Homosexuals Honour Spong...

[_Mister Scratch]

Why not?

I believe Christ said that loving thy neighbor (along with honoring God) were the two most important commandments. Notice he didn't say love thy straight neighbor, but love thy neighbor...irregardless.

And it's not like Christ set the best example for how to live purely hetero lifestyle (considering he wasn't married and he hung around with a bunch of other guys).

"What's love got to do, got to do with it?" Good song, and apropos. The behavior is forbidden by the Lord, as is other sexual behavior outside his laws regarding sexual expression between his children. Please don't take the tired, old, worn out treadmill and say that because we oppose homosexual conduct we hate homosexuals.

Your second comment has some serious problems in that we don't know anything regarding Jesus' marital status in mortality, and the fact that all the Apostles were male implies precisely what to your mind?

See? How hard was that? You and I have been over this same terrain before, Loran. This time around, however, you are doing the right thing, and admitting that you oppose homosexual behavior, in essence, because Jesus said so. There is no rational, logical reason to oppose gays, or gay sex, or gay marriage. The only reasons are ideological.

[_Jersey Girl]

Gaz,

You also supplied the following:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
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,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


What part(s) of that do you see as suggesting homosexuals?

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Please supply Biblical evidence that homosexual behavior is forbidden by the Lord.

Jersey Girl

Don't take this to harshly but I'm not going to do that because that insults my intelligence. You know very well where all of that is, in both the New Testament and the Old Testament

Yes, I know where they are. Do you know what they refer to?

Jersey Girl

[_rcrocket]

Please supply Biblical evidence that homosexual behavior is forbidden by the Lord.

Jersey Girl

Don't take this to harshly but I'm not going to do that because that insults my intelligence. You know very well where all of that is, in both the New Testament and the Old Testament

Yes, I know where they are. Do you know what they refer to?

Jersey Girl

I think it is disengenuous to make the argument you are making. I think the text is self-apparent.

The vast majority (but not all, by any means; agenda-driven scholars read this text as referring only to male prostitution) of serious Biblical scholars agree that this quote condemns homosexual behavior, as Romans 1:26 pertains to lesbians. The most significant commentary I can quote is Expositors (NIV), vol. 10, p. 223. Expositors says this text applies to both homosexuality and male prostitution.

Let me also quote from the NIV Study Bible notes for these verses; this is a highly respected work which goes beyond evangelicalism: "Paul here identifies three kinds of sexually immoral persons: adulterers, male prostitutes and males who practice homosexuality. In Ro 1:26 he adds the category of females who practice homosexuality. People who engage in such practices, as well as other offenders listed in vv 9-10, are explicitly excluded from God's kingdom (but see next note)." The "next note" states that God can save and sanctify such persons under verse 11. But, under verse 18, the Christian is required to abandon these practices.

I really am not aware of a single major commentary which reads these versus differently, but I obviously don't possess them all. Those Victorian and pre-Victorian commentaries which support Expositors and the NIV Study Guide are: Matthew Henry (refers to it as sodomy) and Dummelow (lumps them all together as fornication).

Metzger demonstrates that the above interpretation of Paul here was universally followed by post-Biblical references to the verses. Metzger, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 288.

You were saying?

[_Mr. Coffee]

Does it seem as though I've done this before?

Jersey Girl

The Force is strong with this one...

[_Coggins7]

See? How hard was that? You and I have been over this same terrain before, Loran. This time around, however, you are doing the right thing, and admitting that you oppose homosexual behavior, in essence, because Jesus said so. There is no rational, logical reason to oppose gays, or gay sex, or gay marriage. The only reasons are ideological.

I'm admitting no such thing. I do not oppose homosexual perversion because Jesus said so. I oppose it for theological, philosophical, and psychological reasons, and one of those reasons is because the Son of God has made clear that it is wrong. If some person named Jesus had just said so, that would be of little relevance to me. It is who Jesus actually was and is, that is the salient point here. When the creator and sustainer of the Universe says that such and such is the case, one would be well advised to take notice.

In any case, the homosexual lifestyle and its fruits are its own refutation.

