The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Sodomy and/or homosexuality in God's word thru Paul 3

The past passage I'll quote from Paul is from Romans one.

"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." (Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

The sins listed in Romans one come from the idolatry mentioned previously. There is a uniqueness or unusual wording used here in v27. The Greek ekkaio for "burned" is found only here in Rom. 1:27, nowhere else in the NT. The Greek orexis for "lust" is also found only here in the NT. The sexual lust here is as in the RSV "consumed with passion", eat up with it. This verse does not describe the sexual desire that is normal as in 1 Cor. 7:7-9.

The men are said to be "leaving" and that means they were in possession of something from which to leave. These were men with wives, or at least female concubines of some sort. This is a passage that I find explained by men of God out of the past as well as secular writing of Paul's day, that clarify what Paul is speaking about here. There was a Greek philosopher who lived in Paul's day and he wrote something that gives historical context to Paul's description, Dio Chrysostom (not St. John C.) -

From the Greek philosopher Dio Chrysostom (40-110 AD) in The Seventh or Euboean Discourse

Phrasing lifted from text numbered 133 through 152

"In dealing with brothel-keepers and their trade we must certainly betray no weakness as though something were to be said on both sides, but must sternly forbid them...Such men bring individuals together in union without love and intercourse without affection, and all for the sake of filthy lucre...For evils are never wont to remain as they are; they are ever active and advancing to greater wantonness if they meet no compelling check...Indeed, beginning with practices and habits that seem trivial and allowable, it acquires a strength and force that are uncontrollable, and no longer stops at anything...Now at this point we must assuredly remember that this adultery committed with outcasts, so evident in our midst and becoming so brazen and unchecked, is to a very great extent paving the way to hidden and secret assaults upon the chastity of women and boys of good family...The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman's love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure. His state is like that of men who are addicted to drinking and wine-bibbing, who after long and steady drinking of unmixed wine, often lose their taste for it and create an artificial thirst by the stimulus of sweatings, salted foods, and condiments."
http://demonax.info/doku.php?id=text:dio_chrysostom_orations_1-20#the_seventh_or_euboean_discourse

The idea in Paul and in this writing of Dio Chrysostom seem the same as what is found described in the JFB Commentary of 1870 on Rom. 1:27 -

"Observe how, in the retributive judgment of God, vice is here seen consuming and exhausting itself. When the passions, scourged by violent and continued indulgence in natural vices, became impotent to yield the craved enjoyment, resort was had to artificial stimulants by the practice of unnatural and monstrous vices. How early these were in full career, in the history of the world, the case of Sodom affectingly shows; and because of such abominations, centuries after that, the land of Canaan 'spued out' its old inhabitants." https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jfu/romans-1.html

I have on my shelf the CSB "Ancient Faith Study Bible" which gives quotes from the early church fathers in the annotations. On Rom 1:27 they quote St. John Chrysostom, but leave out the key part about leaving what they possessed. Here is the more complete passage where leaving is the key to the sin -

"All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that they changed the natural use. For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insanity. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, They changed the truth of God for a lie. And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, Leaving the natural use of the woman. And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature." https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm

The male to male sex sin here is clearly that of an all consuming lust, coming from being given up by God because of their idolatry.

My posts may seem to be all one sided, but I am specifically addressing what I see as an extreme position held by the vast majority of evangelicals and fundamentalists. The LGBTQ religious heretics overall would be dangerous and I'll address that later. While the Bible does not speak of sexual orienations, only acts; it seems a true fact that since 1869 in Germany, it has been recognized that there is a small minority, maybe only 1% of males who have zero romantic interest in females but are attracted to and love other males instead. The evangelicals have given no sensible answer at all, unless you wish to follow the thinking of the 'televangelist faith healers'. There is no easy and simple answer, but the scriptures do actually have some guidance; but it is not the LGBTQ answers!

Soooooo, I'm trying to make sense of what you are trying to prove, i.e., for example, are you or have you already come to the conclusion and the opinion that Scripture condemns ALL and ANY form of sexual desire and act other than that which is restricted to male and female and specifically in regard to sexual acts to that only within a marriage covenantal relationship?

Or, are you trying to make a case that Scripture allows for some kind of relationship between same sex individuals that goes beyond philia friendship? And, that the condemnation against any and all forms of relationships, specifically of the sexual nature, is not warranted from Scripture?

