Rethinking Homosexuality

At what point down this road does one give evidence of being an unbeliever? Without meaning to be offensive, it is inconceivable that this conversation is taking place among those who claim to be a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. This sounds straight out of "The Search for the Historical Jesus."

To say that the Bible is more reliable in places than others brings us back to the question which no one has yet dared answer as many times as it has been put forth. Joshua completely ignored it, as did Brian, RL Honeycutt, and many others on here. Once you have decided that some parts are reliable and some parts are not, how do you go about deciding which is which? You have no objective basis; your own mind (or the minds of those you choose to follow) has become the standard and the result is that your idea is no better than the person's next to you.

You ask the question, "who did Jesus say he was and what did he teach." You respond with "The answer is often in opposition to what his followers thought he was saying." Yet you do not know anything about Christ except for what his followers have told you they "thought he was saying." Now 2000 years later, you pretend that you better understand him through the writings of his followers than his followers did who wrote what you are understanding him from. You decided that Matthew was wrong; yet you have no basis except your own mind to decide that. Matthew, who saw and heard what he wrote, may (for the sake of argument) of misunderstood. But it is quite certain that 2000 years later you cannot prove that. Indeed, it is more possible that you, with your understanding clouded by 2000 years of church history, are the one misunderstanding. You are on a open ended road where no objective conclusion can be reached. Maybe his followers did not accurately communicate the resurrection. How would you know? You have lifted your anchor and are now adrift on the sea of conjecture and hypothesis with no compass but a human, finite, depraved mind.

BTW, why is that no one is willing to tell us why Paul talks of natural/unnatural in his discussion of homosexuality as opposed to promiscuous/monogamous? The reason why homosexuality is being "rethunk" [sic] is because no one is really willing to deal with what the text says in isolation from what depraved society says. Why doesn't someone here pony up an answer for us?

 

Daniel -

What in the world are you talking about, homosexuality was only unnatural to them because they were heterosexual. Come On. That doesn't even make sense. SIN IS SIN NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT OR WHAT THE REASON FOR THE BEHAVIOR IS. What are you going to say next, God had no reason in making men and womens bodies different. Obviously just by our bodies and creation you can tell what is natural and unnatural. It is not dependent on sexual orientation. I also don't think it is only talking about idol worship. It is talking about people turing thier back to God and his righteousness. What about Romans 1:18 that talks about "wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness"? I don't think Paul is only talking about idol worship.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:

Last night I heard this lunatic minister on the radio say he was taken to heaven by God. He "personally" saw God. God is 5'11", 185 pounds and has brown hair. He is telling a radio audience that he "experienced" this. It makes you want to throw-up or put a sack over your head and hide somewhere. It's foolishness like that that unsaved people hear and they think that is the norm in Christianity. This lunatic said "God personally told ME to tell MY PEOPLE, what he looks like and he is coming soon." It is such drivel as this that comes from basing your knowledge of God on "feelings." If you don't base your theology on the Bible, how can you refute such nonsense? The guy "experienced" that and his "experience" is just as valid as your "experience." I mean he went to heaven and talked to God. He "believes" that and teaches that. Without the Bible to set the standards that's the kind of junk people get into. What an absolute disgrace to the Body of Christ!!!!!
James2

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who was this preacher? Was it Jessie Duplantis? Just curious.

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. Revelation 4:8b
Revelation

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
At what point down this road does one give evidence of being an unbeliever? Without meaning to be offensive, it is inconceivable that this conversation is taking place among those who claim to be a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. This sounds straight out of "The Search for the Historical Jesus."

To say that the Bible is more reliable in places than others brings us back to the question which no one has yet dared answer as many times as it has been put forth. Joshua completely ignored it...Once you have decided that some parts are reliable and some parts are not, how do you go about deciding which is which? You have no objective basis; your own mind (or the minds of those you choose to follow) has become the standard and the result is that your idea is no better than the person's next to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, there are lots of strong, faithful believers involved in the Quest for the Historical Jesus. That should be, however, another thread .

As to the reliability of the Bible, I've never said that anything in the Bible is unreliable. I have said that different parts of it serve different purposes, and those purposes are generally self-evident within the text. I expounded upon that pretty heavily in the liberal hermeneutic thread; so I take exception to you saying that I "ignored" the question. Nevertheless, if I still haven't answered you fully I'm willing to give it a shot.

