviours such as the injunction in Lev. 19:18, teaching love of neighbour as oneself, where ‘neighbour’ means ‘fellow citizen’, ‘intimate’ or ‘friend’. Lev. 18:22 is part of the Holiness Code concerning ritual and cultic purity. The list of sexual infractions is framed by a sermon teaching people to separate themselves from neighbouring peoples and their practices. (17) It is not concerned with distinctions of moral or spiritual purity but things to'evah, 'unclean', which are seen as distinctive features of the ways of the Canaanites. Within the narrative it relates to the time prior to the conquest of Canaan during the Exodus from Egypt. However the text dates from the post-exilic time (fifth century BCE), during which the community sought to separate itself from neighbouring peoples to establish a Jewish distinctiveness. It is to that purpose that the Code is directed. It defines accepted behaviours, in comparison to the otherness of Canaanite culture which is designated to'evah, delimiting one culture against another. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, the Hebrew words chata', chatta'ah or chet' would have been used.
Familiar examples of things to'evah include eating pork or shrimp and men cutting the hair at their temples. The Code regarded things "pure" as long as they were perfect examples of their kind, unblemished or unpolluted by mixing kinds. Blemished animals were unacceptable as sacrifices and cripples, dwarfs and eunuchs were excluded from ritual practices of the cult. Things regarded as to'evah included mixed marriages (between ethnic groups), mixing things of another category such as fibres in a cloth, different seeds in one field, cross-breeding animals and dressing like persons of the opposite sex. The objective purity of Lev. 18:22 considered similar mixing of roles to be undertaken in same-sex activity. In Lev.18:21-22 & 20:13, the context concerns conduct in relation to neighbouring peoples and Jewish distinctiveness, as the community sought to re-establish itself among post-exilic struggles for identity. These textual references to same-sex acts have no bearing upon modern understandings of sexuality. Such understandings were not known at the time the texts were written and to project modern understandings back into the text does a mischievous injustice to the integrity of the Scripture.

Christians do not follow other aspects of the Holiness Code and are free to eat rare meats or pork, throw a shrimp on the barbie, play football with a pig-skin ball, wear polyester-cotton blends, seed their lawns with a grass mixture, and get their hair cut. Yet, through selective application of the Code with respect to same-sex activity, conservative Christians stress these two laws as being against homosexuality. It is difficult to argue the logical retention of these laws, except through application of prejudice and ignorance."

Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.

 

[strange]

God asked us to love another. We are made in the image of God and God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. I don't agree with you assessment that homosexuals are born that way. By doing so, you imply that God creates gay individuals which would make Him out to be a liar based on His stance towards homosexuality. I think everyone makes a choice regarding their sexual preference. I may not agree with that lifestyle, but that is one's choice and I will love them in spite of my disagreement with it.

First of all, the stance you say God takes on homosexuality it your interpretation. As a Christian, I disagree. Secondly, to deny that homosexuals are born that way is contrary to science. I have to ask you if androgenous people are born that way? And what sex should they take? May be that your belief won't allow you to recognise homosexual births but how can you deny androgenous, people born with both sexes?

Genetically, homosexuals may be born with abnormal sex chromosomes. i. e. , number of proteins on the chromosomes differ than normal male and female. This has been demonstrated with androgenous individuals. For males to carry an extra X or Y means deformities and for the most part are still born or born mentally retarded. The research goes on.

 

[strange]

The 7th chapter of 1corinthians gives details of marriage, any more would be adding to the word

All this chapter says about marriage is how it should be. It does not say what constitutes a marriage. Other references are only about wedding ceremonies. So if you get married, these are the guidelines for marriage. It is all about the relationship.

 

[strange]

Jesus Christ declared that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality as described at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.” Moreover, Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things that issue forth from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23) The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery. It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality. (Jude 7) Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.—Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20.
Also, Jesus often quoted from the Hebrew scriptures.

Again, God's Word is what you interpret it as. If you want to see homosexuality as an abomination you are going to reject the hermeneutics that would rob you of that belief.

 

[strange]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]According to the Bible book of Genesis, God himself created the differences between males and females. The record states: “God proceeded to create the man in his image . . . Male and female he created them. Further, God blessed them and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it.’—Genesis 1:27, 28.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
God created humans with free will and provided opportunities for them to enjoy their freedom. (Psalm 115:16) However, when it came to issues of sexuality, God gave specific guidelines.—Genesis 2:24.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Because of Adam’s disobedience, we have all inherited imperfection. We must therefore battle fleshly weaknesses and strong desires that are out of harmony with God’s original purpose. Thus, in the laws given through Moses, God specified sexual practices that were not in harmony with his standards—namely, adultery, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. (Leviticus 18:6-23) God also specifically forbade portraying oneself as a member of the opposite sex for immoral purposes. (Deuteronomy 22:5) The Bible consistently teaches that the only sexual relations approved by God are with a member of the opposite sex within the marriage arrangement. (Genesis 20:1-5, 14; 39:7-9; Proverbs 5:15-19; Hebrews 13:4) Are such standards reasonable? It is obvious from the way God made men and women that it is natural for them to be sexually attracted to one another. Sexual attraction to a member of the same sex, to an animal, or to a child is therefore unnatural.—Romans 1:26, 27, 32. But, as already posted, God is the one who determines a person's righteous standing before him.[/FONT]​

