Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[Jack]

If a man hugs another man, is that "gay" to you?

Are you gay? You're being quite evasive.

 

[Sigma]

Affection for the same sex.

Well, King David had wives, and Jonathan loved David "as himself" just as God commands all people to love others, same sex or not (Lev. 19:18). He and David were friends.

 

[Arthur81]

Are you gay? You're being quite evasive.

You are the one being evasive by not addressing the question, and repeatedly asking "Are you gay?" Using the argument against the man, is typical of someone who is unable to answer reasonably in an debate.

 

[Sigma]

You are the one being evasive by not addressing the question, and repeatedly asking "Are you gay?" Using the argument against the man, is typical of someone who is unable to answer reasonably in an debate.

Actually, @Jack asked @Gottservant if he's gay before Jack was even asked a question by him, and Jack's had to repeatedly re-ask his question, because Gott keeps not answering and asking questions.

 

[Pooh Bear]

You don't have a word for affection between two of the same sex.

If a father loves a son, is that "homosexual"?

You need to stop using semantics and start using your initial and primary definitions of the words you use, rather than changing them. This will eventually go nowhere

 

[Jack]

You are the one being evasive by not addressing the question, and repeatedly asking "Are you gay?" Using the argument against the man, is typical of someone who is unable to answer reasonably in an debate.

Are you gay?

Romans 1
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

[Arthur81]

Are you gay?

No I am not, but I am beginning to think there is evidence of persons on here with latent homosexuality that they are fighting against or struggling over. When people are so adamant in their argument on this topic, and are unable to exegete and prove the verses they throw about actually mean what they claim, there must be a reason for it. Maybe you'd like to try giving an answer to my post about 2 Samuel 1:26 instead of asking if I am gay.

 

[Jack]

No I am not,

Good!

but I am beginning to think there is evidence of persons on here with latent homosexuality that they are fighting against or struggling over.

Huh?

When people are so adamant in their argument on this topic, and are unable to exegete and prove the verses they throw about actually mean what they claim, there must be a reason for it. Maybe you'd like to try giving an answer to my post about 2 Samuel 1:26 instead of asking if I am gay.

I already answered you with God's Word.

Romans 1
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 

[Arthur81]

Would a Baptist minister who is also a psychologist, go to "Rentboy" for a travel companion? Would a minister go through Rentboy so he could witness to him about his sin of homosexuality, as they travel? This is the problem with all the gay bashing by so-called Christians. I am referring to an actual occurrence by George A Reker. This is a short piece out of a large article -

"The Miami New Times reported on May 4, 2010, that three weeks previously, Rekers had been photographed at Miami International Airport with a twenty-year-old "rent boy" who was using the pseudonym "Lucien" (later identified as Jo-Vanni Roman). Roman was available for hire through the Rentboy.com website. Rekers acknowledged hiring Roman for the 10-day European vacation as a "travel assistant" and denies any impropriety. He said that Roman was there to help carry his luggage since he had surgery recently and was unable to carry it himself, although the photograph clearly showed Rekers lifting his own luggage.[5][47] Rekers was quoted as commenting, "If you talk with my travel assistant ... you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail."[48] The incident was covered by media outlets and TV shows worldwide.[48][49][50][51][52]

In subsequent interviews, Roman said Rekers had paid him to provide nude massages daily:[7][53] "'Jo-vanni' in news reports, has told various media outlets that he gave Rekers daily massages in the nude during the trip, which included genital touching."[54] He also talked about how he believed that Rekers was, in fact, homosexual: "It's a situation," Roman said, "where he's going against homosexuality when he is a homosexual." According to the New Times, Roman "made it clear they met through Rentboy.com",[5] and denied that he had been hired to carry luggage;[53] The Times reported that Rekers "hired a companion from a website called Rentboy.com that offers clients a wide range of choices, from 'rentboy' and 'sugar daddy' to 'masseur'."[48] On the May 6, 2010 episode of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart pointed out that Roman is looking on in the photograph, while Rekers is seen handling his own luggage.[55][56]"

Was Reker's campaign against homosexuals actually him fighting his inner desires? Is it merely simple hypocrisy?

