Ok to be lesbian?

[ji]

This translation doesn't even say women are doing it with women. However, since the other translation does, I can't really say it's inaccurate.

It's a stretch, but combining the two translations together, you get "for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [a]unnatural and indulged in sex with each other and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing[b]indecent acts and receiving in [c]their own persons the due penalty of their error."

This was said by Paul rather than GOD, but Paul is also an apostle.

I can't really say i'm convinced either way, but this makes more working against lesbian relationships. Still, this leaves a few things.

1. This would be the first time it was announced as a sin.

2. GOD did not mention it in the list of sexual immoralities.

3. Paul is not GOD, although Paul is an apostle. This is just noteworthy.

In the end, I don't know.

Revelation Chapter 1 KJV.
The vision that Apostle John had was Jesus speaking to him.
Tell me that doesn't count...
and let me confirm you are here to play with words,...

 

[doseofreality]

"Also the bible was mainly male-centered as was the culture at the time of writing" doesn't mix well with "The Bible is the inerrant word of God".

I agree, but I am not the one you need to convince

 

[jag1977]

What is mankind? What is thou? What is womankind?

 

[Kawaii]

Romans 1:18
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as ------
-----
------
------ as with womankind: it is abomination." convinced me that perhaps it is not actually a sin. It doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the Bible as far as I know, unless i'm wrong? It appears as though it isn't explicitly or clearly stated anywhere in the Bible that lesbian relationships are wrong.

answer:-
you mention here that God is not speaking there and when we look at today's world its really confusing who speak in spirit of God and who is not.
Its easy to understand,when a man of God speaks,explained things that will be established.So if its not in the Spirit of God it will not stand in time.
When you think Apostle Paul don't stand qualified,who died for Christ's Testimony...i don't think you are a Christian.God speaks through His men/women.Don't be amazed,because then you shouldn't quote from OT to justify..because its mostly the Prophets of God that spoke then..you are falling in your own words there

Your post was only as long as mine haha. I'm going to respond to each part separately to make it easier.

I wasn't really saying that Paul was unqualified. It's more like because Paul is human, that he is liable to make mistakes. That is that there is a difference between Paul speaking, Paul relaying GOD's message, and GOD speaking. Paul was speaking as Paul, and the statement he made could have been a careless and misleading remark based on assumption and observation that may have unwittingly spread a misunderstanding.

Of course, there's no way to be sure. If Paul outright said "Being lesbian is a sin." then that would be completely different. That would be a declaration from a position of authority in a sense that is clear and concise. In that case, we could be almost certain that it isn't okay.

Still, this alone wasn't enough for me to doubt Paul's statement. However, in addition to the ambiguousness of Paul's statement, there is also the fact that GOD did not mention lesbians in the list of sexual immoralities, but did specifically list a rule against men doing it. I trust GOD's decision not to include lesbians in the list more so than the word of Paul, is what it is. Especially when the list was so specific elsewhere.

 

[ji]

Your post was only as long as mine haha. I'm going to respond to each part separately to make it easier.

I wasn't really saying that Paul was unqualified. It's more like because Paul is human, that he is liable to make mistakes. That is that there is a difference between Paul speaking, Paul relaying GOD's message, and GOD speaking. Paul was speaking as Paul, and the statement he made could have been a careless and misleading remark based on assumption and observation that may have unwittingly spread a misunderstanding.

Of course, there's no way to be sure. If Paul outright said "Being lesbian is a sin." then that would be completely different. That would be a declaration from a position of authority in a sense that is clear and concise. In that case, we could be almost certain that it isn't okay.

Still, this alone wasn't enough for me to doubt Paul's statement. However, in addition to the ambiguousness of Paul's statement, there is also the fact that GOD did not mention lesbians in the list of sexual immoralities, but did specifically list a rule against men doing it. I trust GOD's decision not to include lesbians in the list more so than the word of Paul, is what it is. Especially when the list was so specific elsewhere.

waiting to hear your gun shot,..shoot..
am here to clear it,we will get to that common point very shortly..
list out all your arguments based on whats wrong..

