Is the curse of barrenness the reason God condemned

[unred typo]

Undertow wrote:You seem to have conceded that sodomy isn't wrong because it is unnatural, would you accept that?

No, I wouldn’t accept that. Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural on more than one level, besides being unhealthy, disgusting and the possible cause of damage to the human body; mentally, physically and emotionally. I would guess those are some of the reasons God finds it an abomination, wouldn’t you?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Oh, BTW, Don't forget the one that God does say he "has a problem with:"
Romans 1:26 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:
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 recompence of their error which was meet.

I can't help myself. I just have to jump in here every now and again. It's something that's beyond my control. Might some kind of therapy help, perhaps?

First and foremost, God DID NOT write Romans ...Paul did. Paul was NOT God, contrary to the thinking of many Christians. God did not control Paul's writing hand, nor did God have His hand up Paul's back operating Paul's mouth. Nor, I'm sure, did God 'speed educate' Paul in everything that has ever been or will ever be through some magical crystals in some sort of Superman arctic retreat. I really DO take exception to this glorifying of Paul whether it be in regard to homosexuality or whatever the issue. Jesus never breathed a word about some forthcoming Paul. And, since Paul was to change the face of Christianity and become a surrugate 'Jesus' ...why not?

Okay, having gotten that off my chest :smt021 ... as long as a few well chosen scriptures are used to either support or not support a particular issue I DO feel that some explanation of the text be in order. I also feel that the audience to whom the content of the quote was being directed should be made crystal clear as long as it's being used to accomplish some purpose here. Otherwise, like unreliable testimony in court, it has to be tossed out.

I read those texts presented above and I honestly haven't got a clue as to what and who and how they have any relevance to the issue that is under discussion here. I'm sorry but I just don't. What issue, who specifically, was Paul addressing here? We only have one side of the conversation. Apparently the text is addressing (?) an issue but one that we are not privvy to. As long as you're going to present those texts as 'evidence' to back up your convictions regarding this issue, your audience on this board anyway might be given an explanation perhaps ...?

Could you (please) explain in plain English what the text means and as to how it might apply and be of some benefit to some young person today who gingerly confesses to his parents, "Mom, dad, I think I might be 'gay'." Fair enough?

 

[jgredline]

Oh, BTW, Don't forget the one that God does say he "has a problem with:"
Romans 1:26 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:
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 recompence of their error which was meet.

I can't help myself. I just have to jump in here every now and again. It's something that's beyond my control. Might some kind of therapy help, perhaps?

First and foremost, God DID NOT write Romans ...Paul did. Paul was NOT God, contrary to the thinking of many Christians. God did not control Paul's writing hand, nor did God have His hand up Paul's back operating Paul's mouth. Nor, I'm sure, did God 'speed educate' Paul in everything that has ever been or will ever be through some magical crystals in some sort of Superman arctic retreat. I really DO take exception to this glorifying of Paul whether it be in regard to homosexuality or whatever the issue. Jesus never breathed a word about some forthcoming Paul. And, since Paul was to change the face of Christianity and become a surrugate 'Jesus' ...why not?

Sput
With all due respect, if this above statement is what you believe then your wasting your time trying to find a biblical annswer to fit your theological views on this or any other matter really. I know Pauls letters make amny people and inparticular those who are living in sin feel uncomfortable. I know you said your not Gay, but your arguments would seem to say otherwise. My guess is that somebody close to you is gay and if this is the case we need to come together and bring this person before God Almighty in prayer and ask God to restore this person to a person who would be pleasing to God. This would be true of any and all people living in sin. Not just the sin of homosexuality. People tend to hang on the one sin of homosexuality in romans but last I looked there was a whole lot more sins listed there and through out the bible.
Sput. My main concern with you my brother is that you don't believe Pauls writings to be holyspirit inspired.
I will add you to my prayer list.
Blessings to you.
Javier

 

[unred typo]

SputnikBoy wrote: I read those texts presented above and I honestly haven't got a clue as to what and who and how they have any relevance to the issue that is under discussion here. I'm sorry but I just don't. What issue, who specifically, was Paul addressing here? We only have one side of the conversation. Apparently the text is addressing (?) an issue but one that we are not privvy to. As long as you're going to present those texts as 'evidence' to back up your convictions regarding this issue, your audience on this board anyway might be given an explanation perhaps ...?

An explanation as to why you’re clueless? :-? I donno...
The question in the Op is; “According to LEVITICUS 18:22–24â€â€Is the curse of barrenness the reason God condemned homosexuality?â€Â, which really didn’t make a lot of sense to me, seeing the verses quoted were rather self explanatory. Anyways, I think the reasons are well enough covered in the thread so far. Maybe it's just because I'm rather simple minded and just read the Bible and believe what I read.

SputnikBoy wrote: First and foremost, God DID NOT write Romans ...Paul did. Paul was NOT God, contrary to the thinking of many Christians. God did not control Paul's writing hand, nor did God have His hand up Paul's back operating Paul's mouth. Nor, I'm sure, did God 'speed educate' Paul in everything that has ever been or will ever be through some magical crystals in some sort of Superman arctic retreat. I really DO take exception to this glorifying of Paul whether it be in regard to homosexuality or whatever the issue. Jesus never breathed a word about some forthcoming Paul. And, since Paul was to change the face of Christianity and become a surrugate 'Jesus' ...why not?

As for these off topic remarks you made, it was God who chose Paul to speak the gospel for him. No doubt this was because of the fervor with which he persecuted the church in sincere belief and ignorance that it was in service to God.

