Homosexuality

[Dream]

The bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but then again, it refers to the eating of shellfish as an abomination too.

Yet, strangely, i don't see anyone trying to enact legislation to prevent Red Lobster or Long John Silver's from peaceably going about their business.

I'm going to make a case and would like help testing it. I'm trying to make sure I understand why homosexuality happens from a Biblical standpoint. I make a case, but please don't quote me outside the thread. My mind is not made up about everything I'm posting here.

Homosexuals have been misunderstood and mistreated a lot by Christians. This isn't Israel, and the 'Death penalty' doesn't apply here. Also, the nation Israel was absolutely not supposed to oppress homosexuals the way religious groups have been doing it. There is a Biblical phrase: "Something that should not be done in Israel"(2Sam 13:12) which refers to things God uses to indicate when society becomes idle and uncaring. Biblically homosexuality is a miraculous sign seen in individuals but is caused by a society's coldness. It appears in individuals, but it doesn't necessarily reflect upon an individual's character. You are welcome to disagree from a scientific or Biblical basis if it floats your boat.

I am not saying I think homosexuals are the norm, but that homosexuality is as much of a sign to us as blindness was in Jesus' day. It is an individual's plague, but caused by a nation's actions. One of Jesus teachings is that the man who is born blind has not sinned and neither has his parents, but his suffering is for the glory of God. Many people in Jesus time thought the blind man was being punished for sin, because blindness was a plague listed in Deuteronomy. I propose Jesus knew that the plague of blindness was for the nation's sins, and that is what he meant when he said it was 'To the glory of God'. A Christian should see that blind birth is a miraculous sign (plague in this case Deut 28:28) to indicate the nation has sinned, but it does not reflect upon the blind individual or his family. The nation should take responsibility for the blind man's well being.

I suggest someone who discovers homosexual feelings is in a similar way. We wouldn't heap vehemence upon the blind man and get upset because he's trying to make a living! Why would we be angry with gays for doing the same? Christians especially should consider themselves responsible for the presence of homosexuality, instead of trying to fix it by outlawing it. (It is absolutely backwards to accuse homosexuals of bringing down wrath upon the world, although some of us have claimed it on national TV.)

John 9:2-3 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Deuteronomy 28:15...28 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:...The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart: And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness,....

Ezekiel 16:49-50 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Having said this, you may wonder what I think of homosexual sex? Do I claim it is sinful or not, and how do I think God could make someone homosexual in response to a nation's failures? My answer is that life is full of good works God has given us to do, but the nature of our physical desires are all base. If we are not busy doing good works, then we will sin no matter who we are. We should not think of our freedom in Christ as an excuse to sin, however we are only drawn to repentence by God's goodness and mercy! That means we learn obedience over time as well as learning that obedience is best. Life in Christ is about doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly. Eventually that pushes everything else out.

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

 

[leastone]

Dear Dream,

I have always refrained from entering discussions on homosexuality.

I respond here, however, as a Christian, to the premise that you have developed to explore your thoughts on the matter; "to make a case" and "test it," as you put it. So while, at first glance, it seems to me that you are stretching things a bit, I will not try and go to where you are stretching it to, but rather, to where you are stretching things from.

John 9:2-3 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

As I understand your premise, based on the text above, you say that blindness was a curse afflicting some (individuals) to render a sign of God's displeasure with the whole (nation); a divine serving notice.

One of Jesus teachings is that the man who is born blind has not sinned and neither has his parents, but his suffering is for the glory of God.

First, then, I see a big difference in your, "his suffering is for the glory of God," and Jesus saying, "(He was born blind) that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

The "works of God" here referred to is the healing of blindness (from birth), not just a restoration of (lost, deteriorating) sight. If the blind man's suffering was for God's glory, healing would have been contrary to that purpose.

I propose Jesus knew that the plague of blindness was for the nation's sins, and that is what he meant when he said it was 'To the glory of God'.

Do you see how you clearly affirm the notion that the the plague of blindness itself was bringing glory to God?