"Genesis 2-3: the Creation of Sexuality In unfolding her interpretation of Gen. 2-3, Trible dispels arkhonic (4) notions regarding the explicit and implicit meanings of the text. She describes the narrative as the development of Eros (love of life), in four episodes of a love story, that began with the forming of the earth creature, ha-‘adam, and continued in the planting of a garden, the making of animals, and the creation of sexuality. The love story had gone awry however, when the fulfilment proclaimed when ’íš, 'man' and ’íššâ, 'woman', became one flesh, disintegrated through human disobedience. (5) However, the Bible does not leave the account there.
The Song of Songs is seen to redeem this love story, restoring Eros and enhancing the creation of sexuality in Genesis 2, and emphasizing equality and mutuality between man and woman as lovers. The main voice of the Song is female. Thus Trible says, "Women, then, are the principal creators of the poetry of eroticism." (6) That is not to say that the poetry of eroticism stays with women. We are all able to express the joy of our sexual being, in the poetry of our own lives as well as in words. In this way we celebrate the joy of erotic relationships, as a response to the God-given gift of sexuality and erotic intimacy. While God's voice is absent from the Song, the divine voice is borne by the breath of the poet, the very respiration of lovers, that cries in the cosmos, to affirm their own being, confirming their own togetherness, their own becoming. Through our personal delight in love-making our body's song or poetry becomes a responsive voice that rises to God in joy and in gratitude. In this sense, love-making transcends sexual gratification, to become a hymn of thanks and praise to God, for the gift of our embodied selves. More than that, it celebrates the relationship between the lovers, in the simple joy of sexual encounter. That is why God's voice is absent in the Song, as it is in Genesis 2, where poetry of eroticism first appears and ha-‘adam says,
"This, finally, bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh.
This shall be called ’íssâ (Woman)
because from ’ís (Man)
was differentiated this." (Gen.2:23)
Trible's interpretation is post-modern and inclusive. It is not only erotic, but traces God's initial blessing of harmony, pleasure and fulfilment in the creation of sexuality, as being prior to the actualization of procreational applications to sexuality. In the Song, the seeking of one's lover finds harmony of encounter and fulfilment in sexual embrace. Sexuality is thus celebrated in the longing, the pursuit and the embrace. The focus is delight and joy in relational connectedness. We can appropriate that spirit, for it is the spirit of mutuality and relational activity that not only celebrates life but also makes God present in the world, through love-making. It is relational connectedness that lifts human sexual relationships above those of the animals. The choice for gay and lesbian persons is not between heterosexuality and homosexuality but to be able to celebrate their sexuality, to form relationships and to seek relational intimacy in ways that are not cut off from their God-given nature.
Love-making possibilities re-envision our own sexuality as well as re-vision God, as an erotic God, full of life and passion. Sexual activity is a relational process of making erotic connections. It is God-given and blessed. The connection of sex and sexuality with The Fall has denigrated sexual activity, robbing it of its blessedness. Through mutual sex we experience personal communication, intimacy, the harnessing of desire and sexual truth. We touch our own erotic strength and liberate that of our partner. We share erotic power, transcending the self in the full inclusiveness of love-making. In this way it is also justice-doing, for it empowers the other. Carter Heyward expresses this dynamic empowerment as "godding", in which the verb, 'godding', points to the truth of God's erotic activity. She says:

"Godding, we experience our personal lives as profoundly connected at the root of who we are, rather than as separate and disconnected from our professional lives and from one an other's places of deepest meaning. Godding, we share how we really feel about our body selves-in-relation, in our living and working, our living and dying. We share, we act, we are together." (7) ​

In this way, we find relational empowerment through creative energy that finds and releases God's image in the other. It is in this way that homosexual relationships can be God-centred through relational connectedness and we all can say, "this is my beloved and this is my friend." (Song of Songs 5:16c). In this, love is discovered in the subjective encounter of friendship and not in the objective, dualistic designation male and female."
Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.

 

[strange]

How do you know there wasn't anyone else around? This is the only logical explanation that I have found, to this puzzle. The tree could have been an untouchable family tree. There is a reasonabee explanation to this story. If is is some type of history, as I have heard some people say, then either the history is not right, or people don't understand what they are reading. It must make sense. The way it has been told to me, can't be right. I am trying to find what is right.

"In the biblical creation stories God produces individual beings and not universals, Adam and Eve rather than the ideas of manhood and womanhood." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, pp. 174

"The symbol of "the Fall" is a decisive part of the Christian tradition. Although usually associated with the biblical story of the "Fall of Adam," its meaning transcends the myth of Adam's Fall and has universal anthropological significance. Biblical literalism did a distinct disservice to Christianity in its identification of Christian emphasis on the symbol of the Fall with the literalistic interpretation of the Genesis story. Theology need not take literalistic interpretation seriously, but we must realize how its impact has hampered the apologetic task of the Christian church. Theology must clearly and unambiguously represent "the Fall" as a symbol for the human situation universally, not as the story of an event that happened "once upon a time." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. II, pp. 29.

