Homosexuality in the Bible

[CubOB]

God wants you to find love and happiness in your life, Duke, and in my opinion He doesn't give a fiddler's **** whether you find it with a man or a woman. If you're true to yourself and live a good life, doing unto others and so forth, then I think you'll have nothing to worry about when it comes to your immortal soul

[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)

[John Dibble]

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

Well, not a typo so much as a poorly constructed sentence - I think I should have said "Assuming" instead of "Going by".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If by that you mean you tend to construct your arguments in a consistent manner and back them up well, then yeah. Again, I agree with most of your interpretations for that reason, but it doesn't mean I can't be swayed to change my mind if someone else has good arguments that I think trump yours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's stay on topic, shall we? I'm not trying to get into another argument on dogma here, simply trying to give some advice to someone who seems to be asking for it.

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.

[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

[John Dibble]

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

The problem with accepting it at "face value" is that what appears to be face value may differ from person to person. You have to remember that people have varying personality types, and thus varying ways they process and think about information. Given identical information people can and do arrive at different conclusions. This applies to the Bible as well. That's why I advised him to study it - so he can arrive at conclusions that are well thought out rather than ones that are made with only shallow thought, not so he can arrive at conclusions that simply suit his own desires. (you'll also note that the particular advice I gave him did not involve abandoning his religious faith, nor did it involve commiting homosexual acts while maintaining said faith)

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". Ultimately that thought led to a new conclusion that you hadn't thought of before because you then understood a deeper meaning in that particular passage that you didn't see in the "face value" of those passages. Simply taking things at "face value" can make you miss or misinterpret important details, and often people will put their own desires and expectations into their conclusions if they simply take things at face value. That's the opposite of what you want, so I don't see what's wrong with suggesting study and forethought.

[memphis]

I think it's so terrible that he's so obviously upset over a bunch of bronze age stories and laws, when there's no way he can change his sexuality. He has to choose utter lonliness or outright terror because some asshat a few thousand years ago made a legal prohibition and an asshat society today continues to degrade gays at every opportunity. Is it any wonder why so many gays are maladjusted?  This thread is an excellent example of the harm religion frequently causes. As for "believers": would you stone him, as the Bible says you must? I certainly hope your abuse would not extend that far.  Yes, telling a gay man that he will go to hell for not choosing to be lonely is abuse.

[afleitch]

I have to say this is quite a new one from jmfcst, and I probably should comment upon it. If I can take each of these in turn;

1.I have argued that homosexuals have been made excempt from the procreative institution of the man-woman marriage. I will say no more, because the argument is found across quite a few threads in this forum

2.Relates to the above.

3.The Sin of Sodom was the sin of inhospitability by the people of Sodom towards newcomers, lack of social justice, disregard for the poor and so on. There was also the attempt to rape people. Whether they be men or women an act of rape is an act of rape. It happens to involve the same sexual acts that take place within relationships (penetration) but under a different guise, with strangers and indeed through force, domination and without consent of that stranger. Besides God was already going to destroy the town, he simply sent the Angels to remove Lot from it's destruction. The sin of Sodom was basically - 'me, me, me, me';  greed for everything.

And as for Jude 1:7, the sexual sin of Sodom was 'to give self over to fornication' -
ekporneusasai And the pursuit of flesh – sarkos (a genetive singular feminine word). There is no suggestion that that fornication was homosexual – indeed the use of the feminine for what is being pursued (sarkos) suggests that the fornication was heterosexual. Particularly as the pursuer is written in the dative plural masculine. Irregardless there is a difference between whoring yourself out or forcing yourself upon another through an act of rape for personal self gratification and a relationship built on love and commitment between two people.

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.'

The word 'outside' or exothen can mean outwith, outward, from without. He's not just talking about physical substance or food as exothen is cited in 2 Corinthians 7:5 as 'fightings from outside' – suggesting things that are not tangeable by nature.

5.See above

6.You are mistaken with Judges 19, the only act that occurs is the rape of the concubine (female) by the men. It was an act of heterosexual rape. The men outside wanted the male visitor, but the man of the house would not give him up to be raped. The rape alone was the immoral act irregardless of who it was to be done to.

7. In Romans homosexual sex is condemned as an act of idolatrous worship. I have always maintained that homosexual acts based on rape, prostitution and slavery and the trading of these slaves is condemned in the strongest possible terms in the same manner that such heterosexual practices are condemned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed there is a neutral, perhaps even positive reference to it; Jesus and the Centurion.