I would suggest that a careful reading intends us to understand the text in the following way: "Forget about who sinned and who didn't --- he was not born blind because of particular sins of his parents, nor could it be his own, for he was born blind --- before he could commit any particular sin. So, forget about pinning blame. Rather, see what God can do with such a case. One can almost say, he was born blind so that the works of God may be done in him, as a testimony for all times. To God be the glory! Be healed!"

see that blind birth is a miraculous sign (plague in this case Deut 28:28) to indicate the nation has sinned, but it does not reflect upon the blind individual or his family

You see, there is no indication that this man was smitten with the plague, that is, born blind, to serve as a "miraculous sign that the nation has sinned," while "it does not reflect upon the blind individual or his family." There never is a declaring them "innocent," for that would in effect declare them sinless, which they could not possible be. Jesus certainly did not say they were.

For a man to be born he has to come through his "fallen" parents, and from them, he inherits specific traits and characteristics. That this is so can be seen from the physical resemblance and character qualities carried over from generation to generation, enabling one to recognize someone from a certain nation, tribe, clan, or family. Contrary to what is generally believed, "original sin" is not "inherited" from Adam and Eve, for these were fictional, representative characters, and one cannot inherit anything from such.

However, from one's own parents, and they from theirs, one inherits, not their actual sins, but a disposition toward sin in general, and propensities toward certain sins in particular. This is easily recognized as a spiritual reality.

It is in the light of this, and, "the sins of the fathers will be visited on the children to the third and fourth generation," that the question arose Jesus was confronted with in the case of the blind man.

One should recognize, and allow for, that some of the responses given by Jesus was audience-specific, best answering a certain circumstance for the benefit of those present.

The words, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents," does not somehow place them outside the dispensation all men are subject to, and it certainly did not declare the man innocent or sinless.

If he were sinless, that is, without any moral depravity, and he was then afflicted with a curse, or plague, in spite of his purity, or because of his righteousness, then, somehow, God could be glorified, according to the principle stated by Peter:

1Pe 2:20 For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval.

1Pe 3:14 But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed.

1Pe 3:17 For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong.

1Pe 4:13 But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
1Pe 4:14 If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.
1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker;
1Pe 4:16 yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.

From this it is clear that God is glorified by suffering, not from a curse, but due to righteousness, and because of His Name, thus, suffering inflicted by fellow men. Being born blind is not such.

I would conclude, then, Dream, by asking you to rethink the premise you have stated, from which you wished to stretch things a little to make Christian sense of what you call "Biblical homosexuality."

Also, without knowing the answer, it did occur to me to ask, what is the difference, if any, between homosexual Christians, and Christian homosexuals?

In beginning to think of an answer for this, the thought occurred: first consider terms hardly ever referred to: heterosexual Christians, and Christian heterosexuals. Wherein lies the difference? And then, how does the Bible account for these?

Respectfully,

Learner

PS In my inbox today, as Inspirational Quote:

The love in the marriage of one man to one woman is the precious jewel of human life.

Married Love 457 Emanuel Swedenborg

 

[Dream]

First, I truly appreciate your input, and it is likely that you are right and that I am wrong. I liked you saying that Adam and Eve are fictional, representative characters; because it shows you're willing to disagree. If you placed others opinions too highly, I'd feel as if I were talking to a mouse instead of a person. Maybe you know the feeling I get when somebody's responses are controlled by their emotional ties to another person's will. Did you know that disagreeing with your social group activates the pain centers in your brain? It been shown that it is similar to what would happen if you were experiencing physical pain. Although I know that anything I say is going to have errors, "love always protects, always hopes, and always perseveres."

 

[leastone]

Did you know that disagreeing with your social group activates the pain centers in your brain? It been shown that it is similar to what would happen if you were experiencing physical pain.

I did not know this, so, I thank thee, Dream.

I am tempted to say: this would go a long way toward explaining my life. But I need to learn more about it first.

Does "the activation of the pain centers in your brain" merely warn of impending suffering, should you persist in "disagreeing with your social group," or is it suffering in itself?

Is there a differentiation between pain center activation in the case of outcasts, and where voluntary withdrawal brings isolation and thus alternative thought? Can the brain discern the difference?

Not to get off topic. (I cannot imagine the suffering that homosexuals go through, not only as outcasts, but also because of the pain the lifestyle brings.)

