The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

marienbad · 20-07-2014 03:15PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that is totally untrue.

Gaynorvader had posted that he thought homosexuality was referenced only twice in the Bible. I responded that I could think of at least seven occasions where it is mentioned.

We were not discussing semantics. Then you blundered in which ill-thought assertions. Since then you've contradicted yourself several times and have denied making a statement that you clearly made.

The vast majority of biblical scholars, and modern Bible translations (including those sponsored by gay-affirming churches), disagree with you.

But hey, why let that bother you when you can always dismiss them as being dishonest any time they disagree with you?

Unfortunately I would have to be convinced by sound scholarship - not unsupported assertions by someone with little or no knowledge of biblical languages, no ability in biblical interpretation, and a quite remarkable capacity for self-contradiction and making untrue statements.

I've no axe to grind here. Simply weighing up the evidence, listening to the scholars in the relevant fields, and then reaching a conclusion on that basis. And that conclusion is that the Scripture refers to homosexuality in a number of instances, all of them negative, and does not make one single statement that could reasonably be interpreted as supporting homosexual acts.

Again, that in no way justifies homophobia, or any efforts to enforce biblical morality on the general population. But it is of interest to those of us who see the Bible as being in any way authoritative for our own personal codes of behaviour.

Are there any other examples of thinks or practices condemned in the bible that all are in agreement are not condemned today ?

And as we are at it are there any practices accepted in the bible that are universally not accepted today ?

Nick Park · 20-07-2014 03:19PM

marienbad wrote: »

Are there any other examples of thinks or practices condemned in the bible that all are in agreement are not condemned today ?

Loads. Eating shellfish, wearing garments of mixed fibres etc.

And as we are at it are there any practices accepted in the bible that are universally not accepted today ?

Absolutely. Stoning people to death would be a pretty obvious one (unless you are an Islamic fundamentalist in Iran or Sudan).

marienbad · 20-07-2014 04:25PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Loads. Eating shellfish, wearing garments of mixed fibres etc.

Absolutely. Stoning people to death would be a pretty obvious one (unless you are an Islamic fundamentalist in Iran or Sudan).

So you know where I am going with this . The obvious question is - if biblical interpretation has evolved over time why in some areas and not others ,and who decides ?

_Redzer_ · 20-07-2014 04:49PM

This is the crux with the bible. It's either all true, or none of it is.

I hate this picking and choosing nonsense, it makes you a hypocrite if you're all for shellfish and mixed fabrics, but then wholly against homosexuality for no apparent reason, only because you chose what works and what doesn't work for you. You're completely bending the rules you're supposed to be following -which should be unmoving and unchanging.

Just seems to me there is no consistency in how some rules are accepted allowed to be ignored, while others are to be enforced, even when both rules are of the same age and forged at the same time. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

tommy2bad · 20-07-2014 05:35PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is a good post, I'll reply properly when I have more time.
.

Just to continue now I'm sober!
Hi Nick, welcome to boards, good to have someone knowledgeable on board.Not that the rest are not oh you know what I mean.
The problem with what you call exegesis is it only goes so far. That's why I brought up context. We tend to read the bible and do exegesis with basis, obvious init? stands to reason dont it? and a load of assumptions about what's obvious to any reasonable man.
If we are to take a strictly literal reading of the bible not only would homosexual acts be proscribed but slavery would be fine and dandy, women would be subservient to men and marriage as we now see it would not exist.
Their is not one place whare the bible condemns slavery, in fact it supports slavery yet it was Christians who opposed slavery based on their exegisis of the scripture. Opposed by other Christians who reach the opposite conclusion from the same scripture.
If you were to claim that slavery was right and proper in the eyes of god now, you would be seen as a reactionary fool. You could show the relevant passages and be met with derision because as any fool knows those passages don't mean 'slavery', you are misreading them.
Yet for 1700 years they were exactly what you are claiming, biblical support for the institution of slavery. What changed was not the passages but our world view. Once that changed we could no longer read the bible the way we used to.
However, from a exegesis point of view, to get an anti-slavery reading from the bible you need to go straight to the central message of the bible, that God is love and seeks the best for his creation. You must not read the specifics and work to the general, rather the other way round.
Yes it's kindof banging a squar peg into a round hole but we have done it before and will do it again. My point is if you intend to defend the biblical position on homosexuality or anything for that matter you must defend the entire thing, all the nasty bits as well as the bits you now insist are the correct exegesis.
As this is the Gay thread, lets not stray so far that we need a drawer full of tinopeners for all the cans of worms. I'm just bringing up the slavery thing as an example of where narrow exegisis fails.

