How Homosexuals Misinterpret Scripture

[Rick W]

I believe there are restrictions on sexual morality, but not the same sexual morality that Christians have today.

......

Our culture doesn't care about that as much and we gained a different set of sexual beliefs.

So christians still hold to the "older" moralities of sexual behavior while the secular world tends to shift their beliefs to fit the culture in which they find themselves?

Fair enough. And that's about the way it is as far as I can see.

I am not sure if that was what you were asking.

If my interpretation of your answer is correct then yes you've answered my question.

Still at work. I'll try to get to King Solomon when I get home.

 

[Rick W]

1Ki 11:1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
1Ki 11:2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon cleaved unto these in love.
1Ki 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
1Ki 11:5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
1Ki 11:6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
1Ki 11:7 Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
1Ki 11:8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
1Ki 11:9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,
1Ki 11:10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
1Ki 11:11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

 

[Rick W]

Jacob had Leah and Rachel until he repented to fully obey God.

Gen 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:

So he repented.


Gen 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
Gen 35:11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Gen 35:12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.
Gen 35:13 And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him.
Gen 35:14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon.
Gen 35:15 And Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him, Bethel.
Gen 35:16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor.
Gen 35:17 And it came to pass, when she was in hard labor, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also.
Gen 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin.
Gen 35:19 And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.

God takes Rachel during childbirth, shortly after Jacob was renamed Israel.


Jacob (Israel) never took another wife after his submission to God.

It's quite a story. Jacob didn't have to take Leah to wife since he was deceived. (By the marriage laws God had given Jacob could have refused her) But he took her anyway while still pursuing Rachel. In the end he winds up with his first wife, Leah, who in the sight of God was his true wife not Rachel the one he loved in the first place.

So the polygamous practices of the three you mentioned were not blessed by God. Solomon took the wrath of God because of his wives, David put his away never to go in unto them again and God took Jacob's second wife shortly after he was renamed Israel who never took another wife thereafter.

 

[AHIMSA]

The fact is that God never condemns polygamy. He only condemns Solomon because he was taking pagan wives who would lead him astray.

In Deuteronomy God places restrictions on having too many wives, which obviously indicates that God permitted having several wives, but not tens or thousands.

 

[Rick W]

The fact is that God never condemns polygamy. He only condemns Solomon because he was taking pagan wives who would lead him astray.

In Deuteronomy God places restrictions on having too many wives, which obviously indicates that God permitted having several wives, but not tens or thousands.

Why wasn't he taking wives from his own people?

The fact remains God never blessed polygamy. He tolerated it, he suffered the practice until he saw fit to raise a man to holiness.
Acts 14:16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

 

[AHIMSA]

I don't know, read the passage you quoted:

1Ki 11:1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
1Ki 11:2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon cleaved unto these in love.
1Ki 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

 

[Rick W]

And because of his many wives they led him astray as God said they would. He should not have taken them in the first place. He would have been much better off.

 

[AHIMSA]

Solomon is violating only two rules that God contests:

* one he is taking too many wives (two or three wives is not too many)
* two, he is taking foreign wives

Nowhere in these passage does God condemn Solomon for the practice of polygamy.

Its fairly straight forward.

 

[Rick W]

It's fairly straight forward that God never comdenms pedophilia either. So is that ok too?
How say you?
Stay with your logic?

 

[AHIMSA]

Well, if we had instances in the bible where pedophiles molested children, and God still considered them righteous and did not reprimand them for that issue.

If there were commands regulating pedophillia, but not condemning it, as is the case with polygamy, then there would be evidence that the biblical authors felt that pedophillia was something God approved of.

However, since this is not the case as far as I am aware of...

 

[Rick W]

That's quite a show of mental gymnastics you have there. I'm impressed.
But no cigar. Sorry. God never blessed polygamy.

 

[AHIMSA]

I think its interesting that a practice that is so "abhorrent" to marriage can persist throughout a large portion of the bible, and yet God never condemns it.

Does this suggest that Christians can witness sin and not condemn it either?

* First Polygamist mentioned - Lamech in Genesis 4 v 19. Now, he was a descendant of Cain and he killed someone for wounding him. His bigamy, however, passes without adverse comment.