Respectfully,

Learner

 

[Dream]

1. However, from one's own parents, and they from theirs, one inherits, not their actual sins, but a disposition toward sin in general, and propensities toward certain sins in particular. This is easily recognized as a spiritual reality.

2. It is in the light of this, and, "the sins of the fathers will be visited on the children to the third and fourth generation," that the question arose Jesus was confronted with in the case of the blind man.

3. One should recognize, and allow for, that some of the responses given by Jesus was audience-specific, best answering a certain circumstance for the benefit of those present.

I am taking that as a synopsis of your post, although I might quote other parts. You also gave some quotes from I Peter, a resource about martyrdom and bearing sins of others. It is about righteous suffering for the glory of God and the salvation of unbelievers. Your final point resting upon this:

The words, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents," does not somehow place them outside the dispensation all men are subject to, and it certainly did not declare the man innocent or sinless.

If he were sinless, that is, without any moral depravity, and he was then afflicted with a curse, or plague, in spite of his purity, or because of his righteousness, then, somehow, God could be glorified, according to the principle stated by Peter:

I have to agree with you at least partly, but you have left one question unanswered. You said "One can almost say, 'he was born blind so that the works of God may be done in him, as a testimony for all times. To God be the glory! Be healed!'" You pointed out that we fall under the same judgment as Adam, since we inherit his nature. That is the underlying reason why anyone in the world can be blind, however blindness in Israel was different than blindness just anywhere. If I could make this blind man merely a special case, then I would agree with you. This healing did show the works of God, after all! It also makes us understand that Physical Israel was blinded for our sakes as discussed in Romans 11. More than all of that, however, Jesus' statement about the blind man interprets the Law of Moses, and that is what I ask you to discuss for me: the blessings and the curses.

By Law it was impossible that anyone in Israel could be born blind without it reflecting upon the nation as a whole. Scripture says blindness only happens within Israel if Israel refuses to hear the LORD's voice. If Israel hears the LORD's voice, blessings will fall upon the nation and there can be no blindness or sickness in it. I agree this one individual was healed as a testimony to the works of God, however most people that were born-blind were not healed by Jesus. Since they were not healed, do we assume they were born blind for different reasons than the man who Jesus did heal? In that case we assume that they were born blind neither for the Glory of God nor for personal sin -- but that was impossible in Israel.

The presence of the blind were proof-positive that God's people were not as they should have been. Those individuals symbolized spiritual blindness (or darkness) in the nation. They presented a threat -- that if the nation did not repent, the plagues would spread. Unfortunately blind and other unclean individuals were open to public accusation and were viewed by some as spiritual Esaus, steeped in sin at birth. Forgetting that the LORD makes blind people, they accused the blind of being born idolaters. Even more unfortunate is that blaming them did nothing to treat the cause of the plague or to bring glory to God either. This is one of the things that Jesus rebuked when he declared that the blind man was not being punished for his sins.
References

• Deuteronomy 11:26-29 Conditions for Blessings and Cursings declared
• Deuteronomy 28:1-14 the blessings listed
• Deuteronomy 28:15-16 the curses listed
• Deuteronomy 29:18-21 idolatrous individuals singled out for cursing
• Exodus 4:10 The LORD makes the blind, blind

 

[leastone]

By Law it was impossible that anyone in Israel could be born blind without it reflecting upon the nation as a whole.
Scripture says blindness only happens within Israel if Israel refuses to hear the LORD's voice.
If Israel hears the LORD's voice, blessings will fall upon the nation and there can be no blindness or sickness in it.

Dear Dream,

It seems to me that your premise may be sounder than I first understood.

that is what I ask you to discuss for me: the blessings and the curses.

I cannot offer much in further discussion, as I really am still forming my own mind in these matters, especially in terms of disease and healing.

I am surprised, though, by the use of the words, “By Law it was impossible anyone in Israel could be born blind without it reflecting upon the nation as a whole,” and that “blindness in Israel was different than blindness just anywhere.”

