Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[OllieFranz]

To Olliefranz
The verses describe the alternative to faithful man/woman marriage, someone who is unable to be in a faithful marriage for the three reasons given, hence "eunouchos," . You make it sound as if Matthew wasn’t reporting correctly what Jesus said, as if you were there. Sorry but the text says "eunouchos” so if He actually said saris Deuteronomy 23 would be an example of made that way by men.

I was replying to a poster who claimed that the word eunuch in the Bible always means someone definied by Deuterononmy 23:1. I was not claiming that Matthew was not reporting correctly, but rather pointing out that after translating from Aramaic to Greek and Greek to English, some part of the meaning got lost in translation. And to understand the point of the teaching, it is necessary to recognize that "eunuch" as used in a translation of the Bible does not always mean exactly the same as "eunuch" as defined in modern usage (which is usually restricted to the Deuteronomy description).

1 Cor 7 merely refers to those who don’t marry and those

The alternative Jesus gives is to faithful marriage, if one had no interest in women they wouldn’t need an alternative.

Ok Up until now, you have claimed that the only emotion gays have is lust, and that's a sin. Now you are saying that they don't need alternative channel (like marriage) to lust for their sex drive. So have you changed your mind aboutgays only lusting, or are you denying them 1 Corinthians 10:13, and claimintg that there is no escape for them?

The fact is Jesus in Matthew 19 affirms Genesis 2 that God created woman for man to be in union, that someone has no interest in women is merely their choice to celibacy. If they decide on same sex unions it against God’s creation purpose.

I guess that answers my question. You are denying that 1 Corinthians 10:13 applies to gays.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Olliefranz

I was replying to a poster who claimed that the word eunuch in the Bible always means someone definied by Deuterononmy 23:1. I was not claiming that Matthew was not reporting correctly,

But the reference in Matt 19 is obviously this as its describing celibacy as the alternative to faithful man/woman marriage.

Ok Up until now, you have claimed that the only emotion gays have is lust, and that's a sin.

This is why you don’t believe Romans 1 as your thinking does not start in line with God’s purposes. Gay and straight are human concepts and cut across God’s purposes. God made woman to be united with man, that makes ‘straight’ partly right and ‘gay’ wholly wrong. Your argument is based on thinking in terms of gay and straight, human concepts at odds with God’s creation.

 

[RMDY]

While Matthew translated the word into Greek as "eunouchos," Jesus spoke Hebrew and its close relative Aramaic, and almost certainly used the word "saris."

That is an assumption your making about the usage of "saris." Where do you get your sources from on this.

The Semitic peoples, including the Jews, used the word "saris" to refer to two different kinds of people.

Matthew was a jew and despite knowing "saris" usage, he still chose to translate it into something else.

One was an eunuch, someone who (as described in Deuteronomy 23:1) "is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off," but that verse specifies the disfigurement to make it clear that the ban only applied to the one kind of saris. The other kind of saris could worship in the Temple, like the Ethiopian treasurer that met Philip in Acts 8.

I suspect your assuming things about how "saris". Once again where are your sources on this?

The Talmud and secular literature make it clear what the other kind of saris was: They are described as effete, and delicate. They are excellent stewards and can be trusted even in the harem, but they can't be trusted around comely young men. Two rabbis quoted in the Talmud even argued whether they could be "cured."

Where are your sources for this. I am sure there are many christian sources that would most-likely disagree with this claim your asserting.

Two pagan officials of this type are prominently mentioned in the Bible. Both obtained handsome young Hebrew slaves and treated them royally, as if they'd fallen in love with them.

That is an assumption---just like how some people misunderstand Hebrew scripture and believe Jonathan and David were gay.

One raised up the handsome young Hebrew slave to run his entire household, even his neglected wife.

Where does scripture say the wife was neglected? And straight men sometimes cared more about work then women--even their military duty. Once again this is an assumption about the military soldier. An example of a slave running an entire house hold would be Joseph under Pharoah in the book of genesis.

The other even defied an edict of his king to allow his slave to do things that his pagan religion considered to be toevah (abomination). The two "eunuchs" were Potiphar and Ashpenaz, and their Hebrew slaves were Joseph and Daniel.