* Abraham, the first Hebrew, and ancestor of all Israel, had three wives, namely Sarah and her servant Hagar (see Genesis 16 v 3), and Keturah, as well as a number of concubines (Genesis 25 v 6).

* Esau, Abraham's grandson, had three wives - Judith, Bashemath (Genesis 26 v 34) and Mahalath (Genesis 28 v 9)

* Jacob, father of the twelve tribes of Israel had Rachel and Leah, who were sisters, as his wives, see Genesis 29, and their servants Bilhah and Zilpah in Genesis 30. Without these four wives there would be no Israel.

* Gideon, mighty man of God and judge of Israel, who defeated the Midianites, and whose name is now used to distribute Bibles worldwide, had 70 sons, "for he had many wives" - Judges 8 v 30

* In 1 Samuel 1 v 2 Elkanah has two wives, Hannah and Peninah. Hannah gives birth to the prophet Samuel.

* King David, a man after God's own heart, had plenty of wives, namely Michal in 1 Samuel 18 v 27, and Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah in 2 Samuel 3, and last but not least, Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 v 27. When condemned for committing adultery with Bathsheba, God reminds him of the many things he has given him, including "thy master's wives into thy bosom..." (2 Samuel 12 vv 7&8). So it looks like God not only allowed polygamy but actively supported it.

* Solomon had three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines, according to 1 Kings 11 v 3, but we'll not list their names. He wrote the Song of Solomon, a celebrated poem about marital love, to his 141st wife (see Song of Solomon 6 v 8)

* Ashur had two wives, Helah and Naarah in 1 Chronicles 4 v 5.

* Rehoboam had 18 wives and sixty concubines, making him another busy man, according to 2 Chronicles 11 v 21.

* Abijah had 14 wives, see 2 Chronicles 13 v 21.

* Joash had two wives chosen for him by Jehoida the priest according to 2 Chronicles 24 v 3.

* In Jeremiah 3 vv 6-10 and 31 vv 31-32 God himself is portrayed as a polygamist.

* In Ezekiel 23 God portrays himself as a polygamist, married to two sisters, Jerusalem and Samaria, who commit adultery against him.

* The Old Testament had rules regulating polygamy and limiting its application in certain circumstances. Kings of Israel weren't supposed to "multiply wives" to themselves according to Deuteronomy 17 v 17. You weren't supposed to take a woman's sister to be her "rival wife" while she was still living - Leviticus 18 v 18. And you weren't to marry both a woman and her mother - Leviticus 20 v 14.

* Polygamy was recognised and regulated by the Law of Moses. Just like normal marriage, polygamy has its fair share of problems, and the law intervenes in Deuteronomy 21 vv 15-17 to make sure that children get what they're entitled to.


http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/biblpoly.html

Why would God regulate polygamy under the law and not condemn it if he felt it was wrong? Instead of legally deconstructing it, why doesn't he ban it?

 

[Rick W]

Yes, God tolerated a lot of things back then, not condemning them but putting up with them, for He suffers longs the foolishness of men. There's a mystery revealed in the NT concerning this very subject AHIMSA. Do you know what that is? It's the reason polygamy was ditched when christianity made the scene.

In the meantime I'm going to bed.
I've got "YTREWQ" firmly imbedded into my forehead. :

 

[Rick W]

* Polygamy was recognised and regulated by the Law of Moses. Just like normal marriage, polygamy has its fair share of problems, and the law intervenes in Deuteronomy 21 vv 15-17 to make sure that children get what they're entitled to.


http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/biblpoly.html

Why would God regulate polygamy under the law and not condemn it if he felt it was wrong? Instead of legally deconstructing it, why doesn't he ban it?

I find it odd that the OT can be used to solidly support your view but if Leviticus is mentioned then the OT is not a valid source for argument.


And yet:

You weren't supposed to take a woman's sister to be her "rival wife" while she was still living - Leviticus 18 v 18. And you weren't to marry both a woman and her mother - Leviticus 20 v 14.