 

[Kawaii]

Argument 1:
It's implied that same sex relations are wrong.

Counterargument 1:
"The very next line states "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto". This addresses a rule specifically for women in a separate section of the same line. It comes off as strange that it would be so specific here, yet not specific in the rule made immediately before it. If it was a rule against women doing it with women, then it would likely say something along the lines of "You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; Neither shall any woman sleep with a woman as with a man: it is detestable". However, it did not do so, which comes off as strange considering the formatting of the rule that comes immediately after it."

answer is in the following lines:
Leviticus 18:24,25 KJV
"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."

It does say "defile not ye yourselves in any of these things". However, lesbian relationships were not listed among them.

 

[doseofreality]

what is the endgame here?

Whether God says its a sin or not is practically irrelevant.

Is the church going to change its stance on homosexuality because of a technicality found or not found in the bible?
Unlikely

 

[Kawaii]

Counterargument 2:
If that were the case, then "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." the bolded part here would be separate. Even if they are not separate, then no matter how you twist this, the closest thing you are going to get to a rule about lesbians would be "You may not sleep with a man as you would with a woman, neither shall any woman sleep with a man as they would with a woman."

answer:-
That's craziness..Its very simple to understand that it was talking about men lying with men..Romans 1:26,27 is still in Holy Scripture.It gives account of both...lesbianism is not excluded..

Yes, it was talking about men lying with men. The comment Even if they are not separate, then no matter how you twist this, the closest thing you are going to get to a rule about lesbians would be "You may not sleep with a man as you would with a woman, neither shall any woman sleep with a man as they would with a woman." was referring to how some believe "as with womankind" is saying "same goes for womankind" and I was showing how that would play out even if you twisted it that way.

In short, I was saying it is a rule against men doing it with men, and nothing else.

I mentioned Romans later in the post. This section was only specifically addressing Leviticus 18:22 in particular.

 

[Kawaii]

what is the endgame here?

Whether God says its a sin or not is practically irrelevant.

Is the church going to change its stance on homosexuality because of a technicality found or not found in the bible?
Unlikely

More like "it isn't a sin" if it isn't a sin after all. I mean, it's not like we can assume it's okay, but we can't assume it's wrong either kind of thing...

 

[Kawaii]

Argument 3:
If it is not okay for two men to have a sexual relationship, then why would it be okay for two women to have a sexual relationship?! Just because the bible does not explicitly say it is unacceptable for two women to have a sexual relationship does not mean that it is okay!
Counterargument 3:
See Counterargument 1:. We can't assume that it is a sin if it does not explicitly say so. There is actually nothing here suggesting it is wrong to have a lesbian relationship, so there is no reason to act like it is.

answer:-
Here is the prob.
Leviticus 18:24,25 KJV
"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."
sinning always leads to consequences that are devastating!!
That is the problem,if its not then like Apostle Paul says 'lets all be merry after getting drunk and die tomorrow',because then Christ never came in flesh too..to redeem mankind from clutches of sin!
sinning always leads to disastrous endings,nobody can come to rescue then..

Right, well...

"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."

This doesn't apply to lesbians in this case because "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things" is referring to the list of sexual immoralities. Being lesbian was not listed among them.

 

[doseofreality]

More like "it isn't a sin" if it isn't a sin after all. I mean, it's not like we can assume it's okay, but we can't assume it's wrong either kind of thing...

ok lets say its not a sin, the church is wrong. Nothing really changes presently.
Even from the christian perspective, lesbians still commit other sins and still need Gods forgiveness and salvation.

 

[Kawaii]

Argument 5:
So according to you, it's perfectly fine to be lesbian! Great! Now society is one step closer to incest and pedophilia!
Counterargument 5:
No more so than heterosexual relationships. In fact, GOD specified against incest and pedophilia in the section regarding sexual immoralities. Do not -------------------
------------
as they are in need of Christianity the most. Do not say "How dare you call yourself Christian when X" because the same should be said to you.

answer:-
i totally agree with you there,but that doesn't mean that somebody can talk like being a pedophile is ok,go and do it!
With that said,i have been trying to get this thing about judging others to many of the thick heads here..The moment i ask them about their testimonies as they condemn,they hide behind shells!!
i totally agree with you on that,you said it...

