BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE
This is the fourth installment in a 8-part series examining the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So."
Introduction - Why the DVD Deserves a Closer Look
Part 1 - Building Sympathy Without Exegisis
Part 2 - The Bible as a 'Truth Buffet'
Part 3 - Understanding the Bible...Or Rewriting It?
After another three minutes examining personal stories, the movie turns to the question of "Is it a choice?" This segment is complete with a cartoon figure called "Christian" who is thoroughly rebuked by "the latest science."
This "latest science" includes a rejection of several conventional theories about how homosexuality develops. FTBTMS doesn’t tell you that these positions were never disproved or refuted scientifically, but were merely rejected in favor of ideas that facilitate a "blameless" natural origin for homosexual behavior.
This "latest science" also attempts to normalize homosexuality as "natural" because the behavior has been observed in several animal species. What the "science" fails to admit in the film is that such behavior is the exception, not the rule. If homosexuality were the norm for pigs or elephants, there would soon be no pigs or elephants left, because they would not reproduce in sufficient numbers to maintain the species.
Sexuality was naturally designed by God for reproduction; when sexuality is expressed between two organisms which cannot reproduce with the physical equipment at hand, it can be said to be "unnatural."
This segment also examines studies of twins which show that in a majority of twins where homosexuality is present, both in the pair are homosexual. Presumably the film is referring to a study done by J. Michael Bailey in which he found a concordance rate of 52 percent. Omitted, however, is that Bailey’s second study reported a rate of only 20-37.5 percent. Bailey also admitted problems with the reliability of his first study.
Another consideration omitted from this segment is that if homosexuality does have an environmental cause, then both twins would most likely be exposed to those causes, and personality differences not withstanding, both would face the same environmental pressures. Further, if homosexuality were genetic, then since twins are practically identical genetically, then 100% of twins should be homosexual--but they aren't.
The next "latest science" we are subjected to claims that, because homosexuality is more prevalent among men who have several older brothers, after having had several boys, the mother's body sees boys as a "foreign object" and becomes more adept at "feminizing" them. I suppose all those heterosexuals who had several older brothers just somehow managed to escape this "feminization."
The cartoon "Christian" proffers the theory that it could be because mothers “baby” the youngest, but this is flatly and coldly rejected by the cartoon narrator: "No, that's not it."
Though this theory is only a couple of years old and has statistical problems (older brothers are not a factor for many homosexuals), FTBTMS is uncharacteristically certain here. In fact, overall, FTBTMS seems to offer lots of uncertain theories and ideas, but one thing is certain beyond all shadow of doubt: homosexuality does NOT have environmental cause or involve moral choice.
Meanwhile, the Bible provides no exception or excuse for not following God’s rules, even if a genetic predisposition for homosexuality did in fact exist. Every human being has inclinations toward some sins; for some, alcohol is a weakness; for others, infidelity; for still others, gambling or gossip. God allows no excuses for inclinations; He expects us to exercise our will toward obedience.
Human beings are created with intelligence and free will; they are not animals who only follow the dictates of instinct. God expects human beings, His creation, to follow His instructions, period. Yet this basic theological precept never receives even the briefest mention in FTBTMS.
Ex-gay ministries are targeted by "the latest science" segment with the statement that efforts to help homosexuals stop this behavior are bad because of the "guilt and shame" they instill.
Is "guilt and shame" appropriate when we've done something wrong? Is "guilt and shame" appropriate when we've cheated on a spouse, stolen something, lied, cheated, or done anything else that is wrong? Guilt and shame are appropriate and useful emotions for motivating us to correct behavior and make healthy changes in our lives.
Jesus says guilt is something all human beings have, and we will be convicted of it one day. Guilt is what we are supposed to feel when we're in the wrong, along with shame, and these emotions exist to point us to the repentance and change we need. We are not to feel good about what is shameful.
As the video recites a number of psychiatric associations that have changed their official positions that homosexuality should no longer be listed as a "disorder," it shies away from the fact that such changes are recent and go against millennia of established opinion.