Can the OT be used to argue sexual morality or not? Your post above shows me you accept OT doctrine as evidence for debate. AND you support the laws of Moses to make your point. I'll keep this in mind. ;-)

Anyway,

What God wills and what He tolerates are two different things. Polygamy was not the will of God but of man. God doesn't will divorce either but man does it anyway. Same can be said of divorce. God tolerated it By the law of Moses because of man's heart. Just because a thing is "regulated" doesn't mean God supports it.

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.



Mark 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Mark 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
Mark 10:5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

[Quath]

It's fairly straight forward that God never comdenms pedophilia either. So is that ok too?
How say you?
Stay with your logic?

Ahimsa stated my views (and probably better than I would have).

Pedophilia is kind of forbiden. Incest was forbidden (except when God forced people to do it). So that rules out most of it. That leaves two other cases. If the child was raped, then she had to marry her rapist. No age was given, so this seemed to have been allowed (though looked down on.) The other is when the father had to break his daughter's hymen with his fingers to have proof of her virginity. That is somewhere between pedophilia and a medical checkup.

If God thought that polygamy was bad, then he would not have let the Bible have rules for it nor would he have created so many ways for men to gain mutiple wives (from rape, to dead brother's wife, to finding women on the battlefield). And if God were against polygamy, he would have tried to regulate it. He would just have disallowed it, just as he disallowed anything else he disapproved of.

It is interesting that this is so clear in the OT, yet Christians tend to disbelieve it.

 

[Rick W]

Ahimsa stated my views (and probably better than I would have).

Pedophilia is kind of forbiden. .

"Pedophilia is kind of forbiden."
You look at pedophilia through other scripture to prove your case (and rightly so) yet you refuse to acknowledge other scripture concerning polygamy and homosexuality. You want direct proof for your views on polygamy and homosexuality yet your views on pedophilia are supported not directly as you absolutely require in the former cases. You use different rules in the use of the OT to support whatever it is you advocate.

This is exactly what the OP suggests.

If God thought that polygamy was bad, then he would not have let the Bible have rules for it nor would he have created so many ways for men to gain mutiple wives (from rape, to dead brother's wife, to finding women on the battlefield). And if God were against polygamy, he would have tried to regulate it. He would just have disallowed it, just as he disallowed anything else he disapproved of.

Act 14:16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Why do you ignore the fact there were things God allowed men to do even though He disapproved of them? The "allowance" of divorce is a case in point. And the NT clearly shows the same for polygamy as you well know.

It is interesting that this is so clear in the OT, yet Christians tend to disbelieve it.

Do you believe it?

This one is as direct as it gets. In this case this is the "disallowed" you're looking for. You claim the OT stands to support your arguments for polygamy. It also stands to support arguments against homosexuality. You can't have one and not the other. You point to the OT for your side of the debate but when the OT is pointed to against your views then it's somehow invalid.


Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

It is interesting that this is so clear in the OT, yet liberals tend to disbelieve it.


Bottom line:

1) If in your view the OT is authoritative on polygamy then it's authority on homosexuality also stands.
2) If in your view the OT is not authorative on homosexuality then it's authority on polygamy does not stand.

 

[Quath]

You look at pedophilia through other scripture to prove your case (and rightly so) yet you refuse to acknowledge other scripture concerning polygamy and homosexuality. You want direct proof for your views on polygamy and homosexuality yet your views on pedophilia are supported not directly as you absolutely require in the former cases. You use different rules in the use of the OT to support whatever it is you advocate.

You are right in that I am doing two different things for each topic. So let me clear it up.

Homosexuality: The OT says to kill them. The sinners are the ones that disobey God (i.e. the people that refuse to kill them). So people not killing homosexuals are sinning just as much as the homosexuals are. Christians do not like results like this and tend to dismiss the OT's rules and regulations. So my argument for homosexuality is to dismiss the OT (and that is one reason I see Christians start to accept homosexuality as normal).

Polygamy: The kind I support is any combination of genders. So I do not support the Biblical version purely. But I do argue that if you want to go with a Biblical view of marriage, you have to include polygny or else you are making stuff up. If you want to go by the Bible, you either have to pick and choose (which is what many Christians are against in this thread) or you accept it fully (which is what people do not do in practice).