The centurion asks Jesus who he calls Lord to heal his 'servant' his pais, 'pais mou' – mine own young man who is in his house and Jesus says he will come and heal him, but the centurion in Matthew 8:9 is rather guarded, for he himself is a man under authority and his word alone is good enough for those under himself in the same way that Jesus, given authority as God made flesh, his word is good enough; 'For I am also a man under authority, having under myself soldiers. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and tell another, 'Come,' and he comes; and tell my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

Here he explains how he directs his soldiers (this one, the other one) and his servant. But the servant in this passage is called his duolo, his bondman or his slave. He is not the pais to whom he refered to earlier who lies sick on his bed. If he were nothing but a slave through bondage he would be his duolo.

And Jesus says of this centurion, this opponent of Israel, this opressor, this conqueror, this man of Caesar, this man with his pais;

'When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to those who followed, "Most certainly I tell you, I haven't found so great a faith, not even in Israel.'

Luke initially uses duolos for this man, but he says that this man to the centurion is entimos, dear or precious to the centurion. It is the only time the word entimos is used in the NT, which co-incidentally is the only time in the NT where Jesus meets an apparent homosexual couple in a relationship. Matthew identifies this relationship and differentiates this relationship from an ordinary 'working' relationship between a man and his slave by referring to the 'servant' as pais. Luke does the same thing but uses duolos entimos.

And when the centurion speaks of his servant to the Lord in Luke 7:7 the centurion calls his 'servant' his pais mou – mine own young man.

So great a faith not even in Israel. A man exalted by the Lord not condemned by him for either slavery or his intimate companion within his household.

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

I have been charged with b) but I could put to you that you are also guilty of b) - for I am a gay man and you are a homophobe. As Dibble said, what appears to be face value may differ from person to person. Which is why I encourage Duke to undertake his own scriptural interpretation.

[afleitch]

Oh and there is a whole other 'portion' to my thinking; let's not forget that I am a Catholic afterall. And that rests with conscientia - The Primacy of Conscience which I shall leave a certain Fr Ratzinger to define:

“Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of church authority, stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of church authority.”

However the discussion of that and it's many excetera's would be best left to another day

[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.

[LanceMcSteel]

Where in the Bible does it preach against it?

Who cares.

Religion is the opiate of the masses. There is no Cosmic Space Jew who will cast you into the deepest pits of hell for acting on natural human urges. I know the Christian Right Wing Taliban will condemn you to hell,  but nobody said they were very bright.

[afleitch]

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.

[CubOB]

I know I touched on it in my previous post here, but I just want to reiterate that it's a goddamn tragedy that Duke even had to ask about this. I wish him all the best in coming to terms with himself.

[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".

[afleitch]

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".

Matthew 19 has been discussed in length before on this forum and you have never said this before. In fact what has set my alarm bells ringing is indeed the over the top denial and unwillingness to engage in discussion. Because, as many previous discussions will attest to, you have a tendency to become agressive.

The difference between us with Matthew is purely etymological; about what words mean, how they are used and their context. The fact that you switch yourself off from even making an acknowlegment of that makes me believe that your desire is purely for your own end.

You are man who is a little too sure of himself. To quote the Catholic moral theologian Bernard Häring,

“Christ bids us rest but does not require us to become seated persons, i.e. those men and women who are forever tired, devoid of ideals and inspiration, who are unable to enlist the power of the Spirit to encourage others. The seated person is the one who is incapable of internalizing Jesus’ invitation, ‘Up, let us go forward’. Most especially if going forward implies the risk of potential suffering, change and temporary insecurity. The seated person is static and self-satisfied, ever confident to celebrate past triumphs and achievements while ever avoiding the courageous responsibility that risk-taking involves. In a word, the seated person is cowardly.

Ordinarily the self-satisfied are fundamentalist in their thinking, eschewing new and creative formulations of doctrine while ever clinging to the norms and imperatives of the past. They are hard-and-fast traditionalists, and, if gifted with energies, they use them strenuously to promote the restorations of a past order. Seated persons are those perched on self-made thrones, unwilling to move forward with the times because such a move would mean renouncing the glamour and privilege of clericalism in all its forms at every level.”

You have often told of that night in 1992 which meant so much to you. But it is becoming evident that your mind is still the mind of 1992. That in 16 years it has not advanced to the extent that you are now a 'seated person.' If you cast your mind back even just a few years, you will see how Soulty and even Dibble have taken 'Up let us go forward' into their heart and their knowledge and understanding has been extraordinary.

