Homosexuality in the Bible

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

Where in the Bible does it preach against it?

Basically, the argument that follows can be used to argue against all sexual immorality:  homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, adultery, orgies, etc, etc:

1) The first mention (which was actually a prophecy) of human sex in the bible is given in Genesis 2:24 in the God created context of a heterosexual marriage:

2) The first historical account of human sex in the bible is given in Genesis 4:1 and took place in the God created context of a heterosexual marriage:

3) The first historical account of a homosexual act in the bible is extremely negative:  Genesis Ch 19 (the mob of Sodom).  The perversion of the sexual immorality of Sodom is listed in the New Testament as one of the reasons God destroyed Sodom (see Jude 1:7).

4) Homosexuality is listed (along with incest and bestiality) as a practice of the pagan nations God overthrew in the land of Canaan.  And the Israelites were told that it was one of the reasons why God overthrew those nations and the Israelites were warned not to practice the same acts (see Leviticus ch 18)

5) Again, Israel is warned that homosexuality (along with incest and bestiality) was a practice of the pagan nations God overthrew in the land of Canaan.  And the Israelites were told, once again, that it was one of the reasons why God overthrew those nations and the Israelites were warned not to practice the same acts.  The punishment of death was handed out to both the pitcher and the catcher. (see Leviticus ch 20)

6) In Judges 19, there is another historical account of a homosexual act, and it is again negative, and again it involves rape, much like the account of Sodom in Genesis ch 19.

7) Same-sex sex is listed as the action of Pagans, in New Testament book of Romans ch 1.

---

So, we have three types of place markers:

1) the proper context God created for human sex is heterosexual marriage, in both the Old and New Testaments

2) homosexuality is listed as the act of pagans, in both the Old and New Testaments, and is couched in the same breath as incest and bestiality.

3) Every single example of same-sex sex in the bible, both Old and New Testaments, is discussed in a negative light.  There is not a single neutral reference to it, much less a positive reference.

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

Thank you, after reading that I know Homosexuality is a sin.

Duke, I trust you opened and read the passages for yourself and are not taking my word for it...along with reading the passages cited from different opinions.

---

I know I am saved and going to heaven, but the sin of Homosexuality is still there. The thing is, females don't "turn me on" so to speak. I want to live right and do the right things for God, but if females don't turn me on, how can I marriage one and have sex with one?

I cannot speak from your exact point of view.  But if we judge God's abilities from only our point of view, where then is faith?

If Moses, who in Exodus ch3 and ch4 begged God to pick someone else, was given the grace to overcome a Pharaoh, certainly God is faithful to give you the provisions you need to overcome anything that may stand against you:

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

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

I believe in God and Heaven. I also believe in a Hell. And the wages of sin is death, or going to Hell. Now the only way to not go to Hell is getting saved or asking Jesus(God) to come into your heart and be your savior. I did that about a year ago, and it pains knowing that my Homosexuality hurt Jesus. I want to live right and do the right thing for God(Jesus).

I am just as guilty of nailing Christ to the cross as you are.  And don’t think of it as Jesus Christ is being crucified again each time you sin.  Christ experienced that pain only ONCE.  He was crucified almost 2000 years ago and his crucifixion is done and over with, forever.

And don’t feel guilty for Christ being crucified for your sins, for if he had not died, you could not live.  Rather God put Christ to death in order to save our lives…just as Joseph explained the reason why God allowed his brothers to sell him into slavery in Egypt:

Gen 45:3-8  3 Joseph said to his brothers, "I am Joseph! Is my father still living?" But his brothers were not able to answer him, because they were terrified at his presence.
 4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, "Come close to me." When they had done so, he said, "I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! 5 And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. 6 For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will not be plowing and reaping. 7 But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

So, just as God has forgiven us, we need to forgive ourselves.   
 
---

And, I, like you, asked Jesus into my heart.  In fact, I did it several times over many years prior to my first meeting with Christ in Oct 1992.  Frustratingly, for me at least, asking Christ into my heart did nothing.  Instead, God had to catch me by trickery. He laid a trap for me and began setting that trap many years before he sprung it upon me one night while I was alone in my apartment reading the bible.