Nick Park · 20-07-2014 06:16PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Just to continue now I'm sober!
Hi Nick, welcome to boards, good to have someone knowledgeable on board.Not that the rest are not oh you know what I mean.
The problem with what you call exegesis is it only goes so far. That's why I brought up context.

Er, exegesis does involve context, it isn't something that stops short of context. That's why I explained how the context of Leviticus 18:22 would support the interpretation, held by the vast majority of biblical scholars, that it was a blanket prohibition to the Israelites of homosexual acts in general.

Nick Park · 20-07-2014 06:58PM

marienbad wrote: »

So you know where I am going with this . The obvious question is - if biblical interpretation has evolved over time why in some areas and not others ,and who decides ?

It's more a case of progressive revelation than of evolving interpretation.

Books such as Leviticus were written for the Israelites at a specific moment of time - when they were coming out of Egyptian slavery, forming as a nation, and possessing the Promised Land.

Some parts obviously do not apply to the Church because we are not one nation living as a unified State under a theocracy. This obviously means that penalties for certain sins no longer apply. So, disobedient sons and daughters don't get stoned (insert obligatory drugs joke here). But the New Testament does still endorse the principle that children should respect their parents as much as possible.

Other parts are ceremonial, and were fulfilled with the coming of Jesus, so are no longer binding today. That's why we don't sacrifice goats, why we eat pork and why circumcision is no longer mandated.

Other parts are moral. They tell us things that God does and doesn't like (so Martin Luther King would quote the Old Testament extensively to argue that God gates injustice and oppression of the poor). We don't treat these as laws, but rather as part of the information that helps us decide how we should behave.

There are two main ways by which Christians decide whether an Old Testament law should inform our morality today or whether it was simply a ceremony that was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus.

a) What does the New Testament say? Certain Old Testament laws are explicitly stated in the NT as not being binding on the Church (food laws, circumcision, observing the Sabbath). Others are explicitly reinforced in the moral teaching of the NT (eg laws against adultery, idolatry, and oppressing the poor).

b) Context. If a particular Old Testament law is in the middle of a list of obvious ceremonial rites with no moral connotation, then there is a high probability that it will also be a ceremonial issue. But if it is in the middle of a passage that deals with obvious moral issues, then there is a good chance that it is also a moral issue.

So, let's look at the issue of homosexual acts (not orientation) and the Bible.

1. They are condemned in very robust terms in the Old Testament. If we ignore the two passages that specifically deal with homosexual rape (in Genesis and Judges), we are left with two passages in Leviticus.

2. Both Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 22:18 (a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination) are sandwiched between prohibitions against incest and bestiality. The context is not that some kinds of incest and some kinds of bestiality are OK - we're talking blanket prohibitions against something that is viewed as immoral.

3. There are three references in the NT to homosexual behaviour. All are extremely negative.

4. There are no references in the NT that even hint at any positive view of any kind of homosexual acts.

5. There are no references in the NT that suggest in any way that the prohibition against homosexual acts was a ceremonial issue, or that they were somehow fulfilled with the coming of Christ and so no longer apply.

The inescapable conclusion, unless we try to artificially force an interpretation to make the Bible say what we want it to say, is that homosexual acts are not acceptable behaviour for practicing Christians who see the Bible as being in any way authoritative for their lives.

What the rest of society wants to do, and who they choose to have sex with, is none of my business (providing they are consenting adults).

marienbad · 20-07-2014 07:07PM

What about Leviticus 20.18 ?

20-07-2014 07:31PM

http://neno.co.ke/bible/book/Lev/20/18

Or Leviticus 20.9, 20.18 or 20.25?

How can one choose them to be "ignorable" in the same passage as something we're deeming "non-ignorable"?

What is the logic behind that?

tommy2bad · 20-07-2014 07:57PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Er, exegesis does involve context, it isn't something that stops short of context. That's why I explained how the context of Leviticus 18:22 would support the interpretation, held by the vast majority of biblical scholars, that it was a blanket prohibition to the Israelites of homosexual acts in general.

