[Edited] against Jesus

Oh, so you are saying that Paul gave a special group of people instructions that only apply to them and not to us in our day today.

When I use this defense using homosexauls earlier with Romans 1, I was hit with "God doesn't change", while he may have been talking about a certain group of people, it even applies today; and what God said at one time, he meant for all time.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways unless you are willing to allow my argument back in the post that Romans 1 list of wrong behavior was just for the Idol worshippers that God gave over to their own lust and would not apply to Christian homosexuals.</font>[/QUOTE]I am saying that everything in the Bible has to be looked at in its proper context. Why do you persist in taking this one verse out of context when verse two shows so plainly that it is God's will for most to marry. Paul does not go contrary to what he has taught in the rest of Scripture. Neither does he go contrary to what Jesus taught:

Mt 19:4 And he 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.

Context is everything. What is the will of God? "And Judas went out and hanged himself...go and do thou likewise...whatsoever thou doest, do quickly." You can string verses together and try to justify your position, but it won't work. Context is important. The historical context underlying the verses that I posted from chapter 7 of 1Corinthians was the persecution that was taking place at that time. You can deny if you want, but this is what verse 26 refers to.

1Co 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

There is one interpretation. But there are many applications. We look for principles that the Bible teaches. It is a timeless Book that is not confined to one era. So, taken in their context, could it be that Paul would be teaching in today's context that:
1. Men about to go off to war should avoid getting married until they come back.
2. Many women (as well as men) are called to a lifetime of missionary service as single women or men. They are not encumbered with the cares of this world in this way.
3. The time is short. Jesus is coming soon. If your a young person interested in fulfilling the Great Commission, perhaps you can do it better single than married. "Present your body a living sacrifice holy, acceptable unto God, which is your only reasonable service" (Rom.12:1).

Look first for the interpretation; then for the application. In Romans, both interpretation and application teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
DHK

 

But, as I pointed out above, it just doesn't matter if you are God's judge.

 

I am saying that everything in the Bible has to be looked at in its proper context.
Look first for the interpretation; then for the application. In Romans, both interpretation and application teaches that homosexuality is wrong.
DHK[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]After you preach to look at context, you then turn around and ignore context of Romans 1. The context was that Paul was speaking to a small group (and short lived) of people who were turning to Idol worship and converting Christians to the same type of worship. Some type of homosexual worship of these god's were part of the group activity.

You and others twist to mean otherwise. Admit that this case of homosexual behavior is what is being address here and then we can move on to other verses. But until we can get some agreement on each verse, there is no point in moving on to others since you all keep bringing up other verses when I corner you on one other verse.

So what is it? Anyone wanting to debate this subject with me will need to answer, in what context is this verse speaking of homosexual behavior. A group of idol worshippers or to all mankind?

[ September 28, 2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

No, it seems only you can't argue the meaning of scripture. Others have been doing a pretty good job of it.

We all sit in judgement of God's word on what it means. Do you even understand what you are saying? You judged it to mean exactly word for word from God, Others judge it to be inspired words. But we all judged it.

Is there anything else you wish us to do while you are giving orders and advice to everyone here?

 

Post it said,

What is "Homosexual worship", and where is it found in scripture?

Are you assuming that all who are born "eunuch from the womb" are homosexual? That is, engage in homo-sex by natural inclination?

Do you also assume that men who, thru natural circumstances, are no longer sexually active become homosexual? What about those who through accident or as a means of punishment for some crime, are made eunuchs?

You seem to be saying that those men who have no desire toward women are in fact homosexual! What proof do you offer?

I offer that only those whose sexual lust and activity is toward one of their own gender, meets the definition of homosexual! The bible speaks quite loudly against such misguided lust and activity, which can only be engaged in by choice, and not by "being born that way". That truth makes homosexual behavior equal to thievery, murder, fraud, lying, immorality, etc. unless you want to make the claim that those too who do those things were born that way!

The truth is, Homosexuality is the act of deliberately, that is, by choice, defrauding one's self and one's victims of the blessings of life that God intended for them through God's own plan. Homosexual behavior deviates from God's prescribed plan for man (the species).

God gave no instruction whatever for males to have sexual relations with other males, or females with females. Those who do so are assuming that because if feels good, it's OK! Woe to them come judgment day, for they too will be rewarded according to their "works".

 

Post it has known people who had tragic experiences that stemmed from their choice of homosexuality. In my opinion he feels that these people could not help their sinful feelings so when they acted on them they were not to be held accountable for their sin. This is his reason for defending homosexuality and even trying to convince everyone (but I believe mostly himself) that God has ordained this abomination to occur, he has even eluded to the possibility that Paul may have had these feelings. I am sorry that his friends or relatives have suffered I too had a cousin who died from aids brought about by his homosexulity but this does not give him the right to reinterpret scripture to say that this is not sin. Homosexuality is sin, these desires are lust
and to act on them and even to dwell on these thoughts is sin. The same is true for a heterosexual if I desire girls it is wrong, it is the devils attempt to cause me to sin. I must trust God to help me deal with these desires but if I lust or take action to satisfy my desires it is sin. Sin is sin and Post it I am sorry to inform you that homosexuals do not get a a free pass they were not born that way.
Murph

 

So you are saying that eunuchs can be born that way but homosexuals can't. It good that nature heeds with your opinion before processing life.

