The fact is that it is a physical impossibility that the
Bible says one word about homosexuality. They had no
words for nor a concept of homosexuality at the time the
Bible was written. Therefore there cannot be a sin of
homosexuality, period. The Bible does not allude to, or
reference to homosexuality nor a homosexual act. In
every case the sin is idolatry, in the sexual religious ritual
to Baal-Molech or other fertility gods. The way one prayed
to a fertility god was to have sex to them. And since
Chemarim priests were only males the ones you had sex
with were males. In Lev 18:22 they did not give the
honor of the title Chemarim (kamar) they simple called
them (zakar) a man or mankind, and this is where the
modern day confusion has come from to invent a sin
of homosexuality. This sin did not exist until the
invention of homosexuality itself, first in 1862, but
not popularized until 1892.

No where can you find in context an author talking
about a homosexual act, that is not actually talking
about a non-procreative act or an act of ilodatry
before 1868. Matthew Henry (1706) has been
mistranslated to say homosexuality is the result of
idolatry, when he never said that. Heterosexual males
had sex with heterosexual males for the sole purpose
of giving seed to the fertility god Baal-Molech. Sperm
was seen as the giver of life, as is rain, and the sexual
act was to entice Baal-Molech to have sex with his
wife Asherah (mistranslated, the grove in the Bible).
If Baal_Molech had sex with his wife this would
bestow fertility on the land, animals and people.
Here is how this article should read. Feel free to
use it.


Is Homosexuality a Sin?

No, It is a physical impossibility that the Bible says one word
about homosexuality or mentions an act of homosexuality,
because they had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality
at the time the bible was written.

For a full history of the concept of homosexuality see
J. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality (1995), or:

Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html

Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm


Let's go through this step by step.

Most christians take for granted there is a sin of homosexuality
in the bible. They whip out the same out of context verses to
prove their mythal sin of homosexuality, when in fact it is
the act of idolatry, using your body which is the temple of
God against God, to give or receive the seed to the fertility
gods as Baal-Molech and Venus. With a mixing of the rites to
Bacchus by Paul in the new Testament.
I am sure some of you are aware of certain words that help
make this case that there is no sin of homosexuality in the bible,
but is in fact the sin of idolatry as, Sodomite (qadesh) which
means a male temple prostitute. Fornication (zanah) harlot,
go a whoring, whoredom. Fornication (ekporneuo) to go a whoring.
Abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoite) one who lies
with a male as with a female, sodomite, (qadesh) male temple
prostitute. Effeminate (malakos) of a male who submits his body
to unnatural lewdness, of a male prostitute. A high place (ramah)
a place of illicit worship. Of course none of these point toward
homosexuality, but toward the fertility rites of giving or
receiving seed to gods as Baal-Molech to entice him to have sex
with his wife (Ashtaroth Judges 2:13) to bestow fertility upon
the land, animals and people. Of course then in context
Leviticus 18 and 20 are Lev 18:21-24, Lev 20:2-5, 13, 15, 16 as
crime an punishment. Baal-Molech are generally overlooked in
this context.
When one tries to point this out to the average Christian
they just say well Levticus 18 is a list of sexual perversions you
are told not to do and Molech is just one more thing. When one
takes into account that women and children were property then
Leviticus 18 takes on the meaning of property rights, the rights
of the father as owner of the women and children or the husband
who gains ownership when he marries the woman Deu 22:28-30.
With also at Lev 18:19, 21-23 are the warning against spilling
the seed (God's property) in unclean and idolatrous acts.
Most Christians will say homosexuality is the act of
fornication which is impossible if you point out that Jesus said
A wife can put away a wife for fornication: Matthew 5:32
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
his "wife", saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery." Now if fornication was having sex
outside of marriage, instead of the idolatrous act of having sex
for the purpose of worshiping other gods, then Jesus would not be
talking about putting away a "wife" for the cause of fornication.
If it were a "wife" having sex in the modern sense of the words,
it would be adultery, not fornication, yet both words are used in
the same context, clearly a "wife" can commit fornication and the
modern usage of the word is mistranslated.
And of course they always bring up Sodom and Gomorrah, which
can easily be shown in Judges 19:22, 20:4-5 to not have anything
to do with homosexuality but of wanting to "know them" to see if
they were spies as in: Numbers 21:1-2, 2 Samuel 10:3. And Sodom
was destroyed for Baal worship Jeremiah 23:13-14 and inhospitality
Eze 16:49-50, and there was not even 10 people that believed
in God on Sodom Gen 18:32.
The Chemarim priests can be linked to Baal-Molech through:
2 Kings 23:4-5,7, (Hosea 10:5 and Zephaniah 1:4 and the fact that
Chemarim priests are called Sodomites 2 Kings 23:5,7 indirectly
links them back to Sodom's Baal worship). Baal-Molech can both
be connected to the passing seed through fire by Lev 18:21 and
2 Kings 17:16-17 (which was probably like a hot baptism in good
times and actual burning of children in bad times, as at the
temple at Amman (1400-1250 B.C.) reported by J.B. Hennessey,
Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1966)) Baal-Molech can be
connected to temple prostitution through Ezekiel 16:21-25 in
high place (ramah) a place of illicit worship, a whore house, so
that we now have Chemarim priests connected to Baal-Molech,
2 Kings 23:4-5,7 passing through fire connected to Baal and
Molech Lev 18:21 and 2 Kings 17:16-17 and temple prostitution
in connection with passing through fire referenced in
Ezekiel 16:21-25. Thus provides context for Lev 18:21-24.

Ezek 16:
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them
to cause them to pass through the fire for them?
...
24 That thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place,
and hast made thee an high place in every street.

Adam Clarke's Commentary
Ezek 16:
Verse 24. Thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place a
stew or brothel, a bordel house. "Thou hast builded thy
stewes and bordell houses in every place."- Coverdale's
Bible, 1636. Bordel is an Italian word: how it got so early
into our language I know not. Our modern word brothel is a
corruption of it. Diodati translates, Tu hai edificato un
bordello, "Thou hast built a brothel." Houses of this kind
were of a very ancient date.