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

Going by afleitch's interpretation of Matthew 19:1-12 is valid, then homosexuals are exempt from marriage.

TRAITOR:

Well, Dibble, you can't have both ways:  you can't agree with my interpretation of the bible on the one hand and then turn around and blame me for turning you off to Christianity.

Sure I can - I had a different interpretation before that I rather liked, and you convinced me of an intepretation that I like much less, thus turning me off to Christianity. It's a rather simple series of events.

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

Going by afleitch's interpretation of Matthew 19:1-12 is valid, then homosexuals are exempt from marriage.

TRAITOR:

Well, Dibble, you can't have both ways:  you can't agree with my interpretation of the bible on the one hand and then turn around and blame me for turning you off to Christianity.

Sure I can - I had a different interpretation before that I rather liked, and you convinced me of an intepretation that I like much less, thus turning me off to Christianity. It's a rather simple series of events.

I'm not allowed to consider new arguments? Besides, I said "if" - his interpretation is possibly valid, it's possibly not. It's only a small detail in the Bible - I still largely agree with your interpretation on much of it, just not all of it. For example, remember that whole argument about the seventh day we had?

ok, I "misread" your typo regarding his interpretation with Mat 19:1-12...you said "is valid", not "if valid"

IMO, the reason why you agree with much of my interpretations, even though you are not a believer, is that you can see that I am not playing games with scripture but rather that I let the chips fall where they may, regardless of how unpleasant or politically incorrect:

2Cor 4:2 "We do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."

---

As for our 7th day argument...my interpretation was that the 7th day of creation was not 24 hours but rather was an eternal rest, which is why no evening is recorded for it in Genesis ch1.  That interpretation is shared by Hebrews 3:7-4:11.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=3&version=31

So, as an unbeliever, you may not share that interpretation since you may  not agree that was the original intended interpretation of the “author” of Genesis ch1.  But since my interpretation is shared by the writer of Hebrews, your argument is mute, since other parts of scripture interpret Genesis as not only as an historical record given by God of the past, but also as a pattern given by God that serves as a prophecy for the future, making Genesis basically a blueprint of the entire plan of God.

In fact, the entire Jewish calendar which is embedded with all the Holy Days they were to observe, serves both as a historical reference and as an blueprint outlining future events.

For example, the Passover feast (Feast of Unleavened Bread) serves multiple purposes:

1) it serves as a historical memorial to remind the Jews of their liberation from bondage in Egypt on the day the death angel passed-over their homes that were marked with the blood of the Passover lamb but killed the firstborn of the Egyptians household which did not have the blood of the Passover applied to the doorways.

2) It serves as a prophecy for the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, whose was sacrifice on the day of Passover nearly 2000 years ago in order to remove believers from the bondage of sin and thus remove (unleavened) sin from their lives.

3) The Passover meal is all about the coming of the Messiah.  (Judaism completely shares this prophetic view and calls the meal the Messianic Passover Seder.)  The close companionship of sharing a meal with the Messiah prophesied the entry of the Messiah into the hearts of believer by the receiving of the Holy Spirit:

(Rev 3:20 “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.”

4) It serves as a prophecy for the future Day of Judgment when those who have the blood of Jesus Christ covering their sins will be spared (“passed-over”) during Judgment Day, but those who do not have the blood of Jesus will be killed (the second death mentioned in Revelation chapter 20). 

(Note: entire books have been written of all the prophetic symbolism of the Passover meal so my tiny summary doesn’t come close to doing it justice)

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hate to be a grammar Nazi (ok, that's a lie, I love being a grammar Nazi ), but for future reference the word you're looking for is moot.

I always use mute instead of moot for some reason...it's a permanent brain fart of mine

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

simply trying to give some advice to someone who seems to be asking for it.

Duke faces the same choices we all have: 
a) accept scripture for face value and seek God's help to conform to it, or
b) reject it by twisting it in order suit his own desires, or
c) reject it outright

notice there is not much difference between b and c

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

The problem with accepting it at "face value" is that what appears to be face value may differ from person to person....

