Political Crossfire Forums

GAConsultant · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 10 Location: Georgia

This may have been posted before, I am fairly new to this forum. Since the Gay Issue seems to come up in here a lot what are your views on this. Why do you think it is?

“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals"

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

I think Jehova is a dusche bag...

sLiPpY · Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 10088

GAConsultant wrote: This may have been posted before, I am fairly new to this forum. Since the Gay Issue seems to come up in here a lot what are your views on this. Why do you think it is?

“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals"

I'd be interested to know what those are, as best I can remember there's not a single reference to homosexuals in the New Testiment at all.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24197

Helena` wrote: I think Jehova is a dusche bag...

And He loves you anyway.

GAConsultant · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 10 Location: Georgia

sLiPpY wrote: GAConsultant wrote: This may have been posted before, I am fairly new to this forum. Since the Gay Issue seems to come up in here a lot what are your views on this. Why do you think it is?

“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals"

I'd be interested to know what those are, as best I can remember there's not a single reference to homosexuals in the New Testiment at all.

Right off of the top of my head the first one that comes to mind is
1 Corinthians 6:9

GAConsultant · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 10 Location: Georgia

sLiPpY wrote: GAConsultant wrote: This may have been posted before, I am fairly new to this forum. Since the Gay Issue seems to come up in here a lot what are your views on this. Why do you think it is?

“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals"

I'd be interested to know what those are, as best I can remember there's not a single reference to homosexuals in the New Testiment at all.
Also there is
Romans 1:26-27
Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 1:7

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

GAConsultant wrote: sLiPpY wrote: GAConsultant wrote: This may have been posted before, I am fairly new to this forum. Since the Gay Issue seems to come up in here a lot what are your views on this. Why do you think it is?

“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals"

I'd be interested to know what those are, as best I can remember there's not a single reference to homosexuals in the New Testiment at all.

Right off of the top of my head the first one that comes to mind is
1 Corinthians 6:9

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.)

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

GAConsultant wrote: sLiPpY wrote: GAConsultant wrote: This may have been posted before, I am fairly new to this forum. Since the Gay Issue seems to come up in here a lot what are your views on this. Why do you think it is?

“The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals"

I'd be interested to know what those are, as best I can remember there's not a single reference to homosexuals in the New Testiment at all.
Also there is
Romans 1:26-27
Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 1:7

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

SilveryMinnow · Joined: 28 Mar 2004 Posts: 3143 Location: Rio Grande River

Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5248 Location: Boston, MA

It seems that too many people are interested in figuring out how the bible applies to others and not enough about it applies to themselves.

Democrat · Joined: 21 Feb 2004 Posts: 1424 Location: New Jersey

SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

Wow, you need some professional help.

Democrat

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Gilbert1908 wrote: It seems that too many people are interested in figuring out how the bible applies to others and not enough about it applies to themselves.

Well said
However, sometimes people use their beliefs in the Bible or others
That is not right

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

So God won't firgive turing away from Him?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24197

connermt wrote: SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

So God won't firgive turing away from Him?

SilveryMinnow nailed it. Just think about what he said. Maybe try praying about it.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5248 Location: Boston, MA

connermt wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: It seems that too many people are interested in figuring out how the bible applies to others and not enough about it applies to themselves.

Well said
However, sometimes people use their beliefs in the Bible or others
That is not right

We are in full agreement.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

John wrote: connermt wrote: SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

So God won't firgive turing away from Him?

SilveryMinnow nailed it. Just think about what he said. Maybe try praying about it.

That is contradictory to what we were taught in our church.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5248 Location: Boston, MA

connermt wrote: John wrote: connermt wrote: SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

So God won't firgive turing away from Him?

SilveryMinnow nailed it. Just think about what he said. Maybe try praying about it.

That is contradictory to what we were taught in our church.

What church were you taught in, this seems consistent with virtually every Christian denomination of any significance.

Please let me know in what denomination you were taught, that would not agree with that statement?

Unless you are quibbling that we are already forgiven, I can't see what the possible issue would be with a perfectly stated Christian fact?

Since I am a Catholic, John and I will have minor interpretive disagreements on things occaisionally, but on this one we would be in 100% joyful agreement. I don't know what denomination the Minnow is from but I can't see how any Christian would have any argument with the shiny fish.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 24197

connermt wrote: John wrote: connermt wrote: SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

So God won't firgive turing away from Him?

SilveryMinnow nailed it. Just think about what he said. Maybe try praying about it.

That is contradictory to what we were taught in our church.

What do they teach you?

What do you think blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means?

You see....all people who believe do so because of the working of the Holy Spirit upon their heart. Without the working of the Holy Spirit upon your heart...you would never believe. NEVER!

But the Holy Spirit doesn't force Himself into you. He gently tugs at you and softly asks you to accept Christ. He will do this for a good while but there comes a point where He is rejected and will leave you be. This is what I believe blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means. Once this happens the person will not worry or even care about their personal Salvation...and this person is lost.

If a person is worried about maybe they have committed the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, then they can rest assured that they haven't. Because the person who has wouldn’t worry or even care.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5248 Location: Boston, MA

John wrote: connermt wrote: John wrote: connermt wrote: SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

So God won't firgive turing away from Him?

SilveryMinnow nailed it. Just think about what he said. Maybe try praying about it.

That is contradictory to what we were taught in our church.

What do they teach you?

What do you think blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means?

You see....all people who believe do so because of the working of the Holy Spirit upon their heart. Without the working of the Holy Spirit upon your heart...you would never believe. NEVER!

But the Holy Spirit doesn't force Himself into you. He gently tugs at you and softly asks you to accept Christ. He will do this for a good while but there comes a point where He is rejected and will leave you be. This is what I believe blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means. Once this happens the person will not worry or even care about their personal Salvation...and this person is lost.

If a person is worried about maybe they have committed the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, then they can rest assured that they haven't. Because the person who has wouldn’t worry or even care.

I would highly reccomend Francis Thompson's epic poem "The Hound of Heavan".

It begins like this

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat—and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet—
“All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”

And then ends like this

Now of that long pursuit
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
“And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught” (He said),
“And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited—
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!”
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
“Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.”

http://poetry.elcore.net/HoundOfHeavenInRtT.html

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

Gilbert1908 wrote: connermt wrote: John wrote: connermt wrote: SilveryMinnow wrote: Jesus died for our sins, and because of his sacrifice God is willing to forgive us for anything. Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.

God's will is that there is a way he wants us to be, and to recieve his forgiveness we must first give our hearts back to him.

So God won't firgive turing away from Him?

SilveryMinnow nailed it. Just think about what he said. Maybe try praying about it.

That is contradictory to what we were taught in our church.

What church were you taught in, this seems consistent with virtually every Christian denomination of any significance.

Please let me know in what denomination you were taught, that would not agree with that statement?

Unless you are quibbling that we are already forgiven, I can't see what the possible issue would be with a perfectly stated Christian fact?

Since I am a Catholic, John and I will have minor interpretive disagreements on things occaisionally, but on this one we would be in 100% joyful agreement. I don't know what denomination the Minnow is from but I can't see how any Christian would have any argument with the shiny fish.

Well maybe I mis-understood what SM said. Blasphemy, as I understood it, meant to not only turn away, but making every effort, privately & publically, to denounce God every chance possible. When SM said "Except for turning away from God and refusing to follow his will.", I first thought of the prodical son story. I saw the turning away & not the refussal that SM described. But even still, the 'refussal' part still bothers me some. Seems to me that refussing God happens all the time to everyone at some point.....