• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Female Vs Male Homosexuality

Why did the early church not obey the roman beast, they risked death to meet?
Modern church immediately had to acknowledge is non essential?
Liquor stores and abortion clinics are essential they say. Who's values do we share now?
Give me liberty or give me covid check?
Is God able to overcome any hard situation?
 
Joleneakamama said:
We believe in keeping the higher law to the best of our ability. The golden rule is a good thing to live by, but can still get complicated by variations in individuals that might both be lawful, but can offend someone with a different personal standard (think manners, etiquette or personal preference).

Here is something to consider. Would you call your dog obedient if he came when you called him at dinner time and ignored you at other times? How about a child that only obeys when they want to?

I cannot understand why Christians say we should be subject to man's law and man made government, UNLESS it is in conflict with God's law. Why not just say that we SHOULD obey YHWH's laws statutes and judgments? That is affirmed in the new testament.
As much as lies within you live at peace with all men, but those that believe in playing "Simon says" with our creator's world really don't have His Authority backing them.
The Red Queen is having her day ...perhaps so the world can see she deserves the judgment coming, but some see her fruit sooner then others and try and tell folks ...."the emperor has no clothes." :cool:

For some serious meat for thought try reading a christian perspective from an earlier time. Lysander Spooner wrote "Natural Law" and "No Treason."

We are like boiled frogs when generation after generation acquiesce to political correctness, or man's changing standards.
Click to expand...
Man made beast wants to be God so it competes, displaces Him as husband, provider etc. Theory of evolution, feminism, gov dependence. Now with covid dispensation many forced out of business only to depend on beastie with a sort of universal income. This full spectrum control is by design. Do have to admit, they did their homework about human responses.
I think they run simulation scenarios until things are ready.
Strange conspiracies we are in. Do we still need tin foil hats?
 
LGBTQRZ is part of their new speak inpolitical correctness mess. If a family has one head and more than one memeber, is not politically correct and must be stopped. If it's full of confusion, that is encouraged and sanctioned by the supposedly, "god ordained beast". Modern non essential churches have taught this?
Beast is turning on churches now. Happened in Russia during the brutally forced bolchevik comie revolution, in Mexico, Cuba etc.
If this tribulations continue, real Christian pastors and congregations will be persecuted. EZE 9 : 6
Judgement starts at his sanctuary. That is not a pretty picture.
We need to pray for supernatural discernment and protection, mostly His will.
 
Phillip said:
Those words add to scripture what’s not written. There is nothing in that verse that reflects abandonment of sex with men. My studies align with @Joleneakamama in this matter. Others feel it reflects female/female relations. The context of the second of those two verses leads me to believe it is talking about anal sex, which aligns with unnatural use.
Click to expand...

That's not adding to scripture, it's interpretation. And accurate if you read closely...

26For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27Likewise also the [j]men, leaving the natural use of the [k]woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Click to expand...

Women EXCHANGED one use for another. Replaced one use with another. And the details of that are explained in the the statement about the men: likewise (in the same way) men left the use of women for the use of men. The very clear, plain English interpretation is that women left the use of men and instead had sex with women.

Understanding this is important to understanding the greater context of scripture. Women having sex with women was never mentioned in the OT. But that was a polygynous society; a man having sex with his wives together isn't any problem (or even those two wive alone). It does nothing to upset the natural order.

But the GrecoRoman world had no small amount of lesbianism; ceasing sex with men for just having sex with other women. And that practice goes against nature: the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply. And you only need to look at modern examples of lesbianism to see what commonly animates that abandonment of the natural use.
 
@bluearrow89 You're missing a key distinciton in Romans 13...God didn't grant them unlimited authority. Government isn't God with us. They have a specific sphere of authority and have no authority beyond that. We are not bound to obey governmet when it overstep's it's authority (otherwise we'd have to obey when they tell us to denounce Christ). Likewise there are other authorities among us: the church, the family (father), etc.

And sex and marriage falls under the authority of the father, not the state. We are under no obligation from God to obey government in those matters.
 
rockfox said:
...
Women EXCHANGED one use for another. Replaced one use with another. And the details of that are explained in the the statement about the men: likewise (in the same way) men left the use of women for the use of men. The very clear, plain English interpretation is that women left the use of men and instead had sex with women....
But the GrecoRoman world had no small amount of lesbianism; ceasing sex with men for just having sex with other women. And that practice goes against nature: the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply. And you only need to look at modern examples of lesbianism to see what commonly animates that abandonment of the natural use.
Click to expand...
I think the fact that men are explicitly called out "with each other" and woman are left loosely defined as "another", ie. unnatural act, indicates more likely that Paul is alluding to Roman orgies. I don't see any reason to assume he's calling out lesbianism. You could be right of course, just there's not enough there for me to add an additional prohibition from this.
 