Give me scripture please---book name, chapter, and verses. I'd love to look them up in my commentaries.

In Matthew 19:12 Jesus mentions three kinds of "eunuchs," the second is the familiar person made that way by misadventure, war or torture (or as a young boy, as with the later Italian Catholic castrati), and the third is a new order of "eunuchs" -- holy celibates that Paul tells us a little more about in 1 Corinthians 7. So the first, those born that way from their mother's womb are the ones that the stereotypes say have no interest in mwomen, but that young men are not safe if they are around.

Another assumption. Where is your source that talks about this. I am sure other credible christian sources exist that would contradict---even refute what your asserting. In fact, nothing in 1 Cor chapter 7 mentions anything about Enuichs.

 

[RMDY]

I don't see why the two should be different.I think this is kind of straying into semantics... how can one ever "know" anything... one can only make decisions based on the best available evidence. Having gathered and evaluated as much evidence as I can, I don't see any reason why God would find homosexuality disrespectful.

Paul says the will of God is to abstain from sexual immorality.

Paul also says it is upon such a thing that the wrath of God is coming.

Need I say more? I believe it is in your best interests at heart to consider what I am saying.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Paul says the will of God is to abstain from sexual immorality.

Paul also says it is upon such a thing that the wrath of God is coming.

Need I say more? I believe it is in your best interests at heart to consider what I am saying.

Sure we should abstain from sexual immorality... I don't see what is immoral about a committed, mutually consenting, loving homosexual relationship.

Given that immorality is based on harm to others, (see Mathew, sermon on the mount) and such a relationship doesn't harm anyone, what is immoral about it?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Sure we should abstain from sexual immorality... I don't see what is immoral about a committed, mutually consenting, loving homosexual relationship.

That’s a contradiction as same sex practice is described as sexual immorality. You believe we should abstain from what you think is sexual immorality, but we believe we should abstain from what God has said is sexual immorality, we follow Jesus Christ’s teaching, not yours.

Given that immorality is based on harm to others,

But sexual sin harms the person 1 Corinthians 6, Matthew 5 & 6 ‘The sermon on the mount’ addresses sexual immorality apart from faithful man/wife marriage. You are making assumptions about Matthew 5 based on your disbelief of 1 Corinthians 6.
Your error has lead you to further and deeper error

 

[EnemyPartyII]

we follow Jesus Christ’s teaching, not yours.

According to Jesus, immorality is harming others. Homosexuality does not harm others, thus, is not immorral. So oops, who ever you follow, it isn't Jesus. But what would you expect from someone claiming to be Christian, but named after the Devil?

But sexual sin harms the person

Provide me a specific, empirical example of how homosexuality harms anyone, or retract thius ridiculous statement please.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII,

According to Jesus, immorality is harming others.

your view is without evidence and contrary to Jesus Christ’s NT teaching “All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” Which is dishonouring one’s own body
“19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” – 1 Corinthians 6.

Homosexuality does not harm others, thus, is not immorral. So oops, who ever you follow, it isn't Jesus.

It is Jesus, because I can quote you what He taught through His apostles. 1 Corinthians 6 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Wherever you get your ideas from isn’t God.

But what would you expect from someone claiming to be Christian, but named after the Devil?

One would expect lies about people from the Devil, according to John 8:44 Jesus explained the nature of those under his influence. "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
Brightmorningstar comes from ..
Revelation 22:16 “"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Provide me a specific, empirical example of how homosexuality harms anyone, or retract thius ridiculous statement please.

I have already demonstrated. http://www.narth.com/docs/concluded.html I believe your views to be dysfunctional and error. Please show some evidence for all your views rather than just personal opinion.

 

[RMDY]

Sure we should abstain from sexual
Given that immorality is based on harm to others, (see Mathew, sermon on the mount) and such a relationship doesn't harm anyone, what is immoral about it?

Ok

Don't you get it?

Adam and Eve sinned simply because they disobeyed a command.

Moses's firstborn was almost killed because he disobeyed a command (Exodus 4:24).

Homosexuality was a form of pornea. So that that would mean it is considered sexual immorality.


Remember: "Not my will Lord, but yours be done" is the phrase that christians say.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ok

Don't you get it?

Adam and Eve sinned simply because they disobeyed a command.