Yet now you, the 'seated man' appeal to the forum for support on what you say, from two silly polls before Christmas to the change against me and in favour of you in this thread. Yet if you are so confident, why do you submit yourself for public approval? Surely the word of God should speak for itself!

I have never asked for anyone to believe 'me' over 'you' because we both are called by the same scripture - 'let God be true and every man a liar.' Yet you seem to think of this as a god damned sport!

Jmfcst you have my deepest sympathy for the state of mind in which you reside that led you to stand and charge a fellow Christian for having deceit and dishonesty in his heart.

[John Dibble]

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 the fact that it did not have a evening, dove-tailed perfectly with the rest of scripture.  It meshed perfectly.

Actually I was going to make mention of said lack of contradiction, but I decided not to because I would have had to go off on a tangent. It appears I'll need to do so anyways. If you find a contradiction it means one of three things - your previous conclusions are wrong, your current conclusion is wrong, or all your conclusions are wrong. A wise man considers all three possibilities. An even wiser man considers the possibility he is wrong even when he hasn't found a contradiction and continues to study and scrutinize his own beliefs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't disagree with that strategy - looking for consistency is a good idea. However, even in doing so there's the risk of putting your own spin on things. People can make things consistent in their minds so that their expectations are met. (Note - expectations and desires are not necessarily the same thing, one can expect the opposite of their desire just as easily as expecting what one desires) That's why it's valuable to get outside opinions and consider them objectively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I don't think you've been dishonest. But I don't think afleitch or anyone else here is being dishonest either. Afleitch has gone through the effort to study the Bible in an areas you have not - history, culture, and translation. That's not to say your study hasn't been in earnest or that it is less valid, just that he has taken a different approach. It's not unusual that he'd have different thoughts on the matter.

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 why the hell not? Afleitch has given a very compelling argument based on the original language and historical culture of the time in which it was written down. Knowing something of another language myself, I can tell you that it's very easy to lose things in translation of even the most common literature. A word in one language can have a very broad meaning that can't be accurately translated into a word or even a few words without losing a great deal of significance. Unless you can show that his translations are in themselves dishonest and wrong, then to call him dishonest about them is intellectual dishonesty in and of itself.

And by the way, I believe you're interpreting things that afleitch has said about Matthew 19 to conform to your own expectations about him. You seem to have it in your head that he thinks Matthew 19 approves of homosexuality or something - as far as I can tell he doesn't. As I see it he simply believes that the passage refers to homosexuals themselves and exempts them from heterosexual marriage, not that it says it's okay for them to have homosexual relations. But hey, if I'm wrong on that he can tell me otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inside I know? The degree of arrogance and self-righteousness you're displaying here is appalling to say the least.

I'm going to make this crystal clear to you - if I think someone's being dishonest, I'm going to say it. It doesn't matter whether that person is my friend or not. I do not think afleitch is being dishonest, and don't you dare say I think otherwise. He has stated his position in what I would consider a reasonable and consistent manner, and as such I have no reason to believe he thinks his position is anything but the correct one.

[afleitch]

And by the way, I believe you're interpreting things that afleitch has said about Matthew 19 to conform to your own expectations about him. You seem to have it in your head that he thinks Matthew 19 approves of homosexuality or something - as far as I can tell he doesn't. As I see it he simply believes that the passage refers to homosexuals themselves and exempts them from heterosexual marriage, not that it says it's okay for them to have homosexual relations. But hey, if I'm wrong on that he can tell me otherwise.

No you're quite right. I have never suggested that Jesus said anything supportive about homosexuality or any named homosexual. One whom he may have encountered, the Centurion (which I put up as merely an example and an argument which was not my own) seemed to be in fairly positive circumstances. All that I have ever ascertained over the past 3 or 4 years now is that Jesus' only condemnation of homosexual acts are those that take place as the context of slavery, prosititution, bondage and idol worship. The are condemned in as strong a term as heterosexual acts within those contexts.

Which leads someone who is in a long term gay relationship and who rather would not have that any other way because it's not in my nature to sleep around scratching his head. Pulling together that reality with the understanding that my sexual orientation was not a choice, being confirmed through experience and the human and biological and psychological sciences, what can be the evoked is the biblical and (for me) Church view of the Primacy of Conscience which as I've touched upon before needs a small essay to explain!

