Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,414
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality? (view source)
Revision as of 04:20, February 20, 2008
, 04:20, February 20, 2008Adds more of less a basic summary of primary pro-homosexual attempts to Biblically sanction such.
:I think the issue being discussed is not a man's loving a man, but rather engaging in sexual relations with a man, or perhaps a man treating another man as a woman rather than a man. I'm not as much an expert on the Bible as I should be, unfortunately. Does lesbianism even play into this at all? [[User:Anmeris|Anmeris]] 14:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:I think the issue being discussed is not a man's loving a man, but rather engaging in sexual relations with a man, or perhaps a man treating another man as a woman rather than a man. I'm not as much an expert on the Bible as I should be, unfortunately. Does lesbianism even play into this at all? [[User:Anmeris|Anmeris]] 14:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
----
'''
== Brief responses to primary homosexual arguments ==
'''
The ONLY times the Bible explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity is that of prohibition and condemnation. While not much is given here, i would like to post a basic summary of more or less basic responses to primary pro-homosexual attempts to negate Biblical injunctions against their homo-eroticism.
In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, "yada" (know, s in know) them is never (by my research) used to denote "knowing" anyone personally by means of force, but is very often used in such a context (as btwn humans to personally know) gaining sexual knowledge (Gen 4:1,17, 25, 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18, 35; Jud. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kg. 1:14; Mt. 1:25), and which fits in perfectly with the offer of virgins rather than the men.
In Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 the attempts to negate such rely upon imposing a hermeneutic that negates the other moral practices in their particular company (adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.), but which negation the rest of Scripture disallows. Another attempt is to make these injunctions only for purposes of distinction (team colors), yet the Bible treats them as inherently wicked, for which cause God destroyed the Canaanites. another attempt to make them only applicable to the Levites, which the context denies (Lev. 18:1). Another attempt requires a radical significance for the absence of more than two explicit prohibitions, and only one of the death penalty, which ought to be enough (what part of "no" don't you understand?), and which attempt ignore that fact the the more common a sin the more it is likely to be mentioned (like idolatry), and other categories of fornication are not in Dt. 27 either). And as far as the "shellfish hermeneutic," which equates dietary laws (Lev. 11) with purely moral ones, this ignores the clear classification made under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16), between typological laws (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:9, 10) which are not repeated under the New, and moral ones which are abundantly reiterated.
Likewise attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only sodomy that is part of idolatry fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. Nor does it only address forced acts, but consensual relations (v. 27).
Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), and details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).
As for attempts to find approved examples not simply of homosexual activity, but of marriage, as without that sanctifying provision which God abundantly and explicitly evidences for heterosexuals, (and would for homosexuals if indeed it was the healthy and wholesome thing they make it to be), then it wold be unholy fornication, such attempts require reading present western culture into an Oriental setting, as well as ignoring other aspects necessary for sound exegesis.
Beginning in 1 Sam,. 18, David and Jonathan's "bosom buddy" expressions of affection are in keeping with the strong emotional language of the culture, and of David elsewhere (read the Psalms) and are an example of platonic love between two fellow soldier whose loyalty to God and thus each other was trial tested, and the attempt to make them erotic fails in every attempt. Saul was known keeping potentially good soldiers from going home (1 Sam. 14:52), the Hebrew word covenant never is used for marriage, and David became the kings son in law for the first time with Michal (1 Sam. 18:21-27: the word "one" is missing often in Scripture when the context makes it clear what it is).
As for Jonathan's stripping of his soldiers garments ("girdle" means armor in other places and men did wear undergarments in those days, while the word “even” is used to denote a limited extent in such places as Num. 4:43) and giving them to David is not erotic, but was a ceremony of prophetic significance after the manner of the clear parallel in Numbers 20:26. Therein we read the command, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there." This ceremony symbolically signified the transference of the office of the former upon the latter. In like manner, Jonathan's divestiture of his royal clothing (as the king's son) to give them to this poorly clad shepherd boy (clothes were indicative of royalty: cf. Esther 6:8) prophetically signified the transference of the future kingship from himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would shortly come to pass. None of this lends itself to the imaginative erotic encounters the liberal interpretation seeks.
As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia), and that "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was for good, and the only real friend the hunted David had ) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.
Finally, as regards David's later poetic lament after Johnathan death (2 Sam. 1: 26), "pleasant" is used of Saul as well (v. 23), and by “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” David is not comparing his close buddy's love as being a higher quality of sensual love, but is contrasting the marvelous brotherly love of Jonathan with the sexual “eros” love of women. Likewise we can say that unconditional, nonreciprocal love surpasses that of sexual love.
David actually knew little of any manner of the love of women, as his wife, Saul's daughter Michal, was still with the man Saul had joined her with (1 Sam. 25:44) after David had to flee for his life (1Sam. 19:11-17). She would also soon be cursed due to her self righteous carnal reproof of him (2 Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David and the future of Israel more than once, and showed himself a singular true hearted sacrificial faithful friend and a Godly fellow soldier in helping David escape Saul's murderous will for him. David thus expresses deep grief at his loss with words of strong emotion which are common in Scripture. David would later woefully and tearfully lament “my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee (1 Sam. 18:33), while in the poetic Psalms David expresses how he “bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother" when speaking of his love even for an enemy (Ps. 35:14). But this is all pathos, not eros, and in the story of those two compatriots we have an example of “bosom buddies” who risked their lives in friendship and fidelity to what was right in God's sight, which affirms such platonic love and actually excludes eroticism. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simply sexually, and the latter does not even qualify as true love (thus a relationship must thrive without it before it can be part of it). Moreover the fact that they both were married testifies to their heterosexual nature, and it was not a Billy that David lusted after later, but a Bathsheba.
As for Ruth, if the word "cleave" is to mean sexually as they propose or assert, then she would be a whoremonger, as she was told to be "cleave" to both the menservants and maid servants. Before she got married! This would give a radically different definition to the term "virtuous women," but such is what homosexual hermeneutics require, and which forced interpretations militate against the Bible from actually being a moral authority
I need not get into even more desperate and complex attempts to squeeze married homo-erotic activity out of holy Scripture, suffice to say that the more one studies them then the more it becomes apparent as such apologists cannot get God to in any ways explicitly sanction the homo-erotic activity they crave then they must force oblique inferences into texts, which again and again fail to prove the radical erotic ethos that is contrary to the only statements God makes regarding men lying with men, which forbid and condemn it.
For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html (mine)
and http://www.tektonics.org/TK-H.html (see Homosexuality) --[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)
==Paul's Letter To The Corinthians==
==Paul's Letter To The Corinthians==