Sounds like a legal matter, rather than a spiritual one. I somehow feel that something said by St. Thomas from Across the Tiber pertains here, even though it concerns the “Law” of Israel. He has pointed out that it is tradition that generates (its) scripture, and not scripture that produces tradition.

If so, look at your sentence:
Scripture says blindness only happens within Israel if Israel refuses to hear the LORD's voice.

It really ought to say, Tradition has it, (and therefore the Scriptures say) blindness only happens within Israel if Israel refuses to hear the LORD’s voice.

Blindness in Israel might have, in the mindset handed down by tradition, and confirmed by scripture, signified something special or particular for Israel, in their understanding, but blindness is blindness in any man’s book, in or outside Israel, (that is, in my understanding).

Those individuals symbolized spiritual blindness (or darkness) in the nation.

In reading up a bit before attempting to respond, I came across a rational reinforcement of the idea of disease (and blindness) has a deeper, internal, and spiritual meaning. I offer it below for your interest.

Respectfully,

Learner

(1). That "disease" denotes evil, is because in the internal sense are signified such things as affect the spiritual life. The diseases which affect this life are evils[.]

Faith and charity make the spiritual life. This life sickens when falsity takes the place of the truth which is of faith, and evil takes the place of the good which is of charity; for these bring this life unto death, which is called spiritual death, and is damnation, as diseases bring the natural life unto its death.

Hence it is that by "disease" is signified in the internal sense evil[.]

(2) Evils are also meant by "diseases" in other passages in the Word, as in Moses:

If thou wilt keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, Jehovah will remove from thee all sickness, and will not put upon thee all the evil weaknesses of Egypt, which thou hast known; but will give them upon thy haters (Deut. 7:11, 15).
​

If thou wilt not obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, by keeping to do all His commandments and His statutes, Jehovah will send on thee the curse, the disquiet, and the rebuke, in every putting forth of thy hand which thou doest, until thou be destroyed, because of the wickedness of thy works, whereby thou hast forsaken Me. Jehovah shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until He has consumed thee from upon the land; Jehovah shall smite thee with consumption, and with a hot fever, and with a burning fever, and with a raging fever, and with drought, and with blasting, and with jaundice, which shall pursue thee until thou perish: Jehovah shall smite thee with the ulcer of Egypt, and with the hemorrhoids, and with the scab, and with the itch, that thou canst not be healed. Jehovah shall smite thee with fury, and withblindness, and with amazement of heart. Thou shalt become mad from the look of thine eyes. Jehovah shall smite thee with a sore ulcer, upon the knees, and upon the thighs, whereof thou canst not be healed, from the sole of the foot unto the crown of thy head. He will throw back on thee all the weakness of Egypt, also every disease, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law. Jehovah shall give thee a trembling heart, consumption of eyes, and grief of soul (Deut. 28:15, 20-22, 27, 28, 34, 35, 60, 61, 65).

​

By all the diseases here named are signified spiritual diseases, which are evils destroying the life of the will of good, and falsities destroying the life of the understanding of truth; in a word, destroying the spiritual life which is of faith and charity.

Moreover natural diseases correspond to such things, for every disease in the human race is from this source, because from sin.

Moreover every disease corresponds to its own evil; the reason is that everything of man's life is from the spiritual world; and therefore if his spiritual life sickens, evil is derived therefrom into the natural life also, and becomes a disease there.

(3) As by "diseases" are signified the corruptions and evils of spiritual life, therefore by the various kinds of diseases are signified also the various kinds of corruptions and evils of that life. [(For example,) by "pestilence" is signified the vastation of good and truth; and by "leprosy," the profanation of truth.] That in general by "diseases" are signified sins, can also be seen in Isaiah:

A man of sorrows, and known of disease; whence is as it were a hiding of faces from Him. He was despised, and we esteemed Him not: nevertheless He hath borne our diseases, and hath carried our griefs, and through His wounds health hath been given us (53:3-5); speaking of the Lord.

(4) As diseases represented the hurtful and evil things of the spiritual life, therefore by the diseases which the Lord healed is signified liberation from various kinds of evil and falsity which infested the church and the human race, and which would have led to spiritual death. For Divine miracles are distinguished from other miracles by the fact that they involve and have regard to states of the church and of the heavenly kingdom.

