New Testament on homosexuality

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Jesus was a jew, so it is hardly likely he would have bothered to mention gay people since by default homosexuality was forbidden.

I'm pussled. If Jesus himself (though born a Jew) embraced Judaism, what's this whole Christianity
deal about?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Personally, I doubt Jesus would have been a champion for homosexual rights. Consider Matthew 19:1-12. Jesus discusses the legitimate grounds for divorce, he spells out that marriage is between man and woman. There is no consideration of the possibility that a man may wish to marry a man, or some other alternative pairing. Perhaps the Bible is not a very reliable source of moral wisdom.

In Matthew 19:1-12 Jesus is asked the following question:
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

Consider the following:
1) Jesus is asked about divorce between a man and a woman. He is asked about this specific pairing. Why would Jesus bring up "some other alternate pairing" when asked about divorce between a man and a woman?

2) In the culture of the audience Jesus is addressing, marriage and therefore divorce can only be between a man and a woman. Why would Jesus bring up "some other alternate pairing" in a culture where marriage and therefore divorce can only be between a man and a woman?

To infer what you did from this passage makes no sense. Hopefully you'll recognize how weak an argument you have made.

Originally posted by joe beyser
There might not have been as many gay folks back then so it wouldn't have been a big issue. As human DNA has degenerated over time, we may have a lot of issues now that are more pronounced than in Jesus' day. Take a look at all the different kinds of disease that come from genetics. As time goes on the more there will be. I don't know about the morality q ...[text shortened]... al to them. It is built into them. It is no more their fault than say scoliosis is to others.

Now, this is lame. Human DNA degenerating over time? It's not a matter of degenerating DNA. No,
homosexuality has more than likely existed through all times equal to now. Most people being
against homosexuality (as if it's an issue to debate), homosexuals traditionally find themselves as
outcasts or living lies. I think Jesus were fully aware of homosexuality, and yet he never spoke of it
(unless you take the word of Paul - a man whom never even met Jesus in the first place).

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by Jigtie
[b]Yeah, that would be Paul quoting the OT, right?
Not unless you can demonstrate that it was a direct quote, no.[/b]

Well, we know for a fact that Paul couldn't have quoted Jesus himself, and since no "first hand"
accounts on Jesus support the generally hostile attitude of the OT, I think it's not entirely unlikely that
Paul indeed paraphrased the OT, completely disregarding the general message of Jesus.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
In which case you have no evidence for your claim. I know of no evidence that human DNA has deteriorated in the last 2000 years, and it seems, neither do you.

Male pattern baldness is proof of that. Look into it.

Originally posted by Jigtie
I'm sure it's been noted before.

There is nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality, is there? Not a single word being said
about homosexuality, except for that passage Paul wrote (which more or less quotes the Old
Testament - which in turn contradicts the New Testament repeatedly).

So, basically, Jesus (a man who lived with twelve other men ...[text shortened]... Christians" of the past are now burning in Hell for
putting words in the mouth of Jesus?

Three key New Testament passages concerning homosexuality are: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Of the three, the most significant is Romans 1 because it deals with homosexuality within the larger cultural context.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Here the Apostle Paul sets the Gentile world's guilt before a holy God and focuses on the arrogance and lust of the Hellenistic world. He says they have turned away from a true worship of God so that "God gave them over to shameful lusts." Rather than follow God's instruction in their lives, they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18) and follow passions that dishonor God.
Another New Testament passage dealing with homosexuality is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. " Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Pro- homosexual commentators make use of the "abuse" argument and point out that Paul is only singling out homosexual offenders. In other words, they argue that the Apostle Paul is condemning homosexual abuse rather than responsible homosexual behavior. In essence, these commentators are suggesting that Paul is calling for temperance rather than abstinence. While this could be a reasonable interpretation for drinking wine (don't be a drunkard), it hardly applies to other sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6 or 1 Timothy 1. Is Paul calling for responsible adultery or responsible prostitution? Is there such a thing as moral theft and swindling? Obviously the argument breaks down. Scripture never condones sex outside of marriage (premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex). God created man and woman for the institution of marriage (Gen. 2:24). Homosexuality is a violation of the creation order, and God clearly condemns it as unnatural and specifically against His ordained order. As we have seen in the discussion thus far, there are passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament which condemn homosexuality.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Male pattern baldness is proof of that. Look into it.

