Political Crossfire Forums

[connermt]

Luke wrote: If you are a christian, then you beleive that homosexuality is wrong...it's in the Bible. If you want, I will post the evidence.

CORINTHIANS 6:9-10

It is amazing the number of times that you will see the word "sodomite" or "homosexual" or "pervert" in different translations concerning this text. It is amazing because no one knows exactly what the words of the original text mean! The layperson, unfortunately, has no way of knowing that interpreters are guessing as to the exact meaning of these words. Pastors and laypersons often have to rely upon the authority of those who have written lexicons (dictionaries explaining the meaning of words) of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words. The authors of scriptural lexicons search for the meaning of the word within the scriptures themselves and also go outside of scripture and research literature written around the same time the scriptures were written. If the interpreter is already prejudiced against homosexuality they can translate these words as condemning homosexual sex even based upon little usage of that word in the Scriptures and little if any contemporaneous usage of that word.

The truth is that the word some translators "transform" into "sodomite/homosexual/pervert" in I Corinthians 6:9-10 is actually TWO words. Some translators combine them because they "think" they go together but they DO NOT KNOW. This uncertainty is reflected in the fact that other translators keep the words separate and translate them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind".

The two words in the original Greek are "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". Malakoi is a very common Greek word. It literally means "soft". It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25 in reference to soft clothing. Scholars have to look at material outside of the Bible in order to try and figure out just what this means. The early church Fathers used the word to mean someone who was "weak" or "soft" in their morals and from the time of the reformation to the 20th century it was usually interpreted as masturbation. In Greek this word never is applied to gay people or homosexual acts in general. "No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians." (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 105-107) "Arsenokoitai" is discussed in the next section as it is found here and in I Timothy 1:8-11.

Note: Greek contained no word which compares to the English noun "homosexual" meaning someone of homosexual orientation. In fact the word "homosexual" (meaning someone of homosexual orientation) was not even coined until the late 1800'S by German psychologists, and introduced into English only at the beginning of the 1900's. (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 42) However, during scriptural times there were a number of Greek words to describe homosexual sex acts and the two words "malakois" and "arsenokoitai" do not appear among them (on "arsenokoitai" see Boswell, pp 345-346.)

ROMANS 1:24-27

This passage has been used by some Christians to make an issue over how "unrighteous" and sinful homosexuals are. In fact, it has been used to support the view that AIDS is the "penalty of their error which was due." What is fascinating about this kind of application is that it is totally at odds with what, I believe, Paul was really saying. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF ROMANS CHAPTER ONE YOU MUST READ ROMANS CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH THREE. The outline is as follows:

I. The Gospel is for EVERYONE, Jews and Gentiles. (1:16)

II. Why? Because God's wrath is against ALL unrighteousness. (verse 18).

II. The Gentiles need the Gospel. (1:28-32) The examples of their "uncleanness" include idolatry and homosexual acts which are either connected to or resulting from idolatry.

III. But the Jews are just as unrighteous as the Gentiles. (2:3)

IV. "All have sinned" and are "justified (made right with God) FREELY by God's grace (unearned love) through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ." (3:23-24)

While Paul is certainly not favorable toward the homosexual acts that he is writing about it is interesting to note that Paul classifies them "unclean" which is not necessarily a "moral" precept. (According to the Holiness Code lobsters and shrimp are "unclean" also.) He may be pointing out that though the Jews are different than the Gentiles in that they are ritually "clean" (according to the Old Covenant) they are still just as much in need of the grace of the New Covenant.

Let's look at some of the verses in this section:

Verse 27b "And receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due". Is Paul here saying that those who committed homosexual acts were punished in some physical way...as in venereal disease? Or could "uncleanness," being cut off from the Old Hebrew Covenant, be the penalty of the Gentile's error?

28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to adebased mind, to do those things which are not fitting..." People often take this to mean one of the following things:

Since homosexuals didn't retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind.
Since the Gentiles were idolatrous God gave them over to a debased mind of homosexuality. However, I believe that Paul was saying the following:
"Since the Gentiles did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a debased mind. The debased mind is NOT homosexuality but a mind that is centered on unrighteousness, hence the listing of what the Gentile mind is full of in verse 29.
29-32 This list of "unrighteousness" is being applied to all Gentiles, not Gentiles that commit homosexual sex acts. It is the Gentiles "who are worthy of death." These verses are really just an exposition of verse 18.
26-27 Another interesting point to consider is that people often use verses 26-27 to prove that Paul used an argument from "nature" to prove that homosexual activity was wrong. However that kind of usage of the word "nature" is highly unlikely as Paul usually uses the word "nature" or "natural" to mean not what "Mother Nature" does but instead he means "the previously accepted common usage". Nature is not a great teacher about ethics and humans are nowhere called in scripture to emulate it. What is more, homosexual activity DOES go on in the animal world.
It must be remembered also that Paul was referring to homosexual ACTS, not homosexuals. AND NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HOMOSEXUAL ACTS PAUL WAS TALKING ABOUT... NO ONE KNOWS THE BACKGROUND... We must ask ourselves "what type of homosexual acts was Paul talking about?" Was he talking exclusively about homosexual acts connected with idolatry? (Perhaps that was the only kind of homosexual activity he was familiar with.) Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts? Just exactly what type of homosexual acts was he concerned with? Do people have the Right to just ASSUME that these verses were a blanket condemnation of homosexual sex in every context?
In my personal opinion Paul was referring to same sex sexual acts committed in idolatrous worship by people he regarded as heterosexual. Even the most conservative theologian can only give their opinion as to what type of same sex acts Paul was referring to. No one can state that God clearly condemns all homosexuality activity based upon these verses. It is just too vague.

As for me, based on the context of Paul's writing in Romans chapters 1-3 I choose to believe that God's New Covenant of grace embraces those who believe in Jesus; being a Jew doesn't make you better than a Gentile; being a heterosexual doesn't make you any better than a homosexual. Romans chapters one through three strike at the very heart of self-righteous pride. It is amazing that some Christians continue to lord their own sense of righteousness over gays and lesbians as if their heterosexual sex acts make them somehow better, or less in need of grace. We are all in need of grace and we ALL have that grace in Jesus Christ.

I TIMOTHY 1: 8-11

The word "arsenokoitai" (sometimes translated "abusers of themselves with mankind") literally means male-bed. "Bed" is a euphemism for copulating. This word is extremely rare in Greek. Paul was apparently the first author to use this word. The word taken literally (male-copulator) is very ambiguous. Take, for example, the word "lady-killer." Does it mean "a lady who kills" or "someone who kills ladies"? In our language it means the latter, but even then it is not clear because we do not mean that someone literally kills ladies but that their charm "kills" them. So taking the word "arsenokoitai" or "male-copulator," does it mean "a male who copulates men"; does it mean "a man who copulates with women"; does it mean "a man who is copulated?"

The Bible does not clarify. These are the only two passages in the whole Bible where this word is used... Apparently there is no known contemporaneous literature in which this word is used. However, relatively close to the time Paul wrote it was used to refer to a male copulator connected with temple prostitution. It probably had this meaning until the late fourth century after which it came to mean a lot of different things, including homosexual activity. (See The Bible and Homosexuality, Michael England and Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 42)

Even IF the words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" COULD be connected with a male homosexual sex acts it STILL would not tell us WHAT KIND OF HOMOSEXUAL SEX ACT IS BEING CONDEMNED. They could refer to sex practices connected with the worship of idols, pederasty or some other sexual act which is exploitive.

It is clear that the translation of these two words as "sodomite", "pervert" or "homosexual" has very little, if any, sound basis and is a result of homophobia


JUDE 7

Some people ASSUME that this verse refers to the account of what happened in Genesis chapters 18 and 19. However this verse says that people in Sodom and Gomorrah went after "strange flesh". It does NOT say that they are talking about the account in Genesis 18-19. Some scholars believe that this passage actually refers to a Jewish legend, as contained in the apocryphal Naphtali 3.3.4-5 in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, that the WOMEN of Sodom had intercourse with angels. (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, p. 97, Professor John Boswell and Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Derrick Sherwin Bailey, pp 11-16). It would not be unprecedented to believe that the author of Jude would refer to extrabiblical stories as he does so in Jude 6 (referring to a passage in the apocryphal Enoch 1:6-8) and in Jude 9 (referring to a Jewish tradition that the archangel Michael argued with Satan over the body of Moses). Even if one chooses to believe that this passage DOES refer to Genesis 18-19 one can not ASSUME that "strange flesh" means a "man going after a man", after all Lot's guests were NOT MEN but ANGELS, "strange flesh" indeed. The context of this passage is condemning a new teaching which did not honor angels (see Jude verse 8) an example of people attempting to dishonor angels is simply brought up here to illustrate the point

[Gryff1nd0r]

The God who condemned homosexuality was cruel, capricious, and sadistic. Just read freaking Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy.

I am not saying that God is cruel, capricious, and sadistic throughout the whole Bible... no, his personality undergoes such disturbing changes throughout the Bible that I question his mental health.

EDIT: In truth, I question the sanity of the men who wrote about him. :wink:

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: The God who condemned homosexuality was cruel, capricious, and sadistic. Just read freaking Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy.

I am not saying that God is cruel, capricious, and sadistic throughout the whole Bible... no, his personality undergoes such disturbing changes throughout the Bible that I question his mental health.