And I never said it didn't, the trouble is what context? which is what the rest of my post addressed. You gave a good answer in your next post as to why you come to the conclusion that it's still proscribed. I could probably do the same for contraception even including abstinence. Do you think this is as convincing to the vast majority of Christians as the prohibition on homosexual acts is?
My claim is that once following a specific rule, no matter how forcefully expressed in the text, leads to a contradiction of the general direction of the word of God then it needs reevaluating. Currently the proscription on homosexual acts has no contribution to furthering Gods kingdom, the hard headed adherence to it in fact advances the cause of Satan in so much as it gives succor and support to bigots.
I fully appreciate that you can't see a way to reconcile the two without compromising the belief system you hold. I on the other hand have no such compunction about ripping it up and starting again. Morals in the sense of manners and habits change, the Love of God dose not, despite our confusion.

riveratom · 20-07-2014 09:44PM

Nick Park wrote: »

It's more a case of progressive revelation than of evolving interpretation.

Books such as Leviticus were written for the Israelites at a specific moment of time - when they were coming out of Egyptian slavery, forming as a nation, and possessing the Promised Land.

Some parts obviously do not apply to the Church because we are not one nation living as a unified State under a theocracy. This obviously means that penalties for certain sins no longer apply. So, disobedient sons and daughters don't get stoned (insert obligatory drugs joke here). But the New Testament does still endorse the principle that children should respect their parents as much as possible.

Other parts are ceremonial, and were fulfilled with the coming of Jesus, so are no longer binding today. That's why we don't sacrifice goats, why we eat pork and why circumcision is no longer mandated.

Other parts are moral. They tell us things that God does and doesn't like (so Martin Luther King would quote the Old Testament extensively to argue that God gates injustice and oppression of the poor). We don't treat these as laws, but rather as part of the information that helps us decide how we should behave.

There are two main ways by which Christians decide whether an Old Testament law should inform our morality today or whether it was simply a ceremony that was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus.

a) What does the New Testament say? Certain Old Testament laws are explicitly stated in the NT as not being binding on the Church (food laws, circumcision, observing the Sabbath). Others are explicitly reinforced in the moral teaching of the NT (eg laws against adultery, idolatry, and oppressing the poor).

b) Context. If a particular Old Testament law is in the middle of a list of obvious ceremonial rites with no moral connotation, then there is a high probability that it will also be a ceremonial issue. But if it is in the middle of a passage that deals with obvious moral issues, then there is a good chance that it is also a moral issue.

So, let's look at the issue of homosexual acts (not orientation) and the Bible.

1. They are condemned in very robust terms in the Old Testament. If we ignore the two passages that specifically deal with homosexual rape (in Genesis and Judges), we are left with two passages in Leviticus.

2. Both Leviticus 20:13 and Leviticus 22:18 (a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination) are sandwiched between prohibitions against incest and bestiality. The context is not that some kinds of incest and some kinds of bestiality are OK - we're talking blanket prohibitions against something that is viewed as immoral.

3. There are three references in the NT to homosexual behaviour. All are extremely negative.

4. There are no references in the NT that even hint at any positive view of any kind of homosexual acts.

5. There are no references in the NT that suggest in any way that the prohibition against homosexual acts was a ceremonial issue, or that they were somehow fulfilled with the coming of Christ and so no longer apply.

The inescapable conclusion, unless we try to artificially force an interpretation to make the Bible say what we want it to say, is that homosexual acts are not acceptable behaviour for practicing Christians who see the Bible as being in any way authoritative for their lives.

What the rest of society wants to do, and who they choose to have sex with, is none of my business (providing they are consenting adults).

If the prohibition against homosexual acts still stands, then the part about the need for the offending parties to be executed still stands too.

Right?

Nick Park · 20-07-2014 11:03PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

This is the crux with the bible. It's either all true, or none of it is.

I hate this picking and choosing nonsense, it makes you a hypocrite if you're all for shellfish and mixed fabrics, but then wholly against homosexuality for no apparent reason, only because you chose what works and what doesn't work for you. You're completely bending the rules you're supposed to be following -which should be unmoving and unchanging.

Just seems to me there is no consistency in how some rules are accepted allowed to be ignored, while others are to be enforced, even when both rules are of the same age and forged at the same time. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I love it when non-Christians start insisting that Christians should interpret the Bible in a half-assed fashion to suit them.