Matthew Henry Commentary
Ezekiel 16:15-34
They built temples in honour of their idols, that others might
be invited to resort thither and join with them in the worship
of their idols: "After all thy wickedness of this kind committed
in private, for which, woe, woe, unto thee" (that comes in a
sad parenthesis, denoting those to be in a woeful condition who
are going on in sin, and giving them warning in time, if they
would but take it), "thou hast at length arrived at such a pitch
of impudence as to proclaim it; thou hast long had a whore's
heart, but now thou hast come to have a whore's forehead, and
canst not blush," v. 23-35. Thou hast built there an eminent
place, a brothel-house (so the margin reads it), and such their
idol temples were. Thou hast made for thyself a high place, for
one idol or other, in every street, and at every head of the way;
and again v. 31. They did all they could to seduce and debauch
others, and to spread the contagion, by making the temptations
to idolatry as strong as possibly they could; and hereby the
ringleaders in idolatry did but make themselves vile, and even
those that had courted them to it, finding themselves outdone by
them, began to be surfeited with the abundance and violence of
their idolatries: Thou hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, even
by those that had admired it.

Now keeping this in mind that the worship of Baal-Molech
were accompanied by temple prostitution in the act of prayer
to the fertility gods, to give seed in the prayer, in order to be
bestowed with fertility themselves, let's look at Leviticus 18
and 20 in this light.

Leviticus 20:
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever
he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech;
he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall
stone him with stones.
...
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his
family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after
him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

Adam Clarke's Commentary Ezekiel 16:24.
Thou hast also built unto thee an eminent place a stew or brothel

Leviticus 18:
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the
fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy
God: I am the LORD. (give no seed to Molech)

Even more clear is the context in the Septuagint Greek:
Lev 18:
21 And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler;
and thou shalt not profane my holy name; I [am] the Lord.
'Do not dedicate any of your seed or offspring to Molech.'

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination.(give no seed to male Chemarim priests to Molech)
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie
down thereto: it is confusion.(give no seed to the beast Molech)
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in
all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
(Give no seed to Molech it does not build the nation it defiles
the nation, it is idolatry, a ritual abomination.)

Lev 20:
3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him
off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed
unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

One can see that this is not the act of homosexuality, the mere
spilling of the seed, it is much worse, it is idolatry. Using
the temple of God against God to worship Molech, by giving or
receiving the seed to Molech. It is a mortal sin, it is treason.
They were receiving in themselves that recompense of their error
which was met.
The dots have been connected for Leviticus 18 and 20 and the
picture is not that of homosexuality but of idolatry. The people
were no more homosexual in the worship of Baal-Molech than
today's Christians are cannibals for drinking the blood and
eating the body of Christ. Both are performing a religious duty,
not an act of cannibalism or homosexuality. One must separate
the sexual act from the sexual orientation, as one must separate
the act of drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ from
cannibalism. The notion that this was an act of homosexuality
is a cultural accretion built up over the years and has so
covered the original picture that it can no longer be seen.

Before we get into the New Testament you should be reminded
the rights to Bacchus. The festivals began to be held under
cover of darkness five times a month. All emotional and sexual
restraints were thrown off, and the only law was, that all the
laws of ordinary life should be transgressed. The Bacchic rites,
in which all, helped to encourage or cover up for other kinds
of crime, such as murder, false witness, and the forgery of
wills and similar documents. The men, raving, incoherent,
scarcely in control of their limbs, devoted themselves to the
initiates, young men under twenty whom they "forcibly debauched."
In this highly charged, orgiastic atmosphere, murder was the
natural sequel for any initiate who struggled against his fate.
One needs to keep this in mind when they enter the New Testament,
along with the prostitution to Venus and still Baal.
We now need to place Paul at the scene as witness to this to
this case. As you know Paul lived in Corinth (Acts 18:1)
Acts 18:11 "And he continued there a year and six months, teaching
the word of God among them. Corinth was a notorious city of
temple prostitution, its wealth was so celebrated to be legendary,
so were the sexual activity in their religious worship. Paul saw
this around him as he live and breathed Corinth. Paul knew of
the rites to Bacchus, the prostitution to Venus and still to
a smaller extent the rites to Baal. Where Paul said in:
Romans 11:4 "But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have
reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the
knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time
also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."
Understanding this context it make it very easy to understand
what Paul was writing about in:
1 Corinthians 6:
8 "Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,
and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not
expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought
under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall
destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but
for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up
us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall
I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of
an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one
body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the
body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your
body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

Obviously the main theme is that of using your body which is
the temple of God against God to give and receive the seed in
the worship of other gods, with a bit of Bacchus rites thrown in
as well. Now let's review the words used and their meanings in:

1 Cor 6:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Be not deceived:
neither fornicators (pornos),
( a male prostitute (zanah) go a whoring, (ekporneuo)
to go a whoring)
nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate (malakos),
(of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness,
of a male prostitute)
nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoites),
one who lies with a male as with a female, with a sodomite,
(qadesh) male temple prostitute.

With this in mind, let's rephrase 1 Cor 6:9:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Be not deceived: neither those that go a whoring, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those males who submit their
bodies to unnatural lewdness as a male prostitute, nor those
that lay with a male temple prostitute as with a female,
10 Nor those that worship Bacchus shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Which shows the modern interpretation of homosexuality is
an incorrect interpretation. When put into context 1 Cor 6:8-20,
has nothing to do with homosexuality it is using your body which
is the temple of God against God by giving or receiving the seed
to other gods.
Once we understand this, then the Epistle of Romans becomes
clear as well. Romans was written in Corinth where Paul had come
back to Corinth again for a three month stay where he wrote the
Epistle to the Romans. (Paul wrote Romans because he wanted to go
to Rome but was bound for Jerusalem, so meanwhile Paul dictated
the letter to the Romans to Tertius who took credit for actually
writing Romans (Rom 16:22), to be read in the Roman church.)
In the knowledge that Romans was written in Corinth as well as
what Paul had said to the Corinthians, to not use your body
against God by giving or receiving the seed to other Gods, the
verses in Romans become clear.

Romans 1:
22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts,
and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of
their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which
are not convenient;"

Both the women and the men both were "receiving in themselves that
recompense of their error which was meet." Both the men and the
women were using their bodies, which is the temple of God against
God, to give and receive the seed to these false gods. It is
still unclear, beyond bigotry, why in fact this cultural accretion has
been heaped upon these verses, to coat them with the accretion of
a sin of homosexuality, but the deeper one gets into it, the more
evidence there is that it is the sin is of idolatry not homosexuality.
One must separate the sexual acts, from the sexual orientation.
The act of idolatry from the act of the sexual orientation, to
bring the original meaning back to that of idolatry, not
of homosexuality. (It would be redundant to go over
1 Timothy 8-11 because one would find the same explanation.)
It is hoped the truth can come out so that intersexuals and
homosexuals can live their lives without this injustice place
upon them from just who they are, that they are in some
way an abomination. It becomes abundantly clear if one keeps
an open mind that the facts lead one to the sin of idolatry not
to homosexuality in every case that is assigned to homosexuality.

