Posted on 09/19/2013 9:40:10 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A Kansas man whose online lecture about the Bible and same-sex relationships gained considerable attention has gathered about 50 Christians from around the country to delve into his belief that the Scriptures do not condemn homosexuality as a sexual orientation.
Matthew Vines, of Wichita, grew up attending a conservative evangelical Presbyterian church in the city and relies heavily on intensive study of the Bible for his presentations. He said liberal and moderate Christian churches have adopted more gay-friendly stances, but conservative churches remain steadfast in their opposition to homosexuality.
The 23-year-old Vines wants to bring change with his message that the Bible doesn’t actually say same-sex orientation is a sin or condemn loving gay relationships. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
SODOMY is the sin, you Biblically illiterate tool. ‘Orientation’ is of no concern to God. It’s your action that is the abomination.
I totally agree with your point. Homosexuality is no worse than adultery or the other sins mentioned alongside. The reason it often gets a little more attention is that adulterers don’t have ‘pride’ parades, or try to gain access to children to teach them that adultery is safe and fun.
That’s because heterosexual immorality, particularly premarital, is so accepted in our society there’s no need to teach that it’s safe and fun. It’s just the consensus of society.
Homosexuality is called “abomination” in Leviticus (from Hebrew “to’ebah”, which means something utterly disgusting). Not all sins are given that label, although all sin carries the death penalty (Romans 6:23); other sins called “to’ebah” include idolatry.
No, it is not so accepted. Don’t fall for the liberal spin. Only liberal churches “accept” it.
But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord(Sinning before the Lord continually) Gen.13:13.
I read the Bible and believe that the “iniquity of Sodom” as given in Ezekiel 16:—suggests a condition of the heart that became a behavior.Remember when King David stayed behind —that was not a sin -but the right of the King.When he looked upon Bathsheba as she was bathing on the rooftop nearby.Neither she nor the King could be said to have sinned,except one must ask if she knew the King had stayed behind, and if bathing on the roof was common for her -or others. And one must ask if King David stayed behind because he had heard she might be bathing on the roof. If it were all chance and nothing proceeded from it I could not consider such sin.But it appears King David chose to dwell on that pornographic image.He lusted after her. He imagined what might be.He invited her in ,as was a Kings right. and the condition of their heart led to unlawful behavior even murder. All this to say I believe the Bible does suggest an
orientation is still sin. For orientation is a way of looking at a given object. and the Believer is to keep his eyes upon God.
bump
Who wants to discuss the disgusting? It is wrong, end of discussion.
This guy isn’t reading the same Bible, Of course it’s condemned, but so is ANY other sin.
Everyone is lost, and needs the savior..
Quite true.
However, there are quite a number of things called “abomination” in the OT. I had one for lunch on my burger. Bacon, yum.
“These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven things are an abomination to him: haughty eyes; a lying tongue; hands that shed innocent blood; a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations; feet that be swift in running to mischief; a false witness that uttereth lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”
IOW, homosexuality is hardly unique in its being referred to as abomination. So are many other sins. And quite a remarkable number of things that few today consider sins at all.
Don’t buy that.
Sexually active homosexuals would not be welcome at many conservative churches.
Sexually active unmarried heterosexuals I think few would bat an eye. In my lifetime the term “dating” has changed from primarily meaning socializing and courtship to random one-night stands.
How many churches today make any attempt to discipline members who divorce, regardless of the cause? Even though Christ spoke against divorce, but said nothing that has been recorded about homosexuality.
BTW, I’m not in favor of “gay rights.” I just think the Bible classifies homosexuality as one of many sexual sins, in which they are roughly equal in sinfulness except for special characteristics.
Of these, the unnatural nature of homosexuality and incest makes them worse than “normal” fornication. The abusive nature of pedophilia makes it worse. And the betrayal aspect of adultery makes it worse.
But all sexual sins fall under the general term “porneia” or fornication.
The reality is that claiming being homosexual has nothing to do with what someone IS, and has everything to do with what someone DOES!....the ‘ACTS’ follow the mind and heart. It remains a choice to refrain/resist/flee from sinful choices or yield. That includes the twisted sexual appetites of homosexuals who see themselves as exceptions....when in fact they are simply satisfying their twisted sinful appetites.
The word “porneia” is derived from “pornos”, the Greek word for a male prostitute, just for the record.
And any church that welcomes a heterosexual fornicator is not conservative, bottom line.
Porneia is not derived from pornos, which is merely the masculine form of the feminine noun for prostitute, porneia. The feminine form is much more commonly used, for obvious reasons, since in the ancient, as well as modern world, female prostitutes greatly outnumbered male ones.
I am not a Greek scholar, but I think it highly unlikely that the modern word fornication derives ultimately from pornos rather than porneia, the much more common noun form.
The word “prostitute” (female) is “porne”. “Porneia” refers to all such activities engaged in by both “professions”, and adultery (forbidden in the Ten Commandments) is very much included.
I seriously doubt that throughout the Roman and Greek Empires there was a shortage of male prostitutes, or even a disproportionate ratio of female to male. Consider their culture, especially the Greek one (heavily into pederasty).
It should be pointed out that adultery in the OT is defined as it is in the Koran. That is, any sex outside marriage engaged in by the wife, or sex by any man with a married woman.
Sex outside marriage by a married man not included.
Completely false. The instances of stories in the Bible of male adultery are examples of what not to do and are not examples of righteousness. And male adulterers are to be put to death, BTW.
The Koran actually says nothing about stoning; that’s from the Hadith.
But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord(Sinning before the Lord continually) Gen.13:13.
Ahh, you’re right!
We have multiple examples in the OT of a woman executed or almost executed for the crime of adultery. Her lover was also liable to execution.
Would you care to provide an example of a man considered guilty of adultery not because he had sex with a woman married to someone else, but because he had sex with a woman other than his wife?
In a polygamous society male adultery in this sense has no meaning. Even a man convicted of raping a virgin was only sentenced to pay a fine to her father and be married to the rapee without possibility of divorce. No mention of his execution if he happened to already be married. It was just not relevant.
You are correct that male adulterers are to be put to death, as they are today in Saudi. But the crime is defined as sex with a married woman. Not sex by a married man with someone other than his wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.