Joshua

 

Daniel,
It appears you are not taking Rom 1:18 into account as being integral to the understanding of this passage:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Romans 1:18 (ESV)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul goes on to list many things that characterize unrighteousness (Cf. vv . 29-31).

It also appears that you are practicing eisegesis of the worst sort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Romans 1:26-27 (ESV)
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [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 and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is the "for this reason.." Paul refers to? See: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Romans 1:21 (ESV)
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it appears that homosexuality is listed among many sins that entrap believers who willingly disobey God and focus more on the carnal than the spiritual (Rom 1:23).

I realize that I'm quoting Scripture and not Pannenburg, so you'll just have to overlook me

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]
Fixed the quotes with a "/" on the end tag.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 1 deals with idolatry, plain and simple.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly does. That idolatry is the choice of self and self-intellect (professing themselves to be wise) over God, the Creator. And in the context, that homosexuality is the curse that stems from the idolatry. “For this reason” refers to the relationship between what goes before (idolatry) and what comes after (unnatural acts of men with men and women with women); “God gave them over” refers to the mechanism by which these unnatural acts abound; “unnatural acts” were what they were given over to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In other words, some sexual behavior is wrong and some is right - the determining factor is the reason behind the behavior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well … okay for the sake of argument. What is the reason behind the homosexual behavior? God giving them over because of idolatry. The determining factor behind the behavior is the depravity of man that stems from his idolatry of the creature rather than the Creator. However, the determining factor is not always the reason behind being right or wrong (cf. Uzzah (2 Sam 8); Saul (1 Sam 15). There is clear biblical evidence that your statement is not true.

[quoteq] Because the whole first chapter and the verses around these verses are speaking of idolotry, we must concede that the homosexual behavior was spurred by the worship of the idols Paul just referred to. Not to take this into account is not to be honest with this portion of Scripture.[/quote]

Here is where your explanation departs from the text. The homosexual behavior is clearly the result of God giving them over. It may involve idol worship but there is no definite indication that this involved outright idol worship. It seems to be the elevation of man and his desires over God. Dio and dia touto (Therefore (v. 24) and for this reason (v. 24) clearly introduce result clauses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What this text plainly means is that heterosexually oriented people were participating in unnatural acts for them (because they were heterosexual) to worship an idol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not in the text. Paul talks of the natural use of the woman and says that the men have left it for other men. There is not distinction in the text between what is normal to a heterosexual and what is normal to a homosexual. Paul entertains no such notion that there are some homosexual acts that are natural, for he defines unnatural. We should stick with his definition rather than making up our own.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The history of homosexual prostitutes in the worship of idols is clearly attested.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As is the use of heterosexual prostitutes. So what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So, what we have is people who are naturally heterosexual doing things that are unnatural to them, not homosexually oriented people in monogamous relationships. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have not reached this conclusion based on the text. You have started with your conclusion and reached it in spite of the text. You have changed “natural/unnatural” to promiscuous and monogamous.

Instead, consider the following flow of argumentation from Rom 1.

Unsaved man suppresses the truth about God, choosing instead to worship the creation rather than the creature. In so doing, he claims he is wise, but in reality he has shown himself to be a fool (vv. 18-24).

Therefore (dio – drawing a conclusion to the previous paragraph), God gave them over to dishonor their bodies among themselves (v. 24).

V. 25 reminds of the reason previously stated in vv. 18-24, a sort of recapitulation. Vv. 26ff recapitulate v. 24, describing what God gave them over to. They left natural use of the opposite sex (not the natural use of the monogamous relationship) and engaged in homosexual acts with each other (not promiscuous acts with multiple partners). The text defines unnatural acts as man with man and woman with woman. Promiscuity, the one thing you need for your position, is the one thing that is found nowhere in the text. You have imported that. Paul does not entertain the notion that there

 

This is nothing short of idolatry. It is a salvation issue. What is going on is exactly what I thought would happen. It starts as a smokescreen. As each argument is demonstrated to be false, it has less and less of a cover-up. Eventually, the real issue comes through. Those who are advocating homo acceptance do not embrace inerrancy and infallibility. If they did, they wouldn't buy into the cultural trap. Further, this is recreating Jesus into someone He isn't. This is IDOLATRY. You people have created another Jesus. According to John, a different Jesus is a different God. So either we are saved or you homo sympathizers are. We both aren't. A believer doesn't recreate Jesus. Maybe payne has a point about idolatry and homo.