EDIT: In truth, I question the sanity of the men who wrote about him. :wink:

Or rather, the men who wrote about him had no idea whatsoever and they made those stuff up in order to scare people into submission of what THEY considered to be moral.

[connermt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote: The God who condemned homosexuality was cruel, capricious, and sadistic. Just read freaking Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy.

I am not saying that God is cruel, capricious, and sadistic throughout the whole Bible... no, his personality undergoes such disturbing changes throughout the Bible that I question his mental health.

EDIT: In truth, I question the sanity of the men who wrote about him. :wink:

Or rather, the men who wrote about him had no idea whatsoever and they made those stuff up in order to scare people into submission of what THEY considered to be moral.

I have often wondered why(or how) some put so much 'faith' into flawed, not-to-bright people writing about things that were taught to them by others 2000 years ago?
Even the stories of Jesus aren't the same from book to book (M, M, L & J). So what makes people believe a guy writing a letter to a church that is violating, in HIS opinion, God's law are just as good as the first hand accounts about Jesus written in M, M, L or J?

[Gryff1nd0r]

connermt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote: The God who condemned homosexuality was cruel, capricious, and sadistic. Just read freaking Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy.

I am not saying that God is cruel, capricious, and sadistic throughout the whole Bible... no, his personality undergoes such disturbing changes throughout the Bible that I question his mental health.

EDIT: In truth, I question the sanity of the men who wrote about him. :wink:

Or rather, the men who wrote about him had no idea whatsoever and they made those stuff up in order to scare people into submission of what THEY considered to be moral.

I have often wondered why(or how) some put so much 'faith' into flawed, not-to-bright people writing about things that were taught to them by others 2000 years ago?
Even the stories of Jesus aren't the same from book to book (M, M, L & J). So what makes people believe a guy writing a letter to a church that is violating, in HIS opinion, God's law are just as good as the first hand accounts about Jesus written in M, M, L or J?

I know, right? Further more, the earliest account of Jesus was written like 70 or 80 years after he died!!!

Did you know that Paul didn't decide that Jesus was the true son of God until after the crucifixion, and Jesus himself didn't claim to be the son of God (he refers to himself commonly as "a son of man", and never says that he is the literal son of God).

Did you know that the theory of Jesus's death atoning for original sin was also created way after he died, and Jesus never actually said anything of the sort?

[connermt]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: connermt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote: The God who condemned homosexuality was cruel, capricious, and sadistic. Just read freaking Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy.

I am not saying that God is cruel, capricious, and sadistic throughout the whole Bible... no, his personality undergoes such disturbing changes throughout the Bible that I question his mental health.

EDIT: In truth, I question the sanity of the men who wrote about him. :wink:

Or rather, the men who wrote about him had no idea whatsoever and they made those stuff up in order to scare people into submission of what THEY considered to be moral.

I have often wondered why(or how) some put so much 'faith' into flawed, not-to-bright people writing about things that were taught to them by others 2000 years ago?
Even the stories of Jesus aren't the same from book to book (M, M, L & J). So what makes people believe a guy writing a letter to a church that is violating, in HIS opinion, God's law are just as good as the first hand accounts about Jesus written in M, M, L or J?

I know, right? Further more, the earliest account of Jesus was written like 70 or 80 years after he died!!!

Did you know that Paul didn't decide that Jesus was the true son of God until after the crucifixion, and Jesus himself didn't claim to be the son of God (he refers to himself commonly as "a son of man", and never says that he is the literal son of God).

Did you know that the theory of Jesus's death atoning for original sin was also created way after he died, and Jesus never actually said anything of the sort?

I am not a historian but I have heard of such things that you mentioned. But I have been doing a little reasearch about the early church & have found some, for me, surprising thoughts & ideas about the early church.
Not to get off topic too much, but I have also wondered why most every culture in the world has some type of religious beleife, but some people believe christianity is the ONE TRUE religion. If it were, it would seem to me that God would have made himself & all his christian teachings known to everyone. That being said, I wonder how much of God is made up by our own minds? Is believing in a higher source just something that is ingrained in all people?

[Gryff1nd0r]

connermt wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote: connermt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Gryff1nd0r wrote: The God who condemned homosexuality was cruel, capricious, and sadistic. Just read freaking Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy.

I am not saying that God is cruel, capricious, and sadistic throughout the whole Bible... no, his personality undergoes such disturbing changes throughout the Bible that I question his mental health.

EDIT: In truth, I question the sanity of the men who wrote about him. :wink:

Or rather, the men who wrote about him had no idea whatsoever and they made those stuff up in order to scare people into submission of what THEY considered to be moral.