Therefore the Lord's miracles consisted chiefly in the healing of diseases. This is meant by the Lord's words to the disciples sent by John:
Tell John the things which ye hear and see: the blind see, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead rise again, and the poor hear the gospel (Matt. 11:4, 5).
Hence it is that it is so often said that the Lord "healed all disease and weakness" (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 14:14, 35, 36; Luke 4:40; 5:15; 6:17; 7:21; Mark 1:32-34; 3:10).
From Arcana Coelestia (Potts) n. 8364

 

[Dream]

That was a good read. Here is another verse along the same lines equating spiritual and physical diseases: Luke 5:31-32 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

It really ought to say, Tradition has it, (and therefore the Scriptures say) blindness only happens within Israel if Israel refuses to hear the LORD’s voice.

Blindness in Israel might have, in the mindset handed down by tradition, and confirmed by scripture, signified something special or particular for Israel, in their understanding, but blindness is blindness in any man’s book, in or outside Israel, (that is, in my understanding).

You're right about that, and I meant something like that when I said 'Law'. That is actually the way I've begun to see the word Law in verses, as something incorporating the words and the wisdom together. A problem I have with the word 'Tradition' is it feels to me like it lacks a spiritual quality. The USA uses a system of courts that rely on precedents, which are traditions in the most literal sense. These traditions can incorporate as much corruption as wisdom, so tradition to me seems bone dry. It was confusing to me at first to read the word 'Law' in Scripture, not realizing that it does imply more than mere words. If I say 'Halacha' then nobody knows what I'm talking about or they assume I know lots of other Hebrew words that I don't know. What if I say instead, "The spirit has it (and therefore Scripture says)?"

 

[leastone]

Thanks for your response, Dream.

Yes, of course, I meant "tradition" in the same sense as St. Thomas from Across the Tiber, as the teachings of the (early church) Fathers, or in the case of our discussion, the teachings and tradition of the elders and fathers of the ancient (Israelitish) church. And all these traditions and teaching have to be driven by the Spirit to be true, and thus truly divine.

Modern churches of the neo-pentacostal-charismatic kind have indeed also given the word an entirely new meaning, in that the "tradition" of "traditional churches" is seen as religious bondage that inhibits the freedom that there is in Christ.

Respectfully,

Learner

 

[Dream]

I'm getting off topic, but I feel like responding.

Modern churches of the neo-pentacostal-charismatic kind have indeed also given the word an entirely new meaning, in that the "tradition" of "traditional churches" is seen as religious bondage that inhibits the freedom that there is in Christ.

I'm beginning to grasp the main differences between the Charismatic and Catholic movements. True, the word 'Tradition' for me had some negative connotations when I learned it as a neo-pentacostal. Neo-pentecostals have a subtle influence of gnosticism which came in a teaching called the 'Latter Rain Movement'. I think it is not a very good community environment to grow up in, though it is improving. One good thing about Latter Rain is that many inquisitive new scholars and other hardy mutts are coming out of it. There is a lot of 'Gnostic' thinking present in Christian writings and it is good to realize that 'Tradition' heavily depends upon the Spirit in the people who keep it. I suspect tradition does fail sometimes, and spiritual people have to bring it back into line. Latter Rain made use of this understanding but in an inadequate way, totally failing to bring us the results that it promised. Its parishioners are perhaps less free then those of other protestant Christian varieties, paying 10%-20% or more of their income sometimes for the priviledge of feeding themselves spiritually.

There's still some common ground, so be optimistic. I know that Catholics have gotten a worse rap on some things than they should have, and Charismatics are sensitive to that, too. At the same time, there is still historical awareness and many records extant in the US pointing to attempts by the Vatican to influence politics here, and after WWII the US and its allies really felt let down about certain alliances of the RC. Then there are the scandals. Talk about inspiring paranoia in the masses! I think Latter Rain will continue to grow and change but into what I cannot tell, yet there is an openess as well as a growing awareness of a need for better understanding. As for me, I am beside myself figuring out what to do for my loved ones who really need a better community.

