The Bible and Gay Relationships

[Katiegrrl0]

One other point I really have to make here is in relation to Paul and culture. Paul is a very problematic source of information for a lot of reasons (which I will explain thoroughly if anyone is really that interested) and frankly in my research I have gotten to the point that if it's written by Paul I generally take it with a huge grain of salt if not ignore it completely.

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Anyhow...just thought I would toss that in there as well.

I want to toss in one final point on this line of thought. Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that the above is correct. Paul held the opinion that a dominant role in a male homosexual relationship was fine but a submissive role was not. How then do we approach that in the modern day according to modern culture?

It seems to me we have three options:

a) We can endorse that point of view literally and persecute only those homosexuals who are effeminate but that means we must regress culturally some 2,000 years. I don't think anyone, even the most passionate believer, really wants to go back to the way society was two thousand years ago because if we do that for one issue then there's nothing to say we shouldn't do it for all issues. At that point it becomes perfectly reasonable to stone people to death, slay daughters for talking back (even though on occasion I have been tempted by my own daughters ), etc. So I think we can toss that one out the window.

b) We can say "well in modern culture we do not discriminate between the dominant and submissive so we will persecute all homosexuals". Well doesn't that mean though, that even if we accept the word of Paul as the word of God (which personally I do not) then we are persecuting a sub-set of individuals who neither Paul nor God said to persecute? How are following God's will in that case?

c) We shrug our shoulders and say "let God figure it out".

It seems to me that only option c can be reasonably adopted while maintaining what makes our culture unique and special and at the same time adhering to the love and worship of God.

Isn't it written in Matthew 22: 36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

Matthew 22 NIV - The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Bible Gateway

Isn't it written in Matthew 7: 1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.​

Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -

In Romans 13:10

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.​

Romans 13 NIV - Submission to Governing Authorities - Bible Gateway

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am. Hmmmm
Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

 

[Peach]

One other point I really have to make here is in relation to Paul and culture. Paul is a very problematic source of information for a lot of reasons (which I will explain thoroughly if anyone is really that interested) and frankly in my research I have gotten to the point that if it's written by Paul I generally take it with a huge grain of salt if not ignore it completely.

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Anyhow...just thought I would toss that in there as well.

I want to toss in one final point on this line of thought. Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that the above is correct. Paul held the opinion that a dominant role in a male homosexual relationship was fine but a submissive role was not. How then do we approach that in the modern day according to modern culture?

It seems to me we have three options:

a) We can endorse that point of view literally and persecute only those homosexuals who are effeminate but that means we must regress culturally some 2,000 years. I don't think anyone, even the most passionate believer, really wants to go back to the way society was two thousand years ago because if we do that for one issue then there's nothing to say we shouldn't do it for all issues. At that point it becomes perfectly reasonable to stone people to death, slay daughters for talking back (even though on occasion I have been tempted by my own daughters ), etc. So I think we can toss that one out the window.

b) We can say "well in modern culture we do not discriminate between the dominant and submissive so we will persecute all homosexuals". Well doesn't that mean though, that even if we accept the word of Paul as the word of God (which personally I do not) then we are persecuting a sub-set of individuals who neither Paul nor God said to persecute? How are following God's will in that case?

c) We shrug our shoulders and say "let God figure it out".

It seems to me that only option c can be reasonably adopted while maintaining what makes our culture unique and special and at the same time adhering to the love and worship of God.

Isn't it written in Matthew 22: 36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

Matthew 22 NIV - The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Bible Gateway

Isn't it written in Matthew 7: 1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.​

Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -

In Romans 13:10

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.​

Romans 13 NIV - Submission to Governing Authorities - Bible Gateway

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am. Hmmmm
Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

Read the Bible as a HUMAN, not as X,Y,Z? I see no exception to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF based on sexual orientation, or HEIGHT for that matter.

 

[Katiegrrl0]

I want to toss in one final point on this line of thought. Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that the above is correct. Paul held the opinion that a dominant role in a male homosexual relationship was fine but a submissive role was not. How then do we approach that in the modern day according to modern culture?