Yes,i correct myself and am no better than anyone else,but somehow plead to God that i may obtain Eternity in Heaven.i have a lot to correct myself than point finger,but in Christ i can exhort another to come to Grace of God than carry the burden by themselves so that i can overcome everything by the Grace of God in long run.i urge you also with Love of God to do so...

"i totally agree with you there,but that doesn't mean that somebody can talk like being a pedophile is ok,go and do it!"

Right.

 

[Kawaii]

ok lets say its not a sin, the church is wrong. Nothing really changes presently.
Even from the christian perspective, lesbians still commit other sins and still need Gods forgiveness and salvation.

But then they don't get put down for being lesbian. Their parent(s) and/or legal guardian(s) will not prevent them from being with their lovers in the name of Christianity. They won't have to feel like they are doomed to hell for who they are and how they feel. They won't be told not to love their partner, or be told they are devil possessed for liking their girlfriend. They won't be turned away from the religion or have to feel sad/depraved because of it. They won't have the image of a cruel GOD, but instead the image of a just GOD. This among other things.

They would also be in the same boat as other Christians, rather than seen as worse.

 

[ji]

It does say "defile not ye yourselves in any of these things". However, lesbian relationships were not listed among them.

Yes it is,result is what i mentioned below that in my first reply.And it affects personally,so no one else knows.
And we are in Grace Period now.So everything counts.

 

[ji]

Yes, it was talking about men lying with men. The comment Even if they are not separate, then no matter how you twist this, the closest thing you are going to get to a rule about lesbians would be "You may not sleep with a man as you would with a woman, neither shall any woman sleep with a man as they would with a woman." was referring to how some believe "as with womankind" is saying "same goes for womankind" and I was showing how that would play out even if you twisted it that way.

In short, I was saying it is a rule against men doing it with men, and nothing else.

I mentioned Romans later in the post. This section was only specifically addressing Leviticus 18:22 in particular.

i already told that results of doing things like that results in what is mentioned in the below verses,..you are playing.

 

[Kawaii]

Yes it is,result is what i mentioned below that in my first reply.And it affects personally,so no one else knows.
And we are in Grace Period now.So everything counts.

Mentioned it? Are you referring to Romans? If so, I already addressed that.

 

[ji]

More like "it isn't a sin" if it isn't a sin after all. I mean, it's not like we can assume it's okay, but we can't assume it's wrong either kind of thing...

i mean,i assume ....it all comes from devil..
Say clearly to the point than assume..

 

[ji]

Right, well...

"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."

This doesn't apply to lesbians in this case because "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things" is referring to the list of sexual immoralities. Being lesbian was not listed among them.

It was in OT,come to NT,...you have verses pointing to it.not excluded..its already mentioned..
Can you justify for the souls who went to hell because you said its ok!!

 

[doseofreality]

But then they don't get put down for being lesbian. Their parent(s) and/or legal guardian(s) will not prevent them from being with their lovers in the name of Christianity. They won't have to feel like they are doomed to hell for who they are and how they feel. They won't be told not to love their partner, or be told they are devil possessed for liking their girlfriend. They won't be turned away from the religion or have to feel sad/depraved because of it. They won't have the image of a cruel GOD, but instead the image of a just GOD. This among other things.

They would also be in the same boat as other Christians, rather than seen as worse.

Sorry but like i said, the church isn't going to change its interpretation. You are looking for a loophole in the bible and well i am all for that its not going to change anything.

I cant help but seeing your double standard...what about all the gay boys who feel isolated and guilty because of religion?

Why are you trying to justify christianity when the other option is just leave the religion completely?

 

[ji]

Mentioned it? Are you referring to Romans? If so, I already addressed that.

yes,...how many times...should i or anyone tell that??