Adam and eve are metaphors, not historical people.

Moses's firstborn was almost killed because he disobeyed a command (Exodus 4:24).

And wasn't under Jesus new covenant...

Homosexuality was a form of pornea. So that that would mean it is considered sexual immorality.

Is that a reasonable definition today?

Remember: "Not my will Lord, but yours be done" is the phrase that christians say.

And why would God will for people who can only find completion and hapiness with a same sex partner to go through their lives miserable and alone, when their finding a same sex partner doesn't harm anyone?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Revelation 22:16 “"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Isaiah 14: 12"How(J) you are fallen from heaven,
O Bright Morning Star,(K) son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
13You said in your heart,
(L) 'I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
(M) I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;[b]
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.'
15(N) But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.

 

[RMDY]

Isaiah 14: 12"How(J) you are fallen from heaven,
O Bright Morning Star,(K) son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
13You said in your heart,
(L) 'I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
(M) I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;[b]
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.'
15(N) But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.

Ignorant statement here. This is specifically talking about Satan and another King that is not Jesus (Tyre I believe). Jesus, in revelation, mentions morning star for other reasons.

 

[RMDY]

Adam and eve are metaphors, not historical people.

And wasn't under Jesus new covenant...

Your missing the point! The point is about disobedience. And even though it is a new covenant, that does not change God's righteousness nor does it change how God defines sexual sins.

Is that a reasonable definition today?

Don't be ridiculous. God is the same before, today and forever. And the word of the Lord endures---in fact Jesus himself said that his words endure forever and will not pass away.

And why would God will for people who can only find completion and hapiness with a same sex partner to go through their lives miserable and alone, when their finding a same sex partner doesn't harm anyone?

It harms themselves and the partakers relationship with God. Your missing my whole point here.

Adam and Eve ate a fruit and sinned because of disobedience. Their sin didn't hurt each other but hurt their relationship with God because he commanded them not to do it.

Moses disobeyed the commandment of God in his zeal for him, forgetting about the covenant Abraham made.

The New Testament makes it very clear it is unacceptable to commit sexual immorality no matter what the times are. And my point is your risking your relationship with God by not trusting God and even perhaps being found to be disobedient.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Don't be ridiculous. God is the same before, today and forever. And the word of the Lord endures---in fact Jesus himself said that his words endure forever and will not pass away.

And yet, as Christians we routinely ignore massive chunks of OT law... so apparently it IS OK to consider some parts of "God's word" to have changed... or at least,m some parts to have become redundant.

It harms themselves and the partakers relationship with God.

How, specifically?

Your missing my whole point here.

I might be, please believe I'm not doing it on purpose.

The New Testament makes it very clear it is unacceptable to commit sexual immorality no matter what the times are. And my point is your risking your relationship with God by not trusting God and even perhaps being found to be disobedient.

I just don't see whats so immoral about it. I don't believe anything is immoral merely because "God says"... I believe God condemns things because they are inherently immoral... which means it should be logically discoverable what is wrong with an act.

Anything that is immoral, I believe, one should be able to determine as immoral using nothing more than empathy driven conscience. And Empathy driven conscience simply doesn't tell me that homosexual intimacy is wrong. Sorry. Can you eplain why it should be in that framework?

 

[Dogbean]

Anything that is immoral, I believe, one should be able to determine as immoral using nothing more than empathy driven conscience. And Empathy driven conscience simply doesn't tell me that homosexual intimacy is wrong. Sorry. Can you eplain why it should be in that framework?

You are showing here that your moral authority does not come from God and His Word, but yourself. How can that be a good thing, when mankind is naturally sinful and God is love?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You are showing here that your moral authority does not come from God and His Word, but yourself. How can that be a good thing, when mankind is naturally sinful and God is love?

seems like we're close to decending into meaningless semantics again... but let me cut right through all the BS...

My cited model of empathy driven conscience is not only logically moral, but also Biblically moral, because it is the practical way to apply Christs new commandment.

 

[Dogbean]

seems like we're close to decending into meaningless semantics again... but let me cut right through all the BS...

My cited model of empathy driven conscience is not only logically moral, but also Biblically moral, because it is the practical way to apply Christs new commandment.

