You don't know my hubby. Assuming is an ignorant move.
God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites - What does the bible REALLY teach?
lol im trying to as open minded as possible but i think the bible is pretty clear about sex, between male and female, and i understand ppl have aright to believe what they want, and i respect that
Expanding on Cofty's last comment.
There are two texts that do not fit the typical homosexual hit-texts.
It is assumed that there were no homosexuals in ancient Israel, or if there were some, then they were few. But we find that homosexuality must have been common enough to merit the specific commands that are normally used, and one less often used found at Deuteronomy 23:17. Which reads (NWT):
"None of the daughters of Israel may become a temple prostitute, neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute."
What can we infer from this text? First, there must have been enough pagan temples to worry the priestly class (elder-like) that were trying to enforce their religion on the ordinary people, and it was not unusual to find in those temples, both attractive young women and men who served there (in return for a fee) to provide some "comfort" (grin) for those who felt in need of such services from either sex. Of course, many will deny that to be the case, as they seek to paint a picture of a "spiritual paradise" existing in ancient Israel.
The Aid book (first edition) for example p.1351, under 'prostitute' makes the startling claim (without offering and support) that prostitutes in ancient Israel were, " with few exceptions, foreign women. Yet we find Solomon judging a legal dispute, between two prostitutes ( 1 Kings 3:16-28). We find Samson being willing to seek out services of a (admittedly, foreign) prostitute (Judges 16:1). And what really was going on with the concubine of the levite in Judges 19: 1,2 ?
More interesting though is the description of sexual activity in 1 Kings 14:24 during the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam.
" Even the male prostitute proved to be in the land."
So not so long after the glories of David's and Solomon's kingships, we find that throughout the land (of Judah, at least) there were male temple prostitutes. The text gives no hint as to whether these men (or boys) were active or passive (as some like to classify homosexual behaviour). But it is inferred that they were many. A prostitute, of course, is only half the story - the other half (undescribed in this account) are the clients. One would imagine that most of these temple prostitutes would want at least one client per day, hopefully 3 or 4. So we can assume that there were a lot of men (and, possibly some women) who became customers of these male temple prostitutes.
This demonstrates that divine commands or not, men were willing to have sex (likely by anal penetration) with other men and that this sexual activity was likely part of the sexual life of many Israelites.
Quendi, I never considered there being an antonym to exegesis. I figured you either studied the scriptures under it's employ... or not.
Like Yoda famously said in Empire Strikes Back: "Do, or do not. No eisegesis."
In the video, Mr. Piper made the comment that God created male and female. THAT is the sexuality he created and any variation on that is a deviation from what is normal.
On the surface, that sounds like a sound argument. But that's where it ends.
OF COURSE we needed heterosexual first parents to kick start the species. ALL species. But that hardly establishes a rule that "sameness" must be maintained for eternity lest it be described as defective or broken. Everyone seems to agree that the potential for great variety was built in to the first parents. No one would argue that just because Adam and Eve had (for the sake of argument) light brown skin, that all the white and black people on earth today are an abomination.
In order for a species to be perpetuated there must be heterosexuals. That probably explains why heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals. God knows what he's doing. Is it locical to assume that just because one of the varieties of humans, an extreme minority, does not participate in the perpetuation process that those people are somehow broken? Flawed? When heterosexual couples choose not to have children are they mentally broken? Flawed?
To argue that heterosexuality was used to get things started and necessary to keep the species going TO THE EXTENT that any deviation from heterosexuality by anyone must be unnatural is a baseless argument. It completely ignores two facts:
1 - Homosexuality (including lifetime pairing in some cases) has been observed in almost every species of mammal, reptile, bird and insect. Homosexuality is natural.
2 - Homosexuality has never been cited as a reason for the extinction of a species.
Homosexuals make up such an extreme minority of the earths population that it could never, EVER be rationally used in an argument about the perpetuation of the species. The energy of such a debate would be better spent in discussing UNICEF's estimate of 132 million orphans wordlwide.
Homosexuality, as a natural, god-designed, god-implanted variation in the beautifully diverse spectrum that is human, is just another victim of man's inherant disposition to belittle and tear down anyone or anything that does not fit within his limited scope of understanding, personal comfort... or in this case, doesn't make HIS dick hard, and must therefore be destroyed.