IshChayil said:
I think the fact that men are explicitly called out "with each other" and woman are left loosely defined as "another", ie. unnatural act, indicates more likely that Paul is alluding to Roman orgies. I don't see any reason to assume he's calling out lesbianism. You could be right of course, just there's not enough there for me to add an additional prohibition from this.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you get that but that's a good point about Roman orgies.

Just to be clear, when I speak of Lesbianism I'm not talking about a couple women in a poly marriage happening to have sex or even bi-sexuality. I'm talking about women forsaking men and marrying each other. We've seen the fruit of that already. Not to mention it violates the injunction to be fruitful and multiply.
 
IshChayil said:
I think the fact that men are explicitly called out "with each other" and woman are left loosely defined as "another", ie. unnatural act, indicates more likely that Paul is alluding to Roman orgies. I don't see any reason to assume he's calling out lesbianism. You could be right of course, just there's not enough there for me to add an additional prohibition from this.
Click to expand...
I think that is the best explanation that I have ever come across. When trying to understand Scripture, it is imperative to understand the culture of the audience to whom it was written. This makes complete sense.
 
rockfox said:
Not sure how you get that but that's a good point about Roman orgies.

Just to be clear, when I speak of Lesbianism I'm not talking about a couple women in a poly marriage happening to have sex or even bi-sexuality. I'm talking about women forsaking men and marrying each other. We've seen the fruit of that already. Not to mention it violates the injunction to be fruitful and multiply.
Click to expand...
True, but as followers of Jesus Christ, we all understand that they are not truly married to one another. While it would be a mistake to conclude that marriage is only between two people, based on the Divorce Discourse in Matt 19, it is not a mistake at all to conclude from that passage, that marriage is between male and female.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
I think that is the best explanation that I have ever come across. When trying to understand Scripture, it is imperative to understand the culture of the audience to whom it was written. This makes complete sense.
Click to expand...
No no no no no no no. No. NO! Scripture is for all time and for all people and it stands on its own with no need for outside sources/
 
The Revolting Man said:
No no no no no no no. No. NO! Scripture is for all time and for all people and it stands on its own with no need for outside sources/
Click to expand...
That would be true and zero study required if languages had never been confounded and everyone UNDERSTOOD the message the one who spoke or wrote intended to convey. Word meanings change and translations can be flawed. Study, including that which helps one understand what those hearing those words then would have understood, is helpful in our quest to understand the law and will of our creator.
 
The Revolting Man said:
No no no no no no no. No. NO! Scripture is for all time and for all people and it stands on its own with no need for outside sources/
Click to expand...
This is too funny! We are the outside source! Looking into a foreign (Hebrew) culture and its literature, trying to reconcile it to our own (Roman) perspectives and preferences and cultural norms! Too funny!
 
Joleneakamama said:
That would be true and zero study required if languages had never been confounded and everyone UNDERSTOOD the message the one who spoke or wrote intended to convey. Word meanings change and translations can be flawed. Study, including that which helps one understand what those hearing those words then would have understood, is helpful in our quest to understand the law and will of our creator.
Click to expand...
If God can’t accurately edit and publish a book then He sure as hell can’t save my soul or raise Himself from the dead. If the Book isn’t accurate then the Author isn’t trustworthy.
 
@The Revolting Man, I completely understand your passion and good intent here, however you do take it too far. It is impossible for any of us to read scripture, or even anything, without relying to some level on the scholarship of others.
  • We can read English only because we were taught to by others - our parents and teachers.
  • We understand the meaning of complex or archaic English words by relying on dictionaries, created by scholars - this is essential when a word has changed meaning since the publication of the KJV.
  • When reading an English bible we rely on the scholarship of those who translated it (and the Holy Spirit choosing to preserve the word through their work - but have to consider which translations He may have inspired more than others...).
  • When investigating a difficult issue we rely on lexicons, made by men.
For one example, how do we know that 1 Corinthians 7:2 does not command monogamy? It sure reads that way in the KJV and every other English translation. It is only by examining the Greek that we know two different words are used here that are both translated "own" in English. To find this out, we rely on lexicons, written by men, and have to trust their scholarship.

Where did their knowledge of Greek come from? From studying both scripture and classical secular Greek texts, to determine how different words are used and what they mean. The more rarely a word appears in scripture, the more likely we're going to try and use a lexicon to try and understand it - and the more likely that lexical definition has had to draw on external sources because of the lack of scriptural usage to define the word.

This is still sola scriptura - we are trying to understand scripture alone. However, we all (you included) are using additional sources of knowledge from outside scripture in order to allow us to understand scripture more accurately. That is completely unavoidable - unless you were to raise a baby with no education in language and then hand the completely illiterate child an original Hebrew and Greek copy of the scriptures and let them figure out how to read it with no reference to outside sources...

The debate is not about "do we use outside sources or not". Only "precisely which outside sources should we use". That's a valid discussion, and you have good points to make on it - but if you pretend that you are using no outside sources at all you are fooling yourself and turning what could be a rational discussion into an argument that never needed to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top