Ok, now that you have made that assertion, the burden of proof is on you to prove that your moral concience supercede's the absolute moral authority of God.

Sources, links, whatever you need to show to convince me to accept your morality over The Lord's. I'd love to see you prove it from the Bible, since you know that I accept it as God's Word.

I'll be very interested to see this....

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ok, now that you have made that assertion, the burden of proof is on you to prove that your moral concience supercede's the absolute moral authority of God.

Sources, links, whatever you need to show to convince me to accept your morality over The Lord's. I'd love to see you prove it from the Bible, since you know that I accept it as God's Word.

I'll be very interested to see this....

I'm not saying my moral conscience supersedes God's moral authority, I'm saying that God commands us to use our conscience as the ultimate arbiter of morality, using the empathy driven model I have repeatedly described.

Biblical evidence? Sure...

Mathew 7: "..Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets"
Which loosely translates to, Whatever you would (want a) man (to) do to you, (you shall do) to them: for this is the law (of the) prophet.

Put yourself in the other guys position... is what you're doing hurting him? If so, its not moral.

 

[Dogbean]

I'm not saying my moral conscience supersedes God's moral authority, I'm saying that God commands us to use our conscience as the ultimate arbiter of morality, using the empathy driven model I have repeatedly described.

Biblical evidence? Sure...

Mathew 7: "..Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets"
Which loosely translates to, Whatever you would (want a) man (to) do to you, (you shall do) to them: for this is the law (of the) prophet.

Put yourself in the other guys position... is what you're doing hurting him? If so, its not moral.

Your arguments are amusing and entertaining. I love it! What verse in Matthew 7? Did you just take pieces of Matthew 7 and lump them together into this "loose translation" of yours? Give the actual verse, and make sure you take it in context. It sounds like you are trying to quote the golden rule. Yes, the golden rule is a good rule to live by, but it does not grant you moral authority, as that rule itself came from the mouth of God the Son. Maybe being gay is not hurting you or your partner or the people around you but does it matter to you that it is hurting God? I guess God does not count among your relationships, because you are more interested in pleasing people than pleasing the Lord who is Holy. Give that some consideration, please. Being a Christian is not following rules and reading/memorizing Scripture. It is a relationship; a personal interaction with Jesus. If you put anything other than God first in your life, that is idolatry. That is in the Ten Commandments, and you said you believe in them because it's the only thing we have from the OT that is literally carved in stone.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Did you just take pieces of Matthew 7 and lump them together into this "loose translation" of yours?

No, its a direct quote.

but it does not grant you moral authority, as that rule itself came from the mouth of God the Son.

Um... what? So, the fact that Jesus said it, and said its greater than the other commandments... doesn't lend it "moral authority" in your eyes?

Maybe being gay is not hurting you or your partner or the people around you but does it matter to you that it is hurting God?

God made me that way. Why should it hurt him? Even the Catholic church agrees that just "being gay" is not sinful.

Maybe you mean homosexual acts? But if so, how, specifically, do homosexual acts "hurt God"? He created the universe, you'd think the specific orrifice interface of a minority of humans couldn't do much to hurt him. Seriously, this is the big question... all I have EVER asked for to consider your contentions worthy of merit is some sort of logical and coherent explanation of why homosexual relationships would bother God so much, and all I ever get back are vague sanctimonious platitudes, or outright lies.

I guess God does not count among your relationships, because you are more interested in pleasing people than pleasing the Lord who is Holy.

Says you, my relationship is just as loving and God affirming as yours is.

Being a Christian is not following rules and reading/memorizing Scripture.

FINALLY! So why are you so hell bent on doing precisely that, rather than considering how your actions are hurting real, living people, in blatant disregard for Christ's new commandment?

If you put anything other than God first in your life, that is idolatry.

Biblical literalists do it all the time. But what makes you think my relationship is any more important to me than my relationship with God than yours is?

That is in the Ten Commandments, and you said you believe in them because it's the only thing we have from the OT that is literally carved in stone.

I said no such thing. However, I DO think idolatry is a covert sin today... the way people dedicate time and money to profesional sports, I consider to be FAR more idolatrous and damaging to humanity and the Christian message than any one's loving, committed relationship ever could be.