[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."

[afleitch]

My reponse for reference. Once again you are a tad confused over what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying.

I will respond to this, but again I am treading old ground here.

I have no issue with your approach to this passage, until at least here:


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.”

The disciples are a little reflective at this poine. It is interesting to see that in Mark, Jesus meets with the children at this point. This little digression to the disciples is not recorded.

The disciples propose that if that is how things are between man and wife; 'if the case (aitia) of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.' Now atia means - accusation, case, cause, crime, fault. Referring to the man-woman marriage, to the 'two made one' that Jesus evoked, the apostles are essentially saying if the fault/crime of the man is his wife – being two not one, then perhaps it is better not to marry. To simply remain one man.

Jesus agrees. He says 'All men' or 'Every manner of men cannot receive this saying save they to whom it is given.' In other words, this (not marrying) isn't a quick opt out, this doesn't mean that every man can and should do it, only to 'whom it is given (didomi - bestow, commit, deliver ) Opting out of being the 'man-woman' is only for those whom that option has been given or bestowed. Bestowed by whom? By God, in the same manner as he bestowed marriage upon the man-woman.

12 ”For 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."

Jmfcst is correct in stating that there continues to be a 'coupling' of sex with marriage, but again it is contextual and I think in his post above he lost that a little. Jesus is discussing sex within the man-woman couple, sex between a man and his woman in marriage.

So and this is important, he excluded those men who cannot have sex within a man-woman union...any man-woman sexual union. Just as he confirmed that sex outwith marriage and unfaithfulness could lead to a divorce; to 'put away' his wife.

If Jesus is talking about 'sex' at this point (which he is) he will still be talking about sex within something and between people (ie in marriage between a man and a woman just as he did before) not just any old sex outwith that union. If he is going to exempt people from something, he is going to exempt them from sex within the context of marriage between a man and a woman. I have never suggested that I advocated, or stating that Jesus advocated the 'decoupling sex from marriage.'

So whom does he exempt? Eunuchs born from their mothers womb – essentially the intersexed (without reaching for the metaphors) those made by or of men (the castrated) and those made eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. Aha! A metaphor. He is not asking for or suggesting that the disciples are physically castrated – they are eunuchs metaphorically; they are sexless.

Now it has been argued that the word eunuch can mean. Metaphorically speaking the catchall option is an 'emasuclated' man or a 'sexless' man. Now when you read an article talking about emasculation 9 times of 10 is not talking about the actual removal of the penis or testicles. It is much more metaphorical; men who are 'less of a man' sometimes because of a woman, or in some minds through lack of one. We know that Jesus applied the metaphorical, as he uses it to describe those (like the apostles) who are eunchus for the sake of the Kingdom.  'One naturally incapacitated for marriage/begetting children' or 'impotent to women' again that has two meanings, the physical and metaphorical.  Likewise, a gay man is 'naturally incapacitated.' Our little fellas are fully functioning but the process of becoming erect, having sex with women and ejaculating to allow conception is an alien process. It's not that we don't do it because we don't want to. It is because we can't – arousal, sex you name it. The most attractive and flirtatious woman could dance and sit on my lap but you wouldn't get a peep out of me.

We cannot function within the man-woman union for the sake of procreation. Neither can those who are castrated, intersex and so on. A gay man is impotent to women. I was born impotent to women. I could not therefore function as a procreative husband in a man-woman union (sex included). I am, I suppose, by the words of the day and the knowledge of today a born eunouchos.

It doesn't mean Jesus gives me or anything I do the 'thumbs up', he not addressing that matter and is talking about exemption alone. We are not charged with being 'sexually immoral' on the basis of not having sex with women within marriage. But he does not address the morality of sex with men. Nor for that matter does he adress the morality of sexual contact involving the other men he exempted (including those who were castrated but could still perfom non procreative sexual acts) Which is why I stand by the proposal that Jesus had a neutral position to the issue of homosexuality unless it was part of temple worship, prostitution or the duties of a slave.

[John Dibble]

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.

[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?

[afleitch]

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)

So what is Jesus exempting the eunuchs from, whoever they may be? Not just from sex, or from marriage but from sex within marriage for the purpose of procreation.

No one said Jesus was telling what gays and sex crazed eunuchs should do. Only what they should not.

If you want I can provide similar interpretations of this passage by other renowned 'liars'. Because of course the truth was only revealed to jmfcst.

[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?

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.