bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Homosexuality and The New Testament  (Read 3732 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Homosexuality and The New Testament
« on: March 12, 2010, 04:13:54 PM »

Dear NH:  Understand that I have received tens of thousands of emails over the past 10+ years that challenge my teachings to justify their own prejudiced opinions of things.

Never do they present proof or Scripture that contradicts what I teach, but rather just argue that I am wrong and that they are right.  You obviously are defending your homosexual life style by statements such as: "Both [false assumptions that you present] affirmed apparently the license of homosexual love in our age of grace."  And:  "God actually seemed to be endorsing our [homosexual] relationship."  With those two statements of your in mind, I will make a few COMMENTS.... in your email................



Dear Sir
 I read today and was impressed with your well thought out comments on the subject. I am homosexual by nature.
 

COMMENT:  No, NH, you are perverting and contradicting the Scriptures.  I have already given you this Scripture in my article, but you refuse to believe it:  Rom 1:26

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."  It was the "natural"

sexual use between a man and a woman that Paul says these homosexuals "changed" to that which is "AGAINST nature."  And Isaiah warns those who would

call "evil GOOD," and pronounces a WOE upon them (Isaiah 5:20).

 
 For many years I was celebate, 4 years married to a woman, and for 10 months practising homosexuality, and now celebate again.

COMMENT:  Why?  Why if you think that homosexuality has God's blessing ("God actually seemed to be ENDORSING our relationship")?  Why would you be switching back and forth?

 I was attending a church while single and then married but could not bring myself to attend a service while I was with a man.


COMMENT:  Why was that?  Did you have a guilty conscience?


 It is obvious that you have put a lot of thought into your commentary but it appears to me in places that your ideas are based on assumption rather than experience, not even the benefit of the experience of others.

COMMENT:  That's not true, so why do you say so?  Where have I based any of my teachings on "assumptions?"  By "assumptions" I believe you mean:  "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof" (American Heritage College Dictionary).  Where have I done that, and why do you neglect to give a few examples of your false statement?  And as for me not speaking from "experience" with regards to homsexuality, I thank God I am lacking "practical experience" in this matter.  I also lack "practial experience" in the matter of murder, child abuse, and rape, but I assure you that this does not hinder my ability in the least to write on these subjects.

 You should believe homosexuals when we tell you that we are born this way.

COMMENT:  Why?  Why should I?  It's not true. We are all born with the potential for great carnality, but no one is "born homosexual" anymore than anyone is a "born murderer," or a "born child molester," or a "born adulterer."  Don't you know that many child molesters will tell you that they have sexually lusted after little children as far back as they can remember having any sexual desires?  Do we excuse or condone murder, adultery, and child molestation on the grounds that "they were BORN that way?"  Well, do we?  Should we?


 That is a huge conundrum for christians because it obviously means that the issue of choice is significantly attenuated and basically means that gays have the rough choice of celebacy, hell, or a christian marriage marred by the absence of real passion.

COMMENT:  And just how does that argument justify homosexuality?  Are you accusing Jesus Christ of "attenuating" our choices because He stated:  "Enter ye in at the strait gate [Greek: 'narrow'--attenuated]...Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leads unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:24-25).

 The reasoning you employed impressed me because you are one of the few to actually acknowledge that forgoing homosexual practise means abstinence from lust but your corollary runs short in that you dont seem to acknowledge that while a heterosexual person should not commit adultery even in their heart, they can still enjoy requited sexual attraction within marriage.
 

COMMENT:  So to you it isn't fair that a married couple following God's laws regulating marriage can enjoy sexual relations, but that homosexuals going against God's laws cannot enjoy sexual relations with the same sex?


 This sexual satiation or fulfillment simply is impossible for a homosexual to experience within your model of God's moral law.

COMMENT:  "MY model" of God's law?   Since when are the teachings of the Holy Scriptures "MY" model.  Why not be honest and just say, "...within GOD'S moral law?"


I know this factually now. I know that at no point in my childhood did I choose to become this way, that prayer tends not to cure people of their sexuality, that celebacy is a depressing and lonely way to live even in the midst of worship and ministry, and that heterosexual marriage does not magically resolve these issues.


COMMENT:  Your arguments are moot and inane, NH!  At what point in the childhood of a serial rapest did a little boy "CHOOSE to become a serial rapest?"  Neither does "heterosexual marriage" resolve the rapest's problem either.  And rapest are seriously "depressed and lonely" when they are setting in a jail cell serving time for their crimes and sins.  You need to give up this foolish and damnable reasoning against the plain teachings of Scripture.

 
 You can not know how cynical and Roman Catholic it sounds to us to hear that it is simply your burden and cross to bear when the alternative of a monogamous same sex relationship not only solves the problem for the homosexual but seems to meet all of the other moral criteria for a christian relationship.
 I know well that sexual sins harm the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit but I am not convinced either way that homosexual sex is a sin. Yes, it was for the nation of Israel, a holy nation of priests, but so was eating pork and wearing mixed fabrics and the Holy Spirit showed Peter that these were permissable for gentile christians.