Hi Doctor Theo:

Thanks for posting. Can you tell us more about you and why you have created your website?

I am posting this here also since it answers the same proposals put forward on the other thread by Doc Theo. When I have more time I will continue to answer the rest of this post when I am able. I am traveling now and it will take a few more days to get back online.
ROSE



Is Homosexuality a Sin?
QUOTE: DOC THEO:

[No, It is a physical impossibility that the Bible says one word
about homosexuality or mentions an act of homosexuality,
because they had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality
at the time the bible was written.]


ROSE:
I will take just this statement. Was God unable to recognize or identify those with gay orientation back in the Old Testament? Do you think people themselves can't recognize differences in other people today as well as yesterday, and then have a label or name for it? To say anything like this was unknown is an incorrect statement. The "Only" way it would have been unknown would be for it to be a "New" thing, or never existed till the 1800's. History itself apart from the Bible does not bear this out.

The Bible teaches there is "Nothing" New under the sun and there isn't. It also teaches Jesus Christ is the same "Yesterday, Today, and Forever." If God Truly made some of us gay, then there was "Always" gay since man was very first created on the earth.

As far as no concept of gay, if you study just the ancient Greeks alone, (2000 - 3000) Years ago, and especially the Spartans, they fully understood what gay was, even though that is a modern term. The Greek baths are no different then the baths of today, like in New York as example, where gay men and others gather to prostitute themselves and to have sex.

Molech may not be involved but the abominations practiced under the thin veil of gayness continue as they did in times past. We live in a society where the creature (gayness) is lifted up and personal satisfaction and gratification ( loving the creature more than the Creator) has taken emminence over Honoring the Lord and His Christ as King and becoming Obedient to His Plan and Will.

Another question I will ask, since we are a gay church is, how does any or all of this knowledge line up with the Scriptures and how does it in any way Honor or Progress the Kingdom of God on earth. It is an issue that has paralyzed and sidetracked many christians from the True intent and goal of the Gospel (Good News). If all this information and learning can't bring us as gays and lesbians one whit closer to God, then I Truly wonder what good is it!

We have to remember we are the (Called Out Ones) and as such our Identity rests not in if we are gay, but are we "Born Again" and set apart for the Lord as His Own Children, sealed with the Holy spirit to Proclaim the Gospel Of The Kingdom, not the Gospel of gay! Anything that takes more of our time, attention and strength, than the Knowledge of Jesus has to be thought out very carefully if it is from the Lord at all.


Quote by Doc Theo:

[Most Christians will say homosexuality is the act of
fornication which is impossible if you point out that Jesus said


[A wife can put away a wife for fornication: Matthew 5:32 ] This is an obvious misquoting of the Scriptures! Strongs concordance shows the Word to be (he) and not she, speaking specifically of man or male gender in this instance.(ROSE)
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
[his] "wife",(please note it says his and not hers)(ROSE)Brackets are my own for emphasis.


saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery." Now if fornication was having sex
outside of marriage, instead of the idolatrous act of having sex
for the purpose of worshiping other gods, then Jesus would not be
talking about putting away a "wife" for the cause of fornication.
If it were a "wife" having sex in the modern sense of the words,
it would be adultery, not fornication, yet both words are used in
the same context, clearly a "wife" can commit fornication and the
modern usage of the word is mistranslated.



ROSE:
Here we have to wonder if we are smarter than God or is it just possible that God intended to use the word fornication as well as adultery. We are on a very slippery slope we we start to tell God just what it is He really intended to say and don't exercise Faith in the Whole of His Word and Counsel and we begin to second guess God and lay down our own thoughts and beliefs above His. That's how all this started in the beginning with Adam and Eve, with the serpent saying to Eve, "Did God really say?" We have to be so very careful to divide the Word of Truth properly as it is and not look to make God line up with our thoughts.

ROSE

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Rose>,

quote:

Originally posted by Rose:
I am posting this here also since it answers the same proposals put forward on the other thread by Doc Theo. When I have more time I will continue to answer the rest of this post when I am able. I am traveling now and it will take a few more days to get back online.
ROSE



Is Homosexuality a Sin?
QUOTE: DOC THEO:

[No, It is a physical impossibility that the Bible says one word
about homosexuality or mentions an act of homosexuality,
because they had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality
at the time the bible was written.]


ROSE:
[I will take just this statement. Was God unable to recognize or identify those with gay orientation back in the Old Testament?]

God has no interest in sexual orientation, it in no way effects any concerns in the Bible. A man must marry a woman like it or not, by law and custom. Even the Spartans had wives and children sitting at home, therefore there was no basis for a concept of a person exclusively attracted to the same sex.


[Do you think people themselves can't recognize differences in other people today as well as yesterday, and then have a label or name for it? To say anything like this was unknown is an incorrect statement. The "Only" way it would have been unknown would be for it to be a "New" thing, or never existed till the 1800's. History itself apart from the Bible does not bear this out.]

They had no concept of and therefore no words for a homosexual at the time the Bible was written. Without a concept, it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin of homosexuality.
One must preclude the other, no concept, no sin of homosexuality. They did have heterosexual men having sex with Chemarim priests for the sole prepose of ejaculating into the priest as a portal to the fertility god Baal-Molech. They gave their seed to this fertility god, both semen and their children, hebrew "zera". If a heterosexual giving seed to a heterosexual Chemarim priest is a homosexual act, then drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ is a cannibalistic act. The word for abomination in Lev 18:22 is "tow'ebah" a religious ritual abomination. How can two homosexuals having sex be a religious act, that is, with out the context of the verse before it that says, Give no seed to Molech, nor profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

[The Bible teaches there is "Nothing" New under the sun and there isn't. It also teaches Jesus Christ is the same "Yesterday, Today, and Forever." If God Truly made some of us gay, then there was "Always" gay since man was very first created on the earth.]

And Jesus also said that even hermaphrodites (intersexuals-eunuchs born of their mother's womb Mat 19:12) can marry if they can do so for life.

[As far as no concept of gay, if you study just the ancient Greeks alone, (2000 - 3000) Years ago, and especially the Spartans, they fully understood what gay was, even though that is a modern term. The Greek baths are no different then the baths of today, like in New York as example, where gay men and others gather to prostitute themselves and to have sex.]