Mr. Piper can argue the "naturalness" of heterosexuality all day long. His argument falls apart the moment it leaves his mouth - just as it does with every other argument I have ever heard to support a God Hates Fags agenda.
iron: did piper say god hates fags? no he didnt ,like i said i like you bro as a person, but i understand you can believe as you wish, i will still talk with you ,but i thinkits no differnt than what alot of ppl do,namly try to make the bible conform to there beliefs,and not willing to chance to the bibles beliefs,jw love having an org,even thou the bible is clear salvation is in jesus alone,they want to believe you can only worship inside the org. and they will take verse in the bible and make them fit,(god is a god of order) (do not forsake gathering)(or to preach the good news there has to be a org) so unless a person really want to change according to the bible they wont. yet again i do not think its ok to hate "fags" as you mentioned in your post.i believe its in the same catogory as fornication ,drunkness etc.. i have never seen a sign god hates fornicators,so it frustrates me to single out homosexuals. i really respect you but i see an agenda to justify homosexuality, and we may have to agree to disagree, and in time we both will give an acount befor god, iron i will say this i never had feelings for a dude, but i married and i have to rely on god to have "pure" thoughts because my mind can easliy wonder, and just because im married does not make these other females less attrative,and with what im going through with my wife ,i need to rely on him more. the point is at the end of the day its just you and god,and only you know if in your heart of hearts, you wonder if god really apporves or disproves it.
Unstopable: did piper say god hates fags? no he didn’t
Did I say Mr. Piper said, “God hates fags?” No. I said “a god hates fags message". Not “his god hates fags message".
Unstopable: people try to make the bible conform to their beliefs, and not willing to change to the bibles beliefs
I'm glad to hear you have a solid grip on that concept. What is unfortunate is that the vast majority of people misdirect it at homosexuals, when in fact it is the proponents of the anti-gay interpretation of the bible who are guilty of making the bible conform to their beliefs, refusing to accept what the bible REALLY teaches about homosexuality.
The most profound evidence to support my statement above is the complete failure of anti-gay proponents to take a scripture like 1 Timothy 1:9, 10, as discussed in this thread:
and break it down to its original Greek words, examine the context and explore EXACTLY what it means. People who take your anti-gay position WILL NOT…. CAN NOT make an examination of the scriptures in that way because if you do you will be forced to look your error in the eye and that is more than you are willing to do.
People who hold to an anti-gay interpretation of the bible have no choice but to turn their backs on a thorough investigation of the very scriptures they claim to hold dear. Instead they make the bible conform to their belief, refusing to align themselves with what the bible really teaches.
No matter how many times I have invited the anti-gay proponents to address the detailed analysis of the scriptures discussed in these threads, the invitation continues to be ignored… BECAUSE YOU FOLKS KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC TO YOUR POSITION.
iron: i cant speak for others but i broke down the verses and even gave you a much more polished christian thoughts on it i know it was not what you were looking for but i did address the issue. and thanks for clearifying about the god hates fags thing, because i really hate that as you know,i really love people and i dont knpw you personally but i can honestly say i love you and im not afraid to be honest about that,that my motivation for speaking what i believe on all these thread on a wide range of topics. so please dont see any bigitry in my comments only me speaking what i believe.
I don't consider this subject to be one of those doctrinal differences that can just be filed away in a "let's agree to disagree" folder and move on. The anti-gay interpretation of the bible is so profoundly destructive to families and individuals, but more importantly, to a person's relationship with God, in some cases rendering a person uninterested in even developing such a relationship, that it cannot simply be walked away from.
Of all the doctrinal differences I have with people on a wide variety of subjects, this one is the single most evil false teaching the Devil has ever devised for destroying a person right out of the gate. It is not only evil in it's initial statement, that god disapproves of a person's innate sexual orientation and the damage caused by that alone, but to then try to present it as a loving teaching from a loving God.
Not trying to be vulgar, Unstopable, but how would you feel, as a heterosexual, if everyone around you tried to get you to suck dick for the rest of your life and then tried to tell you it was out of love that we want you to suck that dick and it is Jehovah's will that you suck that dick and if you don't suck that dick there is something wrong with you.
How long you gonna stick around and listen to those people or worship that God?
Is it really reasonable to assume that that is what God has done to gay people?
iron:well thats why idolitry is so prevalent, ppl today dont cut down a tree and carve one out,but they get the same benifits by carving out a tree and making a god you can make him how you want, if you want him fat, you can make him fat, skinny make him skinny. same thing today if you dont like a god you sends you to hell,well make your idea of him as not sending ppl to hell,the god of the bible has always been hated(john 3:18-21) ppl hate jesus they hate light,so forget what you or i want god to be, an idol is nothing, if me make god he is nothing. he is unchangable.