Homosexuality in the Bible

[Michelle]

Matthew 8

5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
7Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

Mathew used the word pais for servant. Which translates to young boy/lover. Jesus would have been aware of the Roman Army's usage of handsome slave boys. It was an accepted practice of the Roman Army to use slaves, male or female, for sex.

8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.


Jesus had every opportunity to condemn homosexuality but he didn't. I think it also shows the love that the centurian had for his slave/ bedmate. If he was just an ordinary slave then why did the Centurian come looking for Jesus? Why all of the emotion?

 

[linwood]

Mathew used the word pais for servant. Which translates to young boy/lover.

Have you cross referenced that anywhere else in the book?

Nice story..thanks.

 

[Michelle]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1098398793-590.html

Which in itself isn't conclusive but the History of the Roman Army has to be considered when trying to understand this story.

 

[linwood]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1098398793-590.html

Which in itself isn't conclusive but the History of the Roman Army has to be considered when trying to understand this story.

It does mean "child slave" with the emphasis on "child".

It`s also used by Paul to describe Jesus in relation to god.
Act 3:26 but it has been translated into Son instead of servant.
(Which offers me the different point of view Paul had towards Jesus that I hadn`t thought of before..thanks for that

It`s almost always used in the gospels when refering to a slave which would always keep it in the context of a Roman colony.

The only other term I could find for servant in a quick search is meant to mean simply "slave" with no descriptive intent in context.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1098402594-7361.html

I bet it could be made conclusive...

 

[Michelle]

The only other term I could find for servant in a quick search is meant to mean simply "slave" with no descriptive intent in context.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_...02594-7361.html

Interesting....and yeah it looks pretty conclusive to me now.

 

[Jose Dillano]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1098398793-590.html

Which in itself isn't conclusive but the History of the Roman Army has to be considered when trying to understand this story.

Let us not make any generalizations here. A fact must be expressed and unambiguous.

 

[Jose Dillano]

But God doesn`t always wait.

Why does he choose to wait for some as you say and punish or destroy others immediately?

There`s no reason to it and there`s no proof that he is waiting in the OT only the NT.

God had proclaimed that we shall die for our own sins because the payment for sin is death. That is why Israel is making sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. God is indeed merciful as he is just. His will not break his law.
When Jesus was sent he is destined to be the one sacrificial lamb to atone for the sins of humankind. But only those who shall follow him shall be saved. Why is this, because we are separated from God by our sins. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Let us say God is giving his hand to us for reconciliation. If we would not take his hand in reconciliation, we are not accepting the covenant. We continue to commit sin and deny he even exist and questions his words. Our fate is to die for our sins because we would not accept his covenant through Jesus Christ.
In the old testament, his servants died for their own sins. In the new testament, Jesus died for our sins instead, that is why we are saved though not from the death we all usually perceive but the second death in the lake of fire.

 

[linwood]

Yeah..I`ve heard that story before Jose

 

[Jose Dillano]

No, I listed some verses that you and your church are not willing to follow. Would you care to comment on them?


Well we agree on this, however , it isn't Paul or Moses.




I do NOT accept Paul's teaching as the infalible word of GOD. As far as I am concerned he is a man who wrote his opinions. I find it interesting that Jesus and his apostles never spoke on the subject, only Paul. Also, according to some Bible translations and scholars, even Paul didn't actually speak of homosexuality but of pagan temple prostitutes.




I posted an entry earlier in this thread showing that they were simply trying to stop male prositutes from having sex in the temple.

I have also started a thread called Genes Influence Gender Identity showing scientific evidence that Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Here is the link
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3725

Paul had no way of knowing that homosexuality was a natural process of nature and made some bad assumptions . He seemed to condone slavery as well. Many Christian Churches realize that homosexuality is NOT a sin and my hope is that one day this country will believe that "all men are created equal"

Whoever receives Jesus' messenger receives Jesus, and whoever receives Jesus receives God.

 

[Pah]

Whoever receives Jesus' messenger receives Jesus, and whoever receives Jesus receives God.

As do all Christian homosexuals that want to celebrate their marriage.

-pah-

 

[Mister Emu]

20 And Michal Saul's daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.
21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in ( the one of) the twain. KJ version
(The one of) was not in the original Hebrew text and was added. If we change the ending to Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain. Saul would be saying that now you have become my son in law with two of my children. Many scholars think that Saul was talking about his other dayghter Merab, but David did not marry her, and she married Adriel the Meholathite . It appears Saul accepted their relationship whether or not he liked it or not.

