Still haven't gotten the works together to fill in the gap of time between posts, I'm still trying though. I just wanted to get this story out there while it was sifting through my mind
( Read more... )
1. There is nothing wrong with man showing physical affection for another man or woman showing affection for another woman. Repeatedly and throughout the Bible we see evidences of men kissing one another in greeting, celebration, and other instances of joy. Only recently in history has this aversion to homosexual physical closeness come up.
2. Sex, however, is a different story. I think that there is a very big line between the affection David had for Jonathan and the homoeroticism of Sodom and Gomorrah. While the first two were close and weren't afraid of one another (both very secure in their heterosexuality, I might add: David struggled with the modern equivalent of internet pornography), the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were completely obliterated for their perversion. It's okay for guys to be close with guys. It's okay for girls to be close with girls. The line, though, is very clearly etched into our moral backbones that we should not cross.
3. Marriage is to be reserved for one man and one woman, for that is how God ordained it when he established Adam and Eve as the first married couple. In Genesis 2:19-25, we see that Adam was not satisfied in any of the animals that God brought to him as helper, so God literally put Adam to sleep and made a being that would fit him like a glove (not supporting male supremacy by any means, but moving on). That being was Eve, the world's first female Homo Sapiens. Female was made to fulfill the needs of the male, and only women can truly satisfy men in every aspect of a marriage-type relationship (and vice-versa). There are also entire theologies around the Imago Dei that say that it is only completed and perfected in the relation and interaction between man and woman.
4. While I can't give specific references, I can tell you that it is explicitly stated in one of the "sin lists" in the New Testament. Paul has one or two of these in and among his letters, I believe, and one of them actually refers directly to homosexual acts as sin. There's one in Galatians 5 which refers to "sexual immorality," but as yet I can't tell if that has anything to do with homosexuality or not. It is there somewhere, you just have to find it.
5. As I said before, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their homosexuality, and Biblically, it was the point at which God judged mankind as wicked and perverse enough to destroy with the Flood (stated somewhere in the NT as reasons for the flood, unless I am sorely mistaken).
6. It doesn't matter and shouldn't change how we approach those who do claim homosexuality. Let God deal with them on that: it's our job to love them in the holiest way possible.
I know and agree with the first point you make, the common greeting for those who are known (have attended more than one or two of our gatherings so that people remember them) within One is a hug; male-to-male, female-to-female, doesn't matter, and isn't the issue here. Also, see my entry one or two back to recount the issues with the English language being so unspecific about certain words.
If this argument was just about what might or might not happen 'behind closed doors' I would simply say to them, 'let what happens behind closed doors happen as it will'. The issue I have is when people are using the bible in their arguments against legalizing marriage between such couples and trying to find support for such claims, all I have heard is claims that He calls such things 'sin', but when I ask for a verse to look to for evidence, I am given verses that claim such as the 'effect' of sinful acts and not related to causes. While the cause is often considered the sin, it is harder to consider a supposed effect to carry the same stigma.
I think I remember reading verses talking about Moses himself engaging in 'sins' of homosexuality after the flood had occurred (which conjures it's own disturbing images because then the only humans remaining were those of his own family) and yet he is considered to be blessed by God by most people who call themselves Christian.
Also, saying that Eve's creation was 'unplanned' in the grand scheme has it's own troubles to the picture.
First, that God hadn't planned on her creation from the start, and second, saying that, at first, God had planned for Adam to couple with an animal of some type only tears the argument to further shreds. Most who think that homosexuality is bad also consider 'using' animals for sexual pleasure to be even worse of a sin.
And if I'm not mistaken, or misinformed of the timeline of the bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that existed after the flood, and not before it. I could be wrong on that, but I believe that to be the case, though I do believe in agreement that sexual immorality was one of the issues God had with the world and one of His many reasons for the Flood.
Unfortunately, I am prepared for the final conclusion to be similarly esoteric as including "sexual immoral" acts to be all that the Word specifies. I'm hoping that the final result is a more conclusive result, but I am prepared for such a disappointment.
To say that Females were made to fulfill the needs of the male is, in my view, degrading to the very image of God we are all created in and would fight even more on non-Biblical grounds about that issue.
On your 6th point, in all aspects, we do agree. I agree that my friendships with anyone shouldn't suffer because of my findings in this direction. However, the controversy is more and more making me want to find out Biblical information on this subject.