You don't hear about the intimidation and relentless lobbying from homosexual activists that led to these politically motivated decisions. They also don't tell you that Dr. Robert Spitzer, who chaired the American Psychiatric Association committee responsible for this change, has since revised his thinking and now states that reparative therapies can work for some homosexuals.
FTBTMS asserts ex-gay ministries don't really allow the homosexual to change, that they're "still gay inside." Is the former alcoholic "still a drunk inside," even though they might have been dry for 20 years? Is the former philanderer "still promiscuous inside" even though they've been monogamous and faithful to one spouse for decades? Is the life-changing "new birth" Christ said in John chapter 3 is necessary to go to heaven really just a bad theory--in other words, even though Christ claims to change you, you're "still a sinner inside?"
Are we to surrender to our our lusts, or are we to exercise our free will, claiming even at great effort the freedom from sin that Christ bought for us on the cross?
In Part 5 next week: was the great sin of Sodom mentioned in the Bible homosexuality...or inhospitality?
Featured Article
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
For the Bible Tells Me So: The Real Story, Part 4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Is this author an expert on human sexuality? Does he hold a PhD in evolutionary biology from Harvard? Stanford? No, he is Biblical literalist who believes in talking snakes, magic fruit, sky fairies, and virgin births. Feel free to share your opinion, but don't touch science please. You haven't earned it.
The author seems to be an expert in common sense and seeing through modern day deceptions. Whether he has a PhD in anything is irrelevant.
You don't need to be an expert on human sexuality, hold a PhD in evolutionary biology from Harvard or Stanford to see the fallacies in the claims of this video. Is science a holy religion that only the high priests can touch? Do you worship science as infallible? Or rather, do you worship human interpretation of scientific data as infallible?
What specifically do you contend is in error in this piece (besides the claims made by the DVD, of course)?
The author is a backward buffoon. The movie was dead on.
Let's face it, some people were born gay. If they are to love and enjoy sexual pleasure in this world - it will be with a person of the same sex. Attempts to change from gay to straight have been a disater - with such so-called ex-gays being photographed in gay bars.
The world will be a much better place when such bigotry in th name of the Bible dissappears.
Bible fanatics were wrong on women,race, Jews and science. Isn't it time these "good people" were a little humble and learned from history?
Gay people will be here for the rest of time. Deal with it.
Even if homosexuals were born with a predisposition to homosexual behavior, they are obligated to resist that temptation, just as each of us is obligated to resist the temptation to alcoholism, gossip, murder, or whatever the sin may be.
And the proof that people are born homosexual? I'm still waiting as I listen to the crickets chirp...
"Gay people will be here for the rest of time. Deal with it."
The homosexual movement will extinguish itself through attrition and disease. Numbers are declining in all the major countries of the world and will continue to decline simply because it is unsustainable. Sure, there will always be some homosexuals, but the movement is dying. The leadership knows this.
It is possible for someone to be delivered from the sin of homosexual behavior by asking forgiveness and redemption from God. Do some backslide? Of course. Sin is our nature, gay or straight, but many, including me, have gone on to healthy, productive lives in Jesus after turning from the sin of homosexuality.
You can read about the famous case of gay leader Michael Glatze here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487
He, too, was delivered from his dark and destructive homosexual life into the light of Truth. So can you. Acts 3:24
"And the proof that people are born homosexual? I'm still waiting as I listen to the crickets chirp..."
Bob, as a Christian, surely you don't let pesky things like the absence of proof keep you from believing in something.
Some things in the spiritual realm must be taken on faith.
However, the claim that people are born homosexual is a scientific claim made on the basis of "science," not a theological one. And the scientific evidence of that claim is...
...still coming in. Just because researchers haven't found scientific evidence YET doesn't necessarily mean that a biological cause for homosexuality does not exist. For all we know, scientists may find undeniable proof for their claim tomorrow.
Don't forget all the trouble Galileo ran into with the Catholic church. They believed, based on faith, that the sun revolves around the earth. He believed the opposite, based on science. Turns out he was right. Oops.
