are you a christian?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

yes, since late October 1992

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes I am, I believe you can be a homosexual and saved.

then what have you been reading?  (where did you get that belief?)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes I am, I believe you can be a homosexual and saved.

then what have you been reading?  (where did you get that belief?)

Show me in the bible if you are gay you can't be saved.

now you're asking me to be politically incorrect:

Rev 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Josh asked you for a Bible quote concerning gay people, not "the sexually immoral".  That quote makes no such connection between the two.

oh, so the disagreement is whether the behavior is immoral, not that the sexually immoral go to hell?

ok.  then we are in agreement that the bible condemns sexual immorality.  now, we just need to distinguish between sexual morality and sexual immorality.

The ONLY context for sex which the bible places in an acceptable light is sex within the context of a man and woman in marriage.  

The bible NEVER places in an acceptable light contexts such as: adultery, fornication, bestiality, orgies, same-sex sex, prostitution, etc.  Though every one of those contexts is mentioned, every time they are mentioned they are placed in a negative light. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My work here is already done.  I'll leave the fundies to it from here on out.

yeah, many disciples said pretty much the same thing as they refused to follow him:

John 6
Many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.  Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your self-infatuation is cute.  Keep going.  Oh, and since you seem to know, do I get to go to heaven?  What about the rest of us?  Do you decide or do you just have the "ins" with God's list?

As if I am making myself out as the Judge simply because I accept the bible.  

The Gospel in a NutShell:  There is only one Judge, Jesus Christ.  And his testimony is that we have been born with a fatally flawed nature that is hostile to God and that, in order to be saved, we must repent of all sin and place our trust in him.  In return, he has promised to forgive all of our sins and give us a new nature that will lead us to eternal life.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst, all I'm going to say is I was born gay.. I have always like guys, even when I was a little kid. I had my first crush on a guy at the age 5. I know you will say I wasn't, but you aren't gay so therefore you have no clue. You put your faith in a book written by man. I know I do too, but all I am saying is we have no clue how God really thinks, he sure didn't come down from heaven and tell me.

Also let me tell you I did get saved, back in May, and my feelings for guys didn't change. I can't change who I am or how God made me.

I have no doubt you were born that way.  I also have no doubt that Christ can give you a second birth.  Is that what Jesus was referring to when he said, “No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again’?  Religion doesn’t give people new lives, only Christ can do that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The ONLY context for sex which the bible places in an acceptable light is sex within the context of a man and woman in marriage.

Or a man and his several women in marriage.

Yes, but polygamy, though allowed in the Old Testament, was not the original formula.  Not to mention that the New Testament does away with polygamy.

Even incest was allowed prior to Law of Moses (Abraham was even married to his half-sister, Sarah...both having the same father).  But, of course, incest would have to be allowed when starting the human race with a single set of parents.
 
But, even in where incest and polygamy were allowed, it was still heterosexual relations.
.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, but polygamy, though allowed in the Old Testament, was not the original formula.

Basing all subsequent examples of an institution on the first is a logical fallacy.

Really?!  Then I guess Jesus Christ used flawed logic, for when he agrued against divorce he said:

"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."  (Mat 19:8 )

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The ONLY context for sex which the bible places in an acceptable light is sex within the context of a man and woman in marriage.

Or a man and his several women in marriage.

He only says that now because I got him to concede on everything else and was half way to whooping his ass on that issue too before the thread was locked.

So, now you're trying to claim you forced me into using arguments of first reference.  Dude, I have ALWAYS used arguments for first reference.  Arguments of first reference are one of the first things I noticed in the bible. I NEVER try to formulate a doctrine without FIRST tracing the history of how it was dealt with during different periods of the bible.

Here is a post I wrote back in Dec 2003, long before you arrived on this forum:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=245.msg6274;topicseen#msg6274

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, you got so worked up to the extent you were failing to answer to direct questions put to you on that infamous thread. You were only bailed out because the thread was closed.