You are in error, you are projecting a modern concept upon a time and people where it did not exist. Even the Spartans and especially the Greeks-Romans had wives sitting at home.

[Molech may not be involved but the abominations practiced under the thin veil of gayness continue as they did in times past. We live in a society where the creature (gayness) is lifted up and personal satisfaction and gratification ( loving the creature more than the Creator) has taken emminence over Honoring the Lord and His Christ as King and becoming Obedient to His Plan and Will.]

Well as special as that might be, as in, well isn't that special (the Church Lady), Romans was written in Corinth a notorious city of temple prostitution, where Paul lived for a year and a half. And that was the context for Romans 1 which is about temple prostitution, as well as is
1 Cor 6:9-20, read the full context of 1 Cor 6, not just the parts one might like to pick out.
The word sodomite "qadesh" means a male temple prostitute. Which tells what was the practice
in Sodom and Rome, temple prostitution.

http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/strongs.pl?book=Deu&c...rse=17&strongs=06945

And those in Sodom worshiped Baal and that was their crime, not homosexuality Jer 23:13-14.
And there was not even ten who believed in God, Gen 18:32.



[Another question I will ask, since we are a gay church is, how does any or all of this knowledge line up with the Scriptures and how does it in any way Honor or Progress the Kingdom of God on earth.]

Truth is its own reward, plus if you are wrong about a sin of homosexuality (which you would be) you are risking your soul by putting false sins into the mouth of God that he never said, nor could have said at the time, since there was no concept or words for homosexuality. In stopping this lie of a sin of homosexuality, harmony in the church is restored where deep division now abides.


[ It is an issue that has paralyzed and sidetracked many christians from the True intent and goal of the Gospel (Good News). If all this information and learning can't bring us as gays and lesbians one whit closer to God, then I Truly wonder what good is it!]

And if the lie stopped of a mythical sin of homosexuality, the paralyzing and sidetracking would stop.

[We have to remember we are the (Called Out Ones) and as such our Identity rests not in if we are gay, but are we "Born Again" and set apart for the Lord as His Own Children, sealed with the Holy spirit to Proclaim the Gospel Of The Kingdom, not the Gospel of gay! Anything that takes more of our time, attention and strength, than the Knowledge of Jesus has to be thought out very carefully if it is from the Lord at all.]


And if all your time is spent in fighting to the right to marry, adopt, live your life in peace without the fear of government or neighbor, based upon the mythical sin of homosexuality, then you sure cannot focus on God. When you have a president saying about homosexuals we are all sinner, referring to the mythcal sin of homosexuality, it is time to make time to write to Congress who in June 06 will once again be trying to ram bigotry into the Constitution in a Marriage Ban Amendment, to null the 9th a 14th Amendments. You need to start thinking about Germany and the saying when they came for us no one was left.

If a man can marry a woman, then that woman must have the very same right as that man to marry a woman or her equal protection and due process of the law has been violated. If the Constitution did not already demand same sex marriage then they would not be calling for a Marraige Ban Amendment. Marriage is a fundamental right, that means it is a God given right, and the whole purpose of making a Marriage Ban Amendment is to null the 9th and 14th Amendments, the civil rights Amendment. Now that needs to be thought out very carefully.


Quote by Doc Theo:

[Most Christians will say homosexuality is the act of
fornication which is impossible if you point out that Jesus said


[[A wife can put away a wife for fornication: Matthew 5:32 ] This is an obvious misquoting of the Scriptures!]


Should read "A wife can put away for fornication", somehow "a wife" got put in there twice. Ignore that.


[Strongs concordance shows the Word to be (he) and not she, speaking specifically of man or male gender in this instance.(ROSE)
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
[his] "wife",(please note it says his and not hers)(ROSE)Brackets are my own for emphasis.]


I fail to see what your point is other than a wife was property, and marriage was nothing more than the bill of sales for the exchange of the property from the father to the husband. This marriage contract, bill of sales, was not a sacrament. It was not until 1215 that heterosexual marriage was officially declared a sacrament by the Roman Catholic Church, and consent was recognized as a necessary component of the union. Where as, same sex marriage was a sacrament from the beginning, because both men were free and not own by anyone, as were women.



saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery." Now if fornication was having sex
outside of marriage, instead of the idolatrous act of having sex
for the purpose of worshiping other gods, then Jesus would not be
talking about putting away a "wife" for the cause of fornication.
If it were a "wife" having sex in the modern sense of the words,
it would be adultery, not fornication, yet both words are used in
the same context, clearly a "wife" can commit fornication and the
modern usage of the word is mistranslated.



ROSE:
[Here we have to wonder if we are smarter than God or is it just possible that God intended to use the word fornication as well as adultery. We are on a very slippery slope we we start to tell God just what it is He really intended to say]

Like puting a sin of homosexuality into his mouth when none ever existed? Before the invention of a homosexual no one before this time saw any verses applying to homosexuals nor a homosexual act.

St. Thomas Aquinas
Matthew 5:32
A question also here arises as to what is that fornication
which the Lord allows as a cause of divorce; whether carnal
sin, or, according to the Scripture use of the word, any
unlawful passion, as idolatry, avarice, in short all
transgression of the Law by forbidden desires. For if the
Apostle permits the divorce of a wife if she be unbelieving,
(though indeed it is better not to put her away,) and the
Lord forbids any divorce but for the cause of fornication,
unbelief even must be fornication.

There is nothing about sex out of wedlock there, it is about temple prostitution.



[and don't exercise Faith in the Whole of His Word and Counsel and we begin to second guess God and lay down our own thoughts and beliefs above His. That's how all this started in the beginning with Adam and Eve, with the serpent saying to Eve, "Did God really say?" We have to be so very careful to divide the Word of Truth properly as it is and not look to make God line up with our thoughts.]

Like the modern thought of a homosexual?

ROSE

Let's see what was said of Romans 1 well before the invention of a homosexual.



Adam Clarke's Commentary (1760-1832):
Romans, 1
Verse 23. They changed the glory,] The finest representation of
their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative
figures the sculptors spent all their skill; hence the HERCULES of
Farnese, the VENUS of Medicis, and the APOLLO of Belvidere.
And when they had formed their gods according to the human shape,
they endowed them with human passions; and as they clothed them
with attributes of extraordinary strength, beauty, wisdom, &c., not
having the true principles of morality, they represented them as
slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions; excelling in
irregularities the most profligate of men, as possessing unlimited
powers of sensual gratification.

Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up]. Their system
of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity.
How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of
their worship were adulterers, fornicators, and prostitutes
of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Venus.

Verse 27. Receiving in themselves that recompense,] Both
the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated
their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders
which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical
practices.

Rose
Member
Since I see that you are posting the same information on all different threads. I will repost my responses to you for your benefit Doc.

Posted April 13, 2006 07:28 PM
Doc Theo:
Quote:
It is a lie that marriage has only been between a man and a woman.

(Here Doc, you are calling Jesus a liar, because you are denying everything His Word says!!! ROSE

In fact until very recent times marriage was between any two or more people for love or the exchange of property. The church preformed same sex marriages up until the 19th century.


[David married Jonathan in the Bible],

Here's an obvious twisting of the Scriptures! Nowhere does it say David was married to Jonathan!!!
(ROSE)

Doc Theo:
quote:

and those as St. Serge married St. Baachus, the Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) married his companion John. Legal references to marriages of two males, that still exist, occur as early as the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. Montaigne saw it performed in Rome in his lifetime. Venetian ambassadors to Rome in the 17th and 18th centuries wrote of the same sex marriage practice. If someone says God said marriage is only between a man woman then brings up:


[quote]The word and concept of homosexuality was not invented until the late 19th century, therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin of homosexuality in the Bible. They had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality at the time the Bible was written.


Please read these two statements to yourself over and over Doc until you are sure of your own contradictions!!!

Doc, you are beginning to make me laugh for your continual contradictions in every one of your posts. Not wanting to offend you, but as I keep reading everything you are saying Scripture after Scripture comes to mind that taken as a whole and interpreting Scripture by the Scriptures shows you are way out in left field. the Bible and Christianity isn't a Democracy, it is God's Love letter and Instructions and Laws that He chooses and He gives. When it says He sits in the Heavens and laughs, I know it is because men believe themselves wiser than He.

Above you say homosexuality is a concept unknown until the late 19th century and in the next breath you claim David and Jonathan were married, (Not as in two gay men though, Right???) It was some other kind of married other than homosexual relationship. Remember you said they had no words or concept at the time the Bible was written.

Again I will disagree that homosexuality and lesbianism were unknown or not practiced since the beginning of time. You say it was unknown till the late 19th century, but there are examples throughout history of same sex lovers or partners even from the time of the early Christian martyrs.

Just looking at one of the books on my shelf (Surpassing The Love Of Men) by Lillian Faderman, She starts with lesbians in the 16th century and works her way up to the twentieth century. It's only 496 pages, and a quick read. You will see that you are badly mistaken and often just by this historical documentation alone. It is not even Biblical and disproves much of what you claim. Perhaps not many people are well read either in Scripture or the history of gay relationships, spanning back the centuries and quite known to people other than those in the relationships themselves. So what if they didn't refer to it as gay, and so what if it wasn't called homosexuality.

Boston Marriages have been well known for quite some time. All your information that you've laid down is a twisting of Scriptures and taken WAY out of context.

I have a question, and I wonder if you are Born Again and you claim Jesus as the Lord of Your life? It's Wonderful that you are a Professor, So was my father(Latin, Greek, and History) at a Catholic seminary!

My other statement is, why would anyone care who an XXY Hermaphrodite can legally marry? They might themselves have this concern, but the answer will neither Save you or bring you closer to the Father, so I would say it has pretty low priority on many peoples lists!

Doc, you may really be a Professor somewhere, but head knowledge will never pass the muster before Jesus at Judgement day. This isn't a political site, this is a Christian site where we lift up Jesus and follow Him, not the worlds ideas about the Truth! And this isn't a test that will be graded on a curve.

How easily you try to explain away sin and Obedience to God, making sin, not seem like sin at all, but a lesson in history. What was sin in times past is sin today no matter how smart we think we have grown as a society or as individuals.

The Scriptures teach that in times past God winked at our rebellion and sin, but is now calling all men to repentance and to Believe on His Son, Jesus. What He tolerated in times past He isn't tolerating anymore because He came personally not only to Save, but to open peoples eyes that are blind so they have no excuse.

HIS GRACE AND KNOWLEDGE,(AND PEACE)
ROSE



PSALM 89
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.


God's Word is like a parachute that He gives each one of us. It will only Save us if we put it on, it isn't enough just to own one!



IT'S A LOVE THAT NEVER ENDS
TRET FURE

Posts: 1788 | Location: Prairie Du Chien,Wisconsin USA | Registered: September 26, 2002

Rose
Member

Posted April 13, 2006 07:45 PM
DOC THEO:

quote:
If marriage is only between a man and a woman, why did God tell Hagar, Abaham's second wife, to go back to Sarah, his first wife, to submit to her, that if she did so he would multiply her seed without number (Gen 16:1-10). This is a direct endorsement of polygamy by God. Anyone who says marriage is only between a man and a woman have no Biblical basis to base this statement upon. Some will then say well Jesus also said the same thing, and take the verse (Mat 19:5) out of context. The context is divorce and that Moses said it was ok to divorce, and Jesus said except for the sexual worship of another god (fornication) there is no excuse for divorce. In other words only idolatry, which was treason, was an excuse for a divorce. 1 Cor 6 says about temple prostitution (which is the context of 1 Cor 6):



Here again you show your true knowledge of the Scriptures is limited to History only and not the guiding of the Holy Spirit!

ROMANS 4
15 For the Law results in [Divine] wrath, but where there is no Law there is no Transgression [of it either].

God never endorsed polygamy, but tolerated for a time the acts of men until Moses and the Law. The Law being given so man would recognize his need for God, that he was both sinful and in need of Salvation; that Salvation being brought to us in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.


DOC THEO: [QUOTE]
The context is divorce and that Moses said it was ok to divorce, and Jesus said

[except for the sexual worship of another god ]

{taken way out of context}(ROSE)

(fornication) there is no excuse for divorce. In other words only idolatry, which was treason, was an excuse for a divorce. 1 Cor 6 says about temple prostitution (which is the context of 1 Cor 6):


Here again you have taken total liberty with the Scriptures and twisted them to say what you yourself believe.

ROSE



PSALM 89
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.


God's Word is like a parachute that He gives each one of us. It will only Save us if we put it on, it isn't enough just to own one!