The reason I said that pedophilia is kind of forbidden is because it is hard to determine if a father breaking his daughter's hymen is considered pedophilia. However, the rules for it seem clear, just as the rules for marriage seem clear.

Why do you ignore the fact there were things God allowed men to do even though He disapproved of them? The "allowance" of divorce is a case in point. And the NT clearly shows the same for polygamy as you well know.

I agree that there are some things permitted that God did like. However, he would usually offer punishments such as not letting a divorced man remarry (from your verse) or a rapist could not divorce his victim.

However, I see no penality for multiple wives. Do you ever see God say that he didn't want plural marriages? And yet you assume he doesn't want it. How do you know this is not what he wanted?

Do you believe it?

I am not sure how to answer this. I do not believ in God, but I believe that the authors of the OT wanted this to be the rules and they set it up so.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

It is interesting that this is so clear in the OT, yet liberals tend to disbelieve it.

I agree with you that the Bible is against homosexuality. However, what it use to be for or against doesn't seem to matter too much. The Bible is pro-slavery as well. The Bible is pro-polygamy. The Bible is pro-genocide. Yet Christians will say the Bible is against all of these. I just see Christians adding homosexuality to this list of things that seem the Bible is clear on, but they interpret it in its opposite way.

Bottom line:

1) If in your view the OT is authoritative on polygamy then it's authority on homosexuality also stands.
2) If in your view the OT is not authorative on homosexuality then it's authority on polygamy does not stand.

I agree with you on this. So if you are against homosexuality because of the OT, then you should be pro-polygamy. If you are not, then you seem to be contradicting yourself. If you reject polygamy, then you should reject the anti-homosexuality verses as well.

 

[Rick W]

two questions:

I believe there are restrictions on sexual morality, but not the same sexual morality that Christians have today.

......

Our culture doesn't care about that as much and we gained a different set of sexual beliefs.

So christians still hold to the "older" moralities of sexual behavior while the secular world tends to shift their beliefs to fit the culture in which they find themselves?

Fair enough. And that's about the way it is as far as I can see.

I am not sure if that was what you were asking.

If my interpretation of your answer is correct then yes you've answered my question.

"So christians still hold to the "older" moralities of sexual behavior while the secular world tends to shift their beliefs to fit the culture in which they find themselves?"

1) Is this correct?

2) So by your above post homosexuality and polygamy are OK in the sight of God today regardless of culture?

 

[Relic]

.

PotLuck,

You can talk to these guys until you're blue in the face. They will not conceed to the truth, no matter what proof is given to them. And by the way, you bring excellent examples of the Holy Truth and how sin grieves the Holy Spirit. Thanks for sharing the wisdom of the Lord.

However, I'm sorry to see this, as I know many others see also, the fact that Quath and his consorts continue to ignore the postings presented to about the harm sin brings.

Here, Quath does this by diverting the attention onto the writings in the OT about punishment that was given for it. He turn the argument into the fact that there is even a punishment and rants about how wrong the punishment is instead of him agreeing on the fact that there is a transgression of the Holy as the thing that is wrong.
He tries to justify the sin by diverting onto his belief that the punishment itself is wrong. He doesn't understand why War is in existence, but blames the good people as if they are the ones who start the wars and kill too much. He rarely if ever speaks of the wars brought into being by the wicked and how thereby it leaves no other alternative of the good people to counter attack the wicked. He acts as if the good has no right to destroy the wicked, but then the wicked.... well, they can continue to destroy all they want, as long as the good doesn't interfere. Golden rule, aye Quath? War is not about the golden rule. War is about a battle between good and evil. And if the spirit doesn't learn, then the flesh follows suite. And yes, There is such a thing as a Godly War. The wars are always started by the threats posed by the wicked but the end of all wars is the prevailing of the good. It's a long hard battle this war betwixt good and evil. The physical wars are always given birth by the intent of a spirit.
Know this.... the destruction of the body is first conceived in the spirit of destruction. And, abuse is first conceived by an abusive spirit. And, confusion is at first conceived by a spirit of confusion. Take your pick Quath. If you choose the spirit of confusion, then you will present just that. If you continue to refuse the truth of the Holy Spirit, you will continue to live in the spirit of the unholy. It's your choice Quath. And as long as you continue to present diversions from the truth and confusion of the truth and chaotic thoughts, you will have this unending argument here over what is and is not sin.

