Examples of Homosexuals

[John Wells]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Speaking of which, has anyone even read the book which develops this premise. The case is by no means rock-solid, but it does raise some interesting points.

Since there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to even hint at (other than that they loved each other. Don't you love fellow believers?) a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan, I wouldn't waste my time. I am neither homosexual nor interested in reading homosexual fiction!

 

[dianetavegia]

David and Jonathan were friends from their youth and the best of friends. NO WHERE does the Bible, God's word, suggest they were homosexuals! And, if God DID want to show support for homosexual relations, HE sure could have spoken that clearly in HIS word. Show me, Joshua or others, Show us ONE PLACE in God's word that endorses homosexuality!

This is beyond my comprehension that you men can think this way.

Diane

 

[LadyEagle]

Actually SheEagle, this is neither sacrilege nor blasphemy. Even if one believes that homosexuality is wrong, David is not God. One can question is sexual behaviors in light of the cultural context in which his biographies were written, and not blaspheme.

Really? Well, let's take your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion....you are calling David a sodomite (homosexual). So, since the earthly lineage of Jesus Christ comes from David through Solomon, you are indirectly saying Jesus is the son of a sodomite. If that isn't blasphemy, then I don't know what is.

All of this defense of homosexuality only makes me want to, as God says in Revelation - spew!

 

[dianetavegia]

you are indirectly saying Jesus is the son of a sodomite. If that isn't blasphemy, then I don't know what is.

That's one sermon I don't want to hear........

This is blasphemy.
Diane

 

[LadyEagle]

Exactly, Diane.

Going back to the Latin, perhaps it is best known as "hereticus amongus."

It is beyond the pale.

 

[fromtheright]

Rev. Joshua, I'm just curious--do you believe there is anything sacred?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by SheEagle9/11:
So, since the earthly lineage of Jesus Christ comes from David through Solomon, you are indirectly saying Jesus is the son of a sodomite. If that isn't blasphemy, then I don't know what is.

Yes, then you don't know what blasphemy is.

I don't believe David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship in any sense. However, it is not "blasphemy" to believe there are sinners in Christ's earthly lineage - it is fact. Not a single person in Christ's eartly lineage was sinless. Some were even polygamists, like even David.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Just letting you know that I am watching this thread. It is maxing my "disgusting" meter and I am about to pull the plug.

I am tired of the series of pro-homosexual threads, orchestrated to give tacit approval to the grossest of sins.

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 recompense of their error which was meet.

That ain't "idolatry". It is homosexuality.

God says it is "Unseemly"

Recompensed for their "error"

Punishment that is "fitting"

 

[LadyEagle]

Thank you, Dr. Bob. I, too, am tired of the spate of pro-homosexuality posts in this forum.

There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere between "sound" and "false" doctrine.

Some things are debatable.

Others are not.

The word heresy is used to describe a division or schism within the body of Christ that harms it and that departs from sound doctrine (1Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20).

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001720


Is this the point we are getting to?

 

[Rev. Joshua]

SheEagle, you're OK with Rahab and Tamar in Jesus' genealogy but not the possibility of someone who had a homosexual relationship?

Bob - there's legitimate scholarly discussion on the topic. I'm not sold on Horner's premise, but it's offered with sufficient research to open the topic for discussion (you'll notice that his book is published by Westminster/John Knox - it therefore passed a fairly solid peer-review process).

Joshua

 

[LadyEagle]

Joshua, until you get just a glimpse of the holiness of Almighty God, you will have the scales of emotionalism and secular humanism blinding your eyes from the Truth of God's Word.

 

[Dr. Bob]

II Pet 2:2 "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."

Seems like this is not a new trend. Pernicious (evil) is good, and good is evil.

"Truth forever on the scaffold
Wrong forever on the throne;
Yet the scaffold sways the future
And behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadows
Keeping watch above His own."

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
II Pet 2:2 "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."

Seems like this is not a new trend. Pernicious (evil) is good, and good is evil.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Truth forever on the scaffold
Wrong forever on the throne;
Yet the scaffold sways the future
And behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadows
Keeping watch above His own."

</font>[/QUOTE]Dr.Bob,

I don't get it, you can call them pernicious but I can't call them anti-Christ. I just don't get it.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[donnA]

Disgusting, yes. But when peolple routinely hate the word of God enough that they have to change it to support their evil views on mankind and belief in satans lies, you can't expect anythng more then that. A christian who loves God will take His word and live what it says, not try and change what it says to suit himslef. God and His word are not man made, and oneday some will find that out inperson.