Is it not logical to believe Saul was referring to the engagement to Merab, and that it does mean "one of the twain", a verse above Merab gets married to someone else while engaged to David and then Bam, he(David) can get married to Michal.

I posted an entry earlier in this thread showing that they were simply trying to stop male prositutes from having sex in the temple.

Your reference point, being 2 Kings 23, was written long after the laws of Leviticus(which was given to Moses by the Lord) were around.

Mathew used the word pais for servant. Which translates to young boy/lover

May I ask for a reference for this translation?

1. in relation to Descent, child, whether son,(with special reference to the father), or daughter; an adopted son

2. in relation to Age, child, boy or girl, from a child, to be just out of one's childhood,

III. in relation to Condition, slave, servant, man or maid (of all ages)

from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2376705

directly translating, it could refer to a servant, or even the child of the centaurion.

Many Christian Churches realize that homosexuality is NOT a sin and my hope is that one day this country will believe that "all men are created equal

Many Christian Churches preach to their congregations that homosexuality is not a sin.

 

[linwood]

Here`s the thread I was looking for.

I was reminded of it by a recent post of Pahs citing Jonathan and Davids relationship as Biblical homosexuality...

Bump..

 

[Deut 13:1]

Four things to quickly note:
1) I have never seen someone here read so much trash into so few verses in the TNK. You get a 11 on a scale of 10 for having a wild imagination.
2) The word to love, ahava, has pretty much the same meaning as in English and in no way is exclusively used for sex. Deut 6:5 uses the same word love, "you shall love the L-rd your G-d w/ all your heart" Let me assure you, that there is no sex happening there.
3. Assuming you are right, What's the point? What's your conclusion? Are you suggesting that homosexual acts are a-ok according to the bible? Because the bible also descibes numerous accounts of murder, adulter, and heaven knows what else. But let me remnid you that a description is not an endorsement.
4. Did Jacob/Israel have sex w/ Joseph?

 

[linwood]

2) The word to love, ahava, has pretty much the same meaning as in English and in no way is exclusively used for sex. Deut 6:5 uses the same word love, "you shall love the L-rd your G-d w/ all your heart" Let me assure you, that there is no sex happening there.

Please point me to where I ever stated sex was happening here?
This is a VERY,VERY, old thread and I don`t recall stating that.

3. Assuming you are right, What's the point? What's your conclusion? Are you suggesting that homosexual acts are a-ok according to the bible? Because the bible also descibes numerous accounts of murder, adulter, and heaven knows what else. But let me remnid you that a description is not an endorsement.

The point?
Did you bother to read this thread or were you to outraged by the possible implications you "thought" it contained to resist running off at the motuh before your head could catch up?
From the OP in this thread...

"I first want to point out that what I` m doing is ultimately pointless because I don’t believe the Bible should have any bearing on how a person lives their life or what society deems ethical.
If there is a point it could be that the Bible can be interpreted anyway one needs.

The point could be that the Bible is a compilation of books and not one consistent flowing novel and Christians should begin to understand that.

4. Did Jacob/Israel have sex w/ Joseph?

I dunno, what do you think?
I don`t think the comparison is relevant here, if you do please state why.

Do you care to add any comment of substance to the thread or would you just like to continue ranting?
Either way please attempt to stay within the OP.

 

[BM5]

The first commandment of God to man is to go forth increase and multiply.

Homosexuals and Lesbians are a perversion on this.

 

[Pah]

The first commandment of God to man is to go forth increase and multiply.

Homosexuals and Lesbians are a perversion on this.

Actually what God said first was " (gen 2:16-17) "16 ....You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." It would not make much sense for God to say " (gen 1:27-28) 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." You'll, of course, notice that Eve was not created until after Adam had named all the animals Gen 2:19-22. (I levae it to you to look it up). So God could not have possibly said to "Go forth ....." until Eve was created. And that after saying "don't eat of the those trees". It must be terrible to be corrected by an atheist.

So bisexuals are all right? Grandmothers are perverted? Castrated men?