The structure of the cosmos is a pretty monumental thing for Christians to have gotten wrong. So maybe they're also wrong about the relatively simpler claim that people are born homosexual.
Sorry, that last sentence is confusing. I meant to say that maybe Christians are also wrong to disagree with the claim that some people are born homosexual.
So you take the contention that homosexuals are born that way on FAITH?
As I've said several times, even if it did turn out that there was some sort of genetic predisposition in some toward homosexuality, there is absolutely zero Biblical excuse to indulge that predisposition, just as there isn't for drunkenness, infidelity, gossip, theft or whatever.
Just to clarify, that thing with Galileo: the geocentric theory was a non-Christian theory which some in the church bought into, that goes all the way back to Aristotle.
Maybe they should have stuck with the Bible, which has never been proven wrong about anything. And it says in Old and New Testaments that God doesn't approve of homosexuality.
If I did take that claim on faith, what's the harm? When I was a Christian, I took many more decidedly absurd things purely on faith: that a talking snake existed, that an ancient civilization could build a tower so high that God himself was afraid they could peer into Heaven, that a man singlehandedly altered the chemical composition of water to turn it into wine, that a woman became pregnant without the biological necessity of having her egg unite with a man's sperm, etc.
Sure, the Bible has never been proven wrong on any of these claims, but has it been proven RIGHT?
If you're a Christian, then you believe God is all-powerful. If he's all-powerful, then anything the Bible says about him is possible; once you believe the initial claim, the rest should be easy. And if Jesus was really God as he claimed, altering the chemical composition of water was a snap for him (he created the water), and so would creating life inside a woman's womb without intercourse with a man (this same all-powerful God who created the universe, all matter in it and the scientific laws that govern it could easily do this, as he easily created the first woman from part of the first man).
But if you're not a Christian, this none of this, along with the claims of this DVD, really matter to you do they? The foundation of Christianity is based on the Bible, and this DVD claims to examine what the Bible says about homosexuality, but if you aren't a Christian, neither should matter to you, right?
While I am not a Christian, my parents are devout Southern Baptists. I see firsthand how distraught they are over accepting their son for who he is versus remaining loyal to their religion, so the biblical passages about homosexuality and the arguments in the film matter to me very much, actually.
You seem to treat the Bible with great reverence and base your beliefs and opinions on what it says. According to the Bible, a man did turn water into wine and a woman did conceive a child without having intercourse, as impossible and outrageous as that sounds by what we now know about science. But you believe these things anyway. If the Bible also said that homosexuality is not sinful, would that be enough for you to believe it?
You didn't address the question in my last post, so I guess you agree that nothing in the Bible has been proven right?
Anonymous, I'm glad to hear that what the Bible says is important to you, even if it's mainly because of the heartache your parents are going through. I'd like to believe they're not struggling to remain loyal only to their religion, but to what God has said, and ultimately to God himself.
Yes, I do treat the Bible with great reverence and try as much as humanly possible to base my opinions on it's truth. You're right that the things you mentioned are a stretch if not impossible according to the laws of science as we understand them. However, as I said before, if God really is the creator of the universe and the scientific laws that governs it, He is able to supersede or suspend those laws at will with little or no effort. Just as the average PC user can't change the programming of Windows, but a Microsoft Windows programmer can, so God can do things that seem impossible to us. He's the "master programmer," if you will, and can easily rewrite the code to allow for "pop ups" or exceptional functions as he desires.
And yes, if the Bible said homosexuality wasn't sinful, that'd be all I'd need to believe it wasn't sinful. I'd still have reservations about it based on the tremendous health risks associated with the behavior, but I'd accept that it wasn't morally sinful.
However, the Bible says exactly the opposite. From Genesis 2:23-24 where God lays out his design for the expression of human sexuality (between a man and a woman) to Leviticus where he strongly condemns homosexuality, to various other passages in the Old Testament where homosexuality is spoken of negatively, to the New Testament in Mark 10:6-9 where Jesus reaffirms God's design for human sexuality, to Romans 1:26-27 where homosexual behavior is condemned to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 where it is also condemned, and some other NT references as well.
