Welcome to Gaia! ::

I would like to point out the fact that God is unchanging. So something that God didn't like in the beginning he is not going to like any better now.

I looked up the passages you were talking about and I bolded the one in the Torah that talked about Homosexually.

Here what the torah says:

Bible quotes.

APPENDIX B
THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY


As stated above, until 1869 there was no written idea of homosexuality being an innate part of one's nature. Until that time it was believed that all people were heterosexual, but some were so perverted that they engaged in same-gender sex. When the Bible writers talked on this subject, within their culture and understanding, that is what they were talking about--that kind of heterosexuality.



Nevertheless, there are Bible passages used by some people today to condemn homosexuals. I want to discuss each passage in some detail to show that not only is there no statement about homosexuality, but also that there is no statement applicable to homosexual sex if that sex is not lustful. Many authors write on this subject, and I am indebted to many of them.



THE OLD TESTAMENT


Genesis 1-2, The Creation Story



Critics of homosexuality enjoy saying, "The creation story is about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Those who say that marriage can be only between a man and a woman argue that God's creation of Adam and Eve as heterosexuals shows that this is what he intended all persons to be; anything else is outside His will and therefore sinful. Dr. Gomes responds,

[As] Jeffrey S. Siker has pointed out in the July 1994 issue of Theology Today, to argue that the creation story privileges a heterosexual view of the relations between humankind is to make one of the weakest arguments possible, the argument from silence....It does not mention friendship, for example, and yet we do not assume that friendship is condemned or abnormal. It does not mention the single state, and yet we know that singleness is not condemned, and that in certain religious circumstances it is held in very high esteem. The creation story is not, after all, a paradigm about marriage, but rather about the establishment of human society.B-1



One can read anything one wants to into the creation story but cannot read anything about homosexuality out of it.



Genesis 18:20 to 19:29--The Sodom Story



Some consider the sin of Sodom to be same-gender sex, although we are not told in Genesis what Sodom's sins were, only that they were so great that God determined to destroy the city. On the evening before its destruction he sent two angels, in disguise as men, to the city to lead Lot and his family out early the next day. Hospitable Lot invited them to spend the night at his house. During the evening the men of the city surrounded the house and demanded of Lot that he bring the two men out so that they could [19:5]

King James Version: "know them."

Revised Standard Version: "know them."

New International Version: "have sex with them."

When Lot refused to bring his guests out, the men of the city were about to break his door down when the angels struck them all blind and the mob dispersed. The next day Lot and his family were led out of Sodom, and the city was destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven.



The Hebrew verb used here, "yadha," "to know," is used 943 times in the OT and only ten times clearly to mean "have sex," then it always means heterosexual sex. The word normally used for homosexual sex is "shakhabh." Many scholars believe that in Gen. 19:5 yadha means "know" in the sense of "get acquainted with" (the city's men may have wondered if these were enemy spies or they might have sensed the city's impending doom and been concerned with what these strangers were doing there) and have several arguments for this, including Sodom's being used as an example of great sin numerous times in the Old and New Testaments with nothing ever said about same-sex sex, and the context of Jesus' references to Sodom (Luke 10:10-13) which seems to imply lack of hospitality as the sin.



Other scholars think it was the common practice of showing dominance over and humiliating outsiders by forcing them to take the part of a (an inferior) woman in a same-gender rape.



Others think it means "have sex," and point to Lot's offering his two virgin daughters to the crowd if sex is what they want, if they will just leave his guests alone. If this is the right interpretation, it is clearly about violent, criminal, gang rape, something always condemnable.



Another thought is expressed by Religion Professor David L. Bartlett: "This story is certainly an unlikely starting point for a `biblical' understanding of sexual ethics. While the attempted homosexual rape by the men of Sodom is explicitly condemned, the offer by Lot to hand his two virgin daughters over to the violent and lecherous inhabitants of Sodom is related without a word of judgment."B-2



Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "The notorious story of Sodom and Gomorrah--often cited in connection with homosexuality--is actually irrelevant to the topic."B-3



There is nothing in this story applicable to our consideration of homosexuality.



Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Revised Standard Version:

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death...



The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.



Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God."B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)

God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has."B-5



Another reason they are not pertinent to our discussion is that these laws were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given. If you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord. A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. You must not harvest a field to its edge. We readily dismiss most of them as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them, including the sexual regulations, for that same reason.



When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today.



THE NEW TESTAMENT


In the New Testament there are three passages to consider.



Romans 1:21, 26, 27

Revised Standard Version

21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him...

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men...



The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.



Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.

Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible."B-6



I Corinthians 6:9

King James Version:

9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.



New International Version

9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.



Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:

9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.



A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.



Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."



Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing a**l intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.



Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."B-7



One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, "homosexuals." Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even though "of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts."B-8



So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty.



I Tim. 1:10

King James Version:

9...the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,...10...for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)...



Revised Standard Version - both 1952 and 1971 editions:

9...the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for 10 immoral persons, sodomites (arsenokoitai),...



New International Version:

9...the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful...10 for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai)



Here only the RSV specifically refers to same-gender sex, using the term "sodomites," which is the translation given in both the Old Testament and New Testament to Hebrew and Greek words for male temple prostitutes. The KJV probably has the same thought. The NIV does not necessarily refer to same-gender sex. Again Paul has used the Greek word arsenokoitai, the word in I Cor. 6:9.



As discussed above, this word would have no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex in our discussion.



So like the other two New Testament passages, I Tim. 1:10 says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals and nothing about same-gender sex unless that of temple prostitutes or possibly the molestation of young boys by heterosexuals.



In view of the facts set forth above, we realize there is no moral teaching in the Bible about homosexuality as we know it, including homosexual sex (except possibly pederasty). The Bible cannot be used to condemn as immoral all same-gender sex. It clearly condemns lust, whether homosexual or heterosexual. There is certainly nothing in the Bible about anyone going to hell because he or she is homosexual. All who go to hell will go for the same, one reason: failure to commit their lives in faith to Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.



From a slightly different approach to interpretation, Dr. Robin Scroggs states, "The basic model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate."B-9 [Italics his]



Dr. Gomes concludes his discussion of homosexuality and the Bible with these words:

The Biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls "invincible ignorance," which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The "problem," of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it.B-10

Oh, totally I see it! The government is now equal with God!

Seriously dude, you've got to be kidding me right? CivilUnion and marrage are completely different things, One is Holy one is Sac-religious. The first Comandment: (Exodus 20:2-3)

2) "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3) "You shall have no other gods before me.

Matther 6:24
24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

When those two verces work together we see that nothing can be (mentaly [to us]) equal with God, There by in an attempt to equalise our attempt Gods Holy union of a man and a woman, we have corrupted our minds to the point that it is now accepted to be the same. IF YOU ARE NOT MARRIED TO SOMONE IN THE EYES OF GOD YOU'RE NOT MARRIED.

Marriage is by God, the best analogy I can come up with is like computer comanies, IBM and MAC back in the starting days, MAC made things garded, you couldn't just make them anywhere, and thereby they were more, and a better product, now lets change the letters HMN and GOD, GOD is just a better profuct, it actually is worth somthing! Like I said, not a good one, but I can't think of a better one and I stumble over words a lot, so analogys are my best work.

No not really David and Jonathon were best friends. Genesis is talking about a man marrying his wife and they becoming one. It talks about the flesh not the spirit. The flesh and spirit are not the same. It says Jonathen loved David. You can love your friends. You can have deep affection for your friends. However actaction is not the same as affection. Also David was the music player for saul. He was also the armor-bearer.

1 Samuel 21 David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, "Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him."

23 Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.

David was bacisly a member of the court.

Can you find another verse or passage?

I looked at the link and read some ofwhat it says. (It's very long so I didn't read it all.)

16 So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May the LORD call David's enemies to account." 17 And Jonathan had David reaffirm his oath out of love for him, because he loved him as he loved himself.

41 After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most.

30 Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? 31 As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!"

umm yeah the government is not a false idol. "Pay unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" does that ring any bells?

You are talking to someone who just did a 10 page turn paper o the life of Simon-Peter bar Jonah I think I do something about appeasing others, thank you very much. And I never meant to call the Government a false Idol, if it came that way I apologies it was not intended to. When you take the Principals of God, and replace them with the principals of the people though, it sort of does become like that... Without knowing it, we have in some cases put government laws above God.

ok so then i must hate my government because I love my God? that dosen't seem to work out properly.

1 peter 2:13
13 Obey the head leader of the country and all other leaders over you. This pleases the Lord.

Yeah...that need no further explanation...

also you CAN in fact be married in my contry (not comon law or any ow that s**t either) by a judge. there is still a ceremony and there is no church involved. in the eyes of the state the couple is recognized and thus either partie is entitled to benefits of things like pensions. now, would you force muslims ot get married in a christian church? No, you'd let them go with thier own beliefs, their own wedding practices, thier own customs.

Okay, see that's your beliefs, congratulations, you think they should be acknowledges as a real marriage, I don't. If someone wants to follow their traditions, go them, I plan on doing things that are non-biblically based at my wedding, ever seven year old girl dreams of having rice thrown at her, there is nothing in the bible that says you must have rice thrown at you or else you are not married, that is a CUSTOM that I would like to do. There is nothing wrong with customs as long as they do not interfere with Biblical stand points.

but still by the logic displayed they are not maried because they did not do it our way. thus, since it's our way or the highway God does not recognize the union.

