Thread: Jesus was against Homosexuality.

Originally Posted by junobet

I let the Bible speak for itself and if you did too and took the pain upon you to actually study it, you’d see that the Bible itself does not claim to be the verbally inspirited word of God, the Bible itself points you to the fact that it is not inerrant and that it’s not to be idolized as a carven image of God. And it tells us that it needs to be carefully studied and interpreted.

Obviously you have skipped some scriptures or ignored them, because those two below says different. And notice the word EVERY in verse 16. It does not say some scriptures are inspired by God, it says all. And guess what? When that was written there was no New Testament Bible.....the early Church only had the Old Testament, so when that was said it was referring to the Old Testament. And the same can be said for 2 Peter.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ASV)
16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

2 Peter 1:21 (ASV)
21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by junobet

No it doesn’t, it says exploitative same sex relationships are sin, just as exploitative heterosexual relationships are sin.

As for cutting out parts of it: Are you saying we should stone adulterers, kill children who disobey their parents, veil our women, and cure diseases by sacrificing pigeons? I don’t think so, and if you don’t, don't you accuse me of cherrypicking, hypocrite!

Unfortunately you seem to have cut out the really relevant bits that lead us to a proper understanding of all others. And even more unfortunately: in the question at hand you’ve closed your mind to the Spirit of Christ and have chosen blind bigotry instead.

We don't stone disobedient children and adulterers but it is still a sin for a child to disobey their parents and for a person to commit adultery. And the Old Testament never said that it’s a sin for a woman to not wear a veil. And Old Testament sacrifices for sin were picturing Jesus.....so Jesus is our permanent sacrifice so that we don't need to sacrifice animals anymore.

Homsexuality condemned in the book of Romans

Romans 1:27-28 (ASV)
27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Homsexuality condemned in the book of Leviticus. Rememner, the early Christians had the Old Testament and it was what they studied.

God said that a man having sex with another man is an abomination.....so much so that God required that that person be put to death. But the fact that God does not say we should stone such a person today does not make it less a sin. But God's true Church will put out of its congregation anyone that practice that lifestyle or supports it.



Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Hebrew Word: ‏תּוֹעֵבָה‎
Transliteration: tôʿēbâ
Phonetic Pronunciation: to-ay-baw'
Root: act part of <H8581>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 2530a
Part of Speech: n f
Vine's Words: Abomination



or to`ebah, to-ay-baw'; feminine active participle of <H8581> (ta`ab); properly something disgusting (moral), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concrete) an idol :- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

— Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

Abomination
Usage Number: 1
Part Of Speech: Noun
Strong's Number: <H8441>
Original Word: ‏תּוֹעֵבָה‎, tôʿēbâ
Usage Notes: "abomination; loathsome, detestable thing." Cognates of this word appear only in Phoenician and Targumic Aramaic. The word appears 117 times and in all periods.
First, tôʿēbâ defines something or someone as essentially unique in the sense of being "dangerous," "sinister," and "repulsive" to another individual.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words.



But homosexuality is not the only thing that God considered an abomination or a sin.......and they are not repeated in the New Testament as a sin. Here's one example, Jesus never said it was a sin for siblings to marry each other. So does that mean it’s now ok to do it if there is no law against it in whatever Country one might live in? Can two sisters marry each other or two brothers? Or is that only a brother and a sister than can marry each other? What about an aunt? Can a man marry his aunt, because that was not mentioned by Jesus as a sin either?

That Jews believed the Jewish scriptures were inspired by God is hardly surprising, nor that early Christians revered correspondence alleged to have been written by those close to Jesus. To jump from those facts to scriptural inerrancy is , however, one very large leap.

Originally Posted by Iolo

That Jews believed the Jewish scriptures were inspired by God is hardly surprising, nor that early Christians revered correspondence alleged to have been written by those close to Jesus. To jump from those facts to scriptural inerrancy is , however, one very large leap.

So do you have any evidence that the scriptures as it was recorded originally in Hebrew and Greek contain errors?

Originally Posted by BFSmith@764

So do you have any evidence that the scriptures as it was recorded originally in Hebrew and Greek contain errors?

I have every reason to suppose that it had extremely little to do with Christianity and everything to do with Judaism, except that - since all the early converts were Jews - the prophecies were handy. Sensible voices in the Early Church recommended making it just a sort of background reading, which would have saved us from a lot of falsification.

Originally Posted by Iolo

I have every reason to suppose that it had extremely little to do with Christianity and everything to do with Judaism, except that - since all the early converts were Jews - the prophecies were handy. Sensible voices in the Early Church recommended making it just a sort of background reading, which would have saved us from a lot of falsification.

And whose hands God should have left it in since it’s His inspired word?

Originally Posted by BFSmith@764

And that is the problem........you are interpreting the Bible instead of letting the Bible speaks for itself.

Jesus did NOT say preach the BIBLE, he said preach his Gospel. And even it cannot speak for itself, that is why there is the Holy Spirit.

You have already proven the Bible did not speak to you:
http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...post1060952188

You have already several times rejected the Old Covenant or refused to acknowledge its laws be applied. That leaves only those laws Jesus quoted, and nowhere do those laws say kill homosexuals. So what is the law, what is natural?

Romans 1:26 "for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:..."

In nature if homosexuals exist naturally, then it figures that it is the lusting for unnatural affections that is the sin for us.

28 "that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves"

If heterosexual do not dishonor your body lusting and changing into a "corruptible man." When they promote it as an alternative lifestyle--which I know personally of my kid's public school doing confusing the little kiddies, not as something natural for them to figure out on their own--that I grant you is a sin. It is either natural for them or it is not, they should figure that out on their own not have an alternative lifestyle promoted by Teachers. Having no mercy, "31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:"

If it is natural, to be unmerciful to them could be just as much a sin.