 

[aefting]

Just letting you know that I am watching this thread. It is maxing my "disgusting" meter and I am about to pull the plug.

As the originator of this thread, I concur. I got what I wanted -- some solid references that I couldn't think of right off the bat. You will all notice, BTW, that God dealt harshly with men of Sodom, the Benjaminites, the homosexual male prostitutes -- exactly opposite of what we see with David and Jonathan.

Andy

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by SheEagle9/11:
So, since the earthly lineage of Jesus Christ comes from David through Solomon, you are indirectly saying Jesus is the son of a sodomite. If that isn't blasphemy, then I don't know what is.

That is one of the points the Bible makes. That is (in my opinion, and I invite suggestions how else to take it) why David is described as the great-grandson of Ruth. Do you know where Ruth was from? Do you know who her ancestors were? This is part of the point of the gospel of Christ. Have you read the first chapter of Matthew lately? By coming from David through Solomon and from Boaz through Obed Jesus is explicitly stated to be of both Sodomite [in the proper sense] and adulterous antecedents. This is an intrinsic part of the great good news that your venomous hatred of gays blinds you to in the Scriptures. He is also explicitly descended from two cases of incest (including a case of incest-by-subterfuge involving impersonating a prostitute) and from a foreign traitor. And a young woman who was impregnated by someone other than her fiancé. David's descent from Ruth disqualified him under the law of Moses from being an Israelite, much less King of Israel. This is all explicit in Scripture.

The Jonathan-David thing is less clear, but as Joshua says, the book in question raises some interesting points that are not addressed by those who dismiss it out of hand on prejudice.

Haruo

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Haruo:
. . the book in question raises some interesting points that are not addressed by those who dismiss it out of hand on prejudice.

And who is doing that, Haruo? Please don't deal with the issue (as most of your post was) and then attack anyone who disagrees by saying they "dismiss it on prejudice".

Ain't acceptable behavior here, friend.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Male prostitutes abound today.

The OT use of Sodomite desn't refer to male prostitutes in general, since a Sodomite is specific to ritual sex used in idolatry. However, I think we're all in agreement that the Bible limiting sex to the marriage bed would forbid prostitution.

Romans 1 doesn't use the term sodomite or homo, but describes and condemns male and female homosexual conduct.

I'm assuming you're referring to v27, which, as you said, referrs to the act itself.

So those who want to play semantic games and pretend that the male temple prostitutes were NOT homosexual (sure), there is no way around Romans 1. Why oh why would you WANT to "defend" what God "deplores"?

I don't think there's any arguement that the act of same gender sexual activity is prohibited, both in the OT and NT. I don't think that clarifying the OT definition and use of the word "sodomy" constitutes a "defense" of homosexual activity.

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by John Wells:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
That's right, because David never did anything wrong sexually... Oh wait a minute...

Scott, are you actually insinuating that because David committed adultery with Bathsheba that he is likely a homosexual? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think so, John. I think he is alluding to the fact that adultery across sexual lines is as abominable in God's eyes as that between same-sex adulterers. Bob said it was careless to say that David engaged in a relationship God called abomination; Scott pointed out (without explicitly saying so) that that was not careless at all, David is clearly on record as having done so.

Leland

 

[Haruo]

Dr. Bob, this is the post I had in mind. I was not attacking Mr. Wells, though admittedly I disagree with him heartily, but I was pointing out that if there is anything in the Biblical text to support the argument (and the book does argue from the text for much of its support), Mr. Wells and those like him who refuse to read the book (because of their prejudice, i.e. forejudgment, that it is baseless) will never know if there might in fact be things in the Bible (as opposed to the "absolutely nothing in the Bible" that Mr. Wells posits). This is not an attack, it is an observation. If one "won't waste your time" reading something, one'll never know what was in it. If one's reason for refusing to read it is that Joshua or I recommended it (and mind you, neither Joshua nor I say we buy the notion, only that it is well-argued and raises interesting issues) then that is indeed prejudice. Now, it may be justified prejudice, but it is prejudice nonetheless. That is not an attack, that is the meaning of the word.

Originally posted by John Wells:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Speaking of which, has anyone even read the book which develops this premise. The case is by no means rock-solid, but it does raise some interesting points.

Since there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to even hint at (other than that they loved each other. Don't you love fellow believers?) a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan, I wouldn't waste my time. I am neither homosexual nor interested in reading homosexual fiction! </font>[/QUOTE]Haruo