Or, is there something other than the above you are trying to establish from Scripture and ancient writings?

I find the scriptures teach that sex between a man and woman outside the marriage bond is sin, called fornication and/or adultery. Fornication and adultery are specifically opposite sex sins and distinguished from sodomites in 1 Cor. 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10. Rape of course would be a sin in any sexual relationship. There is nowhere in scripture I find where fornication and/or adultery is found in connection with same-sex acts. I find no verse that states any and all sex, considering male with male, outside of a biblical marriage is condemned as sin.

The idea that all sex outside of marriage is sin, seems to be a theological construction based on extending the idea of fornication to include same-sex acts, and unless one wishes to consider same-sex unions qualifying as marriage, I do not see how that theory holds up.

I strive to adhere strictly to the words of Paul -

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6 ASV)

Yes, the Trinity is a theological construction but it is forced by logic in the express statements of scripture: God is One God who exists as Three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I see only two options for a man who only loves males and is attracted to males, if he has not the gift of abstinence.

1. Live faithfully with a compatible, loving male friend in monogamy for life, and keeping the love of 1 Cor. 13:4-7 as the guiding force, even over the sex life. This option requires a private approach to life in the areas of intimacy.

2. If one cannot view his sexual desires and conduct as other than sin, I can only suggest that he view it as his particular weakness in original sin -

"This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; (1 John 1:8, 10, Rom. 7:14, 17–18, 23, James 3:2, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. (Rom. 7:5–8, 25, Gal. 5:17)"

I can only see this approach as "good news" if seen as stated by the Puritan Thomas Brooks -

"The second remedy against this device of Satan is, seriously to consider,
That God has nowhere engaged himself by any particular promise, that souls converted
and united to Christ shall not fall again and again into the same sin after conversion. I
cannot find in the whole book of God where he has promised any such strength or
power against this or that particular sin, as that the soul should be forever, in this life,
put out of a possibility of falling again and again into the same sins. And where God has
not a mouth to speak, I must not have a heart to believe. God will graciously pardon
those sins to his people, which he will not in this life totally subdue in his people. I have
never seen a promise in Scripture, which says that when our sorrow and grief has been
so great, or so much, for this or that sin—that then God will preserve us from ever
falling into the same sin. The sight of such a promise would be as life from the dead to
many a precious soul, who desires nothing more than to keep close to Christ, and fears
nothing more than backsliding from Christ.
In some cases the saints have found God better than his word. He promised the children
of Israel only the land of Canaan; but besides that he gave them two other kingdoms
which he never promised. And to Zacharias he promised to give him his speech at the
birth of the child—but besides that he gave him the gift of prophecy." page 106
https://www.preachtheword.com/bookstore/remedies.pdf

Pilgrim, what other workable options do you or others posting here find in the Bible to keep a Christian lad from falling into despair over his predicament in life? On the Greek words behind the various types of love, I find it risky to emphasize that too much. The horrible incest and rape in 2 Sam. 13:15LXX oddly uses the Greek agape and agapao.

I admit I find no easy answer that would fit all situations, but as a general approach, I can only see the 2 above and I am strongly inclined to #1 because #2 seems to open the door to promiscuity and repeated repentances over and over. I cannot bring myself to advise a guy in a way that only produces despair. For the true child of God, I see the ultimate solution in 1 Thess. 5:23-24 on the last day.

“ what other workable options do you or others posting here find in the Bible to keep a Christian lad from falling into despair over his predicament in life? ”

Why must it be a matter of despair?

I don’t think we must force God-ordained marriage on anyone, for somebody who is more suited to remain single. But, I even question certain instances of “pedophilia” ….as more accurately perceived an unlawful act of opportunity, in which a young female or male is assaulted by an individual who is otherwise, in the case of an adult male’s assault upon a young lady, attracted to women. (This is public record of a married man in our former denomination https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/wa...lly-assaulting-girl-over-five-years.html )

So this is definitely a sin (likely a regeneration/sanctification matter of “the heart”) and self control issue above all else.

Many of these priests who have assaulted boys/males-teens are obviously effeminate and ultimately same-sex attracted. However, they have engaged in a crime of opportunity despite their vow of celibacy. They disregard their depravity. Giving in to lusts, and abominable ones at that, are definitely not the answer. Accommodating abomination is never merciful. God’s consent is the highest order and a crime against self and another before God is heinous regardless of “consent.”