It seems to me we have three options:

a) We can endorse that point of view literally and persecute only those homosexuals who are effeminate but that means we must regress culturally some 2,000 years. I don't think anyone, even the most passionate believer, really wants to go back to the way society was two thousand years ago because if we do that for one issue then there's nothing to say we shouldn't do it for all issues. At that point it becomes perfectly reasonable to stone people to death, slay daughters for talking back (even though on occasion I have been tempted by my own daughters ), etc. So I think we can toss that one out the window.

b) We can say "well in modern culture we do not discriminate between the dominant and submissive so we will persecute all homosexuals". Well doesn't that mean though, that even if we accept the word of Paul as the word of God (which personally I do not) then we are persecuting a sub-set of individuals who neither Paul nor God said to persecute? How are following God's will in that case?

c) We shrug our shoulders and say "let God figure it out".

It seems to me that only option c can be reasonably adopted while maintaining what makes our culture unique and special and at the same time adhering to the love and worship of God.

Isn't it written in Matthew 22: 36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

Matthew 22 NIV - The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Bible Gateway

Isn't it written in Matthew 7: 1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.​

Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -

In Romans 13:10

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.​

Romans 13 NIV - Submission to Governing Authorities - Bible Gateway

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am. Hmmmm
Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

Read the Bible as a HUMAN, not as X,Y,Z? I see no exception to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF based on sexual orientation, or HEIGHT for that matter.

I hope it doesn't mention height or I would be in real trouble.

 

[Peach]

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am. Hmmmm
Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

Read the Bible as a HUMAN, not as X,Y,Z? I see no exception to LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF based on sexual orientation, or HEIGHT for that matter.

I hope it doesn't mention height or I would be in real trouble.

As would I; Jesus said, over, and over again, to love all humans, respect God's earth, and treat all things as God's creation:

33] But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he
saw him, he had compassion,
[34] and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine;
then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took
care of him.
[35] And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the
innkeeper, saying, `Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I
will repay you when I come back.'
[36] Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who
fell among the robbers?"
[37] He said, "The one who showed mercy on him." And Jesus said to him,
"Go and do likewise."

He did not rescind the ecological ethics of the Law, although he was less strict about ceremonial laws. All foods are clean and do not defile a person (Mark 7:19). He touched the sick to heal them, rejecting ceremonial uncleanness laws found in the Hebrew Bible (Mark 1:40-45; 5:25-34). Jesus appreciated the beauty of nature (Matt 6:28-29) and showed respect for nature in his parables, which are rich in nature imagery. Through his upbringing in rural Galilee he learned about God’s care for creation by observing fruit trees, flowers, birds and fishermen and by working as a carpenter. Jesus affirmed the scriptures teaching that God created all things (Mark 10:6; 13:19; Matt. 19:4). The world and matter are not eternal (Matt 24:21; 25:34; John 17:24). Nature reflects the activity of God and does not operate independently (Matt. 5:45; 6:26-30; Luke 12:6). God is a loving Father who sustains and cares for all creation. God gives life to all beings (John 5:17, 6:33; Luke 24:38) and provides food for animals, birds and plants (Matt 6:26-30; Luke 12:6). Since he loves all people, he causes the sun to shine and rain to fall on both righteous and wicked people (Matt 5:45; cf. Ps 50:11; 104:14, 17). A

 

[Peach]

Pointing out Christ's teaching that loving thy neighbor as thyself, is second only to honoring God, seems to end discussions about who God HATES.............................

 

[BluePhantom]

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am.

That's actually a really great question. The Bible passage that are (again arguably) related to homosexuality are mostly limited to male acts. Lesbian acts are really not mentioned at all. One could argue that in Romans, Paul discusses that they "turned against their natural instincts and women went with women and men with men" (paraphrased) but that's really the only time it's specifically mentioned that I am aware of.

Well in rebuttal I would say 1) consider what I have pointed out about the cultural attitude regarding discriminating between roles and homosexuality, 2) keep in mind...it IS Paul so we have to kind of be careful about paying too much attention to what he says, and 3) Paul had a tendency to use words that he seemed to have invented. I referred to "arsenokotai" earlier and that's a really glaring example that relates specifically to this topic. It seems that the church, quite arbitrarily, chose to translate "arsenokotai" as "homosexual" even though there's not a single shred of evidence that it means anything that's even closely related to it and in fact most evidence suggests it probably doesn't. So why is it translated that way? Politics probably...and very likely nothing more.