 

Isn't it amazing that a thread on such an abomination to God can be debated for 5 pages.

And some would deny total depravity

1 John 3:4-10 (ESV)
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. [5] You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. [6] No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. [7] Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. [8] Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [9] No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. [10] By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

 

Joshua wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> First of all, there are lots of strong, faithful believers involved in the Quest for the Historical Jesus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, Luke Johnson left
And given some of recountings of the scholars who have bolted the Jesus Seminar, I'd be very cautious.

 

I understand the diffence betwen behavior and orientation just fine but its validity to the subject you are discussing doesn't make much sense. You are trying to justify that monogamous homosexual relationships are acceptable to God because their orientation is homosexual whereas if they were heterosexuals in a homosexual relationship it would be wrong because their orientation is heterosexuality. Am I correct in this assumption?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Pastor Larry: At what point down this road does one give evidence of being an unbeliever? Without meaning to be offensive, it is inconceivable that this conversation is taking place among those who claim to be a Christian in the biblical sense of the word. This sounds straight out of "The Search for the Historical Jesus." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Rev." Joshua Villines: First of all, there are lots of strong, faithful believers involved in the Quest for the Historical Jesus. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Point made, Pastor Larry.

 

The Bible is of no private interpretation. It just takes spiritual discernment. Also if the Bible is silent on homosexuality why in the world would God leave an account in the Old Testament of a whole city being destroyed for such behavior?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Romans 1 deals with idolatry, plain and simple. That is the context which surrounds the verses on homosexual "behavior." I will make the distinction between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation, because we would make the same distinction if we were talking about the wrongness of heterosexuality. In other words, some sexual behavior is wrong and some is right - the determining factor is the reason behind the behavior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you know some sexual behaviour is wrong and some is right???
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, after Paul explains that the people he is referring to are idolators, he goes on to say that they are participating in homosexual behaviors. Because the whole first chapter and the verses around these verses are speaking of idolatry, we must concede that the homosexual behavior was spurred by the worship of the idols Paul just referred to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why must we?? Simply because it fits your point?? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Not to take this into account is not to be honest with this portion of Scripture.
The text says that the men and woman gave up that which was natural for unnatural sexual activity. What this text plainly means is that heterosexually oriented people were participating in unnatural acts for them (because they were heterosexual) to worship an idol. The history of homosexual prostitutes in the worship of idols is clearly attested. So, what we have is people who are naturally heterosexual doing things that are unnatural to them, not homosexually oriented people in monogamous relationships. Paul knows nothing of this in Romans. That is a clear understanding of Romans 1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So it is engaging in homosexuality when one is naturally heterosexual that makes it wrong! Hmmm. Then if one is naturally homosexual, why would promiscuous homosexuality be wrong?? If they would have been naturally homosexual, would Paul have not bothered to even bring this problem up?? And if the people involved in the idolatry had been homosexuals naturally, I assume Paul would have only written against the idolatry and not mentioned the homosexuality??

daniel, I think I'm normally a pretty level headed guy, but to say the least I'm incredulous! I can't believe how far you are willing to go to make this point. Also I had a question for you on page three concerning your principle of interpretation you may have overlooked.

 

Daniel, I think I have an idea of what you mean about the difference between orientation and behaviour. If a man liked small children in a sexual way, that would be orientation. If a man fulfilled this desire, that would be behaviour. Am I on the right track?

 

I posted a response to this question, because the author said Baptist have been avoiding the issue of homsexuality in church. Now when the Baptist have answered the author of the thread is leaving because it is not what he intended. I do not wish for division either, but I will not let someone accuse Baptist of avoiding the issue of homosexuality. We have addressed the issue now, so please don't refer to us as avoiding the issue. We offered a debate and it seems you are not interested in debating. I was not trying to cause division by answering your question. I was only trying to do just that answer the question.