Also, it appears young ladies are more susceptible to lgbtq/Marxist shaming/indoctrination influencing
sexual behavior/emotional health regardless of natural affection/attraction. https://heidelblog.net/2022/11/oppr...-of-teen-related-gender-identity-issues/

We also have to consider environmental factors influencing same sex propensities / exacerbating our natural depravities. We live in a fallen world….



“More and more research, however, is showing that atrazine interferes with endocrine hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone – in fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles, laboratory rodents and even human cell lines at levels of parts per billion. Recent studies also found a possible link between human birth defects and low birth weight and atrazine exposure in the womb.”

“ Atrazine has caused a hormonal imbalance that has made them develop into the wrong sex, in terms of their genetic constitution.”

“Syngenta, which manufactures atrazine, disputes many of these studies, including Hayes’, that show adverse effects of the pesticide. But Hayes said that “when you have studies all over the world showing problems with atrazine in every vertebrate that has been looked at – fish, frogs, reptiles, birds, mammals – all of them can’t be wrong.”

“What people have to realize is that, just as with taking pharmaceuticals, they have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs,” he said. “Not every frog or every human will be affected by atrazine, but do you want to take a chance, what with all the other things that we know atrazine does, not just to humans but to rodents and frogs and fish?”


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pesticides-may-block-male-hormones/

https://theworld.org/stories/2015-0...ed-genital-changes-and-sexual-preference

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909519107

Another example of an unlawful sexual act of opportunity that is common are in the prisons - male on male / female on female - consensual or no. Often the acts trump the natural desires but are committed out of depraved convenience. They may even grow to love the object of vile affection. Should these scenarios also be accommodated to guard against feelings of despair? There are all forms of sin and bondage, real and perceived, that the guilty/ totally depraved sinner must grapple with.

Anthony, I was surprised to read your four replies with the links you gave in this thread. There are a lot of beliefs stated, but I found not one verse of "Thus saith the Lord" to base those beliefs on, in your replies or the links. Some beliefs I agreed with and others I did not. When I began this series of posts starting at #58540 on 4/7/23, I stated "The Bible does not speak about sexual orientations, it speaks of specific acts. On that point alone, the 1946 RSV and the later NKJV & NASB failed by using the word 'homosexuals', which refers to orientation." I wish to reply to the one statement you made, "Another example of an unlawful sexual act of opportunity that is common are in the prisons - male on male / female on female - consensual or no."

On what text of scripture do you base that statement? I know of no scripture for the Christian that states that or even comes close to condemning two males or two females having a consensual sexual act between them in prison confinement, or elsewhere.

I've gone over the passages used to make a blanket condemnation of any and all forms of sexual thoughts or acts between males that are recorded in the OT and NT, and I cannot find any passage that makes such a condemnation. That must be read into the various passages, or reading the perfection of creation as if it is law that declares what is sin. Many things that do not match that creation that God called "good" exists in our fallen world, but cannot be called sin.

Recently I came across an argument based on the relationship of Jonathan and David in the OT. At times it has been pointed out that the Hebrew H160 אַהֲבָה 'ahabah when used of human to human relationships and translated "love", is first used of Jacob's love for Rachel which surely includes a sexual dimension, and then the word is used FIVE times in reference to Jonathan and David. The word is then used to describe the sexual sin committed by Amnon upon Tamar in 2 Sam. 13:15. In 2 Sam. 1:26 the word is used twice in reference to Jonathan's love for David as "love of women". For years we have been taught that is referring to the love of a wife or wives, or the love of a mother or mothers. If that is so, why has that not been translated that way in any of the standard translations?