Ninety-five percent of Japanese homosexual men have children. About 80% of American lesbians have children. Sixty some odd percent of American gay men have children. They did their duty - so lay off them after you tend an apology for calling them perverted!!!
:tsk:

 

[shema]

Actually what God said first was " (gen 2:16-17) "16 ....You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." It would not make much sense for God to say " (gen 1:27-28) 27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." You'll, of course, notice that Eve was not created until after Adam had named all the animals Gen 2:19-22. (I levae it to you to look it up). So God could not have possibly said to "Go forth ....." until Eve was created. And that after saying "don't eat of the those trees". It must be terrible to be corrected by an atheist.


So bisexuals are all right? Grandmothers are perverted? Castrated men?

Ninety-five percent of Japanese homosexual men have children. About 80% of American lesbians have children. Sixty some odd percent of American gay men have children. They did their duty - so lay off them after you tend an apology for calling them perverted!!!
:tsk:

I agree with you in most part. And i do not judge anyone for being gay. the bible does say that the body is not meant for sexual immorality,{ 1 Co 3:13) so i guess if a person in any situation feels that what they are doing is immoral, then they fall under condemnation. however, if a person truly feels like they are being moral and feel as if they are right in the eyesight of God, then they dont fall under that condemnation. but the only stipulation is how many people feel like they are moral? what do you think?

 

[Pah]

It would seem to me that 1 Corinthians 3:13, in context, has very little to do with the morality of using the body. Perhaps you meant 1 Corinthians 3:16-17?

In order to assess the morality of 16-17, you first have to understand what God has created as a body. Only a male is capable of reproduction constantly. Leaving aside the male's youth before puberty, his gamates are available each day of each month throughout his life, barring castration. A woman, on the other hand, only is capable of reproduction from puberty to menopause. The begining and ending of her life does not lead to pregnancy whereas a man, if he is lucky, can induce pregnancy in his very late years. During the woman's fecund times, she may not become pregnant but for about one week a month. Of the pair, a woman is the limiting factor for reproduction.

Since reproduction is not the constant of sex, and since both bodies are especially "designed" for pleasure any time, pleasure seems to be the primary purpose of God's "temple" (from 16-17). Therefore, the morality of the usage of God's temple would seem to be using the temple as God intended.

The implications of this are astonding! It would seem that for marriage to be the only venue for reproduction sex and pleasure, at least four wives or concubines are required to "coordinate" menstral cycles. It would aslo seem, in the absence of multiple wives or concubines, a man must go outside the marriage. Adultry, for pleasure or reproduction, would then be considered a sacred use of a sacred "temple". Homosexual sex, at any time and in and in any marriage cirumstance, would also be a permitted option, for pleasure does sanctify the "temple".

 

[BM5]

Grandmothers ! ????

" First Commandment " was implying something paramount with God - not something numerical -
however one could not expect an atheist to get too deep into what God wishes since you deny He even exists.

Bi's are more disgusting than the others if you need to know - anything goes !

If you think gays taking children by one way or another and carrying on with their filthy habits some how makes it right you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Pah]

Grandmothers ! ????

You implied, by quoting that verse that God puts a premium on reproduction. After menopause, Grandmothers don't - reproduce. They have gone from "beloved" to perverted. So says you

" First Commandment " was implying something paramount with God - not something numerical -

I would think that if you thought that you would have said it that way. As it is, you didn't and you came into biblical error.

however one could not expect an atheist to get too deep into what God wishes since you deny He even exists.

Yeah, I get that all the time :biglaugh: I hadn't noticed that the Bible is restricted to Jews or Christians. Why anyone, just anyone, can buy one or go to a site that presents the Bible. That, my friend, gives us license to read it and to understand it and correct Christians when they are wrong as I have done with you. I also challange your impication that not eating of the trees is not paramount. It was this that made Adam and Eve leave Eden. No gets punished when they do not reproduce. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what is more important to God

Bi's are more disgusting than the others if you need to know - anything goes !

Where is that deliniated in the Bible? I don't think it's even mentioned. I think you must be making an assumption.

I think you also forget that bisexuals forefill the commandment of God to go forth and multiply. They do that, you know.

If you think gays taking children by one way or another and carrying on with their filthy habits some how makes it right you are sadly mistaken.

Who said the homosexual aspect of bisexuality must be the second step. How is that worse, in either direction, when there is a period of time of conformance to God's command? How is that the greater sin when constant homosexuality is another mode of life? The bisexual is only temporarily in sin, according to your understanding of sin..