IT'S A LOVE THAT NEVER ENDS
TRET FURE

Posts: 1788 | Location: Prairie Du Chien,Wisconsin USA | Registered: September 26, 2002

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Rose>,

Doc Theo

What IS your "professorship" and do you have an agenda here at gaychurch? Some come here to be edified and to learn about Jesus. I came with questions regarding homosexuality and found that my answer is NOT in my orientation but in loving others and encouraging them. I see you bringing some "head knowledge" and I am just wondering.... Is it all about Jesus? or WHAT IS IT ABOUT??????

Just asking! Oh and by the way, I'm NOT going to post the same things on three or four threads. One is sufficient to cover what needs saying. Frankly methinks the doc doth protest TOO much!

Katie

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Katie42,

quote:

Rose:

Since I see that you are posting the same information on all different threads. I will repost my responses to you for your benefit Doc.

Posted April 13, 2006 07:28 PM
Doc Theo:
Quote:
It is a lie that marriage has only been between a man and a woman.

quote:

Rose:
(Here Doc, you are calling Jesus a liar, because you are denying everything His Word says!!! ROSE

No, I am calling the modern bias mistranslations, misinterpretations a lie.
Jesus never said marriage was exclusively only between a man and a woman.
That is a misinterpretation of the subject of divorce. The subject was
Moses saying it was ok to give a bill of divorce, a quit claim, because
women and children were property. It was not until 1215 that heterosexual
marriage was officially declared a sacrament by the Roman Catholic Church,
and consent was recognized as a necessary component of the union. Before
that (The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.) women were merely property
and marriage nothing more than a bill of sales. And since you seem unable
to take what I say in context as a body, and you break every sentence into
a universe of its own, it is no wonder you think there are many contradictions.
It is a unlikely, as you claim, that you in fact take the scriptures as a whole,
you can't even make it through a paragraph. I'm sure others want the facts not
your condemnations, here say, and the conservative party line on homosexuality.

----

In fact until very recent times marriage was between any two or more people for love or the exchange of property. The church preformed same sex marriages up until the 19th century.


[David married Jonathan in the Bible],

quote:

Rose:
Here's an obvious twisting of the Scriptures! Nowhere does it say David was married to Jonathan!!!
(ROSE)

Hey, you can believe whatever conservative party line you wish, the
fact is the original hebrew says David married twice that day.
Saul had two daughter heirs, and two son heirs, and Merab married
Adriel, leaving only Michal and two sons left to marry for the
second time. David said himself:
2 Samuel 1:
26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant
hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the
love of women.

Ok let's get into some exegesis analysis of the words.

1 Samuel 18:
21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a
snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be
upon him. And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my
son-in-law a second time. -Darby

Hebrew:
Sha'uwl 'amar nathan mowqesh yad P'lishtiy Sha'uwl 'amar David
yowm chathan sh'nayim

The last two words in Darby is tranlsted as: "be my son-in-law
a second time". In the KJV they threw in the words [the one of]
to change the meaning, they translated the two last words as:
"Thou shalt this day (yowm) be my son in law (chathan) in [the one of]
the twain (sh'nayim)". Modern interpretation of this has twisted
it to mean David was betrothed twice. The words used do not
support that. They did not say 'aras (betrothed) sh'nayim (twice),
they said chathan (marriages) sh'nayim (twice) married twice.
Sh'nayim is the plural of marriage. The KJV added the words
[the one of] to keep the marriage from being a polygamous, more
correct a polyandrous marriage.

Also there is other verse in the Bible that confirm the marriage
between David and Jonathan:

The Marriage contract of David and Jonathan

2 Samuel 21:
7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the
son of Saul, because of the LORD'S oath that was between them,
between David and Jonathan the son of Saul.

Psa 133:
1 A Song of degrees of David. Behold, how good and how pleasant
it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!


Doc Theo:
quote:

and those as St. Serge married St. Baachus, the Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) married his companion John. Legal references to marriages of two males, that still exist, occur as early as the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. Montaigne saw it performed in Rome in his lifetime. Venetian ambassadors to Rome in the 17th and 18th centuries wrote of the same sex marriage practice. If someone says God said marriage is only between a man woman then brings up:

quote:

The word and concept of homosexuality was not invented until the late 19th century, therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin of homosexuality in the Bible. They had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality at the time the Bible was written.

[QUOTE] Rose:
Please read these two statements to yourself over and over Doc until you are sure of your own contradictions!!!

The contradition is in your mind, you cannot separate the two units
of marriage and and the concept of homosexuality. At the time the
Bible was written a man must marry a woman by law and by custom, like
it or not. Therefore there was nothing to base the concept of
a person exclusively attracted to the same sex upon, a homosexual.
No inference, suggestion, knowledge, or statement can be pointed
at homosexuality, because they had no such concept at the time the
Bible was written. David married Jonathan who he loved, and Michal
because he had to. David was a heterosexual who fancied a male in
their minds, not a homosexual.

As the Archbishop of Perth said:

"..the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually orientated person.'
This was a discovery of only 150 years ago. Go to the Bible and
it simply is not there. ... The Bible knows nothing of the
existence of homosexual people. ... Without the concept of an
'exclusively homosexually orientated person' it is therefore an
impossibility for biblical writers to refer explicitly to or
claim to know actual people who filled that concept."
By Dr Carnley who is a Cambridge PhD, and Archbishop of Perth

quote:

Rose:
Doc, you are beginning to make me laugh for your continual contradictions in every one of your posts. Not wanting to offend you, but as I keep reading everything you are saying Scripture after Scripture comes to mind that taken as a whole and interpreting Scripture by the Scriptures shows you are way out in left field. the Bible and Christianity isn't a Democracy, it is God's Love letter and Instructions and Laws that He chooses and He gives. When it says He sits in the Heavens and laughs, I know it is because men believe themselves wiser than He.

Above you say homosexuality is a concept unknown until the late 19th century and in the next breath you claim David and Jonathan were married, (Not as in two gay men though, Right???) It was some other kind of married other than homosexual relationship. Remember you said they had no words or concept at the time the Bible was written.

David also married Michal, that is not a homosexual. There was nothing to
base the concept of a person exclusively attracted to the same sex upon.

quote:

Rose:
Again I will disagree that homosexuality and lesbianism were unknown or not practiced since the beginning of time. You say it was unknown till the late 19th century, but there are examples throughout history of same sex lovers or partners even from the time of the early Christian martyrs.