But it would be a mistake to assume that ancient cultures thought of female homosexuality the same as they viewed male homosexuality and therefore a dominant/submissive distinction would apply. Female homosexuality was completely irrelevant and frankly widespread. One might observe that in regard to the actual coital practices the line between dominant and submissive is not as clearly defined with women as it is with men.

On the other hand we could confidently assert that a woman who acted like a man would be just a subject to society's ridicule as a man who acted as a woman...but not from a sexual point of view. What I mean is that the sexual activity itself would have nothing to do with it. Women, be they straight or gay, would not be accepted in an ancient culture if they behaved like men. It would be considered going against their nature...and THAT'S the key word here. The problem in an ancient culture would not be that they engaged in a homosexual activity...it would be that they acted against the nature of what men were and what women were specifically in regard to the submissive/dominant role. Women were supposed to be mostly submissive so a woman who was dominant would be ridiculed whether she was straight or gay. men were supposed to be dominant so a man who was submissive would be ridiculed whether he was straight or gay. Sexual activity has nothing to do with it except for men where the line between dominant and submissive is very clearly drawn.

So in regard to your question I would say that Paul seems to be the only one mentioning lesbianism and his credibility is questionable to begin with, he has almost certainly been mistranslated in regard to that specific passage that deals with it, even if he wasn't one would have to act outside their particular nature for it to apply (i.e. engage in homosexual activity when you are not actually a homosexual), or you wold have to assume an unnatural posture outside of a traditional role in regards to dominant / submissive but then that is not limited to sexual activity - it can apply to anything and therefore homosexual activity becomes irrelevant.

Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

I agree completely. 100%

 

[BluePhantom]

Pointing out Christ's teaching that loving thy neighbor as thyself, is second only to honoring God, seems to end discussions about who God HATES.............................

BING BING BING!!!! Ladies and gentlemen WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

 

[Peach]

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am.

That's actually a really great question. The Bible passage that are (again arguably) related to homosexuality are mostly limited to male acts. Lesbian acts are really not mentioned at all. One could argue that in Romans, Paul discusses that they "turned against their natural instincts and women went with women and men with men" (paraphrased) but that's really the only time it's specifically mentioned that I am aware of.

Well in rebuttal I would say 1) consider what I have pointed out about the cultural attitude regarding discriminating between roles and homosexuality, 2) keep in mind...it IS Paul so we have to kind of be careful about paying too much attention to what he says, and 3) Paul had a tendency to use words that he seemed to have invented. I referred to "arsenokotai" earlier and that's a really glaring example that relates specifically to this topic. It seems that the church, quite arbitrarily, chose to translate "arsenokotai" as "homosexual" even those there's not a single shred of evidence that it means anything that's even closely related to it and in fact most evidence suggests it probably doesn't. So why is it translated that way? Politics probably...and very likely nothing more.

But it would be a mistake to assume that ancient cultures thought of female homosexuality the same as they viewed male homosexuality and therefore a dominant/submissive distinction would apply. Female homosexuality was completely irrelevant and frankly widespread. One might observe that in regard to the actual coital practices the line between dominant and submissive is not as clearly defined with women as it is with men.

On the other hand we could confidently assert that a woman who acted like a man would be just a subject to society's ridicule as a man who acted as a woman...but not from a sexual point of view. What I mean is that the sexual activity itself would have nothing to do with it. Women, be they straight or gay, would not be accepted in an ancient culture if they behaved like men. It would be considered going against their nature...and THAT'S the key word here. The problem in an ancient culture would not be that they engaged in a homosexual activity...it would be that they acted against the nature of what men were and what women were. Women were supposed to be mostly submissive so a woman who was dominant would be ridiculed whether she was straight or gay. men were supposed to be dominant so a man who was submissive would be ridiculed whether he was straight or gay. Sexual activity has nothing to do with it except for men where the line between dominant and submissive is very clearly drawn.

So in regard to your question I would say that Paul seems to be the only one mentioning lesbianism and his credibility is questionable to begin with, he has almost certainly been mistranslated in regard to that specific passage that deals with it, even if he wasn't one would have to act outside their nature for it to apply (engage in homosexual activity when you are not actually a homosexual), or you wold have to assume a posture outside of a traditional posture in regards to dominant / submissive but then that is not limited to sexual activity - it can apply to anything.

Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

I agree completely. 100%

Christ made no distinction among humans.

 

[uscitizen]

BINGO! And that is my main reason for not being religious. I grew up in a church and experienced this firsthand for the first 16 years of my life.

True Christians who do their best to live life like Christ taught are good folks. Those who use religion for their own purposes are scum.

I went to a Catholic grade school and found so much a justification. Faith is pick an choose. You accept what you like and discard the rest. Makes minced meta of what is believed to be god's word by some.
If a person believe they certainly should be consistent. There is no consistency in many of the believers.

And many faiths whose "beliefs" conflict....................................

and yet each faith believes that theirs is the only correct way.

 

[Peach]

I went to a Catholic grade school and found so much a justification. Faith is pick an choose. You accept what you like and discard the rest. Makes minced meta of what is believed to be god's word by some.
If a person believe they certainly should be consistent. There is no consistency in many of the believers.

And many faiths whose "beliefs" conflict....................................

and yet each faith believes that theirs is the only correct way.

Not all faiths, many do, but not all.

 

[AmericanFirst]

One other point I really have to make here is in relation to Paul and culture. Paul is a very problematic source of information for a lot of reasons (which I will explain thoroughly if anyone is really that interested) and frankly in my research I have gotten to the point that if it's written by Paul I generally take it with a huge grain of salt if not ignore it completely.

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Anyhow...just thought I would toss that in there as well.

I want to toss in one final point on this line of thought. Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that the above is correct. Paul held the opinion that a dominant role in a male homosexual relationship was fine but a submissive role was not. How then do we approach that in the modern day according to modern culture?

It seems to me we have three options:

a) We can endorse that point of view literally and persecute only those homosexuals who are effeminate but that means we must regress culturally some 2,000 years. I don't think anyone, even the most passionate believer, really wants to go back to the way society was two thousand years ago because if we do that for one issue then there's nothing to say we shouldn't do it for all issues. At that point it becomes perfectly reasonable to stone people to death, slay daughters for talking back (even though on occasion I have been tempted by my own daughters ), etc. So I think we can toss that one out the window.

b) We can say "well in modern culture we do not discriminate between the dominant and submissive so we will persecute all homosexuals". Well doesn't that mean though, that even if we accept the word of Paul as the word of God (which personally I do not) then we are persecuting a sub-set of individuals who neither Paul nor God said to persecute? How are following God's will in that case?

c) We shrug our shoulders and say "let God figure it out".

It seems to me that only option c can be reasonably adopted while maintaining what makes our culture unique and special and at the same time adhering to the love and worship of God.

Isn't it written in Matthew 22: 36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

Matthew 22 NIV - The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Bible Gateway

Isn't it written in Matthew 7: 1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.​

Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -

In Romans 13:10

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.​

Romans 13 NIV - Submission to Governing Authorities - Bible Gateway

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am. Hmmmm
Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

If you are a woman you can not have a wife, simple, thanks. God Bless.

 

[AmericanFirst]

No one can follow all the rules 100%, that is why Jesus came into the world and died on the cross. Most people expect Christians to be more than they are. A Christian is a follower of Christ. If mankind could follow all the laws and be worthy on his own to enter heaven, we would not need Jesus. I bet that you criticize people for certain things yet have your own skeletons in your closet? See, every one is a hypocrit.

AmericanFirst, you can spare us from the “no one’s perfect” speech; it doesn’t apply here.

The reason being is that there’s a big difference between (a) someone trying to honestly follow the rules and breaking them here or there (because they’re human), and (b) someone who disregards the rules and makes no good effort to follow them.

Do you see the difference?

I’m willing to bet that a large majority of the sexually active Christians in the USA - specifically those who rail against gays for being sinners - regularly use some method of contraception (whether it be the pill, condoms, or withdrawal) and think little to nothing of it.

So, unless you are making a legitimate, conscious effort to have a baby each and every time you have sex, you too are blatantly disregarding the word of God and therefore have no room to speak or lecture other people on how they should be following the laws of the Bible too.

Any Christian who uses contraception without guilt, any Christian who masturbates regularly, any Christian who's been remarried (and first spouse has not passed away).... the list goes on and on..... should keep their mouths shut when it comes to lecturing the gay community on ANYTHING related to sin, or what they believe God thinks of them, ect.