 

[Arthur81]

Good!

Huh?

I already answered you with God's Word.

Romans 1
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

When you reply to my post of 2 Samuel 1:26, I'll gladly give you a full exposition of Rom 1:26, 27. Do you think quoting Rom.1:27 without explaining in detail what that has to do with two males in a loving gay relationship today means anything at all? I'll give you a hint, notice the words "leaving the natural use of the woman". But do go on and give an answer to 2 Sam. 1:26

 

[Jack]

When you reply to my post of 2 Samuel 1:26, I'll gladly give you a full exposition of Rom 1:26, 27. Do you think quoting Rom.1:27 without explaining in detail what that has to do with two males in a loving gay relationship today means anything at all? I'll give you a hint, notice the words "leaving the natural use of the woman". But do go on and give an answer to 2 Sam. 1:26

Gays are heading for Hell fire. Are you one of them?

 

[Arthur81]

Gays are heading for Hell fire. Are you one of them?

Your responses in this thread exhibit just how totally ignorant you are about the psychology research on homosexuality and the biblical statements on male on male sexual sins. It is amazing how massive the response is on this topic here, but you don't see such vitriol shown on fornication in our day!

 

[Arthur81]

Shouldn't we study real reasoning from the scriptures themselves for the answers? Individual opinions and superficial study of Bible verses don't prove very much.

David in describing Jonathan's love in his lament after the death of Jonathan -

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26 KJV)

If this love David mentions is fully platonic, why does it not read "love of brother, or mother, or father, or wife, or wives"?

For what reason did the Latin Vulgate, which is translated into English in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims translations read like this -

I grieve for thee, my brother Jonathan: exceeding beautiful, and amiable to me above the love of women. As the mother loveth her only son, so did I love thee. (2Sam 1:26 DRC)

That underlined sentence is not found in the Hebrew, nor in the Septuagint nor is it found in any other translations of today. Now, why would Jerome feel the need to add a totally fake sentence about a mother's love? Again, if the love was any other than women's love, why is that not what it says?

Of course, David had many wives and concubines, so maybe Jonathan's love was better than all those women? Maybe David meant that Jonathan's true love passed the sexual love of all those wives and concubines. But, that would be a rather clumsy way to say it was a higher level, platonic; when he could have said brother or mother or father or wife, etc.

Since no gay-haters have tried to give an answer to this verse about Jonathan's love, I'll add an additional verse and when added to 2 Sam. 1:26; it is an unavoidable conclusion that the sexual element was present.

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit(qashar)with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1 KJV)

Commentaries and some cross references state that cannot be homoerotic, because the Hebrew (qashar) is used of a father's being bound to his son, and they give the following -

"Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound(qashar) up in the lad's life;" (Gen 44:30 KJV)

There is a problem with that response to Jonathan's love it is because in the Hebrew Interlinear glosses of the use of (qashar), some give the gender indicator. I'll give both those verses again with the gender shown. I'll use an online Hebrew-English Interlinear OT so it can be checked -

Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

www.scripture4all.org

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan she was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1Sam 18:1 KJV)
*I put "she" in bold so it won't be missed

Now compare with the one of a father's being bound to his son in the Interlinear OT.

Now therefore when I come to thy servant my father, and the lad be not with us; seeing that his life is bound up in the lad's life; (Gen 44:30 KJV
*There is no addition of the gender "she" there.

In the OT use of (qashar) besides this one about Jonathan in 1 Sam. 18:1, there are two other where it is modified with "she". So, this combination of (qashar) with "she" is only found 3 times.

"And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and she bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first." (Gen 38:28 KJV)

Rahab - "And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window." (Josh 2:21 KJV) *Here the KJV follows the gender indicator where the Interlinear reads "and she is tying".