Give me some references to peer reviewed articles in respected journals that support the claim that male pattern baldness is 'proof' of anything of the kind, and I will look into it. Otherwise my conclusion is that you are making absurd claims from a position of ignorance.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Three key New Testament passages concerning homosexuality are: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Of the three, the most significant is Romans 1 because it deals with homosexuality within the larger cultural context.

And who wrote those letters?

Originally posted by Jigtie
Now, this is lame. Human DNA degenerating over time? It's not a matter of degenerating DNA. No,
homosexuality has more than likely existed through all times equal to now. Most people being
against homosexuality (as if it's an issue to debate), homosexuals traditionally find themselves as
outcasts or living lies. I think Jesus were fully aware of homosex ...[text shortened]... it
(unless you take the word of Paul - a man whom never even met Jesus in the first place).

Now why would people engage in activities society deems deplorable in such great numbers? DNA does change with time and that is fact. Let me ask you something. If it was proven that homosexuality was a DNA trait, how would it impact christianities view of the bible? How would a loving God punish folks for something they had no control of? Why do we pay for Adam and Eve's sins?

Originally posted by Jigtie
Well, we know for a fact that Paul couldn't have quoted Jesus himself, and since no "first hand"
accounts on Jesus support the generally hostile attitude of the OT, I think it's not entirely unlikely that
Paul indeed paraphrased the OT, completely disregarding the general message of Jesus.

So your speculation is that Paul might have been paraphrasing the OT. Alternatively he might have been codifying the morality of the early Christians. You interpret that Jesus was not hostile to homosexuality, but as a jew it would have been forbidden. Although Jesus did represent a new deal regarding adherence to Jewish law, I see no evidence that Jesus was not hostile to sex outside marriage, which by definition includes homosexual acts.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Three key New Testament passages concerning homosexuality are: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Of the three, the most significant is Romans 1 because it deals with homosexuality within the larger cultural context.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ...[text shortened]... passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament which condemn homosexuality.

Nice post. Many in the Kingdom will have sinned at some point. So taking what Paul said literally could lead someone to conclude that David for example, will not be in the kindgom as he commited both murder and adultery. So there must be more to it that simply listing who will not inherit the kindgom.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Now why would people engage in activities society deems deplorable in such great numbers? DNA does change with time and that is fact. Let me ask you something. If it was proven that homosexuality was caused by DNA traits, how would it impact christianities view of the bible? How would a loving God punish folks for something they had no control of? Why do we pay for Adam and Eve's sins?

I agree with you that being homosexual is not a choice, but something much deeper and much
more profound. That doesn't necessarily mean it's genetic, but it could be I suppose. That's
besides the point though, as homosexuality not being a choice is not something you can hold
against the homosexual. It would be like saying that the colour of skin, colour of eyes, or musical
preferences can be held against you on a spiritual level. You can't really control these factors to
any great degree, so it's meaningless to even argue the case.

I think you're posing two good questions there at the end. Why would God punish folks for being
exactly the way He created them? And why would He punish us for the sins of our forefathers?

What is Jesus' general message anyway?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest le ...[text shortened]... ld Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

Two passages in Leviticus call homosexuality an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a women; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable"

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Give me some references to peer reviewed articles in respected journals that support the claim that male pattern baldness is 'proof' of anything of the kind, and I will look into it. Otherwise my conclusion is that you are making absurd claims from a position of ignorance.

Its been about 20 years or so since I studied up on baldness. It is DNA related and in fact more and more folks get it. As far as whether or not you believe it without looking it up for yourself, I don't give a rats ass.