Just take the 7th day thing as an example - through study and discussion you had a thought you hadn't had before from just looking at "face value".

Without knowing it, you just hit the nail on the head:

I had never realized the 7th day in Genesis did not have an evening. BUT, the conclusion I drew from my realization of that fact (that it did not have a evening) dove-tailed perfectly with the rest of scripture.  It meshed completely.

So, yes, I gained a deeper understanding about the passage (as I often do), but my "new and deeper understanding" was confirmed by the rest of scripture.  

I use the rest of scripture to interpret scripture for me, much like a system of checks and balances, because I understand that my imagination wants to twist scripture to suit my own purposes.  Therefore, since I am fallible and since I am capable of deceiving myself, I make sure my interpretation conforms with the rest of scripture.

And even though you may still disagree with me over the interpretation of that verse, you understand that I have been open and honest and that I am not trying to suit my own desires.  You know that I am not trying to deceive, nor do I even have a motive to deceive you regarding the 7th day.

---

But here is an example of blatant deception:

4. Leviticus. Come on jmfcst, you always state that everything in the NT reflects the OT. Jesus just cuts out the bull (otherwise the NT would be far larger than it is) Just as he defined marriage in a very simple phrase, he too cast aside the laws of Leviticus. These were not laws of immorality, these were the laws of the Israelites in contrast to the pagans and the outsiders. Leviticus lists actions that would defile the individual and make him unclean. And citing one as an example, in not washing their hands before a meal Jesus says in Mark 7:15
'Nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean. It's what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean.'

Error Number 1)  Not everything from Leviticus is excluded from the guidelines of the New Testament…in fact much of the very same commandments found in Leviticus are found throughout the New Testament.  (but I’ll be gracious and chalk this error up ignorance, though it should have been obvious to ANYONE who claims to have read Leviticus)

Error Number 2) The example in Mark 7:15 of Jesus mocking the Pharisees for having a religious requirement to wash their hands before they ate is NOT a requirement found in Leviticus or any part of the Old Testament, rather it was some legalistic religious nonsense that made up on their own.  So, Jesus was not mocking a requirement of scripture but was rather mocking the  Pharisees  dumb human traditions that they had turned into religious legalism.  (I’ll also chalk this up to ignorance, and this one is NOT so obvious and is very excusable)

Now that we have peeled those two errors out the way, let’s get to the meat of his statement regarding the homosexual references within Lev ch 18 and ch 20:

Purposeful Deception Number 1)  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It has been pointed out time and time again to him, that the verses in Lev 18 and Lev 20 speaking against homosexual are sandwiched between verses speaking against adultery, incest and bestiality.  

Lev 18: 20-23  20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.  21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.  23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

And they ALL carry the death penality in Lev ch 20

Lev 20:12-16 " 'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.  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. 14 " 'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.  15 " 'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 " 'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Conclusion Number 1)  No honest Christian can believe “These were not laws of immorality”.  The statement is simply an outright lie.

Purposeful Deception Number 2) .

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both Lev 18 and Lev 20 state that God destroyed the nations that lived in the land prior to giving it to the Israelites because those nations practiced those very same acts:

Lev 18:1; 18:24-28 “You must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices…Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.”

Lev 20:22-23   22 " 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.”

Conclusion Number 2) God explicitly stated that he drove those nations form the land because they practiced things like incest, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality.  So this is NOT a list of laws that were ONLY for the Jews in order to single them out, rather God held the Gentile nations to the same standard and threatened the same the destruction that was given the Gentile nations that were being vomited out of the land.

So, there are two intentional deceptions going on here:
1) Leviticus contains no laws of morality.
2) The laws against homosexuality in Lev 18 and Lev 20 only applied to the Jews and not to the Gentile nation.

Only a self-deceived person could believe such things after examining the contents of Leviticus and the context of the historical facts presented in the opening and closing statements of those chapters which couch the verses regarding incest, homosexuality, and bestiality in chapters 18 and 20.