Christians don't actually see the Bible as a rule book.

Oh, and btw, Christian understanding about the morality of homosexual acts is primarily informed by the New Testament, which was written many centuries after the Old Testament rules for the Jews about shellfish.

Nick Park · 20-07-2014 11:05PM

riveratom wrote: »

If the prohibition against homosexual acts still stands, then the part about the need for the offending parties to be executed still stands too.

Right?

No, you evidently didn't read my post before replying to it.

We are not Jews, we don't live in a theocracy, and our morality is based on wanting to do the things that please God rather than keep a list of laws with penalties attached.

Nick Park · 20-07-2014 11:08PM

marienbad wrote: »

What about Leviticus 20.18 ?

I don't do that either.

Its inclusion there would indicate that it is a moral, rather than a ceremonial, issue. However, there are no negative references to it in the New Testament as there is with homosexual acts.

Nick Park · 20-07-2014 11:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

http://neno.co.ke/bible/book/Lev/20/18

Or Leviticus 20.9, 20.18 or 20.25?

How can one choose them to be "ignorable" in the same passage as something we're deeming "non-ignorable"?

What is the logic behind that?

Who said anything was ignorable?

tommy2bad · 20-07-2014 11:54PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Who said anything was ignorable?

Well redundant then?
Your missing the point. Insisting that Christians read the OT in the light if the NT doesn't help, again,the position of women and slavery are both described in the NT in a way we would find morally objectionable today. What changed?
Oh and the Leviticus 20.18 thing, TMI, lets leave it at that.

21-07-2014 09:11AM

Nick Park wrote: »

Who said anything was ignorable?

I purposely put quotation marks around the word.

I don't know how else to describe the differences with how you listen/read/interpret one portion of the passage versus another.

It's a question, not an attack.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 21-07-2014 09:26AM

Nick Park wrote: »

The vast majority of biblical scholars, and modern Bible translations (including those sponsored by gay-affirming churches), disagree with you.

Well that isn't true. But even if it were true, would it matter? The words say what they say. And the fact remains that the passage you quote as being crystal clear against all homosexual acts isn't in the Bible. How many Biblical scholars agree with you, if any, doesn't change that.

Nick Park wrote: »

But hey, why let that bother you when you can always dismiss them as being dishonest any time they disagree with you?

That is a bit ironic considering you are simply ignoring the facts and saying that other people agree with you so I must be wrong.

Do you agree that the passage

"a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination"

is not in the Bible?

Nick Park wrote: »

Unfortunately I would have to be convinced by sound scholarship - not unsupported assertions by someone with little or no knowledge of biblical languages, no ability in biblical interpretation, and a quite remarkable capacity for self-contradiction and making untrue statements.

More ad hominem attacks.

Again, do you agree that the passage

"a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination"

is not in the Bible? That this is an interpretation based on an assumption of what the author was trying to say, not his actual words? And that even if a million Biblical scholars agree that this is probably what he was trying to say, it still isn't what he said

Nick Park wrote: »

I've no axe to grind here. Simply weighing up the evidence, listening to the scholars in the relevant fields, and then reaching a conclusion on that basis.

The evidence? The evidence has been presented to you, a few times. You ignored it and instead questioned how qualified I was to speak on this subject.

That does seem like you have an axe to grind.

This person sums it up better than me

I am a Bible-believing Christian. I read and/or speak nine languages, and I have a lengthy career teaching the languages, the history, and the biblical scholarship involved with this subject (as well as others). Contrary to what has been alleged elsewhere, the so-called "consensus" of liberal and conservative scholars is imaginary, as the scholarship has changed enormously since the groundbreaking work of D.S. Bailey blew open the doors of scholarship in 1955, culminating in the subsequent publication of major works accepted by scholars world-wide, such as "Purity and Danger" by Dr. M. Douglas. The published scholarship, already voluminous, continues to expand exponentially. Leading biblical scholars in every reputable American or European university since that time have recognized that previous speculations about the meaning of the ritual practices of the Hebrews, and the writings surrounding them, were inadequate and erroneous. It is recognized now that the ancient Hebews were not attempting to regulate sexual behavior or practice, but, rather, religious ritual practice. Sadly, the ignorance (as well as the downright fraud) which continues to be spread about this topic is nonetheless oppressive, death-dealing, and frightfully sinful.