The point I recently encountered is considering the phrase in 1 Sam. 18:1 KJV "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David", where the word "knit" is the Hebrew H7194 קָשַׁר qashar and it is used in Gen. 44:30 of the bonding of a father to his son, and the point is made that the word therefore cannot refer to anything sexual. There is a flaw to that argument. There is a key difference between 1 Sam. 18:1 and Gen. 44:30 as to how the Hebrew H7194 קָשַׁר qashar is used. Some Hebrew-English Interlinear OTs read the word in Gen. 44:30 as "and soul-of him being-tied in soul-of him" and in 1 Sam. 18:30 it reads in reference to the love of Jonathan to David as "and soul-of Jonathan SHE-was-tied in soul-of David". In 1 Sam. 18:1 the gender indicator "she" is included where in Gen. 44:30 that gender indicator "she" is missing. There is a difference in the usage of H7194 קָשַׁר qashar in the two passages. The word is used 44 times in the OT and it is consistent in how "she" is the gender indicator when the reference is clearly to a female (and also Jonathan), and when it is referring to clearly a male, the gender indicated is "he" or "him". Here are examples up through 2 Kings. but is consistent through all 44 occurrences.

In checking a Hebrew-English Interlinear OT online for the word gender indicator "she" as used with qashar -

Gn 38:28 she - midwife
Jos 2:21 she - Rahab the harlot
1 Sa 18:1 she - Jonathan

I found the gender he/him is always used with men -

Gender "he"
1 Kg 15:27 he - a son
1 Kg 16:9 he - Zimri a male
1 Kg 16:16 he - " "
1 Kg 16:20 he/him - " "
2 Kg 9:14 he - Jehoshaphat
2 Kg 15:10 he - son

The online Interlinear I was viewing is: https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

The topic of gender in biblical Hebrew is complex and far above my knowledge, but in the OT, it is consistent that the word when in context it refers to a female it reads "she"; and when it is referring to a male, it reads "he/him". YET WITH JONATHAN, THE GENDER INDICATOR IS "SHE".

A discussion of gender in the Hebrew is complicated but it does not explain away the consistency found in the OT Interlinear - https://mosaicmagazine.com/observat...the-reason-for-hebrews-mixed-up-genders/

David had many wives and concubines and Jonathan had at least one wife, and sons. Do what we think of as "normal" red-blooded males with families ever have love and desire or even an act that is sexual toward another male? It seems that there was indeed a sexual element to the love of Jonathan for David which David accepted with praise in his lament, 2 Sam. 1:26. There is no hint this is viewed as sinful, but praised through history. What other explanation is there?

From Psychology Today -
A statement from a practicing psychotherapist - "In my practice, I come across many men who identify as straight but engage in having sex with men or are attracted to watching gay porn. They’re attracted to sexual behaviors with men, not necessarily to the men. Sometimes their wife has discovered their Internet searches, prompting one or both into coming into my office."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...guise-understanding-male-sexual-fluidity

I can find no biblical basis for condemning every form of sex/love between males as sodomitic. I admit I was stunned to see the question of the gender indicators pointed out about Jonathan's love for David. What other reasonable explanation is there for this in Hebrew grammar?

I’m probably lacking in direct scriptural application on a number of topics.

However, I thought the prison scenario is a good challenge to your perspective. It’s a setting in which love, affection and sensuality cannot flourish for the majority without a denial of our natural propensity and design. So virtue is no longer plagued by much lesser and often depraved inclinations. But, it is a place where despair can easily take over. A place of TRUE despair for many. Some are so driven by lust they are willing to cross the line and do what is unseemly - it’s a sign of a much bigger problem. But the imprisoned who come to truth via Gods word have a treasure that never fails - they are the hopeful and the heavenly minded.

You can’t tell me being single with the ability to place Higher Things above many other familial obligations, etc., is truly a state to lament. The elevation of sex and sensuality is not a biblical emphasis, it’s a carnal one. So to place those things as the highest virtues is a human conception. It’s the perspective of the selfish, the self-absorbed, and the privileged. The risk-reward of placing sensual pleasures and even companionship above matters of faith and our eternal soul is a short-sighted and ultimately warped perspective in the grand scheme of things.

How do you view a friend that risks everything for you? David had that friend - somebody that would die for him - it transcends all types of love and loyalty. You know who else did and it was expressed in ways that may sound a little foreign to our ears but that was the Disciple John. That’s sacrificial love. Jesus loved John and John was filled with love and gratitude in a measure not known to the average, natural man.

As for Jonathan and David….