If you take sides with the sinful, you will be a product of the sinful.
Polygamy and homosexuality are only two acts that transgress the HOLY things of God. And since you refuse to believe in a God that reveals what is Holy and what is Unholy, you are going to be of the spirit of confusion and diversion.

I pray you stop playing these games that you have been for three years already. You either accept the Holy Spirit into your life or you remain an adversary to the Holy Spirit. And stop acting as if you are just trying to understand. I know you are not so ignorant as to not be able to carry on logically without veering off course. No person who is a physicist (as you claim you are) would deny the very truth of an Absolute law.

When are you going to face the fact that Spirit is subject to absolute laws also, and that when an absolute law is broken there are going to be absolute consequences to the breaking of that law? What kind of physics do you do that you can't understand that laws apply in all aspects of life?


Polygamy as well as Homosexuality is against the Holiness of the Spirit of God. PotLuck has given you proof enough to show you that history shows how it grieves the Holy Spirit and becomes a burden too much to bear and that in so participating in such things that it grieves the Holy Spirit.
You can't live in polygamy or homosexuality and call it as being an act born out of the Holiness of God. Just ain't so.
That doesn't mean that God is going to take away the free choice of man. God gave us all free choice. And Just because something is attractive or pleasurable for the moment doesn't mean it is good for you. The grieving of the holy spirit is not a good thing and the result of the transgressing of it shows up sooner or later. History repeats itself and this generation is still hard pressed in learning this lesson in life. They refuse to take heed to fair warning. How many times must history repeat itself until the lesson is finally, once and for all, learned? I'll tell ya, until the day of Christ's return, that's when. And guess what, even then after a thousand years the devil will be set loose Revelation 20:3. Gee..... I wonder why :roll: could it be because of a "rebellious" spirit? :roll:


Face the fact of what sin truly is and gives birth to. Until then, the wars still remains.


May the Salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!


Hebrews 3:13
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

 

[Quath]

"So christians still hold to the "older" moralities of sexual behavior while the secular world tends to shift their beliefs to fit the culture in which they find themselves?"

1) Is this correct?

I think Christians tend to hold on to sexual values that are older than secular society. So Christians change their sexual morality, but at a slower pace than the secular world.

2) So by your above post homosexuality and polygamy are OK in the sight of God today regardless of culture?

That is hard for me to answer since I don't have any belief in God. I can see three responses though:

1. Literal or extreme conservative view: None of the laws have changed and there is no excuse for a law to go away (including dietary laws). So homosexuals should be killed, polygamy should be accepted, no eating lobster, no work on Saturday and non-virgin brides should be killed.

2. Liberal view in which God is good and the Bible is a secondary source: God sets up laws for the culture. He set up the dietary laws for health. He was against homosexuality because he wanted people to breed quickly. However, now we undersand nutrition and we can ignore the dietary laws. We understand reporduction and can ignore the homoexuality laws.

3. Salad-Bar-Christian: Pick whatever combination of the above two that best suits the beliefs you want to have.

I think #1 or #2 can be the best supported logically. However, I think most are probably in the #3 category.

You can talk to these guys until you're blue in the face. They will not conceed to the truth, no matter what proof is given to them.

Do you think this could apply to you as well?

Polygamy as well as Homosexuality is against the Holiness of the Spirit of God.

I fail to see your argument in this. God wanted homosexuals killed. He blessed many polygamous relationships. I do not see how you can say that God is against this. (Even if some polygamous relationships ended badly is not an argument against it. If it were, then Adam and Eve getting kicked out of Eden would be a case against monogamy.)

You can't live in polygamy or homosexuality and call it as being an act born out of the Holiness of God. Just ain't so.

The Bible gives laws that require polygamy. How can God be against something he requires from time to time? I think you are trying to twist scripture to reinforce your own beliefs.