 

COMMENT:  I would hardly call someone "cynical" because they suggest marriage over "a monogamous same sex relationship."  And why "monogamous?"  Where or what is you moral authority showing that your homosexuality should be "monogamous?"  You make your own rules as you go, don't you NH?  And NO, God did not show people that it was okay to eat pig meat in his vision.  Peter didn't "kill and eat," did he?  No he didn't.  Not then, nor later in his life.  The Gentiles were considered "unclean" by the Jews, and it was the Gentiles, not pigs, that God was cleansing.  And wearing of "mixed fabrics" has likewise never been invalidated.  "Mixed fabrics" as illustrated in Scripture are of inferior quality, which carries both a physical and a spiritual lesson.


 Outside of Leviticus, and these are levitical codes, it is indeed not clear from exegesis that homosexuality in the strictest sense constitutes a sin.


COMMENT:  Oh really?  And I suppose you don't see a connection between homosexuality and:

Rom 1:24-28,  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

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 recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."  Seriously, NH, what part of those verses don't you understand?

What if God had said this in Rom. 1:24-29:  "God gave them up to CLEANESS through the LOVE of their own hearts, to HONOR their own bodies between themselves.  For this cause God gave them up to LOVING affections:  for even their women did what was perfectly NATURAL doing that which is NOT against nature.  And likewise also the men, choosing a relationship with men rather than a woman, longed in their LOVE one toward another: MEN WITH MEN working that which is LOVELY...."

Now then, had these verses stated what I suggested above, would you not use these very verses to justify a homosexual life style?  YES OF COURSE YOU WOULD;  YOU KNOW THAT YOU WOULD, and no one could convince you that this was NOT speaking of homosexuality!!  Cannot you see your own hypocracy in this matter?


In your text you appear selective with the interpretations of the greek as indeed other writers state that New Testament passages do not explicitly mention homosexuality as opposed to prostitution and pederasty.


COMMENT:  You mean that the Scriptures do not use the WORD "homosexuality?"  Reread Rom. 1:24-28 again, and this time pay close attention to the words.  This sextion of Scripture is speaking of homosexuality.  Give me a break!

 Homosexuality does not harm the consensual partners unlike bestiality which is obviously not consensual, nor paedophilia which is very harmful to the child. On that basis you could say that circumcision should be banned because it is counter to nature, no longer required of christians, and harmful to the child. Or that heterosexual sex is wrong because women are more likely to develop cervical cancer from it, have unwanted pregnancies, and contract STDs. I am sure you don't believe that but pundits like yourself seem to simply dig their toes in and deny any biological basis for homosexuality. Yes the studies thus far are frought but the fact is that human reproductive systems and neurology especially are complex and influenced by a number of different genes, hormonal exposures, and psychosocial factors as well. It simply flys in the face of our collective life experience to say that it is a choice. It is not! If I could take a pill or say a prayer then God knows I would be heterosexual by now.

 

COMMENT:  You are really grasping for straws, NH.  And just how is it that you know bestiality "is obviously not consensual?"  Did you interview the animals?  Actually circumcision is not "harmful to the child," and many non-Jewish doctors recommend circumcision on the eight day, and all for "natural" health reasons.  So homosexuality is NOT a choice?  Just who is putting a gun to your head every time you "decide" to find a homosexual partner for a little romp in the straw?  And why, if God "endorses" your homosexuality, and you even see physiological reason for the superiority of homosexuality over heterosexuality, would you want to take a pill and become a heterosexual?  Do you understand what a "contradiction" is, NH?  Apparently not.



 I did seriously pray about this issue the first time I had had sex with a man, after my marriage had ended. The message from God I seemed to get actually to my surprise seemed to confirm an online sermon I had read about passages in the Bible regarding eunuchs in the end times and Peter's vision. Both affirmed apparently the license of homosexual love in our age of grace. God has always convicted me in my sin in my daily readings but when I felt most guilty for actually having made a boyfriend, God actually seemed to be endorsing our relationship. In saying this I know that homosexuality is not to be celebrated or the fact that it is some what less than what God designed us for. But I think christian pastors need to pray more for guidance on how they consider it rather than making assumptions based purely on dogmatic interpretations of scripture.

 

COMMENT:  The mention of eunuchs in Scripture has absolutely nothing to do with justifying homosexuality.  How do you conclude that God endorsed your relations with a boyfriend, and that the Scriptures say nothing against homosexuality except in Leviticus, etc., and yet you stated:  "I know that homosexuality is not to be celebrated or the fact that it is some what less than what God designed us for"?  Can we say, "contradiction" once more?  I don't know what more I can say.  The Scriptural teaching against this practice is very clear.  I'll not argue it with you any further.

God be with you,

Ray


Thank you,
Respectfully Yours N.H.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.012 seconds with 18 queries.