But the good news is also in one of those references (among others). If you read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 you'll notice that Paul says those sins are what some of the born-again church members WERE doing; they had been saved out of them. So the Bible not only says God disapproves of it, the Bible also says freedom is possible in Christ. Don't let this DVD's well-meaning deception about what God says keep you captive.
I didn't address your previous question about whether anything in the Bible has been proven right because there are so many things that have been proven correct that the question seems flatly ludicrous.
But since you seem to be serious, I'll try to give a brief answer. Specifically, the issues you raised have not been proven; they occurred so long ago that either no record of them was made or none remains. However, again, if you believe the principle assumption (e.g. the existence of Almighty God), none of those things is the slightest bit impossible, since God can easily supersede the natural laws of the universe; he created them, after all.
In general, there are a multitude of things about which the Bible has been proven right. Many of them have been disbelieved at various points in history, but science and/or archaeology has discovered the veracity of the Bible's claims. The earth is round, the house of David did exist, the universe is expanding, the Hittite people did exist, the contemporary documentary evidence of Jesus is extensive, towns known only in the Bible are being unearthed and confirmed with regularity, and so on and so on.
In fact, there is so much proven right in the Bible, and such a complete absence of anything having been proven wrong, that the chasm of faith required on somethings is easily bridged by the Bible's track record of veracity on other things.
That is, if you're willing to trust God in the first place.
Bob,
Thank you for the thorough response. In reference to the "tremendous health risks" associated with homosexual behavior, however, I think you're focusing only on men, which is both unfair and inaccurate. It's important to remember that out of all types of sexually active couples (including heterosexuals), lesbians are least likely to contract HIV/AIDS and other STD's. So in terms of avoiding health risks, lesbian sex is clearly the way to go.
Also, it's pretty troubling that you would have a different opinion of homosexuality simply if the Bible said it's ok to. Think about it: if the scribes who translated the Bible into English all those centuries ago had made a mistake and written that it's actually permissible to engage in homosexual behavior, then today we'd consider gay relationships to be just as valid and moral as heterosexual marriages. All because of a typo. Even more troubling -- how much of the Bible has been intentionally altered over time?
This is why I choose not to base my life on blind obedience to an instruction book, regardless of how infallible and God-inspired it claims itself to be.
And I forgive you for insulting my question as being flatly ludicrous. ;-)
Homosexual females are also at much greater risk of domestic violence, anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide risk. So they, too, face much greater health risks than heterosexuals.
The translation of the Bible over the centuries has been meticulous, so the error rate--even considering human fallibility--is very small. Did you know that some of the transcribers in ancient times used to count the words in a sentence, transcribe it, then make sure they transcribed the right number of words...then count the LETTERS to ensure accuracy? The Dead Sea Scrolls also go back to around the time of Christ, and guess what: there is virtually no difference between them and the texts which have been copied many times in the intervening centuries. What's more, we have more surviving ancient manuscripts of the Bible BY FAR than any other ancient text, yet no one doubts the authenticity of the works of Homer, Cato, or any other ancient writing. The Bible's track record for accuracy is unparalleled.
What's more, even if there was any question about the authenticity of the admonitions against homosexuality, consider also that God's design for human sexuality is pretty basic--not only from Genesis, but from nature itself; organisms don't reproduce and continue on by homosexual behavior, therefore, homosexual behavior makes no sense even from a scientific perspective. And it's certainly contrary to what God says he designed human sexuality for.
If you're not a Christian, I wouldn't expect you to value the importance of a Biblical worldview. But again, this DVD claims to answer the question of what the Bible says about homosexuality--a question of concern for Christians. If you aren't one, then this DVD is pretty much irrelevant to you.
But if you're concerned over whether you might be right, or your parents might be right, stay tuned for the remaining three parts of my series on this DVD. Or better yet, read the Bible for yourself and see if it makes sense; don't just read what someone says about it, read IT.