I hereby concede every inch of ground of all arguments relating to proper translation.

Since then you never use your old grand argument against homosexuals and instead are boxed into the 'marriage' issue. So don't pretend you are consistent. You changed your tack because you abandoned one direction. And thats why I threw everything I had at you. Don't belittle a Jesuit lad. We can be nippy.

Dude, the reason why I conceded all ground on translations was because no matter how you try to turn the translations away from homosexuality, you are still left with three undeniable facts:

1) God instituted marriage and defined it as a union between male and female.
2) God defined the proper context of sex to be within the context of a marriage.
3) Every single example of same-sex sex in the bible is placed in a condemnable light.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, now that is a better formulation of your argument.  And one reason why tolerants such myself are anti-christian.

well, at least you admit to the obvious: all translational arguements aside,  the bible has nothing but bad things to say abuot same-sex sex. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dude, the reason why I conceded all ground on translations was because no matter how you try to turn the translations away from homosexuality, you are still left with three undeniable facts:

1) God instituted marriage and defined it as a union between male and female.
2) God defined the proper context of sex to be within the context of a marriage.
3) Every single example of same-sex sex in the bible is placed in a condemnable light.

Show me in the bible where?

Where is what?

Where God instituted marriage as a union between male and female?  

Gen 2:23-24 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Where God defined the context of sex as being within a marriage? 

Gen 4:1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.

1Cor 7:9 If they cannot control themselves (sexually), they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Where are the examples of same-sex sex in the bible?  

Gen 19: 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

Lev 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Lev 20:13 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Rom 1:26-27 Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

--

Now, before everyone lights their torches and comes after me arguing that the “proper translations” of these verses aren’t talking about “a loving homosexual relationship”, I’ll concede all ground on translations.  My point is that, regardless of how these verses are spun, the undeniable fact is that these verses are discussing same-sex sex. And doing so in a negative light

So, if homosexuality is allowed by God, then where is a positive example of it in the bible?  Why are all the examples of same-sex sex negative?  Why is homosexuality in disagreement with how God placed sex in the context of a marriage between male and female?

 
 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A Question to Jmfcst, A hypothetical situation: If God came out of the sky tomorrow and proclaimed that all previous incarnations of his morality are hereby defunct, would you go along with it?

You question is relevant, and, in all seriousness, here is my response:

1) your hypothetical situation would not occur because when Jesus returns he is coming as the Judge and I will either be saved or condemned.  (He isn’t coming back to hand me a new set of rules to live by)

2) the bible instructs me to hold firm to the faith that was handed down by the apostles

3) Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mat 24:35)…so Jesus isn’t about to change his instructions.

4) I would consider such an “situation” as the AntiChrist attempting to pass himself off as the real Jesus, which is exactly what the bible prophesies will happen.

So, I’ll put the question back to you:  Are YOU going to go along when the Imposter appears and gives miraculous signs that he is the Messiah?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Matthew 19:11-12

Matthew 19:1-12

 1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
 3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

 4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

 7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For those needing explanation of Afleitch mention of Mat 19:11-12, he is attempting to say that Mat 19:11-12 refers to homosexuals and therefore counters the three main points below:

1) God instituted marriage and defined it as a union between male and female.
2) God defined the proper context of sex to be within the context of a marriage.
3) Every single example of same-sex sex in the bible is placed in a condemnable light.

But anyone who reads the entire chapter of Matthew 19 understands that Jesus' reference to "eunuchs" is directed towards people who do not have sex at all because they were either 1) born with the inability to have sex, 2) were castrated by others and therefore can’t have sex, or 3) have chosen a life of chastity in order to avoid the problems associated with marriage so that they can totally dedicate themselves to God.

Paul taught the same thing:

1Cor 7
1 …It is good for a man not to marry.  2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband…6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion…28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this…32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
 
Jesus and Paul are saying the same thing:  It is better not to marry in order to avoid the pitfalls of marriage, so if you have been given the gift of chastity, then it is better for you, though not commanded of you, to exercise your gift and remain single.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I might come back to marriage in general itself (where it is the desire for a 'blessed' divorce, or at least get out clause from Jews, pagans married to a converted Christian in the early church that leads to marriage discussion in the first place) We'll see.