 

[strange]

I totally agree. I believe homosexuals should get no special treatment, neither positively nor negatively. They should be entitled to every benefit the rest of society gets, including the benefits of marriage. But that is not what the Bible says.

I understand your dilemma. I have resolved it by no longer believing the Bible is anything more than a book written by men who expressed the morality of the day, much of which does not apply today.

Morality today is equated with sexuality. It will be a cold day in hell before they get it right again.

 

[strange]

Sin is not a part of God's nature. Sin came into the world through man's disobedience (choice) to not follow God's will. The central part of my arguement is that we are not born homosexual, just as we are not born murderers or child molesters, etc. We were born in sin and that's why we needed a savior in Jesus Christ. Man chooses to sin, but it's God's desire as part of a relationship with Him that we overcome these strongholds and desires to follow sin perpetually. Repentance is the act of asking for forgiveness and working towards turning away and not being in bondage to that worldly desire.

Sin is not sex nor is sex sin. Look towards the Biblical definition of sin.

 

[strange]

You're missing my point. It's God's desire for us to change our ways at some point. It's called spiritual growth. It does not mean we don't sin, but there are things you did before you accepted Christ that you don't do anymore. If we know that God's view is that homosexuality is an abomination, at some point would we not want to strive to obedience and following His will and turn away from the desire? There are consequences for our sin and God, because He's our heavenly Father will discipline us in some way through life circumstances and even tradegy through death. Our hearts need to be conditioned to serve and obey Him is all aspects of our life. He wants you to grow and not be stagnant.

You must first understand how the word "abomination" is used in the passage:

"Interpretations of the sin of Sodom have varied through the ages. The connotation of homosexual practices with the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-20) is a late development, in which reference to homosexuality has been read into the original account. (8) Homosexual nuances have assumed popular association with the text of Genesis 19:1-20. However, such nuances are features outside of the text and upon closer examination are not necessarily inferred in the text. This fact is demonstrated where the Bible itself comments upon the sin of Sodom. It is primarily viewed as one of inhospitality and greed, as in Amos 4:11; Isa. 1:9-19, 13:19; Jer. 49:18; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46, 48-50, 53, 55-56; Zeph. 2:9; Deut. 29:22; 32:32; plus Sir. 16:8; Wis. 19:13-14; Matt. 10:12-13; Luke 10:10-12. The only exception is Ezek. 16:49-50, which reads:
"This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food,
and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did
abominable things before me: therefore I removed them when I saw it."
(Ezek. 16:49-50 NRSV) [SIZE=-1]Back.[/SIZE]
The word that is rendered as 'abominable' (NRSV) or 'abominal' (NIV), is the Hebrew word to'evah ( or to'ebah), meaning 'unclean' or 'uncleanness.' It is the same word used in the Leviticus prohibition of particular same-sex acts (Lev.18:22; 20:13: see discussion below). To interpret the Ezekiel text to be a reference to homosexuality is very dubious exegesis, reading more into the text that it implies. (9) Boswell points out that to'evah, 'unclean', has a connectional nuance with idolatry. (10) The word to'evah certainly has the meaning of ritual uncleanness, in Lev.18:21-22 & 20:13, where the context concerns ritual and ethnic purity, in relation to neighbouring peoples and Jewish distinctiveness. It is clear that the Ezekiel text places emphasis on other sins, such as lack of charity and idolatrous living, rather than inhospitality, and it remains that an association of Sodom with homosexuality is not an inherent feature of biblical applications of the story in Genesis 19.(11) So from where does the homosexual connotation come? What are the grounds for it? Homosexual connotations to the story derive from interpreting yadha', ‘to know’, to mean carnal knowledge. This is a surprising understanding, and a harsh contraction of meaning, for the Hebrew word, yadha', implies carnal knowledge in only ten of the 947 occurrences of the word in Scripture.(12) What is even more surprising, is that the word is commonly taken to imply carnal knowledge of a homosexual kind! If that interpretation is correct, it is the only occurrence of such meaning in the Old Testament. It is not good exegesis to say simply that because yadha' means "to know by sexual intercourse" in ten occurrences of the word in the Bible (each one as a heterosexual act resulting in the conception of a child) that yadha' means same-sex intercourse in the Sodom story.
Source criticism identifies the story of Sodom with the Yahwist redaction and, in other Yahwist texts, yadha' means ‘sexual intercourse’. (13) This meaning is implied where Lot says of his daughters, "they have not known a man" (Gen. 19:8), which is the second occurrence of the word yadha' in the story. This heightens the story by conferring a sexual connotation, albeit of a heterosexual kind. It is this second usage of yadha' that is used to interpret the first as carnal knowledge of a same-sex kind, as it is the only explicitly sexually connotated usage of the word in the text. Further more, the usage comes from the mouth of Lot, who appears to misunderstand the intent of the men of Sodom."



Considering the often cited biblical texts on homosexuality.