 

Sodomites were temple prostitutes. Even today, some of India’s religions have what are known as temple prostitutes. They are there to have sex with the members that somehow connect as worship with the gods. They get paid for their services, like buying a bird for a sacrifice to the gods.

I never said "all". But other group is so large that Jesus would refer to them as a viable group of people. I'm also not saying that they openly practiced homosexual acts either. They may have been in a community much like ours in the early part of America where society didn't allow it. So they did without sex.

Don't be silly, of course not. There would be exceptions. But as a large group of humans that don't engage in sex... what group would that be exactly? Priests?

Pretty much yes. Once you eliminate women what other human is left?

There are times, as with homosexuals, that these acts are not sin. Is telling a lie to a criminal to protect your wife's life, a sin? Is murder of the enemy soldier in the middle of war, a sin?

Now just as with this list, other things not ordinarily considered a sin, can be a sin. Praying can be a sin. Helping a friend can be a sin. Sex with your wife can be a sin.

Intention and harm will determine what sin is and when it occurs. Not a short list of words that have 10 different meanings found in a few passages in the NT. The Holy Spirit guides us to know what sin is and when it occurs. Our directive to love others guides us to know what sin is and when it occurs. Man's law takes care of the rest.

btw, welcome to the board.

[ September 28, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Post-it,

Romans chapter 1 is addressed to all mankind. Just look at the statments made in chapter one prior to the verses with which you are attempting to dispose:

"For obedience to the fatih among all nations."

"Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."

"I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians."

"To the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

Universal condemation!

Mark Osgatharp</font>[/QUOTE]Mark, you need to apply a little reasoning to you analysis of Romans 1.
Paul begins by addressing all the Christians in Rome.

7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

He now advances a warning to the Christians About a small group who once knew the Christian God, but have since stopped his worship and started worshipping images of various types. Man, animal, birds.
The have also stopped opposite sex relationships and started homosexual acts outside of marriage. They have become God haters, and murderers etc. Now this is not what the common man and woman was like in Rome at this time. Nor were most of Rome’s people Christian at one point and changed back to Idol worship. So this IS A SMALL GROUP that Paul is talking about. His warnings were because this group was trying to debate the good Christians and turn them. He had no warning against the common Roman citizen. If you don’t see this, then your ability to reason is in question.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

Well, I hadn't thought about it. If I think of anything, I'll let you know.

Sorry if I came across "bossy". I was just trying to point out that there will never be a consensus between those who operate in completely different frames of reference. I guess the debate is OK but it will never be resolved without a change of heart.

When I spoke about sitting in judgement of God's Word I meant that some seem to think that they can fool with it as though it's a cake recipe and they want to make a slightly modified cake. On the other hand there are those who realize that it's not to be tampered with and means exactly what it says. We bake the cake exactly as written and then eat it whether we like it or not. Of course none of us has a full understanding, but some things are rather simple for those with ears to hear.

 

Mark, post-it is apparently one of those who does not read anyone else's posts.
I met many of them on the Mormon boards.
They already have their ism's and don't really want to debate or discuss anything objectively.
I clearly read in your prior post that some were born eunichs.
Postit's accusation of deliberate misrepresentation of scripture is clearly false.
A man who would misread your post in his haste to further his arguments could hardly be trusted to glean the truth from the scriptures.
He will only find what he wants to find.

I can tell you from experience, don't waste your time.

MR

 

So it is your belief that in Ro 1:18-31, that Paul is speaking to the whole of mankind and not just to a specific group. If that is the case, then you are not a literalist, is that correct? You believe that we can "read" into scripture other concepts and meanings, is that right?

 

I believe Paul might have been a widower? What do you all think? I believe his calling was to reach the world with Christ and had no desire for a wife.

 

So you too say that we can't accept word for word what Paul is saying in Romans 1 18-31. That we must "read" into scripture other meanings and understandings. That we can't accept what the Bible clearly is stating but rather we need to generalize this one portion to mean a greater sphere of people that what the Bible clearly states.

To believe such, you must believe that scripture does have minor problems and errors, since you are adding to what Paul has written.

 

Sodomites were the citizens of the city of Sodom who engaged in unnatural sexual activity, men lusting after men and women after women. Men gathering to pounce upon travelers for the purpose of having sex with them. That is what God found so abominable about them that he utterly destroyed the towns in which they resided and did their dastardly deeds. Evidence of temple prostitutes exists in places around the world from very early times, long before Jesus, but only those from the city of Sodom were called sodomites because of their male on male, female on female deeds. It is their same sex activity that spawned the term "sodomy" for certain specific sexual behavior!

The scriptures don't refer to homosexuals as viable, and in fact if they were all kept only to themselves, they would die out in little more than one generation, or they would partake in heterosexual acts to "perpetuate" the "species".

With rare exceptions, humans do not come in groups, they are born as individuals who grow up in a family unit. The do not learn to become part of a group until they are able to act totally independent of their parents, that is, to think and choose for themselves what they will do and be. I have personal knowledge of 18 male individuals over the age of 40 that have not had sex with either a female or a male. . .by their own choice and discipline!

This is the crux of the matter. Paul taught that he wishes more could be like him. The topic was sex and its demands. So Paul was telling the reader that he desired that they could be celibate so that they too could be free to do the work that he himself was doing, and free to go from place to place preaching Jesus.