Well, I think Matthew 19 is pretty self-explanatory.  The Pharisees came to test Jesus with a question regarding the legitimate reasons for divorce (v3).  Jesus reminding them that God created them male and female (v4) and bound them together in a physical union (v5), and it is the need for this physical union that drives men to seek a wife (v5), and therefore the marriage union established by God should not be broken up (v6).  The Pharisees then asked why divorce was permitted by Moses (v7).  Jesus replied that Moses allowed them to divorce because their hearts had been hardened (v8) but that divorce wasn’t part of God's original design of marriage (v8).  Jesus then declares unfaithfulness to the physical union of marriage as the only legitimate excuse for divorce (v9).  The Pharisees responded that if Jesus’ interpretation was correct, then it is better not to marry at all (v10).  Jesus replied that not everyone can accept not marrying (v11).  He then explains that some are born eunuchs (v12), some were made eunuchs (v12), and some have chosen not to marry show that they can devote themselves to God (v12).  Jesus then concludes that those who can accept this should (v12).
 
So, there are 3 groups of people mentioned in verses 11 and 12:
1) Those who were born eunuchs, they did not choose but were born that way
2) Those who were made eunuchs by others, they did not choose but were made that way by others
3) Those who have chosen not to marry in order to be completely devoted to God

If Jesus were referring to homosexuals in his use of the term “eunuch”, then this is how verses 11 and 12 would read:
1) Those who were born homosexuals
2) Those who were made homosexuals by others
3) Those who have chosen homosexuality in order to be completely devoted to God in some strange way.

Now, according to your fellow homosexuals, gays can not have their sexual orientations altered by others (not even by God) or themselves (they did not choose to be gay).

So this whole argument is transparently and deeply flawed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In the Book of Acts (Acts 8:26-27)we are informed of an Ethiopian eunuch/eunouchos under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, going into the Temple in Jerusalem to worship. But in Deuteronomy (23:1) it says that a castrated man is not to enter the congregation of the Lord. Therefore the 'eunouchos' in the Temple of Jerusalem must not have been castrated. Begs the question, who was he if he was not a castrated male?

1) Acts 8:26-27 simply says he had went to Jerusalem to worship, it does NOT says that he entered the Temple.  The eunuch could have simply been observing the Feast of Tabernacles.
2) Deut 23:1 says nothing about disqualifying eunuchs from traveling to Jerusalem, it simply says they can’t be numbered among the “assembly”, meaning he was not to be numbered as an inheritor.  Inheritance was based upon “seed”, since Christ is the “seed” to which the promise would come.  If a man had no "seed", could not reproduce, then he had no inheritance, hence eunuchs could not be counted among the assembled clans of Israel.

---

Now you believe there are infact two categories who are excluded; the castrated and, in short, the 'priesthood' should they wish to be celibate. I'll hand it to you there; you have accepted that in this instance the term 'eunouchos' can mean two different propositions. If it can mean two, why not three, or four if the textual and cultural evidence is there to allow us to do so?
 

In Rabbinical Literature, primarily the Talmud, the Rabbis distinguished two kinds of eunuchs: (1) "seris ḥamma," a eunuch made by the sun; that is to say, one born incapable of reproduction, so that the sun never shone on him as on a man; (2) "seris adam," a eunuch made by man.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=515&letter=E

---

In any case, I’ll let your own interpretation, that someone can be made a homosexual by others or can choose to be homosexual, speak for itself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A historical post, in case anyone missed it:

If Jesus were referring to homosexuals in his use of the term “eunuch”, then this is how verses 11 and 12 would read:
1) Those who were born homosexuals
2) Those who were made homosexuals by others
3) Those who have chosen homosexuality in order to be completely devoted to God in some strange way.