And I didn't intend to insult you when I said your question was ludicrous. That was simply an analysis, which I think that when you consider what you really asked, was accurate.
bob
in john 4 jesus says the true worshipper worship the father in spirit and in truth.
are we to rely on science for our theology, or a test of spirit thru the triune god who lives inside us.
AGAIN JESUS SAY SAYS WE RECOGNIZE THEM( NOT FROM OUR SCIENCE) BY THEIR FRUIT.
feetxxxl, I've answered this to a great extent in comments on Part 3, so I'd refer you there. But for a quick recap, how are we to distinguish the Spirit's voice from the voice of our own sinful heart? It can be difficult sometimes. And I speak from experience; there have been times when I "followed my heart" and thought I was following the Spirit...but I failed to hold up this "counsel" I thought was from God against the Bible to see if it measured up to God's TRUTH. To my detriment, I found that my own selfish desires can sound an awful lot like the Spirit, when I want something bad enough.
But God's truth, God's Word, is written down. It doesn't change. It's what we must measure all things by.
And if you're implying we shouldn't rely on "science" over the Bible, you're absolutely right. I think my concurrence with that conclusion is implicit in this article. But it was a significant segment within this DVD (which bills itself as "what the Bible tells us" about homosexuality), so it needed to be dealt with...because even this "science" is flawed and unreliable.
Science, like that "voice" we sometimes hear from our hearts, is interpretive because in science we figure it out (or guess) as we go, and we sometimes get it wrong. God, who created science, the laws of nature and the laws of morality, knows all the right answers up front, and he laid out all of that we need to know in order to live our lives rightly--and he did so in the Bible.
you are right god made all the laws of science. regardless, it is witness of the spirit thru the one who lives inside us, that tells us what is and is not of christ.
surely christ's sending the holy spirit is something more meaningful than mere theory.
what is written down points to the spirit of christ over which he has been given all authority. what is written was written by the holy spirit in conjunction with the existing covenant.
we are now in the covenant of christ. what is written points to that covenant.
hebrews 8 13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
the essence of the new covenant of christ are three commandments of love.
love god with all your heart soul and mind(john 4........... god is spirit and the true worshippers will worship him in spirit and truth)
love your neighbor as yourself..............the summation of all the law.....................whatever is sin comes against this. (if it does not come against this it is not of the sin nature and therefore not a sin)
love one another as i have loved you............shows the heart of the servant.................the greatest among you will be your servant.
feetxxx1, if you've gone back and read my replies to all the comments you've left on the six parts thus far published in this series, then I don't think you're getting me. If you haven't read them all yet, I implore you to.
I'll say one more time: the Holy Spirit is the true messenger of God. However, it is easy to confuse His voice with the voice of our desires. That is why we have the Bible as the written measure of truth; we can compare anything to it--including the voice we believe may be the Holy Spirit speaking to us. If that voice is telling us something contrary to what the Bible clearly says, we can know that we have heard something (our own desires, the temptations of Satan?) other than God's spirit.
And since God's word makes it plain in both Old and New Testament that he does not in any way, shape, form, fashion, or under any circumstances approve of homosexual behavior, any voice that tells you God does is NOT the Holy Spirit. The Spirit simply will contradict God's written word.
And as I explained before, the love of which God is speaking in these Scriptures you cited is agape, or selfless caring love, not eros, which is romantic or sexual love. God makes it clear that eros is only to be expressed betwen a husband and wife within their marriage.
we both agree that scripture was written thru the holy spirit, and that all scriptures are god breathed, so please if you chose to express an opinion please annotate with scripture.
i will do the same. and if is dont please, remind me.
john 5:39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
why didnt john merely make an explanation thru reiteration of the scriptures to prove that christ was lord. instead it was thru that "which we looked at , which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched" his explanation of christ being lord was thru witness of the spirit.
why would not the same be true to determine what is and is not of christ.
so you are saying we dont recognize them by their fruit, instead by how they follow the law. but all written word requires interpretation. whose interpretation are we to follow except that of the one who christ has sent us.
does not paul say in romans that we no longer have the old relationship to the written code, but are led by and serve of the spirit.
feetxxxl, I don't know how to say this any differently than I've already done in these six parts on the Bible and homosexuality, nor in how I've already said it in all these comments we've shared back and forth.