I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I am prepared for if such a comment is out of our reach, and to default to my answer of 'this is how I see it, but we are all given the choice and you are free to do as you choose.'
First, it was Noah, and the story goes like this (found in Genesis 9). Noah planted himself a vineyard and made wine. Apparently, it was good enough to the point where he got drunk and fell rather asleep. As is the case when you're drunk (according to my teacher), you tend to feel hot, and so Noah went and lay down in his tent in the nude and completely uncovered. It was likely that his sons all knew this would happen, and so would have avoided going in the tent. Ham, his son, apparently had a big problem with perversion, to the point where he knowingly entered into his father's tent. No details are given, but a lot of scholars believe that there was something sexual that happened. When he exited, he told his brothers, who in turn covered their father's nakedness and woke him up.
It's apparent that he apparently knew Ham's sin, and in turn cursed Ham's lineage. The curse was taken seriously by God who enacted judgment on the Canaanites (descendants of Canaan, Ham's son) by giving their land to the Israelites and commanding them to execute every one of them - man, woman, child, and in most cases, their livestock as well. That's what I was referring to in my response to Lyra's post where I said God punished 800 years' worth of descendants from one man for his sin.
And nowhere did I say that Eve's creation was unplanned. I just said that she wasn't in creation initially - part of God's plan to show man that there could be satisfaction found nowhere else but through the woman he would make specifically for him. Note: he also made man specifically for woman. It is heresy to suggest that because Eve was created later, she is somehow lesser. She shares the same image of God that men do. I don't understand how it would degrade the image of God to say such a thing, because any guy worth his salt knows that it's his job to meet the needs of his wife just as it is her job to meet his.
Sodom and Gomorrah did exist after the flood, though their sin was most clearly demonstrated in their homosexual lusting after the angels who came to save Lot and his family.
Also, I suggest you look at Romans 1:18-32 and try to look at it in the context of Paul's argument. Very clearly it points to the homosexual acts of humanity in the past as an example of godlessness and, thereby, wickedness. I still hold to point 6 from above, but this shows how sinful homosexuality is.
Noah, yes, thank you for both recognising my naming mistake and taking the point as I'd intended, not as was written incorrectly. ^_^"
Though I hadn't studied the scriptures I was led to, I was under the impression that it had happened both intentionally on Noah's part, and much more a part of the celebration of the flood waters receeding from the land than the probable months it would have taken to create wine after the flood.
'he also made man specifically for woman. It is heresy to suggest that because Eve was created later, she is somehow lesser.' While I agree with this, the sad truth is that some people do in several ways besides gender differences, and it's gotten so bad in modern society that we actually have a word for it in the English language: discrimination'. I am glad to hear that you are a fellow believer in that it should not be so, even if we must fight against the flesh to show it.
I will set aside Romans 1:18-32 along with the several other verses I have set aside to look into more deeply, unfortunately the end of the school year is forcing me to push concentrating so deeply on the Word onto the backburner for the time being.
2. Sex, however, is a different story. I think that there is a very big line between the affection David had for Jonathan and the homoeroticism of Sodom and Gomorrah. While the first two were close and weren't afraid of one another (both very secure in their heterosexuality, I might add: David struggled with the modern equivalent of internet pornography), the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were completely obliterated for their perversion. It's okay for guys to be close with guys. It's okay for girls to be close with girls. The line, though, is very clearly etched into our moral backbones that we should not cross.
3. Marriage is to be reserved for one man and one woman, for that is how God ordained it when he established Adam and Eve as the first married couple. In Genesis 2:19-25, we see that Adam was not satisfied in any of the animals that God brought to him as helper, so God literally put Adam to sleep and made a being that would fit him like a glove (not supporting male supremacy by any means, but moving on). That being was Eve, the world's first female Homo Sapiens. Female was made to fulfill the needs of the male, and only women can truly satisfy men in every aspect of a marriage-type relationship (and vice-versa). There are also entire theologies around the Imago Dei that say that it is only completed and perfected in the relation and interaction between man and woman.
4. While I can't give specific references, I can tell you that it is explicitly stated in one of the "sin lists" in the New Testament. Paul has one or two of these in and among his letters, I believe, and one of them actually refers directly to homosexual acts as sin. There's one in Galatians 5 which refers to "sexual immorality," but as yet I can't tell if that has anything to do with homosexuality or not. It is there somewhere, you just have to find it.