Now, according to your fellow homosexuals, gays can not have their sexual orientations altered by others (not even by God) or themselves (they did not choose to be gay).

So this whole argument is transparently and deeply flawed.

Not at all. Just because it would not fit in with the 'born that way' mentality of some gay people (how someone is gay, is in my opinion an irrelevance anyway) It would still exclude homosexuals (eunouchos) no matter how they came to be, from marriage; they would be the legitimised exception to the rule.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Until you can display some level of maturity in this, then I don't see the point in continuing.

Actually, in light of the fact your own interpretation forced you to conclude that 1) sexual orientation can be engrained into someone by others, and 2) sexual orientation can be chosen, and 3) homosexuals are excluded from marriage...I don't think there is anything more I need to say.  So, I will close with your own words:

If Jesus were referring to homosexuals in his use of the term “eunuch”, then this is how verses 11 and 12 would read:
1) Those who were born homosexuals
2) Those who were made homosexuals by others
3) Those who have chosen homosexuality in order to be completely devoted to God in some strange way.

Now, according to your fellow homosexuals, gays can not have their sexual orientations altered by others (not even by God) or themselves (they did not choose to be gay).

So this whole argument is transparently and deeply flawed.

Not at all. Just because it would not fit in with the 'born that way' mentality of some gay people (how someone is gay, is in my opinion an irrelevance anyway) It would still exclude homosexuals (eunouchos) no matter how they came to be, from marriage; they would be the legitimised exception to the rule.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Oh, I understand completely.

You can't deny the fact that the bible defines marriage in a heterosexual context, so you twisted Mat 19:11-12 to cover homosexuals under the definition of “eunuch”.  But in doing so, you painted yourself into a corner and had to admit to interpreting Jesus’ statements as saying 1) gays are born gay, or 2) are made gay by others, or 3) choose to gay on their own, and therefore 4) are free to have sex outside of the context of marriage. 

That’s pretty twisted, even for you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

oh, I get it, you are using a different definition for "eunuch" from phrase to phrase, therefore, it can mean homosexual when you perfer it to mean homosexual and it can mean someone who has been castrated when you want to mean castrated.

Let's see how that works, first the original text:

Mat 19 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."  11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made eunuchs by men; and others have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Now, afleitch's interpretation:

Mat 19 10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."  11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are gay because they were born that way; others were castrated by men; and others have become renounced sex and marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

And even after I accept your selective definitions, the text comes no where close to saying homosexuals are free to practice sex outside of marriage.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Doesn't it make much more sense if it is read:
 
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are incapable of having sex because they were born that way; others were made incapable of having sex by men; and others have renounced having sex because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

considering the fact Jesus reaffirmed sex to be in the context of marriage between a husband and a wife a couple of verses earlier, I'll stick with the conventional definition of eunuch meaning someone incapable of having sex

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Aflietch, please allow me this one last comment on Mat 19:10-12:

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12a For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; 12b and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

You’re attempting to draw doctrinal conclusions based upon the two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a that are NOT bolded above.  But Jesus himself draws no conclusions about those in 12a.  In fact, they’re not even the subject of this (or any) part of his conversation.  He’s not even talking about them, he merely mentions them for the purpose of juxtaposition.

He brings up these two groups of eunuchs in verse 12a because they are excluded from marriage by circumstances beyond their control.  No Jewish father is going to give his daughter in marriage to a eunuch. 

On the other side of the juxtaposition are those in 12b who have been given a choice, the ones with the gift of celibacy.  It is this group in 12b that is the subject of this part of the conversation.  All the parts bolded are about celibacy.  The bolded conclusion of the last statement is about the celibacy of the group in 12b, NOT the two groups of eunuchs in 12a which I didn’t bold.

So, you are free to define “eunuchs” in 12a any way you wish.  You can even make their identities to be Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, but you will not be able to form a doctrinal conclusion about them, for Jesus draws no conclusions about those in 12a, for they are not even the subject of the conversation.