Immanuel · 21-07-2014 11:26AM

Jesus Loves You

Especially if you are a Homosexual

He loves us all, even those that do not believe

May everyone come to know God's love for them someday, and especially those who have yet to know his sacred heart.

God bless you all

marienbad · 21-07-2014 01:46PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I love it when non-Christians start insisting that Christians should interpret the Bible in a half-assed fashion to suit them.

Christians don't actually see the Bible as a rule book.

Oh, and btw, Christian understanding about the morality of homosexual acts is primarily informed by the New Testament, which was written many centuries after the Old Testament rules for the Jews about shellfish.

I think you are missing the point here Nick , and in a monumental way. In my experience non-Christians don't give a flying-fcuk about biblical interpretation per se , any more than they would about Rastafarianism or Baha'ism or any other belief system.

It is only when such belief systems begins to inform secular laws and seek to change secular law that it become an issue.

Prime examples being the grip the RCC has on education and health in this country and the upcoming civil war on gay marriage.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 21-07-2014 03:06PM

marienbad wrote: »

It is only when such belief systems begins to inform secular laws and seek to change secular law that it become an issue.

And also when some Christians start "informing" other Christians and non-Christians that there is only one correct interpretation of a passage, or that the Bible is clear about some statement of morality, when it is anything but.

The history of the western world is littered with Christians proclaiming something is "crystal clear" in the Bible only for future generates on closer examination to reject such limited interpretations as being based on the prejudice in the society of the time, rather than the Bible itself.

riveratom · 21-07-2014 07:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, you evidently didn't read my post before replying to it.

We are not Jews, we don't live in a theocracy, and our morality is based on wanting to do the things that please God rather than keep a list of laws with penalties attached.

No, I did. You can take it that whenever I quote a post on here, I've read the post I'm quoting.

A question for you. If you were a Jew living in that theocracy, would you have supported executing those found to be carrying out homosexual acts?

If yes, then how does this square with 'Thou shalt not kill'?

If no, why not? And what should the alternative have been?

Immanuel · 22-07-2014 11:37AM

The specific word 'homosexual' does not appear in the bible, nor does the specific word 'trinity' for that matter.

I don't know of any language that can be translated word for word literally into English and still be perfectly readable and grammatically correct in English, and vice versa. The Irish language being a more familiar example. E.g. as far as I know, Greek has four distinct/more accurate words for love, depending on the context, agápe, éros, philía, and storgē, whereas English only has one word, but relies on implying contexts. (Hence the word charity/love is intermixed a lot in English translations)

A few interesting excerpts from good old wiki (at least the references are checkable) regarding homosexuality and the word homosexual

Regarding the Word Homosexual :

"The word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid, with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, "same"(not related to the Latin homo, "man", as in Homo sapiens), thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, including lesbianism."

"The first known appearance of homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously, arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law.

In 1886, Richard von Krafft-Ebing used the terms homosexual and heterosexual in his book Psychopathia Sexualis. Krafft-Ebing's book was so popular among both laymen and doctors that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became the most widely accepted terms for sexual orientation.As such, the current use of the term has its roots in the broader 19th-century tradition of personality taxonomy."

"The first record of possible homosexual couple in history is commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, an ancient Egyptian male couple, who lived around 2400 BCE. The pair are portrayed in a nose-kissing position, the most intimate pose in Egyptian art, surrounded by what appear to be their heirs

Regarding historic homosexual relations :

"The first record of possible homosexual couple in history is commonly regarded as Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum, an ancient Egyptian male couple, who lived around 2400 BCE. The pair are portrayed in a nose-kissing position, the most intimate pose in Egyptian art, surrounded by what appear to be their heirs."

"Homosexual and transgender individuals were also common among other pre-conquest civilizations in Latin America, such as the Aztecs, Mayans, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá of Brazil"

"Ming Dynasty literature, such as Bian Er Chai, portray homosexual relationships between men as more enjoyable and more "harmonious" than heterosexual relationships. Writings from the Liu Song Dynasty by Wang Shunu claimed that homosexuality was as common as heterosexuality in the late 3rd century"

So folks, in other words, there is nothing new under the Sun.

KJV1611 · 22-07-2014 03:21PM

This is a very large thread and full of "mans" thoughts and arguments. We should not be arguing amongst each other nor making up our own interpretations of what "we think" the the right or wrong is. If we be true followers of GOD and JESUS we should obey his commandments and learn what he has to say on the subject, through his word.