[_Roger Morrison]

As you see Eternal life, how does the relationship between homosexuals fit into that? Do you honestly see a homosexual lifestyle fitting in with a belief in Christ?

Can a man be saved when he/she is purposefully living a sinful life? Not typical day to day shortcomings, but dwelling with and living in a sinful state?

"As "I" see Eternal life," seems irrelevant to how, " (I) honestly see a homosexual lifestyle fitting in with a belief in Christ." I think you might be having some difficulty here... you mention "...loving the sinner, hating the sin..." as it should be.

When a person "really" lives by that code they are oblivious to 'the' sin, and condemnation is smothered with compassion/love, that there is full acceptance, and association with 'the' sinner. As Christ exemplified, (and was criticized for) and as most of us (including RM) have yet to get-to, IMSCO. That You attempt this is honourable...

However, as i do not see homosexual-behaviour as "sinful" i cannot really address your question. BUT, i will say, being a "sinner"--some say we are all reprobate-sinners--has absolutely nothing to do with "...belief in Christ..." Think of it this way: IF it did no "sinner" would turn-to-Christ, and to being "saved".

"Dwelling with and living in a sinful state..." is a BIG spectrum, Bro. Inclusive of many fine upstanding citizens who never visit prisoners, take in strangers, attend to the needs of the infirm and out-cast; hoard goods, deny services to those suffering and impoverished... Do 'they' "believe in Christ?" Can they be "saved?"

As i study Jesus' teachings--not Leviticus stuff--i sense a different spirit and purpose than that which tends to segment the family of "God". To isolate those deceed different, is to not understand the Two New Commandments... Thus the dysfunction in which we function... Warm regards, Roger

[_Gazelam]

Nice Post!

And we get ideas for books to add to the library to boot : )

[_Roger Morrison]

Loran/Coggins7, i hope you don't mind me picking up on this. Nor do i want to "insult your intelligence," you said:

... I do not oppose homosexual perversion because Jesus said so. I oppose it for theological, philosophical, and psychological reasons, and one of those reasons is because the Son of God has made clear that it is wrong. If some person named Jesus had just said so, that would be of little relevance to me. It is who Jesus actually was and is, that is the salient point here. When the creator and sustainer of the Universe says that such and such is the case, one would be well advised to take notice.

In any case, the homosexual lifestyle and its fruits are its own refutation.

I have attempted, using the LDS edition of KJ, to find what "Jesus, the son of "God" has made "salient" re homosexuality. Admittedly you might think my attempt paltry. However, in the concordance of the LDS-KJ-bible, under "Homosexuality" there is no reference to Jesus saying anything. Turning to "Chastity" there is only one reference; an obscure statement in the beattitudes, (Matt 5:8) "Blessed are the pure in heart." Further, under "Sexual Immorality", in (Matt5:28& 3 Nep 12:28) Jesus chides the self-righteous Pharasses about, 'adultry in the heart upon looking-in-lust...'

I agree it is what we understand, and believe about "the creator & sustainer of the Universe" that should determine our actions re our attitudes and behaviours as we share life in our time and space with all "God's" creations...

I respectfully suggest THE question IS "immorality", NOT "sexuality!"

I asset that, because in my study of Jesus, "immorality" is contexed in much broader terms than sex. The Sermon-on-the-Mount seems to deal exclusively with "human-relations"; not "sexual-relations"...

This is not to suggest there is no "sexual-immorality". There is: Adultery, rape, unconsentual sex, sex with minors, fornications, promiscuity, beastiality... These unacceptables are just as so in both the homo & hetero communities... "...refutations..."

Common also in both communities: fidelity, loyalty, affection, companionship, trust, devotion and committment base relationships that fulfill the needs of both partners. Enjoying such is a blessing that is visited upon the children and children's children... "Fruits"

To deprive that fundamental opportunity/blessing to anyone is to step outside of Jesus' teachings. As i understand them... Warm regards, Roger

[_rcrocket]

I respectfully suggest THE question IS "immorality", NOT "sexuality!"

As I point out, the major Biblical commentaries do not agree. Acting out sexually is immorality.

rcrocket