 

[bob x]

The love in my heart is every bit as sacred to me as the love in your heart is sacred to you. Please refrain from speaking as if it is a curse to me: quite the opposite, it is the profoundest blessing in my life. I am not "blind": I see beauty that you do not. I am different from you, but will not bow to you as if I were lesser.

 

[Dream]

The love in my heart is every bit as sacred to me as the love in your heart is sacred to you.

I respect love. There are modern laws that presume to do the impossible, which is to legislate sexual preference; and that needs to be publically discouraged. I have only called homosexuality a sign, so please don't think I meant 'curse'. The problem Christianity faces is idleness and a lack of love.

Please refrain from speaking as if it is a curse to me: quite the opposite, it is the profoundest blessing in my life. I am not "blind": I see beauty that you do not. I am different from you, but will not bow to you as if I were lesser.

I'm glad to hear it is a good experience. In relation to that I am learning a concept called the 'Body of Christ' and everything I've been discussing in the thread is about that. If one of us is sad or happy then we help them andor be glad for them, respectively. Membership in one body is a solid and ancient doctrine which teaches not to exclude or judge other people, and Jesus' statement about the blind man is a good introduction to it. That is the reason I brought the blind man up. The body of Christ suffers or succeeds as one person. An understanding of this can unravel prejudice and remove judgmental attitudes.

I Corinthians 11:29-30 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I think one day we will all understand how very real spiritual warfare has been in our lives and how the enemy continuously day and night is setting us up to "fail" using all three of our enemies satan the world and the flesh.

 

[Dream]

I think one day we will all understand how very real spiritual warfare has been in our lives and how the enemy continuously day and night is setting us up to "fail" using all three of our enemies satan the world and the flesh.

Yours is the most difficult response so far, however I appreciate it. Its best to test an idea, and iron sharpens iron. You are that iron.

Lets not underplay the importance of what we do every day while waiting for an etherical battle to determine outcomes, because that is backwards. The reality of spiritual warfare happens in our choices from moment to moment. I'll coin a word 'Sophistry': Words that fly off by themselves and lose their impact. The words 'spiritual warfare' are very endearing, however we've got to stay rooted in the action intended, the here and now. The opposite of sophistry is action, which is when you decide to forgive, to love, and to work.

Positive action is the true spiritual warfare, which is obvious since caring for the Orphan & the Widow is pure religion.(James 1:27) The kingdom of God began advancing forcefully(Mat 11:12) starting in the days of John the Baptist with questions like "Who was the Good Samaritan's neighbor?" Just like Jesus asks the question "What's a neighbor?" it is up to his {Mother and his Brothers} (us) to ask "Who is the widow and who is the orphan?" It isn't just widows and it isn't just orphans or next-door neighbors, so lets stop limiting the definition. To continue to advance, we have to keep fighting using the same weapons we started with! Call it spiritual warfare, but it has nothing to do with human-style war and is not invisible.

 

[GlorytoGod]

I think one day we will all understand how very real spiritual warfare has been in our lives and how the enemy continuously day and night is setting us up to "fail" using all three of our enemies satan the world and the flesh.

Hiya I replied but then decided to make a new thread about spiritual warfare

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/spiritual-warfare-10034.html#post170187

 

[Dream]

I've seen the first post in the new thread, and it looks good. I also think it is good that spiritual warfare was brought up in this thread, and feel free to comment about it here or there!

 

[bananabrain]

dream:

i've posted here ( http://www.interfaith.org/forum/scriptural-basis-for-christian-objection-6391.html ) the reasons why i don't think that christianity can rely upon the "OT" for its objections to homosexuality and we've been able to isolate the "NT" objections.

Biblically homosexuality is a miraculous sign seen in individuals but is caused by a society's coldness.

that's not how we see it, though.