Agree?
.
.
.

I have said it before, quote," I think it is funny when unbelievers try to justify their point by pretending they know what God wants or says." WRONG!!! Where in the Bible does it say that married man and woman can not practice birth control? Prove it. You so funny I forgot to laugh. Go away.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So why do not many treat cheating, masturbation and such with the same fervor as they do homosexuality?
Why are not pregnant unwed mothers scorned and hidden away like they used to be?

Because most cheaters and masturbators do not try to force their beliefs on every one, they leave it in the bedroom where it belongs. I personally do not care, God will judge them. I do care that they want to force their beliefs on every one else, especially in schools, that is crossing the line.

Sex ed classes talk about sex outside marriage and masturbation. So if your idiotic view is whatever is taught in classes is a way of forcing lifestyles on people, even that fails.

You're a hateful bigot looking for any reason to remain hateful. Thankfully christianity and christians have left your type in the dust and soon enough your kind will be nothing but a small black spot in U.S. history.

I am a Christian. I am not hateful, I just know what is right in Gods eyes because I believe what his word, the Bible says. I hold what God says to be more credible than what man says in sex ed in schools, which a lot of it now a days I do not agree with. You being hateful towards Christians are being a bigger bigot than I can ever be. God Bless.

 

[Peach]

I want to toss in one final point on this line of thought. Let's consider, for the sake of argument, that the above is correct. Paul held the opinion that a dominant role in a male homosexual relationship was fine but a submissive role was not. How then do we approach that in the modern day according to modern culture?

It seems to me we have three options:

a) We can endorse that point of view literally and persecute only those homosexuals who are effeminate but that means we must regress culturally some 2,000 years. I don't think anyone, even the most passionate believer, really wants to go back to the way society was two thousand years ago because if we do that for one issue then there's nothing to say we shouldn't do it for all issues. At that point it becomes perfectly reasonable to stone people to death, slay daughters for talking back (even though on occasion I have been tempted by my own daughters ), etc. So I think we can toss that one out the window.

b) We can say "well in modern culture we do not discriminate between the dominant and submissive so we will persecute all homosexuals". Well doesn't that mean though, that even if we accept the word of Paul as the word of God (which personally I do not) then we are persecuting a sub-set of individuals who neither Paul nor God said to persecute? How are following God's will in that case?

c) We shrug our shoulders and say "let God figure it out".

It seems to me that only option c can be reasonably adopted while maintaining what makes our culture unique and special and at the same time adhering to the love and worship of God.

Isn't it written in Matthew 22: 36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

Matthew 22 NIV - The Parable of the Wedding Banquet - Bible Gateway

Isn't it written in Matthew 7: 1-5

1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.​

Matthew 7 NIV - Judging Others -

In Romans 13:10

10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.​

Romans 13 NIV - Submission to Governing Authorities - Bible Gateway

Just to toss in an aside, how does all of this relate to the lesbians of the world. I have found little in any reading I have done with regard to our lives inside the scriptures?
There are also different types of lesbians full butch to ultra feminine. My wife is feminine to the max. I have always been labeled in the butch side of things. This does not change who we are our relate necessarily to who we are as people. Well she enjoys shopping far more than I do. I get to carry the bags which doesn't seem fair as she is bigger than I am. Hmmmm
Anyway back to Paul
He was writing from his lived experience and the culture around him. It is hard to say this was god speaking through him. His cultural experience would certainly have some influence over his words.
His distinction in today's world would have little meaning. There are some guys who are feminine and not necessarily so in their sexual nature. So this would be a difficult distinction to make.

If you are a woman you can not have a wife, simple, thanks. God Bless.

In some states one can; other you are forbidden to do so. Why does gay marriage infringe on your rights? You may ignore the weddings, anniversaries, homes of those so married, and not address the married couple at all. What interest does the state have in forbidding same gender marriage? Loving v. Virginia struck down one antiquated law,* why define marriage? The definition may be narrower than you expect.............................


*Florida's repulsive law forbidding gay Floridians the right to adopt got tossed, FINALLY, in 2010; THAT one stuck in my craw for almost 20 years. Of course I support the right of consenting adults to marry the individual they wish to marry. Wanna go back to DIVORCE based on fault? "He beat the dog, she molested the cat".........cr*pola.