The Hebrew (qashar) is used over 40 times in the OT, and numerous times it has "he" as the gender indicator, and it is always with a male. Some examples are: The gender "he" in 1Kgs15:27 (male); 16:9,16,20 (him); 2Kgs9:14;10:9;15:10,15,25,30(him); Job41:4(him); Amos7:19(he)

I have a respected Zondervan Hebrew-English Linear OT on my bookshelf, and it agrees with this online reference about the gender.

When I study this reference of Jonathan's love here, and I connect it with David's statement in 2 Sam. 1:26, I find it impossible to deny a homoerotic element to their love.

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2Sam 1:26 KJV)

If anyone has the need to counsel with a gay boy/man, do stay with the KJV and use the appropriate dictionary for the words, the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary. The RV, ASV, YLT follow the KJV translation; but once we come to the modern LGBTQ era, the culture seems to dictate translations of both the liberal and conservative.

 

[Behold]

Are you gay?

Romans 1
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Two times... im the bible, we've seen God's wrath against sexual perversion.

Sure, we can dial in and drill down and frame "perverted sexuality ", as Homosexuality, but, that's just one facet of immoral sexual lifestyle.

For example, you have "whoremongers".... You have Child Molesters... You have "incest"... you have Transgender sex....

So, the "alt sex" lifestyle is a pandora's box of sexual perversion, including Homosexuality.

We've seen in the Bible that God has judged sexual perversion 2x..

"Noah's Flood"

"Sodom and Gomorrah"...

So, "God hath Spoken" his perspective regarding immoral sexuality, by KILLING THEM ALL., on two occasions, as shown in the Bible

But there is good news.
Its this..
All sin, is forgiven when we go To God through Faith in Christ.

God does not require a homosexual to come to Him an anything other then a sinner, and they certainly are that one.
And God's Grace, abounds more, where their sin abounds.


The Cross of Christ is for all of us.........the worst of us and the rest of us.


Salvation, is a Gift from God that none of us deserve.

 

[Arthur81]

I'm coming to believe the translators of the KJV were far more accurate in their translations of the male on male sex sin passages. I used to wonder why the KJV used the word "sodomite(s)" in the OT for what are idolatrous male temple prostitutes? But the KJV did not use "sodomites" in the NT. Then I noticed the note in the margin of the KJV on Deut. 23:17 -

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (Deut. 23:17 KJV) The margin note reads "whore: or, sodomitess"

The KJV translators knew what the meaning of the verse was and my theory is, they connected the Hebrew word to`ebah which is translated "abomination" in various passages. The word to`ebah is especially associated with idols as in Strong's Dictionary - "Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol: - abominable (custom, thing), abomination."

This word "abomination/to`ebah is used here about male cult prostitutes, in Lev. 18:22 about male cult prostitutes, and the word is also used in the following -

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination/to`ebah before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50 KJV)

This word "abomination" is used over 40 times in Ezekiel and predominantly in reference to idols and idolatry. I believe the KJV men saw the element of idolatry in Sodom, so used "sodomite(s)" in the OT for the idolatrous male temple prostitutes. They translated the Greek arsenokoites in the NT by a phrase, and did not use "sodomites". But, the 1828 Webster's Dictionary shows that the words they did use in those phrases come out to violence, force, rape, etc.; in other words the modern meaning of "sodomite" and does NOT fit or describe a simple gay relationship between male friends or lovers.

Keep in mind, since King James VI and I sponsored the KJV, the translators would be sensitive to translate accurately in this area of life; because besides being married, King James had 3 male lovers. If you doubt, do a web search for these four names:
James, Esme Stuart, Robert Carr, George Villiers

Here is a love letter written by King James to George Villiers -

"And yet I cannot content myself without sending you this billet, praying God that I may have a joyful and comfortable meeting with you, and that we may make at this Christenmass a new marriage, ever to be kept thereafter; for God so love me, as I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you, then live a sorrowful widow-life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your sweet dad and husband.