There is a Biblical phrase: "Something that should not be done in Israel"(2Sam 13:12) which refers to things God uses to indicate when society becomes idle and uncaring.

yes, but it refers to rape, not homosexuality.

a miraculous sign (plague in this case Deut 28:28) to indicate the nation has sinned, but it does not reflect upon the blind individual or his family.

yes, but this verse refers to the israelites not observing G!D's Law, the Torah - which, according to romans 16, is not applicable here ("you are not under the Law, but under grace"). it is not specific to homosexuality any more than it is specific to, say, eating a bacon sandwich - which is why it says:

if you will not listen the Voice of HaShem your G!D, to observe and do all the commandments and the statutes which I Command you this day

note the "all". this refers to keeping the entire Law. note further the "this day", which refers to the time that the Torah was given, not any subsequent putative revelation.

as for ezekiel 16, this does not refer specifically to homosexuality, despite the fact it mentions sodom. in fact, sodom's wickedness was in its selfishness and predatory nature, both homosexual AND heterosexual, which is why lot's response to the crowd who want to "get to know" his visitors is to offer them his daughters instead, yuk.

By Law it was impossible that anyone in Israel could be born blind without it reflecting upon the nation as a whole.

this can best be understood in the context of:

“blindness in Israel was different than blindness just anywhere.”

to be precise, that was then, when the laws of causality and the operation of the Divine Plan was far more obvious. nowadays, one can only understand this as spiritual blindness, which can far more logically be attributed to one's environment and upbringing.

by "diseases" are signified the corruptions and evils of spiritual life, therefore by the various kinds of diseases are signified also the various kinds of corruptions and evils of that life. [(For example,) by "pestilence" is signified the vastation of good and truth; and by "leprosy," the profanation of truth.]

indeed. our tradition understands that "thazri'a" (a disfiguring skin disease commonly misconflated with "leprosy") had a specific spiritual cause, namely slander.

(bob_x, i'd be interested to hear whether you've seen "trembling before G!D" and, if so, what you thought of r. steve greenberg's take on homosexuality. i dare say it doesn't really satisfy your requirements, but i'd certainly value your opinion.)

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

(bob_x, i'd be interested to hear whether you've seen "trembling before G!D" and, if so, what you thought of r. steve greenberg's take on homosexuality. i dare say it doesn't really satisfy your requirements, but i'd certainly value your opinion.)

No, I haven't, but if I find it I will certainly let you know what I think.

 

[Dream]

Bananabrain,

Thank you for reading my post, and I hope you understand it was not meant to distort.

[D:
Biblically homosexuality is a miraculous sign seen in individuals but is caused by a society's coldness.

B:
that's not how we see it, though.]
Ok, I've been going back through the thread you linked to (second time by-the-way) and see what you mean. A couple of favorite quotes by-the-way

not on your nelly

picking your nose is not murder, unless one is a nose-dwelling creature.

[D:
There is a Biblical phrase: "Something that should not be done in Israel"(2Sam 13:12) which refers to things God uses to indicate when society becomes idle and uncaring.

B:
yes, but it refers to rape, not homosexuality.]
I noticed that after the fact and was afraid Bobx was going to bring it up. I would've gotten away with it, too if you hadn't said anything.

[D:
a miraculous sign (plague in this case Deut 28:28) to indicate the nation has sinned, but it does not reflect upon the blind individual or his family.

B:
yes, but this verse refers to the israelites not observing G!D's Law, the Torah - which, according to romans 16, is not applicable here ("you are not under the Law, but under grace").]
I would rather not drag you through the thinking of someone whom you see as a Torah traitor. It would only depress you. It is a disturbing and depressing thought to me as well, although I know it is possible.

[B:
it is not specific to homosexuality any more than it is specific to, say, eating a bacon sandwich - which is why it says: "if you will not listen the Voice of HaShem your G!D, to observe and do all the commandments and the statutes which I Command you this day "]
Two things:
1. That is a very good point about the terms 'This day', and significant if there was a change in the Law.
2. In no way did I mean to say this passage was specific to homosexuality and understood it applied to all commands.

[B:
as for ezekiel 16, this does not refer specifically to homosexuality, despite the fact it mentions sodom. ]
That was supposed to be part of my point, however I may have been unclear.

 

[bananabrain]

I would rather not drag you through the thinking of someone whom you see as a Torah traitor. It would only depress you.

if that was how i thought, i wouldn't be on this site at all. don't worry about it! thank you for your courtesy, though.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

I would've gotten away with it, too if ...

... if it hadn't been for Scooby Doo and those kids! (sorry, couldn't help myself)