And they had wives sitting at home taking care of their children. And again
you cannot separate the units of the concept of homosexuality and homosexuals.
There were homosexuals, there was not a concept of homosexuality. A man
must marry a woman like it or not, the concept did not exist. It is like
saying because people drew circles they had a concept of the zero, or
because they thought the sun went around the earth they had a concept of
the General Theory of Relativity. In the absence of the concept a circle is
a circle. Men had sex with Chemarim priest to shoot sperm into the priest
as a portal to the god Baal-Molech, that was not a homosexual act, it was
a religious act, and is why the word tow'ebah (abomination) is used in
Lev 18:22. Tow'ebah is a religious ritual abomination, two homosexuals
having sex is not a religious ritual.

quote:

Rose:
Just looking at one of the books on my shelf (Surpassing The Love Of Men) by Lillian Faderman, She starts with lesbians in the 16th century and works her way up to the twentieth century. It's only 496 pages, and a quick read. You will see that you are badly mistaken and often just by this historical documentation alone. It is not even Biblical and disproves much of what you claim. Perhaps not many people are well read either in Scripture or the history of gay relationships, spanning back the centuries and quite known to people other than those in the relationships themselves. So what if they didn't refer to it as gay, and so what if it wasn't called homosexuality.

And Prof. John Boswell fell into this trap as well, it is called
projection, and is what you are doing. You are projecting a modern
concept upon a time and people who did not have any concept, therefore
any words for homosexuality. What they are refering to as homosexuals
is non-procreative sex, which applied to both sexes. Anything beyond
that is delusion on their parts. Just because two women are having sex
does not mean they nor anyone else had a concept of a homosexual. The
two units are mutually exclusive.

Surpassing the Love of Men : Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women
from the Renaissance to the Present by Lillian Faderman was written in
1981. Knowledge is not stagnant, this is out of date.

quote:

Rose:
Boston Marriages have been well known for quite some time. All your information that you've laid down is a twisting of Scriptures and taken WAY out of context.

Conservative often see facts and truth to be a twist on what they want
the Bible to say.

quote:

Rose:
I have a question, and I wonder if you are Born Again and you claim Jesus as the Lord of Your life? It's Wonderful that you are a Professor, So was my father(Latin, Greek, and History) at a Catholic seminary!

My other statement is, why would anyone care who an XXY Hermaphrodite can legally marry? They might themselves have this concern, but the answer will neither Save you or bring you closer to the Father, so I would say it has pretty low priority on many peoples lists!

So let's see, God makes everything, therefore XXY Hermaphrodites, anyone
they would marry or have sex with would be the same sex, because they
have both sexes. And you are saying homosexuality is a sin therefore
God creates sin, because God created XXY Hermaphrodites. And Jesus said
intersexuals "eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb"
could marry if they could do so for life. Mat 19:12 Again the context
is divorce, not the numerical number of people in the marriage, there
was only two people on earth at the time in Gen 2:24, and just two
chapter on the father of Noah, the first savor of the earth, has two wives:

Gen 4:
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one
was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

quote:

Rose:
Doc, you may really be a Professor somewhere, but head knowledge will never pass the muster before Jesus at Judgement day. This isn't a political site, this is a Christian site where we lift up Jesus and follow Him, not the worlds ideas about the Truth! And this isn't a test that will be graded on a curve.

Tranlation: If you don't follow the conservative party line and believe
the mistranslations I do, you are going to hell. Facts and truth are facts
and truth no matter how many believe to the contrary. Everyone at one
time belived the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth, and
everyone was wrong.

quote:

Rose:
How easily you try to explain away sin and Obedience to God, making sin, not seem like sin at all, but a lesson in history. What was sin in times past is sin today no matter how smart we think we have grown as a society or as individuals.

So Rose, was slavery always OK:

Pope Paul III, confirmed that any individual may freely buy,
sell and own slaves. Runaway slaves were to be returned to
their owners for punishment.

Was being a black and marring a black always a sin?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and
red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for
the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause
for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows
that he did not intend for the races to mix.

It seems concervatives make the Bible suit their in vogue sin for
the times and take verses out of context to "use" the Bible as
a weapon of mass destruction against those in vogue group they hate.
As:

Song 1:
6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath
looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made
me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

To justify slavery of blacks.

quote:

Rose:
The Scriptures teach that in times past God winked at our rebellion and sin, but is now calling all men to repentance and to Believe on His Son, Jesus. What He tolerated in times past He isn't tolerating anymore because He came personally not only to Save, but to open peoples eyes that are blind so they have no excuse.

Posted April 13, 2006 07:45 PM
DOC THEO:

quote:
If marriage is only between a man and a woman, why did God tell Hagar, Abaham's second wife, to go back to Sarah, his first wife, to submit to her, that if she did so he would multiply her seed without number (Gen 16:1-10). This is a direct endorsement of polygamy by God. Anyone who says marriage is only between a man and a woman have no Biblical basis to base this statement upon. Some will then say well Jesus also said the same thing, and take the verse (Mat 19:5) out of context. The context is divorce and that Moses said it was ok to divorce, and Jesus said except for the sexual worship of another god (fornication) there is no excuse for divorce. In other words only idolatry, which was treason, was an excuse for a divorce. 1 Cor 6 says about temple prostitution (which is the context of 1 Cor 6):

quote:

Rose:
Here again you show your true knowledge of the Scriptures is limited to History only and not the guiding of the Holy Spirit!

Translation: Put your hands in the air like antennas and just make
this stuff up as you go along, and ignore the facts, history and the
truth. Of course my knowledge of the Scriptures is limited to History
and the facts. All else is delusion.

quote:

Rose:
ROMANS 4
15 For the Law results in [Divine] wrath, but where there is no Law there is no Transgression [of it either].

God never endorsed polygamy, but tolerated for a time the acts of men until Moses and the Law. The Law being given so man would recognize his need for God, that he was both sinful and in need of Salvation; that Salvation being brought to us in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Really, funny then that the very people that the entire world and nations
were entrusted into had the lineage of polygamy and polyandry. The father of
Noah, who God entrusted the whole world in, had two wives, in other words
Noah had two mothers, Abraham the father of the hebrew nation had three wives,
and God personally sent Hagar the second wife back to Sarah his first wife
to to submit to her. Sounds like an endorsment of polygamy to me. And
then Jesus himself came from the lineage of David who married Jonathan and
Michal.