My only sweet and dear child

James R”

 

[Arthur81]

Are you gay?

Romans 1
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Regarding the interpretation of Rom. 1:26-27: verse 26 does not say women had sex with other women. If they were having anal and oral sex with men, that was a change of behavior from the created design. To say this is lesbianism is to read into the verse what it does not state.

On v27, the Greek for "burned" is G1572 ἐκκαίω ekkaio and this is the only occurrence of the word in the entire NT. It is an extreme burning out, not typical sex drive as in 1 Cor 7:9 where another Greek word is used. Also, the Greek for the word "lust" here is G3715 ὄρεξις orexis and again, this is the only place it is found in the entire NT. The males spoken of here are "leaving the natural use of the woman", and means that they were heterosexuals who were perverts. I know two records of history from the time of Paul, and he was not writing in a vacuum, he saw what was around him -

About Nero, and it is very revealing (I'll not print this one out or the post will be too large.)

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Here is another, and I'll print it out so you don't miss it. This is a Greek philosopher describing just exactly what Paul described and he lived in Paul's day -

From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse

"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."

Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-20 [Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta]

demonax.info

It is a long passage so you need to use "Find on Page" for what I have quoted.

Of course, there is John Chrysostom who in his homily on this knew it did not fit the picture of a loving sexual relationship between two male friends.

"But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that "they changed the natural use." For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, "They changed the truth of God for a lie." And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, "Leaving the natural use of the woman."

Romans 1 Homilies of Chrysostom

Then there is the JFB Commentary of 1872, long before the word homosexual was coined, on this passage -

"Observe how, in the retributive judgment of God, vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices."

Romans 1 - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Romans 1, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary is the unabridged version prepared by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

www.studylight.org

Of course, the passage in Romans 1 must be read and compared with Paul's other two passages 1 Cor.6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 where he coined the word arsenokoites and when you study that word you get a good picture of what Paul is condemning, and it is NOT two male friends having sexual intimacy.

Reading from statements out of the church that go into some detail on various verses, you do not find the hatred that you find directed at a male simply because his nature is to love only another male and they form a relationship.

I'll let the reader check to see how the translators of the KJV, RV, ASV & YLT viewed 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim. 1:10 by reading the 1828 Webster's definitions of "abuser", "ravisher" and "defile". You find that men of God out of the past viewed those passages as describing those who: debauch; violate; ravish; violence; force... and the word "sodomite" is shown to be the meaning. When you take all of Paul's comments on this, it is not a condemnation of two males in an intimate relationship. That is homophobia coming from the mind of ....

 

[Behold]

I'm coming to believe the translators of the KJV were far more accurate in their translations of the male on male sex sin passages. I used to wonder why the KJV used the word "sodomite(s)" in the OT for what are idolatrous male temple prostitutes? But the KJV did not use "sodomites" in the NT. Then I noticed the note in the margin of the KJV on Deut. 23:17 -

>Sodom<.......and Gomorrah.

You can visit this place in Israel.
Its really there.
And there is black ash, burned into the stone.

Genesis 19:24

This is not a myth.

 

[Arthur81]

I know I'll answer to my Lord on the last day what I have posted here. I take it very seriously indeed. But, I wonder how the Lord will respond to those who excuse their hatred by saying, "I was just hating the sin and loving the sinner". How much actual study have the posters in this thread actually done on the pertinent scriptures? I do not see any!

 

[Behold]

I know I'll answer to my Lord on the last day what I have posted here. I take it very seriously indeed. But, I wonder how the Lord will respond to those who excuse their hatred by saying, "I was just hating the sin and loving the sinner". How much actual study have the posters in this thread actually done on the pertinent scriptures? I do not see any!

Read post : #54

 

[Taken]

I will be advocating for the side that homosexuality is inherently wrong, and the promotion of such actions and thoughts are evil. Similar or contrasting views are welcome and gladly accepted. Let us be in constant search for the truth during our discussion.

FREEWILL to choose ones own WILL is Right.

* Gods WILL is that ALL men WILL Believe IN Him.
^ THAT SHALL be accomplished.

* Gods DESIRE is that ALL men WILL Believe IN Him, AGREE with His Word, AGREE with His TEACHING and COMMIT to Him…AND thus Be “by God” Forgiven…
BEFORE they BODILY DIE…
^ THAT SHALL NOT be accomplished.

* The WHOLE world has gone bonkers…
~ People repeatedly SEATING Corrupt men in positions of Power, for a trade off of False Promises of “theft and they shall receive the booty”.
~ People releasing their children out into the world (WITHOUT a godly Foundation, WITHOUT the TRUTH), and THEN supporting their children’s corrupt taught (BY the world) ideas…fearing the LOSS of their child, IF they don’t support and or tolerate their Corrupt ideas and acts.

It is A FALSE teaching (by word or example), that God LOVING ALL of His Creations…
Means God SHALL ACCEPT ALL of His Creations IN His Kingdom.

Fact is: EVERY “action” HAS A consequence;
(Positive and Negative).

If a PERSON “falters”, and they SEEK Gods Forgiveness, He is Faithful TO Forgive them.

Faltering IS rejecting to STAND WITH the Lord God…which INCLUDES STANDING WITH, others WHO STAND AGAINST the Lord God.

A PERSON IS: an ALIVE BODY (with His BLOOD, which is a body’s Life) AND a LIVING SOUL, IN his body.

While ALL shall BELIEVE, Bow and Worship the Lord God ON their JUDGEMENT DAY…
Forgiveness SHALL NOT BE Given to a mans Body, VOID of His own LIFE (BLOOD), which is exactly what occurs when a BODY Dies, the Life, the Blood of that BODY Dies.

The believing, the bending, the bowing, the worshiping ON Judgement Day, OCCURS BECAUSE, ON Judgement DAY, ALL Living souls return to their body’s.
Their BODY’s Rise up…Some IN a new BODY, Some IN their Corrupt Body.

Remember…ALL SOULS Belong to God.
Remember…ALL Life IN a SOUL Belongs to God.

FREEWILL choosing belongs to the body’s, hearts, minds of (BLOOD) ALIVE natural born persons.

Choosing, Supporting, Advocating, Promoting, Tolerating, Accepting, that WHICH is an Abomination unto God…
SHALL Be recorded IN Gods Books of Evidence…
AND SHALL BE a Determining Factor ON their own Judgement…
IF “they” Be entered INTO or rejected FROM entering Gods Kingdom.

2 Tim
[1] I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead (saved and unsaved) at his appearing and his kingdom;
[2] Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
[3] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

As we SEE this day. ^^

[4] And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
[5] But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Remember…NOT DOING, BUT even ADVOCATING, Supporting…has a Negative Consequence.

Romans 1:
1 ~ 31 And specifically….
Romans 1:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Evil angels, Wicked men, ARE seeking, the weak, the children in droves to devour them with Corruption….and Wayward Parents are a mix of Supporting them, Complaining about them, but Leaving them IN that situation….and a very FEW are Protecting their Children BY TEACHING them Gods Offering and Options, or BY REMOVING them FROM drowning IN the cesspool.

UNFORGIVEN (ie Not MADE righteous)…Homosexuals…murderers…liars…cheats…thieves…etc. Rejectors to Stand WITH God….SHALL Be REJECTED FROM entrance into His KINGDOM….

1 Cor 6:
[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.

AND BTW….Gods Kingdom, Presently IN Heaven…SHALL one day INCLUDE ALL of the FACE of the EARTH.

IF a man IS NOT INCLUDED, in entrance IN Gods Kingdom….One Guess Where his Habitat/Estate SHALL be…!

Glory to God,
Taken