And, of course, we understand the motive behind the deception.  But that’s what a seared consciences that has been deceived by sin can do – it can totally reverse the clear biblical connection that sex has with heterosexual marriage Matthew ch 19 (which Jesus Christ himself brought the subject of sex three separate times and bound it within the context of marriage) and turn that very same chapter into an excuse to have homosexual sex outside of marriage.  And it can take Lev ch 18 and ch 20 and boldly ignore its statement regarding adultery/incest/bestiality and claim that the entire book contains no laws of morality and that everything in it only applies to the Jews until Christ came onto the scene, even though God stated that he destroyed the Gentile nations for doing the same acts.

In fact, deception can ignore the entire biblical context of sex that was cast in the context of a God-created marriage covenant between man and woman – a context that runs the entire length of scripture.

---

The problem with accepting it at "face value" is that what appears to be face value may differ from person to person....

Just take the 7th day thing as an example - through study and discussion you had a thought you hadn't had before from just looking at "face value".

Yes, take it for an example.  Take it because you can use that example to study the differences between a) an unselfish and honest shift of understanding using a consistent approach that was spawned only by an attempt to reconcile one’s belief with the immediate and overall context of scripture, and b) a selfish blatant deception that neither meshes with the immediate context nor meshes with the overall context.

One example shifts belief to accommodate scripture, the other example shifts scripture to accommodate belief.

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

cont...

That's why I want Duke to examine each and every argument.  For if his heart can't be honest and distinquish between who is distorting scripture on this subject, then it really doesn't matter what he believes.  No honest person can read Mat ch 19 and come away with the conclusion that it gives a neutral reference to homosexuality.  No honest person.

And I don't really care how much of a friend he is to all of you, because he is lying to you and everyone here on this forum knows his interpretation Matthew ch 19 is a lie.   

And I know that you, Dibble, may not believe scripture.  But I also know that you are honest enough that inside you distinquish an honest interpretation from a dishonest one.  You may not want to publically admit it out of respect for another's feelings, but inside you know.
 
You and I have discussed repeatedly why I believe the spirit that is leading me is the spirit of God and not a deceiving spirit.  And you asked what test I use to distinguish a good spirit from a bad spirit.

This is how you know:   The interpretation I gave you was not a distortion of what was written.  If I had distorted what was written, you would automatically know I my position was a lie. And even though you may not believe what is written in these passages is really the word of God, you do know that my interpretation was truthful in that I did not distort what was written.

But, if I had purposely distorted what was written, you would know immediately that I wasn’t led by the spirit of God for God is not going to take any writing (be it the truth or a lie) and purposely misrepresent what is written.  God would simply give an undistorted interpretation and then either agree or disagree with what was written.

I know people are going to disagree with the tone of this post for it is not pleasant to call someone a liar.  But all those objections to my tone won’t change the fact that one interpretation is honest and the other is purposely deceitful.  And if pointing out deliberate deception loses me friends, then so be it, for deep down inside everyone knows that in the end there is no life to be found in lies, so I rather be honest with myself and live in truth even if it cost me friends.

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

cont...

No honest person can read Mat ch 19 and come away with the conclusion that it gives a neutral reference to homosexuality.  No honest person.

And I don't really care how much of a friend he is to all of you, because he is lying to you and everyone here on this forum knows his interpretation Matthew ch 19 is a lie.   

I take great issue with any charge laid against me that I am dishonest and a liar in the justification of my belief that I share with you and with the forum. That I am dishonest in the methods that I use, than I am dishonest with the sources that I use, that I am dishonest with the learned men and men and women's whose paths I can only follow. I am only as dishonest as the next man for 'let God be true, but every man a liar.'

I have never charged you with with any accusations of being dishonest, deceitful and a liar in how you choose to interpret the word of God even though I am in disagreement. I have simply placed on the table the road I have taken.

and I have not ever accused anyone else on this forum of doing so...before now

you simply jumped the shark on Mat 19.  I've read some half-baked and deeply twisted stuff in my time having at least the pretentiousness of claiming truth; but the Mat 19 thingy was the most openly deceitful disregard of context that I have ever seen.  It is too obviously flawed for me to believe someone could actually believe it.  It almost makes scientology look sane and functional by comparison, though it hurts my brain even to bring up the word "scientology".