“It makes more much sense to say the only reason that David and Jonathan can be presented with this intense male friendship is because it was so assumed and so understood that a same-sex intimacy between two men would have been severely frowned upon, to say the least. I think of one anecdote I heard one time that at some point in Abraham Lincoln’s life as a lawyer and traveling around the circuit, he would sleep in the same bed with one of his assistants or one of his male secretaries or companions, which was not at all strange. It’s only because of our position in our culture and the things that we are wrestling with that some of these expressions of male friendship or camaraderie seem unusual.”

I disagree that it’s a fair question, but it’s one that has been asked nonetheless… https://www.crossway.org/articles/were-david-and-jonathan-lovers/

Here’s some resources that might help you. You’re interpreting scripture way out of context. You can’t take the more obscure (or your personally motivated, post-modern projections) to cast doubt on what’s clear and you can’t presuppose a teaching that goes against what is practiced and promoted by the divinely inspired prophets of God.


Resources On Biblicism
Biblicism is not the attempt to be faithful to Scripture (i.e., to be biblical). Rather, in its extreme form, biblicism is the attempt to read Scripture in isolation. It is the attempt to read Scripture in isolation from the rest of Scripture and in insolation from the ecumenical creeds and the confessions produced by the various churches. It is the attempt to interpret Scripture as if no one has ever read it before. It attempts to interpret Scripture in insolation from the history of the church and especially the history of interpretation. It is the attempt to interpret Scripture in isolation from systematic theology or apart from one or more of the other departments of theology (e.g., practical theology). Not every instance of biblicism manifests all of these tendencies but any attempt to interpret Scripture atomistically or in isolation from the church, or the history of exegesis is, to some degree, guilty of biblicism.

Below are some resources, the most complete of which is the volume Recovering the Reformed Confession, which seek to diagnose, illustrate, and correct biblicism…..

https://heidelblog.net/biblicism/

Other readings on the topic…

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/david-and-jonathan-same-sex/

https://marcjsims.com/2023/02/15/homosexuality-and-friendship-jonathan-and-david/

Anthony, you have repeatedly voiced your opinions and beliefs, along with those of others through links, but again, I see you have not tried to found your opinion on a close look at the applicable scriptures themselves. You claim I am "interpreting scripture way out of context" but I do use scripture and you have not shown or illustrated how I have interpreted any passage out of context. I will stay with the traditional interpretation as follows: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa 8:20 KJV)

You wrote "Some are so driven by lust they are willing to cross the line and do what is unseemly.." The English "lust" sounds so dirty and corrupt, but are you aware that the Greek for "lust" in "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust (G1937 ἐπιθυμέω epithumeo) after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matt 5:28 KJV) ... that is the same word Jesus used in, "And he said unto them, With desire I have desired (G1937 ἐπιθυμέω epithumeo) to eat this passover with you before I suffer:" (Luke 22:15 KJV) The same Greek word is translated in English with "lust" in a negative sexual sense in some contexts, but in a positive sense in other contexts. You lifted your line with "lust" and "unseemly" from the KJV of Rom. 1:27 but you have not taken the time to exegete the verse, which uses a Greek for lust found nowhere else in the Greek OT or NT. I did give a study on the verse, so you can critique that is you wish.

Again you wrote "But the imprisoned who come to truth via Gods word have a treasure that never fails - they are the hopeful and the heavenly minded" and that brings to mind the truth of the adage "so heavenly minded they are no earthly good". It is to judge others without walking a mile in their shoes. To be so "heavenly minded" ignores the fact we live in a fallen world of many imperfections that are not called "sin" in scripture.

You wrote, "The elevation of sex and sensuality is not a biblical emphasis, it’s a carnal one." and that surely sounds heavenly minded, but the scriptures are practical and Paul knows male sexuality, "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9 KJV) Unless you wish to say men who love only men should be allowed to marry other men, what is your answer? Do you suggest a young woman marry a man who has zero physical or romantic interest in her? I believe Eccles 4:7-12 gives a workable solution that is not 'gay marriage'.