DOC THEO:

quote:

The context is divorce and that Moses said it was ok to divorce, and Jesus said

[except for the sexual worship of another god ]

{taken way out of context}(ROSE)

(fornication) there is no excuse for divorce. In other words only idolatry, which was treason, was an excuse for a divorce. 1 Cor 6 says about temple prostitution (which is the context of 1 Cor 6):


[QUOTE] Rose:
Here again you have taken total liberty with the Scriptures and twisted them to say what you yourself believe.

Yeah, unlike your chop and paste job to make pertext out of context.

Jesus clearly said:

Mat 5:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

A "wife" can be put away for fornication. It is impossible that fornication
can be sex out of wedlock. It is sex to worship a false god.

St. Thomas Aquinas
Matthew 5:32
A question also here arises as to what is that fornication
which the Lord allows as a cause of divorce; whether carnal
sin, or, according to the Scripture use of the word, any
unlawful passion, as idolatry, avarice, in short all
transgression of the Law by forbidden desires. For if the
Apostle permits the divorce of a wife if she be unbelieving,
(though indeed it is better not to put her away,) and the
Lord forbids any divorce but for the cause of fornication,
unbelief even must be fornication.


Fornication zanah {zaw-naw'}
1a3) to be a cult prostitute

The word Sodomite "qadesh" means a male temple prostitute, Sodom
was destroyed for the worship of Baal. They had sex with Chemarim
priest to give seed to Baal-Molech. The context is Lev 18:21-24,
Lev 20:2-5,13, 2 Kings 23:5-7 (where the idolatrous priests are
the Chemarim, the sodomits are the temple prostitutes who received
the seed to Baal-Molech and the grove is Asherah Baal's wife)
Ezek 16:21-25, 1 Cor 6:9-20 and Rom 1:23-28. Before the invention of
a homosexual no one say any verses applied to homosexuality, it is
a modern day invention.


Adam Clarke's (1760-1832) Commentary:
Romans, 1
Verse 23. They changed the glory,] The finest representation of
their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative
figures the sculptors spent all their skill; hence the HERCULES of
Farnese, the VENUS of Medicis, and the APOLLO of Belvidere.
And when they had formed their gods according to the human shape,
they endowed them with human passions; and as they clothed them
with attributes of extraordinary strength, beauty, wisdom, &c., not
having the true principles of morality, they represented them as
slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions; excelling in
irregularities the most profligate of men, as possessing unlimited
powers of sensual gratification.

Verse 26. For this cause God gave them up]. Their system
of idolatry necessarily produced all kinds of impurity.
How could it be otherwise, when the highest objects of
their worship were adulterers, fornicators, and prostitutes
of the most infamous kind, such as Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Venus.

Verse 27. Receiving in themselves that recompense,] Both
the women and men, by their unnatural prostitutions, enervated
their bodies, so that barrenness prevailed, and those disorders
which are necessarily attendant on prostitution and sodomitical
practices.

1 Peter 4:11 "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

You never did answer my question as to whether
or not you have some personal agenda. How does your agenda lift up Jesus? How does it edify anyone? Oh, and the other question you still didn't answer, Are your born again? Are you a Christian? And is Jesus Lord of your life?

One additional question, when you refer to THE BIBLE is it the two book Bible on your site? "The True Bible" [Leviticus and Romans] or is it the Bible most of us study today, "Genesis to Revelation"?

Katie

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Katie42,

All excellent questions, Katie! I think it goes without saying that the views on these posts aren't shared by the majority of posters here.

What has happened to this forum?! I didn't start reading all this at all but should there not be some kind of a limit to the length of a thread?!

PLEASE THINK!

Let me say a couple of things:

1. I confess I had a hard task to follow the issue(s) and topic(s) in this forum. It is like the ancient greek myth of Sisyphus pushing up the rock.

2. About homosexuality and sin (and Sodom, and so on):

One thing is the discussion about sins and if homosexuality is or is not a sin, and other very different is to argue about a merge (or mess?) of matters where homosexuality is involved or not in the Bible.

The first one, I find it is quite important to be treated seriously; the second is more appropiate for a "gay magazine" than a forum where people is interested in their growing as persons and as christians.

What Doc Theo says can be analyzed under two point of views; both of them belongs to scholars (History, translation, sociology, psicology, anthropology, and so on). So, it could (warning: just "could") be very interesting if sciences support or not his statements. (For the moment, I doubt it, but a solid answer requires for me a deep research).

In the other hand, such "scholars'" matters could be related or not to theology. I believe, according with all posts, is not related. So the very problem (or question) stay open: The "sin" of homosexuality. This issue is about two important questions: What is a "sin" according God (no one else), and if homosexuality (OUR ONE, I mean, that what WE, TODAY, HERE know and live) is among the "list of sins".

Of course I think is important to compare what the ancients (the first church) thought about love, sex and relationships with what we think about the same issues. And is important because Paul and others Apostles wrote to them and not to us. But God's Word was written for us, so is important that comparison only if it helps us to find the very important issue: Is sin or it isn't? This is a theologican issue. It belongs to what God wants or doesn't want about all and each one of us. Is not a "social" issue. It is between God and I (and you, individually)

Please! Don't consider the God's Word like a "Penalty Code" or a "Criminal law" as we have in our countries! (Believe me I'm a lawer)

Stop to discuss with arguments that have, in their deep, foundation in guilt. I suggest, most respectfully, redirect the discussion.

Same gender marriage? History is plenty with stories (and punishments). If David and Jonathan were spouses? Scholars are still researching.

One fact: We are gays and christians. What to ask? If am I going to hell? Please! Does God love us as we are? Jesus died and resurrected for us or just for the "straights"?

The very matter is GOD LOVES ALL OF US. Do we LOVE HIM?

God's Word is edifying not destructing, is including not excluding, is for salvation not for death. So, let's to talk seriously about such important issue.

Many people is terrifying to death because is gay and wrongly believe that is going directly to hell. Many people sincerely love God and believe they are offending Him because of something (homosexuality) they can't do anything about; so they believe that are condemned to offend God against their will! Many people are rebuked and kicked off from their churches as they were lepers because all of that.

How many suicides must we tolerate before we understand that is a matter of LOVE and is not a matter of guilt?

Is the actual discussion helping THOSE people to find peace of mind and God's Love, and so saving their lives before they commited suicide? For many of those people is a matter of life and death. So please restart again, or at least, think about those who need our Lord and us. Take a new aim and start to "fire" highly.

Are we (and Doc Theo) participating in the God's work? God is important, and because of Him, us, His children are important too.

May God guide and help our steps to share His Love with our brothers and sister who need Him and need us.
Once again, blessings to you all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brakhus,