 

[BluePhantom]

If you are a woman you can not have a wife, simple, thanks. God Bless.

i know quite a few women whose wives would respectfully (and legally) disagree with you.

 

[BluePhantom]

I am a Christian. I am not hateful, I just know what is right in Gods eyes because I believe what his word, the Bible says.

uh huh. Might I direct you to read posts #105, #111, and #119 before you get too certain about the Bible as it is read and translated today as "the inerrant word of God"? With a minimal amount of research you might find that what you know is "the word of God" is frequently "the word of man".

 

[Dr.Drock]

Because most cheaters and masturbators do not try to force their beliefs on every one, they leave it in the bedroom where it belongs. I personally do not care, God will judge them. I do care that they want to force their beliefs on every one else, especially in schools, that is crossing the line.

Sex ed classes talk about sex outside marriage and masturbation. So if your idiotic view is whatever is taught in classes is a way of forcing lifestyles on people, even that fails.

You're a hateful bigot looking for any reason to remain hateful. Thankfully christianity and christians have left your type in the dust and soon enough your kind will be nothing but a small black spot in U.S. history.

I am a Christian. I am not hateful, I just know what is right in Gods eyes because I believe what his word, the Bible says. I hold what God says to be more credible than what man says in sex ed in schools, which a lot of it now a days I do not agree with. You being hateful towards Christians are being a bigger bigot than I can ever be. God Bless.

Lol good one. I'm praising christians for not being like you, christians are the reason why homophobia is ending in america. Christians make up the majority, and the majority of americans favor allowing gays to marry, so kudos to christians.

You're in the minority of christians, you're a hateful bigot, most christians aren't. Like I said, your old medievel views are quickly dying away.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Sex ed classes talk about sex outside marriage and masturbation. So if your idiotic view is whatever is taught in classes is a way of forcing lifestyles on people, even that fails.

You're a hateful bigot looking for any reason to remain hateful. Thankfully christianity and christians have left your type in the dust and soon enough your kind will be nothing but a small black spot in U.S. history.

I am a Christian. I am not hateful, I just know what is right in Gods eyes because I believe what his word, the Bible says. I hold what God says to be more credible than what man says in sex ed in schools, which a lot of it now a days I do not agree with. You being hateful towards Christians are being a bigger bigot than I can ever be. God Bless.

Lol good one. I'm praising christians for not being like you, christians are the reason why homophobia is ending in america. Christians make up the majority, and the majority of americans favor allowing gays to marry, so kudos to christians.

You're in the minority of christians, you're a hateful bigot, most christians aren't. Like I said, your old medievel views are quickly dying away.

You are a liar. I am not a hateful bigot. For you to call me that you would have to know me. I base my opinion on the truth in God's word. True Christians do not support gay marriage. We can not do anything to stop it, but we know that God will judge everyone in the end.

 

[uscitizen]

Mary did not practice borth control therefore no one can.

 

[Wolverine1984]

Sex ed classes talk about sex outside marriage and masturbation. So if your idiotic view is whatever is taught in classes is a way of forcing lifestyles on people, even that fails.

You're a hateful bigot looking for any reason to remain hateful. Thankfully christianity and christians have left your type in the dust and soon enough your kind will be nothing but a small black spot in U.S. history.

I am a Christian. I am not hateful, I just know what is right in Gods eyes because I believe what his word, the Bible says. I hold what God says to be more credible than what man says in sex ed in schools, which a lot of it now a days I do not agree with. You being hateful towards Christians are being a bigger bigot than I can ever be. God Bless.

Lol good one. I'm praising christians for not being like you, christians are the reason why homophobia is ending in america. Christians make up the majority, and the majority of americans favor allowing gays to marry, so kudos to christians.

You're in the minority of christians, you're a hateful bigot, most christians aren't. Like I said, your old medievel views are quickly dying away.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but Christianity is defiantly not the reason why homophobia is ending in America.

If Christianity is indeed the reason for tolerance forward gay people then we would have seen a decrease in homophobia since the time when Chrisitans became the majority.
Christians where the majority in America for a very long time, however the decrease in homophobia is only recent.

No, Christianity is not the reason.
There reason for tolerance and decrease in homophobia is something else entirely and that something is education.