One of your links makes an argument that David and Jonathan knew Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 so any same sex eroticism is out of the question. Apparently David also knew the law "Thou shall not commit adultery" or "Thou shalt not kill", so did that stop him? Then, what did those passages in Leviticus mean to David and Jonathan? Did the abomination of male cult prostitution, which is what those passages in Leviticus refer to, have anything to do with the erotic or romantic love they experienced? I AM NOT saying Jonathan or David were the terms we use today: gay, homosexual or bisexual. More men than admitted in our day, regardless of labels, have same sex desires and/or experiences -

https://news.ubc.ca/2021/03/23/why-do-some-straight-men-have-sex-with-other-men/

https://kinseyinstitute.org/researc...port-diversity-of-sexual-orientation.php

You wrote "You can’t take the more obscure (or your personally motivated, post-modern projections) to cast doubt on what’s clear and you can’t presuppose a teaching that goes against what is practiced and promoted by the divinely inspired prophets of God"... but you did not support your accusation that I am "personally motivated" or "cast doubt on what's clear". I've worked hard to use proper hermeneutics to understand what was written by "the divinely inspired prophets of God", but you have not done so or have not written an explanation of your interpretation of the pertinant passages and illustrated a factual basis for your disagreement with me.

Anthony, your accusations against me remind me of the statements Donald Trump has made against Ron DeSantis. Trump accused DeSantis of seeking a 23% Sales Tax, but he omits that is from the Fair Tax proposal that does away with the Income Tax, which so many can evade. Anyone who buys things pays a sales tax with no evasion. Another charge Trump makes against DeSantis is, he has wanted to cut Social Security benefits. DeSantis in the past has considered the option of raising the eligibility age to begin taking Social Security, not cutting the current payments to those received SS now. Something has to be done to avoid SS from going broke!

I am not ordained in any office of ministry or teaching, but I know posting on the Internet like this is teaching because many can read these writings. I do not post without recognizing the seriousness of this, for if those who are ordained are held to account as below, how will I stand before my Lord on the last day if I am being ignorantly presumptuous in posting my studies?

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you." (Heb 13:17 NRSV)

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness." (Jas 3:1 RSV)

I strive with all my heart and with prayer, to not post based on personal bias or prejudice, or infected with emotionalism and sentimentality; so I seek to use proper hermeneutics and ask that those who disagree with me, please point out my errors from a proper perspective, not just from emotionalism. This will be my last post on this topic unless someone wishes to discuss the exegesis and interpretation of particular verses and show me in error. If I can be shown to be in error, using proper hermeneutics, being serious interpretation, I will be obliged to adjust or revise my view. God help us if brethren cannot have a serious, Bible-based discussion of a topic so prominent in our day!

So you think a primary emphasis of the verse is to establish and verify a homoerotic relationship between David and Jonathan? You sound like a very nice man, but that is a pretty weak and projected application. The deep bond between these two men that is being conveyed (1 Sam. 18:1 KJV "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David") is not a sexual one. It makes not the slightest sense in context all things considered. That is a modern hijacking of what is being described. If their relationship was thus there would be much scandal and call for further scriptural support and clarification on the matter. Sorry, you are highly delusional on this point. It’s the nicest way I can say it. Not to hurt your feelings. You have a nice little formula conceived but I don’t have to try to make some biblical case for a point that has not been established. The burden of proof is on you to usurp 2000 years of biblical authority and your attempt is silly.

Homosexuality, The Culmination of Man’s Apostasy

“This certainly is clear enough, and there is not a single text in all the New Testament to indicate that this penalty has been altered or removed (in Romans 1:32 St. Paul in fact confirms it), yet virtually all theologians by-pass this law and disregard its requirement. In fact, St. Paul cited homosexuality as the CULMINATION OF MAN’S APOSTASY (Rom. 1:18-32). St. Paul’s description of the act is revealing: ‘And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet Rom.’ 1:27). The verb “burned” is ekkaio, “to burn out.” Homosexuality is thus the burning out of man; hence, to cite Wuest’s translation of the latter half of this verse, they receive in themselves that retribution which was a necessity in the nature of the case because of the DEVIATION FROM THE NORM.

Homosexuality is thus the CULMINATING SEXUAL PRACTICE OF A CULMINATING APOSTASY AND HOSTILITY TOWARDS GOD. The homosexual is at war with God, and, in his every practice, is denying God’s natural order and law. The theological aspect of homosexuality is thus emphasized in scripture. In history, homosexuality becomes prominent in every area of apostasy and time of decline. IT IS AN END OF AGE PHENOMENON......”

(Institutes of Biblical Law, R. J. Rushdoony, PhD, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p-423)

I am a bit confused by what you are saying.

Is homosexuality sin, or not?