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

Dibble,

First, I think we are all in agreement with what he is saying about Mat 19 - (paraphrased) "that it makes a neutral (uncomdemning) reference to homosexuals through use of the word for eunuch and by doing so makes a neutral (uncomdemning) reference to sex outside of marriage."  If I have misinterpreted what he has said, then please correct me.

Second, I understand the word being used for eunuch can have multiple meanings.  Likewise, In English, we have words that have multiple meanings and therefore we are taught to use our common sense to understand which meaning is being referred to by examining the context in which it is being used.

Now, if you actually believe that he is being honest and has given a “reasonable” interpretation, then explain to me, in your own words, which portion of this passage allows for the delinking of sex and marriage:

Mat 19:3Some 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.]

Now, if you actually believe that he is being honest and has given a "reasonable" interpretation, then explain to me, in your own words, which portion of this passage allows for the delinking of sex and marriage:

As afleitch points out in his own interpretation above, none of it does. Again, his interpretation doesn't tell anyone that sex outside of marriage is okay, just that homosexuals don't have to get married. The interpretation does NOT say that homosexuals can engage in homosexual activity, just that they don't have to engage in heterosexual activity. All that could mean is that Jesus is saying that homosexuals should just refrain from sex altogether - that in itself does not contradict the notion that homosexual acts are condemned elsewhere in the Bible, it just recognizes that heterosexual marriage will not work out for homosexuals and thus exempts them from it. In no way does it state that it's okay for them to go fornicating around with other unwed homosexuals, or even heterosexual women, so as far as I can tell there's no contradiction in this interpretation with the other parts of the Bible that I'm familiar with.

Well, if the context of the passage doesn't allow for the unbinding/delinking of sex and marriage, then it can NOT be referring to sexually active homosexuals in the use of the term "eunuch", then can it?

And if Jesus is not referring to sexually active homosexuals, then how in the world does it make sense to interpret Jesus' usage of the generic term of "eunuch" as coming anywhere close to referring to sexually capable but INactive homosexuals?

Is it "reasonable" to conclude that God expected the world (for whom the Gospel was intended) to understand Jesus was referring to sexually capable but INactive homosexuals?

Or is it reasonable to adopt my interpret of verse 12 - "for some eunuchs were born that way; others were made that way by men" - as referring to those who were born incapable of having sex and those who were made incapable through castration?

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

No. Because that would be out of context. Jesus is talking about sex at this point, and he's talking about sex within marriage exclusively. People who have been castrated are not by that definition incapable of having sex (they still have a penis) and we know from history they were sexually promiscuous.

ah, how quaint of you!  So, your theory turns on whether Jesus was referring to those who get erections even though they’ve had their balls cut off.

Why don’t we wait for Dibble, since he seems to believe the context doesn’t allow for the delinking of sex from marriage?

---

[to Dibble]

Well, how about it, Dibble?  Are you “up” for listening to afleitch describe the sex lives of nutless men?

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

jmfcst, I came here for help and you are looking for a debate. I don't want to read a debate, I wanted to know both sides of the issues and where in the bible I can look about this issues.

As for the debate, that's kinda what goes on in a political forum.  But, go back to the first page of this thread and you'll see that he attempted to rebut my post first, so please tolerate my retorts.

---

As to a particular side of the issue and where to look in the bible - I've already given specific references to you.

As to my overall view of what the bible says about the proper context of sex...

1) I see the bible first defining sex in the context of marriage in Gen 2:24 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."  This is the first direct reference to human sex in the bible, and it is a graphical reference of the penetration involved in sex. 

Why do I interpret Gen 2:24 as a graphical reference to sex?  Because Gen 2:24 is already graphically interpreted for us in the New Testament:

1Cor 6:16 24 "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh. '"

Then, the first historical account of sex in the bible occurs in Gen 4:1 “ Adam lay with his wife Eve. , and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. "

So, the very first chapters of the book of Genesis give the proper context of sex and if you read the rest of the bible you’ll that sex outside of that context is condemned.  Basically the sexual rules of the bible can be summed up simply by: “No sex outside of marriage.”