It is exactly as I said above, as long as it does not interfere with any form of Biblical standpoint, I have no problem with it.

yet i'm sure you'd say that they were still maried. gays can't be maried in a church but they can still be maried and like any other human beings they deserve to have thier union recognized.

My Aunt is not married. My aunt Jenny left the Country to get 'married' her and her wife do everything that your average married couple would do, however, they are not married, marriage in Gods holy union of a man and his wife. the wife is to submit to her husband, and the man is to be the head of the home, the man is to be the bread-winner, and the wife is to bear and raise children, she is to do everything other then bring in money. The basis of marriage is very plainly laid out! I have a whole list of verses that I found through a women’s ministry that states why men need women, and why marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman, my Favorite Genesis 2:18-24. When God gives you a gift the first thing that humans do is pervert it: that is exactly what we have done with Marriage. To be dead honest, you'll see it in one of my Favorite threads in this guild, when a large sin hits me, I normally try to hide it, there is nothing wrong with temptation, Even Christ was tempted, but when you let it turn into action you fall into sin quickly I might add, I did everything in my Power to hid all of my 'major sins' and what amazes me is that people have the audacity to make a holiday out of this sin...Dang it I want a murder someone day! you don't create holidays after sin...There would be a fornication day, a murder day, a rape a child day, a kick the crap out of your parents day, a cheat on everything you can day, a lie to everyone day, and it would all branch from, 'Coming out day'. Do we really want all of our sins recognized?

also your analogy isn't really that great i don't understand it verry well.

Yeah that analogy did suck, but I couldn't think of a better one, this was the point of it, just because someone doesn’t believe 'thing X' to be true doesn’t mean that whatever 'thing X' does can't be done by 'thing X' when 'thing X' is the superior power over EVERYTHING one belief isn't going to take away any of it's authority! You see it's harder when you just say it, or at least it is for me...

No, but unless I haven’t made this clear I'm not trying to make other people believe my beliefs, I tell them my beliefs why I believe it, and let them decide I don't want to make up their minds, I really could care less, because if they want to believe it they will and if I were to force them they’d be similar to a robot, and that's not fun at all. If I do try to make anyone believe as I do to the extreme that you are speaking please forgive me, I’ll try not to. However I refuse to have people tell me that I can not follow my God because someone might get offended or feel left out! Can the general population get over self-esteem please, get past yourselves! One guy chooses to pervert Gods intentions that's fine, but I can not, may not, will not accept that to be okay. If the homosexual population gets offended congratulations, I'm offended by offended people, should I go sue myself, or make a holiday of it? NO! I'm not trying to assume power over people, but in an attempt to be politically correct and not disturb anyone, we have lost our morals as a society so horribly! I can't jus sit back, that's not me, when people start losing their roots over soothing so disgusting it really does make me sick. (I mean no offence by that, but really the thought of it does make me nauseous.) I have no problem with the homosexual population many of my friends are homosexuals, however when you start corrupting my society with it, I have a problem, I am the average American in their entire splendor: You can have what you want, but don’t let it inconvenience me. You can do those things, do I think they’re right, no. Do you really care what I think, no. however when you begin to disrupt my life with it I have a problem. My children will grow up thinking that there’s nothing wrong with acting on homosexuality, that to me breaks my heart, I love my kids with all my heart and to know that rips me in half. If I do force my thoughts on you I’m sorry, but please also look through our perspective, we have children to protect, I have no problem with my children interacting with gay people, but to know that they will see no problem in them acting on it, makes my heart ache for them. I do not wish to offend you or to insult homosexuality, but let’s be fair here, you get a ‘coming out day’ can we have a ‘strait day’? The unknown is no longer a fear for humanity, they embrace it a bit to much, I think even you can pick that out.



So we're agreeing? odd... okay! and he eason s usedas away out is beause God accepts that and not divorce, but divorce is a whole nother topic in itself.



I couldn't find it in there, would you mind coping it for me? Sorry.



So we must abandon all roots? lets not offend anyone so we'll deter the very foundation of our country? I have always said that to pull GOD from our government would be the best thing we could do. YOu take God out, and there goes most of the laws, then chaos would insue and we'd realise that we really do need GOD back in scociety. SO as far as disregarding the constitution, we've already done that, burn it and they'll kill you, but it's not like we follow its principals anymore, let be honest. and to make pre-maritla sex illigal woul also be one of the worst things we could do, it just makes it more apealing to some people...



You won't find one that I have not refuted.

Wow. you say it like there can be no error with it or somehting.

OH! you have found error in the Bible...no comment.