*****

Claiming Jesus did not say anything against marrage of siblings, which you brought up probably in some save face attempt at your claiming Jesus did not mention the commandments not to murder..., ignores the natural problems associated with interbreeding, which can manifest itself in small populations which the Old Testament did not even get into, except to promote it:

"6 and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...:6&version=ASV

"Genetic drift refers to the increase in frequency of the genes for these disorders in this group, as a result of chance. Because Jews tend to not marry outside of their faith and community, the relatively high frequency of these genes among Jews did not pass into other communities, nor was the frequency lessened by the introduction of other genes from outside the Ashkenazi Jewish community." http://www.jewishgenetics.org/?q=con...etic-disorders

There the Bible spoke for itself, and the result is Genetic disease in small populations that "tend to not marry outside of their faith and community."

1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

So we see that the New Testament corrects the old and the unclean genetic diseases brought about by tending "to not marry outside of their faith and community," has been corrected. The community as Christians could then spread beyond the promised land of inbreds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

Then lets consider that if homosexuality is natural, has maybe a genetic component, or a mutation, then insisting they marry heterosexuals could that create sin? Would the Homos husband be made holy because of his Hetero wife? For that vary reason of a possiblity of it being natural for them to be Homo, promoting that nonbreeders (Homos) NOT have children with breeders (Hetero) would be advisable; the only way to promote Homos not having children is to promote their marriage with Homos. I am not saying anyone must accept them having children with breeders and raising potential breeder children to accept a lifestyle that might be a sin.

Nobody is going to prove the Old Testament, with the Old Testament, was anything more than a construct of Jews; you cannot prove the book is the word of God with the book, or by claiming a scripture is inspired so it must be God's word; I had the boy flipping pages all night at the Wild's Christian camp trying to prove the Bible with the Bible, then I stood out there with the Bible Teacher and we discussed faith. Certainly, one might explain the Old Testament law as being about not having effeminate sword arms, especially a good sword arm was necessary in the crossroads. But Christianity is about peace, not the sword. So then we get to the "effeminate" word you used on page 8:

"1 Corinthians 6:9 (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

Then we are back to Matthew 19:12:

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Everyone knows the eunuchs were "effeminate," those made that way by men have no balls dude, or they are born that way from their mother's womb, and yet Jesus did not say that "effeminate" was a sin.

"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." I know it is hard to accept that they are not sinning. I knew this Lesbean chick at Point Mugu once who was hot as hell, she like totally was likable but I could not figure her problem, she had no boyfriend, so it just seems like they are sinning. Then later I found out, USS Norton Sound. I went down to the USS Norton Sound when they found a bunch of Lesbeans, in ignorance trying to convert them. I could argue that the Homos 100% are the biggest bigots on earth: they say some are born girls in a man's body, but then the bigot Lesbeans will reject a Lesbean in a man's body just because of the color of their too much white skin thingy on the really big clitoris; "it isn't pink, and I am a racist that does not date white clitoris." {a little disgusting humor, joking with the sinful little head} Heterosexuals cannot understand them, that is a given, we are attracted to women, and that is that; Homosexuality for the Heterosexual is a sin.

"Abusers of themselves with mankind," or unnatural use of the Homo body with Heteros?

In and of itself, if you promote Homos marrying Homos the possible breeding of more effeminate homosexuals is not promoted. I fully understand many of them will not be happy unless they promote sin.

So do you insist they deny their nature and breed and raise more little mutants or raise Heteros to be more inclined to accept a sinful unnatural "lifestyle?" Do you insist they lust, marry Heteros, give in to lust, spread disease among Heteros, and offer no alternative? Have mercy...

Originally Posted by Ostap Bender

Many Homosexuals try to deceive us to claim Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuals.That's wrong, down is a clearly evidence for that. Both Homosexuality and so-called gay "marriages" are clearly condemned and prohibited in the Holy Bible.

Matthew 19:4-6

King James Version (KJV)

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

--------

Genesis 2:24

King James Version (KJV)

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

i have this gay friend who masturbates with a cross in one hand..

is this wrong..

he is in love with jesus and thinks about having sex with him...

he is very effeminate and girly...and though a man would love to be jesus wife and have a civil marriage with him...

he also prays and reads the bible

Originally Posted by BFSmith@764

Where do you see in what the writer is saying that says the same sex can marry? The subject was about men and women not about guys or lesbian's need to marry their own sex…..it is in that context that he said, it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


1 Corinthians 7:1-16 (ESV)
1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?


You like some in Paul's day try to twist the scriptures to say what you want it to say, because you are not willing to be instructed......you have no desire to do what is right.

2 Peter 3:14-16 (ESV)
14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

It is kind of ironic that you talk about twisting Pauls words and then Quote Peter.

It was Peter and James thought Paul's ideas were twisted. This is one reason I do have much "faith" in Pauls writings.

The other is that Paul says many things which do not seem to Jive with the message of Jesus.

Originally Posted by BFSmith@764

And whose hands God should have left it in since it’s His inspired word?

Oh, yours, obviously!

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

Jesus did NOT say preach the BIBLE, he said preach his Gospel. And even it cannot speak for itself, that is why there is the Holy Spirit.

And who is saying that it is the Bible we should preach? And how would you know what Jesus preached if we did not have the Bible? How would we know that Jesus is the one that the prophets spoke about that was to come if we did not have the Old Testament?