Anyone who reads the bible and comes to any other conclusion than “No sex outside of marriage” is blind.  And I say that in all seriousness – they’re blind.


2) Also, we are told HOW TO AVOID sexual immorality:

1Cor 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband…8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. "

Here’s my interpretation of that passage and you can see if you agree: Marriage has a lot of pitfalls and troubles, so it is better not to marry.  But, since sexual immorality is so widespread, get married.   For, although it is better not to marry, it is better to marry than to attempt to attempt to live life sexually frustrated which will eventually lead you into sin.


So, Duke, I’ve given you a sincere and simple interpretation that can be universally understood, but you’re going to have to read and make up your mind yourself.

And I wouldn’t read the bible using someone else’s study guide, regardless of who wrote it or what opinion they hold.  God wrote the bible to you and for you.  If you can’t interpret without using someone else’s opinion as a guide, then you might as well put down your bible and simply follow the guide.

The bible was also meant to be read throughout the world, so God used common universal objects to illustrate his requirements.  So, if you believe you have to run off and study Greek and Hebrew and learn every detail about the culture of those times in order to interpret scripture, then you’ve missed the point, IMO, for God didn’t intend scriptural interpretation to be confined to the hands of intellectuals, rather he wanted it to be interpretable by common people:

1Cor 1:27-29 "26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. "

And whatever you do, stay away from Christian television, the vast majority of televangelist are only in it for the money!!!

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

Without covering the same ground again Duke, I have taken for myself comfort in the knowledge that Jesus did not condemn a stable and loving relationship, only relationships based on slavery, prostitution and idolatry.

Obviously, the bible does NOT say, "To avoid sexual immority, find a stable loving relationship."  Unless, of course, it's marriage:

1Cor 5 1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband....8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Attempting to justify sex outside of marriage by using the bible is a losing battle.  No one is buying it, for you're unable to use the bible to argue for homosexual marriage because the bible defines marriage as a heterosexual union, so you're left arguing that the bible winks at sex outside of marriage as long as it is "a stable loving relationship", when no such exemption is even hinted at in the bible, in order to relieve your conscience.  But, your "relief" is nothing but a transparent deception.

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

Consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going against his conscience. But anybody who eats in a state of doubt is condemned, because he is not in good faith

But that is for another day

I don't think a discussion of clean and unclean food is going to add to your attempt to validate homosexual practices.   

I can see it now:

afleitch: Christians are allowed to eat unclean meat, though Israel was forbidden to do so in Leviticus.  Therefore, why shouldn't I be allowed to have homosexual sex when it was also forbidden in Leviticus?

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

Well I think you've 'seen it' incorrectly - as I'm putting my Catholic hat on for this one. I'm not even going to refer to homosexual sex, but the idea of the Primacy of Conscience.

the Primacy of Conscience is not a licence for sexual imorality.

---

But before all that, what do you know of homosexuality and homosexuals? Perhaps that would be a good place to start, or a good learning curve.

homosexuality:  sexual attraction to the same sex
homosexuals: those who have  tendencies of homosexuality

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

Ok, since afleitch has made roughly the same arguments I would in regards to this interpretation, I'm not going to bother writing a whole long rant. I'm just going to summarize this as simply as I can, and if you continue to lack understanding of what I'm saying I'm just not going to bother anymore.

1. IF afleitch's interpretation is correct, it exempts homosexuals from marrying. I say "if" because I do not necessarily believe it correct, but he has valid reasons to argue for his interpretation just as you do. Neither of your interpretations are unreasonable.

2. Whether the person's referenced in any of the three categories were sexually active outside of marriage is not relevant to this exemption. This interpretation does not exempt them from the notion that sex outside of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is sinful.