My own personal views are irrelevant on this or in fact any other matter. We should take GOD at his own word and study the scriptures daily to show ourselves approved and grow in the word. Anyway here are some of the scriptures in the Bible on this matter for further study and meditation.

As Christians, GOD's word should be our final authority, not mans opinions, lies, conjecture or commentaries. "Let GOD be true but ever man a liar" Rom 3:4

Quotes From KJV Version.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Mat 19:4-6 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Rom 1:24-27 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

1Co 6:9 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,

Gal 6:7-8 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Eph 4:18-21 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (19) Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (20) But ye have not so learned Christ; (21) If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

1Ti 1:9-10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 22-07-2014 03:38PM

KJV1611 wrote: »

We should take GOD at his own word and study the scriptures daily to show ourselves approved and grow in the word.

Unfortunately God never wrote anything down.

shruikan2553 · 22-07-2014 04:08PM

KJV1611 wrote: »

This is a very large thread and full of "mans" thoughts and arguments. We should not be arguing amongst each other nor making up our own interpretations of what "we think" the the right or wrong is. If we be true followers of GOD and JESUS we should obey his commandments and learn what he has to say on the subject, through his word.

My own personal views are irrelevant on this or in fact any other matter. We should take GOD at his own word and study the scriptures daily to show ourselves approved and grow in the word. Anyway here are some of the scriptures in the Bible on this matter for further study and meditation.

As Christians, GOD's word should be our final authority, not mans opinions, lies, conjecture or commentaries. "Let GOD be true but ever man a liar" Rom 3:4

Quotes From KJV Version.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Mat 19:4-6 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Rom 1:24-27 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

1Co 6:9 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,

Gal 6:7-8 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Eph 4:18-21 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (19) Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (20) But ye have not so learned Christ; (21) If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

1Ti 1:9-10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

That just leads back to why do we ignore other parts of the bible?

Why did god even say those things? Maybe he has changed his mind. Its been awhile since he released a new book.

KJV1611 · 22-07-2014 04:14PM

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Unfortunately God never wrote anything down.

Yes you are correct GOD never wrote his own words. They were given to his prophets to write down and be given unto us.

2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Heb 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Whether one chooses to hear them, believe them or obey them is ones own personal choice which GOD has given unto us all...free will.

It is simple really, we all have been given a choice to believe in him or reject him, there are rewards for the former and punishment for the latter.

KJV1611 · 22-07-2014 04:23PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

That just leads back to why do we ignore other parts of the bible?

Why did god even say those things? Maybe he has changed his mind. Its been awhile since he released a new book.

GOD said those things because they are the truth. GOD has never changed nor will he ever change. There is no new book for the reason that we have everything we need to get saved and grow as believers within. There is nothing more to add it is perfect and when you become a child of GOD he will reveal the whole truth to you.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 2:14-16 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

shruikan2553 · 22-07-2014 04:28PM

KJV1611 wrote: »

GOD said those things because they are the truth. GOD has never changed nor will he ever change. There is no new book for the reason that we have everything we need to get saved and grow as believers within. There is nothing more to add it is perfect and when you become a child of GOD he will reveal the whole truth to you.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 2:14-16 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

So we should follow everything in there? Gay people, slavery, women? If it is the truth then it can't have changed over time so still stands.

KJV1611 · 22-07-2014 04:53PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So we should follow everything in there? Gay people, slavery, women? If it is the truth then it can't have changed over time so still stands.

Each question will lead you to an answer and more questions which follow more answers. The Bible is impossible to understand to the natural man(non saved). Only by being saved can you understand this spiritual book.

1Co 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

To be honest I tried reading the Bible years ago before I knew the LORD and it was gobeldy gook to me. When I accepted the LORD as my saviour and the Holy Spirit within me I could not believe how easy it became to understand.

2Co 5:17-18
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (18) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Now, having said that it was not that easy and required some due diligence and study but it is possible to understand the will of GOD.

So in answer to your question, Yes GOD has not changed any over time and we should follow the things which are relevant to the new testament which is belief on Jesus Christ for salvation. Some of the old ordinances have been done away with but not the character of GOD.

But without specific scripture and such a reference I cannot possibly reply to broad statements as above. However if you post some of the passages which seem to trouble you I may be able to help if you are willing.

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments