Does God actually find homosexual relations "abominable"?

revrobor · #11 9th June 2009, 07:23 PM

It's interesting how many homosexuals come to this and other Christian website to try to find justification for their lifestyle. They usually start out by saying the Bible was translated erroneously as does this one. Then when we disagree and stand by the (insert any translation here) Bible they call us "hatemongers".

What God condemns is homosexual sex. You know and have read the verses. I don't have to prove you wrong because you don't have to answer to me but God. The Bible is silent about same sex attractions.

wayseer · #12 9th June 2009, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by revrobor

The Bible is silent about same sex attractions.

The Bible is 'silent' about many things.

liars_paradox · #13 10th June 2009, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by OllieFranz

Only five posts in, and already there are several separate issues here.

The OP focused on the translation of "toevah" as "abomination." When the scholars authorized by King James first translated it this way, the word abomination did not have quite as strong a connotation as it does now. Many more modern translations continue to use "abomination, even though it is no longer the best way to translate it. Some do it because the word has become familiar. Others because they have a (perhaps unconscious) bias. A far better translation would be "taboo." This word, borrowed from Polynesian, was not yet well known enough to be available to the Authorized translators. In general, "toevah" referred to a serious breech in ritual or social mores. Moral turpitude, on the other hand, was labbled "zimmah," "wicked."

The Bible includes literally hundred of examples of sexual sins, and sins with a sexual aspect involving persons of opposite sexes, and yet the sex itself is not the sin, it is the adultery or fornication, or the violent sin it is simply one aspect of. The Bible includes maybe as many as four examples of sexual sin or sin with a sexual aspect invoving persons of the same sex. All are clearly actions that would be equally heinous if the persons involved were of opposite sexes. Nowhere does it condemn a person simply because of who he is attracted to. Or give any other reason to condemn homosexuality in general.

Romans 1:26-27 is often quoted out of context, or in the abreviated context of only Romans 1:18-32, rather than in its full context, which would require including, at the very least, the first three veses of chapter 2. I would include all of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3.

Paul did not single out the actions in verses 26-27 as particularly heinous. He did include more detail, but only because he was referencing a well-known passage from Plato. Those in the Roman church who read Plato would recognize the passage and understand that the sin involved was not that it was same-sex, but that it was "Passion," a reckless hedonism that usually leads to addiction. To make sure that they understood the true focus, he did not quote Plato exactly, but added a few details to point away from same-sex and toward addiction. Plato described the addiction as a slavery to "pleasure"; Paul indicates (in three separate clauses) that the sinners were given up to their passions, and that they are (already and continuously) suffering the consequences of their actions. Paul changes the parallel clauses -- Plato contrasts the sinful Passionate sex to the proper Reasoned sex, but Paul compares the (now unnamed) sin of the women to the sexual addiction of the men. And Paul carefully inserts into the passage five words. These words are the five parts, or symptoms, of a sin of Passion. Paul wants to make sure that the focus is on addictive Passion, and not on the same-sex aspect that Plato included as a "dig" based on an ethnic steretype about the men of Crete.

I looked at it as just referring to the kind of activities that members of the Northern Kingdom of Israel were engaging in before they were lost. A lot of what he listed were all religious practices engaged in by Baal worshipers at the time in which Israel had split and the Northern tribes had started to worship foreign gods.

But, a reference to Plato might've been more familiar to gentile readers at the time.

liars_paradox · #14 10th June 2009, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by revrobor

It's interesting how many homosexuals come to this and other Christian website to try to find justification for their lifestyle. They usually start out by saying the Bible was translated erroneously as does this one. Then when we disagree and stand by the (insert any translation here) Bible they call us "hatemongers".

What God condemns is homosexual sex. You know and have read the verses. I don't have to prove you wrong because you don't have to answer to me but God. The Bible is silent about same sex attractions.

But, what was the context in which God condemned this? Can we say God views this any differently than any of the six-hundred something laws listed in the Old Testament? If God called homosexual sex "To'beh", which was the same word used to describe eating pork, then how does God feel about us doing that?

Thinking logically here, if you're using the Bible as evidence for argument (as am I), then how many of the 613 do yourself follow? Maybe just not the ones about diet? What about system of measurement, clothes, hair-cuts, shaving, etc.?

Or, do you go about using the New Testament as your justification? If so, you did read what I wrote about the appearance of the words "homosexual offender" or "effiminate"? Consider none of the New Testament writers were English speakers, can you be certain that this is what they meant about homosexuality?

But, you're right, I (btw, I'm not gay) and everyone else will have to answer to God.

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

Romans 2:1-4.

When Paul wrote this, I don't believe that he was saying that we are still allowed to judge, so long as we don't do the same things as they do. The Pharisees weren't prostitutes, they weren't tax collectors, and they did do much to give a Righteous appearance. Likely, the things they judged others for were things they never did themselves, eventhough they weren't perfect.

The point is, that we all break the word of God. None of us do any good, and together we are worthless (see Romans 3:10-12). Even though homosexuality might not be something one should do, you can't say with any absolute certainty that it is something one has to avoid in order to be saved. And, by no means can any of us use the bible to justify forbidding gay marriage.

What one person does, I shouldn't control, so long as they act out of love for others and they obey the ten commandments. Since, the law shows us how imperfect we are, I think that one should follow the when they can as much as they can. This means I should try to abstain from sin as much as possible, because faith without acts are meaningless. However, I shouldn't try to control other people because they're not my concern. Only when they hurt others should something be done.

I mean, I could be wrong. And, I guess we'll all find out if one of us was correct or not. Hopefully, both of us will find out in a way we don't regret.

wayseer · #15 10th June 2009, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by liars_paradox

The point is, that we all break the word of God. None of us do any good, and together we are worthless (see Romans 3:10-12).

Indeed. But we are not quite as 'worthless' as you would imagine. There was a cost.

HuntingMan · #16 15th June 2009, 07:56 PM

Homosexuality
Assembly Ministries Studies Homosexuality

1.0
"abusers of themselves with mankind"

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

It doesnt get any clearer than that. Regardless of what else is going on the ACT of men being with men sexually is 'shameful'.
For idolatry God gave them over to their perverse desires and vile affections, but vile these affections ARE REGARDLESS of how they came to be !

And also;

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(1Ti 1:10 KJV)

G733
(1Co 6:9 KJV)

G733
G733
ἀρσενοκοίτης
arsenokoitēs
Thayer Definition:
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G730 and G2845

which is from :

G2845
κοίτη
koitē
koy'-tay
From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive.

G730
ἄῤῥην, αρσην
arrhēn arsen
ar'-hrane, ar'-sane
Probably from G142; male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man.

The word speaks for itself. Its no wonder Strongs and Thayers both believe this word is about homosexuals...especially given the rest of scripture on the matter.

And here we have the Mosaic Law, GODS law, which forbids men having sex with men like one does a woman.

(Lev 18:22 KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(Lev 20:13 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Perfectly consistent...

2.0
Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26

Affections
G3806
πάθος
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathos”), that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
πάθος
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.

Homosexuality is a sin and therefore the gay christian needs to abstain from that sin. To WILLFULLY continue in it would seem to lead one into the predicament mentioned in Hebrews 10.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10)

Obviously based on the context of the chapter and the entire book this isnt speaking about merely sinning otherwise we'd ALL be in this position, but very clearly there is some point where our WILLFULL sin shows that we have trampled the Son underfoot and spit in the face of the Spirit of Grace.

3.0

Same passage, different part.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

The context is clear enough that men gave up what was natural with the woman and turned to one another in their lusts.

As in my other thread we can easily conclude that while God DID turn them over to this sin seemingly for their idolatries, the ACTS themselves are shown as
-unclean
-dishonour
-vile
-unseemly
-error

Here are the definitions of these words (as shown above in red).
These show the overall TONE of the acts these are involved in;

unclean
G167
ἀκαθαρσία
akatharsia
ak-ath-ar-see'-ah
From G169; impurity (the quality), physically or morally: - uncleanness.

dishonor
G818
ἀτιμάζω
atimazō
at-im-ad'-zo
From G820; to render infamous, that is, (by implication) contemn or maltreat: - despise, dishonour, suffer shame, entreat shamefully.

vile
G819
ἀτιμία
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

unseemly
G808
ἀσχημοσύνη
aschēmosunē
as-kay-mos-oo'-nay
From G809; an indecency; by implication the pudenda: - shame, that which is unseemly.

error
G4106
πλάνη
planē
plan'-ay
Feminine of G4108 (as abstraction); objectively fraudulence; subjectively a straying from orthodoxy or piety: - deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.