3. It's my understanding that in those days men were expected to marry and have children - this was a cultural and sometimes a religious expectation. ("Go forth and multiply" is sometimes interpreted that way) Hence there was a need to exempt some people from that expectation. Given that homosexuals would tend to have a dysfunctional relationship in heterosexual marriage, it's not entirely ludicrous to include them in such an exemption.

Dibble,

I can’t believe you continue to waver between the two opinions.

Rebuttal I:

First, afleitch stated that “procreation” was a requirement of marriage, and, therefore, if you  are unable to procreate because a) you’re sterile, or b) you’re homosexual, then you are exempted form marriage.

That’s ludicrous!   For it would allow sterile heterosexuals to engage in sex outside of marriage, and nowhere does scripture allow for heterosexuals to do that.

Nor did Jesus even bring up “procreation” in Mat 19, rather Jesus brought up that Genesis defined marriage as the context for satisfying human sex drive:

Mat 2:24 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

Rebuttal II:

Jesus isn’t even addressing or instructing the eunuchs that are the focus of afleitch’s theory!

There are THREE sets of eunuchs listed by Jesus, but he is only giving instruction to the last set of eunuchs, the first two sets of eunuchs are only mentioned for juxtaposition:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SO, the juxtaposition is that on one hand, we have physical eunuchs that are physically incapable of sex (by birth or by injury) being compared to those who are capable of having sex but choose not to because they have been given the gift of celibacy.  And it is this latter group Jesus is addressing.

Jesus is NOT giving physical eunuchs instruction; rather he is instructing “spiritual eunuchs”  who have a religious choice ("for the kingdom of heaven") because they have been given the gift of celibacy; and Jesus simply mentions physical eunuchs  who had no choice, for the purpose of juxtaposition.

So, afleitch’s position does many blatantly deceitful things:
1)   it attempts to exempt non-procreation sex from marriage.
2)   It attempt to delink sex from marriage, despite the fact Jesus spent the whole first half of the chapter linking the two.
3)   It attempts to define the first two sets of physical eunuchs In Mat 19:12 as sexually active
4)   It attempts to have Jesus instructing the first two sets of  physical eunuchs when Jesus is only instructing the last set of spiritual eunuchs
5)   It totally reverses the fact that Mat 19:11-12 is talking about the sexual non-activity of celibacy and not sexual activity.

And the reason Jesus brings up celibacy in the first place is that it brings under control the desire for sex and thus provides a way to avoid the need for marriage – which correlates with his previous statement regarding divorce which bound sex to marriage.

And Jesus’ teaching about celibacy in this passage dovetails exact the teachings about celibacy in the rest of the bible (see below link to 1Cor ch 7 discussion of celebacy):

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%207;&version=31;

---

So, Dibble, it is not "reasonable” to hold both my position and the other as “reasonable”, for one is in complete agreement with the immediate context (the chapter) and the overall context (the entire bible) while the other turns the immediate and overall context on its head.

Lastly, it is not “arrogant” of me to have the willingness to take a stand and point out a half-baked interpretation, for this isn’t even about me, in fact, my interpretation of this passage is held by the majority, though that doesn’t make it automatically true.  You yourself will have to determine what is true.  So, in the end, it is about you.

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

it's quite clear you either are incapable of understanding what is being argued to you in plain English or you just don't want to understand because it might threaten your fragile little ego to even consider you might be wrong

seems to me that afleitch is attempting to separate procreative sex from non-procreative sex in order to provide an excuse for non-procreative sex outside of the context of a marriage:

No. Because that would be out of context. Jesus is talking about sex at this point, and he's talking about sex within marriage exclusively. People who have been castrated are not by that definition incapable of having sex (they still have a penis) and we know from history they were sexually promiscuous. What they are incapable of is having procreative sex within marriage (notice how I'm coupling sex with marriage here) so the advice is to not marry them. Gay men are impotent to women. We cannot be sexually aroused by women. How on earth are we suitable marriage partners for the purpose of having children? Homosexuals are exempt from the man-woman marriage (as the marriage of Adam and Eve was a procreative marriage)

he's taken Jesus' linkage of sex and marriage and twisted to pertain only to procreative sex and marriage.  how is this a misinterpretation what he is saying?