5. As I said before, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their homosexuality, and Biblically, it was the point at which God judged mankind as wicked and perverse enough to destroy with the Flood (stated somewhere in the NT as reasons for the flood, unless I am sorely mistaken).
6. It doesn't matter and shouldn't change how we approach those who do claim homosexuality. Let God deal with them on that: it's our job to love them in the holiest way possible.
Reply
If this argument was just about what might or might not happen 'behind closed doors' I would simply say to them, 'let what happens behind closed doors happen as it will'. The issue I have is when people are using the bible in their arguments against legalizing marriage between such couples and trying to find support for such claims, all I have heard is claims that He calls such things 'sin', but when I ask for a verse to look to for evidence, I am given verses that claim such as the 'effect' of sinful acts and not related to causes. While the cause is often considered the sin, it is harder to consider a supposed effect to carry the same stigma.
I think I remember reading verses talking about Moses himself engaging in 'sins' of homosexuality after the flood had occurred (which conjures it's own disturbing images because then the only humans remaining were those of his own family) and yet he is considered to be blessed by God by most people who call themselves Christian.
Also, saying that Eve's creation was 'unplanned' in the grand scheme has it's own troubles to the picture.
First, that God hadn't planned on her creation from the start, and second, saying that, at first, God had planned for Adam to couple with an animal of some type only tears the argument to further shreds. Most who think that homosexuality is bad also consider 'using' animals for sexual pleasure to be even worse of a sin.
And if I'm not mistaken, or misinformed of the timeline of the bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that existed after the flood, and not before it. I could be wrong on that, but I believe that to be the case, though I do believe in agreement that sexual immorality was one of the issues God had with the world and one of His many reasons for the Flood.
Unfortunately, I am prepared for the final conclusion to be similarly esoteric as including "sexual immoral" acts to be all that the Word specifies. I'm hoping that the final result is a more conclusive result, but I am prepared for such a disappointment.
To say that Females were made to fulfill the needs of the male is, in my view, degrading to the very image of God we are all created in and would fight even more on non-Biblical grounds about that issue.
On your 6th point, in all aspects, we do agree. I agree that my friendships with anyone shouldn't suffer because of my findings in this direction. However, the controversy is more and more making me want to find out Biblical information on this subject.
I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I am prepared for if such a comment is out of our reach, and to default to my answer of 'this is how I see it, but we are all given the choice and you are free to do as you choose.'
Reply
It's apparent that he apparently knew Ham's sin, and in turn cursed Ham's lineage. The curse was taken seriously by God who enacted judgment on the Canaanites (descendants of Canaan, Ham's son) by giving their land to the Israelites and commanding them to execute every one of them - man, woman, child, and in most cases, their livestock as well. That's what I was referring to in my response to Lyra's post where I said God punished 800 years' worth of descendants from one man for his sin.
And nowhere did I say that Eve's creation was unplanned. I just said that she wasn't in creation initially - part of God's plan to show man that there could be satisfaction found nowhere else but through the woman he would make specifically for him. Note: he also made man specifically for woman. It is heresy to suggest that because Eve was created later, she is somehow lesser. She shares the same image of God that men do. I don't understand how it would degrade the image of God to say such a thing, because any guy worth his salt knows that it's his job to meet the needs of his wife just as it is her job to meet his.
Sodom and Gomorrah did exist after the flood, though their sin was most clearly demonstrated in their homosexual lusting after the angels who came to save Lot and his family.
Also, I suggest you look at Romans 1:18-32 and try to look at it in the context of Paul's argument. Very clearly it points to the homosexual acts of humanity in the past as an example of godlessness and, thereby, wickedness. I still hold to point 6 from above, but this shows how sinful homosexuality is.
Hope that helps. ^_^
Reply
Though I hadn't studied the scriptures I was led to, I was under the impression that it had happened both intentionally on Noah's part, and much more a part of the celebration of the flood waters receeding from the land than the probable months it would have taken to create wine after the flood.
'he also made man specifically for woman. It is heresy to suggest that because Eve was created later, she is somehow lesser.' While I agree with this, the sad truth is that some people do in several ways besides gender differences, and it's gotten so bad in modern society that we actually have a word for it in the English language: discrimination'. I am glad to hear that you are a fellow believer in that it should not be so, even if we must fight against the flesh to show it.
I will set aside Romans 1:18-32 along with the several other verses I have set aside to look into more deeply, unfortunately the end of the school year is forcing me to push concentrating so deeply on the Word onto the backburner for the time being.
Reply
Leave a comment