You seem to have an inordinate fixation on the Spirit. We should worship the Holy Spirit because He is part of the Godhead or the Trinity. And we should listen to Him, since He is God.
But as I've said over and over, it is easy to confuse the Spirit's voice with our own voice, the voice of our desires, the voice of what we want, even the voice of temptation.
In order to help us authenticate the voice of the Holy Spirit, we need to compare what we believe he is telling us to what is written in the Bible. If they conflict (for example, if we believe the Holy Spirit is telling us homosexuality is okay, but scripture says in several places in both Old and New Testaments that it ISN'T), then we know we haven't heard the Spirit.
God says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that the Scriptures are to be use for teaching and correcting and training in righteousness.
Jesus points to the authority of the Scriptures in Matthew 22:29 and Mark 12:24, stating that people are in error because they don't know the Bible.
In Matthew 21:42, Matthew 26:54, Mark 14:49, Luke 24:27, and John 5:39 Jesus points to the Scriptures as the authentication of who he is (the Son of God). People could know he was the Son of God and not some faker because he fit the description of Scripture.
Others in the New Testament used the Scriptures as their basis for truth: Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:15.
The old ritual code of the Mosaic Law was done away with by Jesus, but he did not abolish the moral law of right and wrong (Matthew 5:17-18).
Please go back and read these verses about the authority of Scripture and their ability to authenticate what we believe we hear. Then find a Bible-believing church that is grounded in God's word.
Until you become grounded in the truth of the Bible, you'll be like a ship tossed about in a stormy sea. But anchored to the truth of the Word of God, you'll be able to weather any storm.
feetxxxl, you seem to be desperately confused about Christian theology. I don't say this to insult, merely to describe, but you are all over the map theologically and not grounded in any solid teaching of the Bible. You seem to have glued together random parts of the Bible into an inconsistent patchwork.
im merely responding to the subjects you are bringing up. is there something i wrote that isnt scriptural ......please be specific.
The olympic runner with no legs has a message from REALITY that he can't run; he doesn't need a message from the Holy Spirit or the Bible or a policeman on the street. REALITY should tell him this.
absolutely, therefore a man who has been born with no male testicals does not need to be told that he has not been given the word for having a one flesh relationship with a woman
The measure of a sin is not so much "does it come against loving one's neighbor as ones self" as it is "failure to obey God", and God makes it clear that he wants human sexuality to be expressed between a man and a woman within their marriage (and if God wants that, and one man participates in what God wants with another man, then he is assisting that other man in disobeying God, and someone who loved his neighbor as himself would not help another person to transgress against God--so actually homosexuality DOES violate the law of love).
im going to respond with capitol letters, because it makes it easier to differeniate who is writing what. if you find it offensive ill write with small letters and you can write with capitols.
this is what it is really about. because its obvious that the essence of homosexuality does not come against loving ones neighbor as oneself. homosexuals bond in the same spirit as heterosexuals. both bondings are done out of mutual respect, attraction, devotion, love (eros yes, but also agape as well), and trust for shared committed life together.
that being the case, there has been an attempt to condemn it out of regulation. that god has merely set forth a rule that homosexuality is a sin. that is why all frantic theology to come with an explanation as to why god made this rule.
apart from this being unsustainable theology, there is a MAJOR problem with this effort. in the new covenant of christ we no longer have a relationship to the written code that we had under the old covenant, when god forbade wearing mixed fabric, and eating shellfish and doing householdchores on the sabbath
we are no longer under the law but are instead under grace.
Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
in christ we died to the law we might belong to another. and in so dying we are released from the law so that we serve in a new way of the spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
romans7: 4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
that is what the three love commandments are about. serving in the spirit of love, the love of 1john4 and 1cor 13
if we serve in them what else is needed?
in the new covenant in addition to serving of the spirit we are also LED by the spirit.
romans 8:13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
hebrews 8 said if there was nothing needed after the first covenant the one in christ would not have been created.
hebrews 8: 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
1cor13 says that anything not done in love(love that is god) is nothing and gains nothing. surely you would agree that there can be a million motivations , apart from love, for following a rule...................fear, pride, guilt, anxiety,etc.
however in following the three commandments of love we do more than follow the law, we fulfill it. because fulfillment of the law is love.
under the new covenant of christ the law is now for being conscious of not loving(loving thru the love that is god) thru the three commandments.
romans 3:19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
this a love that cannot come from human effort but instead thru grace thru the one who lives in us.
again if we follow the three commandments what possible law is not covered? if david had loved his neighbor as he loved himself, would he have even considered conspiring against bethsheba's husband?
living under the three commandments what is sin is that whose essence obviously comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself, the summation of all the law.
ROMANS 13:8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
mark12:30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'[a] 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b]There is no commandment greater than these."
Galatians 5:14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
The multiple commands against homosexuality which you seem to have somehow missed in reading all six parts in this series are here. They outline God's design for human sexuality as between a man and a woman within marriage and specifically condemn homosexuality:
ive responded to every part, even part one, a response that was never printed. if there is a specific subject in a specific part that i may have missed please call it to my attention.
Genesis 2:24 Where God outlined his design for human sexuality: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
"only " is not used in that text. therefore his ordaining of one flesh heterosexual relationships does not mean that this is the only one flesh relationship he ordains
again, the test the spirit of the one flesh relationship. 1 thess 5:test everything keep the good
Genesis 19 where men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the male angels, and it was called a "wicked thing"
was not about sex but about violation another over an issue of power.
Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
just because it is a prohibition does not mean it is a sin. and as with ethnic slavery, just because it was supported then, does not mean it is not an intolerable sin today. slavery became an intolerable evil when it became evident that it was an obvious violation of loving ones neighbor as oneself, when the understanding of neighbor expanded to included everyone regardless of ethnic.
Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."
answered above
Judges 19 In Gibeah where "wicked men" wanted to have sex with a Levite man, and it was called a "disgraceful thing"
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my GUESTt, don't do this disgraceful thing. Again gang rape
Mark 10:6-8 Jesus reaffirms God's design for human sexuality: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one."
already answered
Romans 1:26-27 where the Bible talks about "godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness" and says "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
please include 24 and 25 if this is about homosexuality then all pronouns can be tranposed by the word homosexual without violating the scripture
24Therefore God gave homosexuals over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25homosexuals exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave homosexuals over to shameful lusts. Even homosexual's women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the homosexuals also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for another homosexual. homosexuals committed indecent acts with other homosexuals, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
then we have to go back to 23 how did homosexuals exchange the glory of god for images of mortal man and sinful desires did god give them over to for degrading their bodies with one another and what truth was exchanged for what lie and how was what entity of creation worshipped and served so that already being homosexuals they indulged in lustful relations, the same as their women which homosexuals dont have and abandoning relationships they never had, to indulge in lustful relationships they were already doing in 23.
and what resemblance does lustful relationships in any orientation have to do with human bonding..........bonding out of mutual love, respect, attraction, love, and trust for a shared commited life together.
according to that scripture all homosexual relationsl are shame based lust ridden. shame based means engendering self hatred and self loathing.....that is the due penalty
are all in the gay pride parades worldwide supported by delusional, denying, deceitful people because they refuse to admit the self loathing and self hatred in all gay relationships. they refuse to see that they are shamebased. is that your own personnal witness of those who are gay in your life?
if none of the things are true about homosexuals in romans, then it is not about homosexuality. romans 1 is a test of spirit...............a spirit of lust, a spirit of denying god and glorifying him, and giving thanks to him, placing their own images of mortality above the glory of the essence that is god, and degrading their bodies to to feed those mortal images, so they exchanged the truth about god for a lie so they could worship and serve their own mortal image, powers and principalities, so god gave them over to the lusts engendered by these created entities to do shame based acts. they abandoned what was natural in the spirit for what was natural in the things they were worshipping and serving. because of that there was no limit to the wickedness they could contrive.