So we see in this part of the passage that God has given them up to this 'uncleaness'.

God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Regardless of whether they were involved in this act PRIOR to God turning them over to it or not it is quite CLEAR that these acts themselves are all of the things listed above else scripture is quite erroneous to begin with.
These acts being defined as men and woman leaving the natural and lusting after those of the same gender and carrying out those lusts into actions.

Stinker · #17 15th June 2009, 10:44 PM

Romans 1:18-32 (King James Version)

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And 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;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True or False... Verses 18-23 are addressing pagan worship.

True or False... Verse 24 declares that these pagan's lust caused them to commit taboo, and to misuse their bodies in trying to satisfy this idol induced lust outside of God's instituted loving committed union.

True or False... Verse 25 declares that it is homosexual men and women who change the truth of God into a lie and worship and serve the creature more than the Creator.

True or False... Verses 26 & 27 declares that the 'vile affection' that the men and women were 'given up over to' by God, was the heterosexual-to-homosexual transformation.

True or False... Verses 28-32 identifies the moral character of homosexual men and women.

JasperJackson · #18 16th June 2009, 10:00 AM

We have known since Adam and Eve that sex is for marriage and marriage is for a man and women.
It is VERY simple.

peace4ever · #19 16th June 2009, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by liars_paradox

Hi, before people give me passages from the Romans, Corrinthians, Leviticus, Exodus or anywhere else, I want to point out that one issue with the word "abomination" appearing in our English-translated bibles.

The Hebrew word for "abomination" and "unclean" both come from the same Hebrew word, To'ebah. Likewise, the same word from which "homosexual offender" was translated from in 1 Cor. 6:9 appears again in 1 Timothy as "pervert".

Considering that it's possible that modern Christians take the words used out of context, due to mistranslation, how do you think God might view homosexuality today? Do you think God views homosexuality the same as eating with "unclean" hands or eating non-Kosher food?

Note: before responding, PLEASE read what I wrote about the translations. Don't just launch into reciting Scripture without at least considering my argument first. God blessed you with a mind and gave you the ability read and think for yourself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, if you can't then maybe consider my argument which is Romans 14:12,13
"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

Satan's oldest and most obvious tool; Trying to redefine simple words by looking back to the Hebrew and Greek to make the bible say the opposite of what it says.

Sorry friend, but the bible is consistent all through that God hates homosexuality. So you'll have to go through the whole bible find all the verses and find different words to look up so you can try to make them say the opposite of what they says.

So why do that when the whole bible is consistent as it is?

Obviously you want to justify sin. But it never works because human minds are fallible and will always miss something else in the bible when they try to change it.

So you need to read the bible to see why God refers to Jerusalem and Judah as women, not men.

Zaac · #20 16th June 2009, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by liars_paradox

Hi, before people give me passages from the Romans, Corrinthians, Leviticus, Exodus or anywhere else, I want to point out that one issue with the word "abomination" appearing in our English-translated bibles.

The Hebrew word for "abomination" and "unclean" both come from the same Hebrew word, To'ebah. Likewise, the same word from which "homosexual offender" was translated from in 1 Cor. 6:9 appears again in 1 Timothy as "pervert".

Considering that it's possible that modern Christians take the words used out of context, due to mistranslation, how do you think God might view homosexuality today? Do you think God views homosexuality the same as eating with "unclean" hands or eating non-Kosher food?

Note: before responding, PLEASE read what I wrote about the translations. Don't just launch into reciting Scripture without at least considering my argument first. God blessed you with a mind and gave you the ability read and think for yourself. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong, if you can't then maybe consider my argument which is Romans 14:12,13
"So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

Homosexual sex is a sin. End of story. God says so. No word study changes this.