I have often wondered why(or how) some put so much 'faith' into flawed, not-to-bright people writing about things that were taught to them by others 2000 years ago?
Even the stories of Jesus aren't the same from book to book (M, M, L & J). So what makes people believe a guy writing a letter to a church that is violating, in HIS opinion, God's law are just as good as the first hand accounts about Jesus written in M, M, L or J?

I know, right? Further more, the earliest account of Jesus was written like 70 or 80 years after he died!!!

Did you know that Paul didn't decide that Jesus was the true son of God until after the crucifixion, and Jesus himself didn't claim to be the son of God (he refers to himself commonly as "a son of man", and never says that he is the literal son of God).

Did you know that the theory of Jesus's death atoning for original sin was also created way after he died, and Jesus never actually said anything of the sort?

I am not a historian but I have heard of such things that you mentioned. But I have been doing a little reasearch about the early church & have found some, for me, surprising thoughts & ideas about the early church.
Not to get off topic too much, but I have also wondered why most every culture in the world has some type of religious beleife, but some people believe christianity is the ONE TRUE religion. If it were, it would seem to me that God would have made himself & all his christian teachings known to everyone. That being said, I wonder how much of God is made up by our own minds? Is believing in a higher source just something that is ingrained in all people?

Yes.... check your PMs.

[Doowstados]

It doesn't matter how it occured, if your a homosexual your are going to be a homosexual no matter what societies views about it are. This topic is overated and seriously needs to come to an end.

[F'losrix]

Doowstados wrote: It doesn't matter how it occured, if your a homosexual your are going to be a homosexual no matter what societies views about it are. This topic is overated and seriously needs to come to an end.
So why did you resurrect a thread that died 4 months ago if you think it doesn't merit people's attention?

[Babylon_Horuv]

TeRRaVen52 wrote: It's been proven that a homosexual has a different brain structure than a heterosexual. This could prove them being born gay or it could have been something that occured in their life that changed their brain structure. Now if it is a different brain structure, that would make them different, and not normal. If it's a change in brain structure, like OCD, phobias, and insanity, then what if homosexuaity was a disorder that could be treated? Just throwing it out there.

Another interesting question I have is this. Most people who accept homosexuals say the reasons why homosexuals are the way they are is because they cant help it, the homosexual lovers are attracted to eachother and they love eachother. There are many incest couples in the world that are attracted to eachother and love eachother. What gives homosexuals the free ticket to acceptance? What about the brother and his sister or even the man who loves his dog a little bit too much? Why give homosexuals the right to be accepted but those guys do not? BTW I do not agree that incest and people loving their animals are right, just throwing that question above out there.

There are two problems with incest, the first applies to intergenerational incest, dad with daughter, aunt with nephew etc. There is a serious power imbalance there and this makes a healthy relationship quite difficult. The second issue with incest is the fact that inbreeding leads to genetic abnormalities and defects. Because homosexuals cannot reproduce, nor are they, on average, genetically inferior to heterosexuals, unless one considers homosexuality itself to be a genetic defect, the second reason does not apply. The first reason is obviously irrelevant. As far as bestiality is concerned, bestiality is allowed in many states, I do not support this because I do not feel that animals are capable of giving consent. Homosexuals are capable of giving consent so that does not apply in that case.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Sage Orator wrote: TeRRaVen52 wrote: It's been proven that a homosexual has a different brain structure than a heterosexual. This could prove them being born gay or it could have been something that occured in their life that changed their brain structure. Now if it is a different brain structure, that would make them different, and not normal. If it's a change in brain structure, like OCD, phobias, and insanity, then what if homosexuaity was a disorder that could be treated? Just throwing it out there.
I suppose that if we could change genetics then it would definitly be possible to try change homosexuals. The problem with that is that most evidence point towards it being both genetics and early environment. Also, it isn't truly treatable through therapy.

Quote: Another interesting question I have is this. Most people who accept homosexuals say the reasons why homosexuals are the way they are is because they cant help it, the homosexual lovers are attracted to eachother and they love eachother. There are many incest couples in the world that are attracted to eachother and love eachother.
Nobody is genetically coded to be attracted towards individuals as they would have to be for incest to be acceptable. This isn't true for homosexuals, who are genetically coded to be attracted to a gender.
Quote: What about the brother and his sister or even the man who loves his dog a little bit too much? Why give homosexuals the right to be accepted but those guys do not?
Well, you don't see interspecies relationships among zoo animals, while you do with homosexual relationships. This indicates that homosexuality is more natural than bestiality.

You actually do see interspecies relationships in some cases. That is why Mules exist.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Luke wrote: Homosexuality is wrong and your anatomy will show you why :!: :shock:

hey now. I love my genitals.