an example..........................the halocaust, most wars, antisemmitism,
to attempt to make romans 1 about homosexuality being a sin is ignore what paul is explaining............... the essence of all sin. it is also an attempt to place romans 1 under the old relationship to the law under the old covenant rather to embrace our relationship to the law and sin in the new.
romans2:1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
1 Corinthians 6:9 says, among other habitual sins, homosexuals "will not inherit the kingdom of God"
the transposition of homosexuality for arsenkoitai(malebed) is an attempt to deny the new covenant in christ for the sake old covenant theology
surely those who were washed, justified, and sanctified, were so because of the blood of christ not because they changed their behavior, otherwise why the cross.
do you know that most of the regulations in the old testament about sacrifice were for sacrifice for unknown sin.
you are saved by grace thru faith. this is not of yourselves, it is a gift of god, and it is not by works..............
1 Timothy 1:10 condemns "men who practice homosexuality"
same as the above.
just as a simple comparison of the sins listed in 1tim and 1cor....... thieves, greedy, slanderers, murders, liars, and perjurers all obviously come against loving ones neighbor as oneself. but it also is an attempt to show what we all were until having received christ as our lord and savior, we are now " controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness."
gal5: 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:
that means by the very essenceod the spirit, it is self explanatory that they come against loving ones neighbor as oneself.
are you saying that now having christ living inside of us we are still living under the old covenant relationship to the written code?.
feetxxxl, I gave you the specific Scriptures you asked for, yet you continue to try and wiggle out of them, trying to come up with elaborate explanations for why they don't mean what they say.
You are also fixated on some sort of justification to leave behind not only the ritual law of the Mosaic Covenant, but the very moral law itself--a moral law that was reiterated and confirmed in the New Testament--including renewed condemnations of homosexuality.
You are obviously under a very strong delusion, the spiritual kind the Bible speaks of that leaves us totally blind to the truth.
I've prayed for you that you'd be able to see God's truth in his Word, and I'll continue to pray for you, but I just I don't think anything will be gained by further discourse here. I've explained it as thoroughly and as specifically as I can that (a) God explicitly condemns homosexual behavior in both Old and New Testaments, (b) that the Bible is the ultimate and final measure of what is right, and (c) that committing an act that God specifically prohibits is NOT the agape love (though it may be eros) Christ commanded.
Until you can accept at the very least that God's word is authoritative (above the voice you may be confusing with the Spirit), you and I aren't on the same page enough to carry on a meaningful dialog; in fact, we quite literally aren't even in the same book.
I do hope you'll keep searching for God's truth (it's found in his Word) and will pray that you find it.
i have already told you that all scripture was written thru the holy spirit and is god breathed.
but everything written requires interpretation. so whose interpretation do we trust. interpretation of human origin, no, of the holy spirit that's why he sends it.
how do we determine it in the physical world thru discussion in fellowship.
you sent me a message ...........i answered everyone of your points. if you were secure in your position you would look forward to confronting my points. i
i hold the scripture so dear i have studied it for the last 20 years.
your contention is that i dont hold it dear because i challenge your understanding of the new covenant.
but my challenge is with scripture not with opinion.
so far you have offered scripture but none it has to do with the points i am making.
john 5:39 why didnt you include 40 as well.
though position is the method of dialogue my interest in dialogue is to seek the truth. if scripture you offer shows it is a sin........great!
none of them have? because you cannot show how the words
of those scriptures say homosexuality is a sin.
john5:39-4039You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to
have life.
the point is that even though scriptures (old testament) spoke about him, the educated who studied scripture(the pharisees) were incapable of coming to him. they believed scripture was god's word.
today, without the holy spirit we see nothing.
how is it that even though romans 10 and 11 have existed for 2000 years, the worse antisemmitism was indemic in christian countries for 2000 years
how is it that the church supported the practice of indulgences for 1500 years even though the verses in scripture of ephesians 2:8-9 and others similar.
luther wasnt the first to object to the practice. jan hus objected 100 years earlier and was burned at the stake by the studiers of scripture.
Post a Comment