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I don’t think the message Paul wrote was meant to be distorted and perverted as it was into doctrines such as OSAS, faith without works and Calvinism, but this is not Paul’s fault nor God’s. Jesus did predict the fact that there would be false preachers who would deceive the church and alter the gospel, preaching another Jesus. This was not Paul but clever use was made of his writings to legitimatize their fabrications.

As for your final remark:
SputnikBoy wrote: Could you (please) explain in plain English what the text means and as to how it might apply and be of some benefit to some young person today who gingerly confesses to his parents, "Mom, dad, I think I might be 'gay'." Fair enough?

Try reading the posts of StoveBolts, Rob and Relic on this topic in General Talk:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=30
They explain it far better than I ever could.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Thank you, Javier. I appreciate your concern, whether it be required or not. But you are right, I don't regard Paul as being anything more than a latter version of Ellen G. White. That does not mean that either or both were not godly people but I don't feel that either or both should be exalted to the status of God. And this is what I believe you and others are doing in the case of Paul.

Furthermore, I also feel that it's rather unfair of you to suggest that I'm berating or questioning Paul merely to justify some sin in my own life or in the life of someone else that I know. Yes, I DO know a couple of people who are legitimately struggling with homosexuality and I absolutely understand what the issue means to them. And, they DO know all of the scriptures that other Christians may aim at them. The scriptures don't change who they are. They are WORDS ON PAPER and don't help them deal with their particular orientation at all.

But ...homosexuality aside and GENERALLY SPEAKING I just don't equate Paul as being Jesus' equal at all and that's the way it is for me. This particular 'gripe' I might have about Paul has nothing to do with homosexuality. There are any number of things about Paul's writings that I simply don't agree with. However, in all fairness, as in the case of Ellen White who I mentioned in the first paragraph, I don't hold Paul accountable for the status that others might have bestowed upon him.

Should you be able to quote some of Jesus' teachings in regard to homosexuality then I'll be all ears. Meanwhile, a prayer or two for me wouldn't go astray.

 

[undertow]

Undertow wrote:You seem to have conceded that sodomy isn't wrong because it is unnatural, would you accept that?

No, I wouldn?t accept that. Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural on more than one level

I dind't say sodomy between men. Just the act of sodomy, would you accept that it isn't wrong merely because it is unnatural?

 

[unred typo]

Undertow wrote: I dind't say sodomy between men. Just the act of sodomy, would you accept that it isn't wrong merely because it is unnatural?

LOL. What are you getting at? Why is it I get the feeling I’m being set up for something here? Let me say it one more time in so many words that it might be somehow clearer.

Sodomy is unnatural like putting peas up your nose is unnatural, like packing your ears with beans is unnatural, like cutting yourself is unnatural, like always walking on your hands is unnatural, like sitting on your head is unnatural., etc. It is not wrong merely because it is unnatural. It will most probably harm your body or your mate’s body. That is not love, that is lust. When you do something that is harming yourself or someone else purely for your own pleasure, it is sin. If you harm yourself, it is sin against your own body. If you harm another or allow another to use you to harm themselves, you are not doing them any favors, you are sinning against them.

Now, are you satisfied? If not, please return for a full refund. Did you read what StoveBolts, Rob and Relic on this topic in General Talk had to say about this?
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... c&start=30
They were quite understanding of the whole issue and explained it without any problem. At least I got it…or maybe I'm missing your point entirely. :-?

 

[jgredline]

Thank you, Javier. I appreciate your concern, whether it be required or not. But you are right, I don't regard Paul as being anything more than a latter version of Ellen G. White. That does not mean that either or both were not godly people but I don't feel that either or both should be exalted to the status of God. And this is what I believe you and others are doing in the case of Paul.

Furthermore, I also feel that it's rather unfair of you to suggest that I'm berating or questioning Paul merely to justify some sin in my own life or in the life of someone else that I know. Yes, I DO know a couple of people who are legitimately struggling with homosexuality and I absolutely understand what the issue means to them. And, they DO know all of the scriptures that other Christians may aim at them. The scriptures don't change who they are. They are WORDS ON PAPER and don't help them deal with their particular orientation at all.

But ...homosexuality aside and GENERALLY SPEAKING I just don't equate Paul as being Jesus' equal at all and that's the way it is for me. This particular 'gripe' I might have about Paul has nothing to do with homosexuality. There are any number of things about Paul's writings that I simply don't agree with. However, in all fairness, as in the case of Ellen White who I mentioned in the first paragraph, I don't hold Paul accountable for the status that others might have bestowed upon him.

Should you be able to quote some of Jesus' teachings in regard to homosexuality then I'll be all ears. Meanwhile, a prayer or two for me wouldn't go astray.

Sput
I would encourage you to take a look at Pauls letters and keep in mind that they are inspired. If you read Romans Chap 1 you will see that Paul in many ways is defending you in his argument. He is calling sin/sin.. ALL sin is bad.
You see, if Jesus Christ is your savoiur then there is no need to be living in Romans Chapter 7, but to start living in Romans chapter 8.

Its ironic to me that while you don't believe the writings of Paul, he is the one with the most to offer you at this point in your life.

I need to get back to work, but will pm you later.
I was thinking and praying for you during communion at Church yesterday.
Blessings sput

 

[SputnikBoy]

I was thinking and praying for you during communion at Church yesterday.

While I don't necessarily share your views on Paul's writings the above remark from YOU anyway is VERY nice. To think that I would actually enter someone's thoughts and prayers in a positive (if concerned) way is most appreciated.